Blog

WEEKEND READING: A thousand days of silence: reclaiming education through localisation for Afghan women

This blog was kindly authored by Naimat Zafary, PhD student at The University of Sussex and a former Afghan Chevening Scholar.

As I mark my fifth year in UK higher education, a journey that began with a Chevening Scholarship and an MA at the Institute of Development Studies before leading to my PhD in the School of Global Studies at the University of Sussex, a single, recurring image encapsulates a profound contrast.

From my study window on campus, I watch the vibrant flow of students: a tide of ambition pouring into and out of lecture halls. In a silent, personal ritual, I often count them. Invariably, I find more young women than men, a sight that swells me with pride to be part of an institution that offers equal and abundant opportunities to female students.

Yet, this everyday scene instantly transports me to my home of Afghanistan, where this picture is hauntingly absent. For nearly three years – around 1,050 days – the Taliban has barred Afghan girls and women from their fundamental right to higher education. Their university campuses, once symbols of hope, are now forbidden ground.

Beyond internationalisation

The start of the academic year is a time of new beginnings for UK universities. There is a mood of anticipation, proudly announcing numbers of new starters and, on my own diverse campus, a commitment to internationalisation. Students arrive from across the world, a myriad of stories behind each of them. For some, a struggle, for others, lifelong dreams of individuals and families.

If we are lucky, we will share some of these experiences and perspectives with the people around us. We will define our possibilities differently as a result. This focus on global reach is commendable and a deep privilege. We are – we become – international.

But I ask myself a sharper question too. What of those who do not, cannot travel? How do we consider the community which includes the missing, the trapped?

So, as I look across campus, I see these faces too. Will institutions that are committed and measured in part in relation to the sustainable development goals – every one of which is behind – take a step to localise, to go to those who cannot come to them?

British higher education has a long history of outreach. Many of its now great universities began as an effort to take learning and opportunity to provinces where it was absent, or to include within its potential those who, at one time, were told education was not for them.

That widening participation agenda is now under strain at home and abroad. If you measure the outcomes only of those blessed with an environment and the support to succeed, you implant a bias away from risk. If you effectively close off the means of access, the hopeful will turn away. Participation can narrow as well as widen. In some cases, participation can stall completely – those desperate to continue their dreams, whose voices are screaming to be heard, and who are simply waiting for a chance?

Who will answer the call?

In the worst of times, those who step forward, demonstrate they care and – despite their own challenges – stand against this injustice are living the most profound values of education.

Here again, I look out at my campus at The University of Sussex with pride, and I believe there are lessons for others too.

It begins with leadership and with kind-hearted teams, but also a desire to turn feeling into action. In this case, despite headwinds of practical barriers, the university has undertaken a pilot and has awarded online distance learning master’s degree scholarships for a small group of talented Afghan women and girls.

The inspiration for this initiative was born out of a stark contrast. As female Afghan Chevening scholars walked across the Sussex graduation stage with pride, in Afghanistan, not a single woman could enter a university, let alone a graduation ceremony. I longed for those with the potential of taking action to hear the voices of Afghan women and somehow open a door, even for just a few.

Developing an outreach programme in such a sensitive context isn’t easy. Universities have their own urgent challenges close to home, and the many demands they face don’t pause while they innovate in global education. But principled leaders took the challenge of the absence of women in higher education a world away to their own core, and recognised that this too was their business.

Finding a possible solution took time: more than two years of proposals; assessing the situation; back-and-forth communication; and ensuring we were always working in line with advice on ensuring the safety of participating students. It was modest, but it matters beyond words.

The logic was beautifully simple and necessary: if Afghan women are banned from stepping into the higher education arena, then higher education must step into their own room. This is a practice the Western world embraced during the pandemic; we simply need to apply it now to find a light in the darkness.

An undefeated hope

The proof of this need was instantaneous. In early July 2025, the University of Sussex’s announcement went live. Within the first 48 hours, more than eight hundred women and women sent an inquiry and applied for the scholarships.

That response sent a clear, undeniable message of a thirst and love for education, of persistent talent, eligibility, and an undefeated hope for the future. And now it begins. The five talented women awarded these scholarships have started on the first of these courses with an unwavering commitment.

One of the awardees described her gratitude this way:

As an Afghan woman achieving this milestone under such challenging circumstances has been both difficult and deeply meaningful. I am committed to making the most of this opportunity and to using the knowledge and skills I gain to contribute toward strengthening and supporting our fragile communities.

These students are proof that Afghan women are not defeated even in this brutal hour. They may have to learn behind legal bars for now, but they believe in a better future, they are determined to serve their community and contribute to wider society — given the chance, they will change their lives and the lives of those around them.

Deeds not words

To my colleagues and friends in UK higher education, I humbly say this. Our institutions are built on the foundational motto of “leaving no one behind” – no one, not even the women whose doors are bolted but whose spirits still crave learning.

I profoundly hope the UKhigher education community will look closely at the successful case of the University of Sussex, draw on the experience of this pilot and follow its lead. One programme could become many. A single voice could become a chorus.

Afghan girls and women are navigating one of the most catastrophic times in their history. The education of women is core to the UN Sustainable Development Goals for good reason. Those who step up now, who provide a lifeline through education in this moment of darkness, will not only be remembered – they will be helping to shape the very future of Afghanistan. As the suffragists once chanted in this country, this is a time for Deeds Not Words.

I ask each of you not to write off hope. A dear friend shared a poem with me, which is much loved across this country. It was written by the great War poet Siegfried Sassoon at a time of despair, but it continues to move people because it defiantly imagines a time of release and redemption.

Everyone suddenly burst out singing;

And I was filled with such delight As prisoned birds must find in freedom…

My heart was shaken with tears; and horror Drifted away … O, but Everyone

Was a bird; and the song was wordless; the singing will never be done.

There are times a university keeps hope alive, where a pilot programme is a flame visible across the world. It is the promise of a better future through the empowerment of those who wish desperately to build it.

A good deed can be multiplied. If Afghan women students cannot come to us, let us join together as a band of scholars and go to them.

If any university colleagues would be interested in understanding more about the Sussex pilot to offer online postgraduate access to Afghan women, please contact [email protected].

Source link

November 8, 2025
USDA will fully cover SNAP benefits for November
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- The U.S. Department of Agriculture said Friday in a memo that it has started issuing funds to states to fully cover SNAP benefits for November.
- The department said it is complying with a Rhode Island court order from Thursday directing it to fully fund SNAP benefits after it initially said it would only fund the program at around 50% for the month. The Trump administration filed an appeal on that same day stating it does not want to tap the full amount of emergency funds.
- The memo marks a significant move in a touch-and-go fight to restore funding to EBT cards amid the government shutdown.
Dive Insight:

The USDA’s move is happening even as the Trump administration continues to resist directives on how to fund SNAP during the government shutdown. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is weighing the Trump administration’s request to pause the Rhode Island judge’s order, ABC News reported.

“Later today, FNS will complete the processes necessary to make funds available to support your subsequent transmittal of full issuance files to your EBT processor,” the USDA memo said, referring to the Food and Nutrition Service, its agency that oversees SNAP.

Following the Thursday ruling, a handful of states said they told their SNAP vendors to issue full benefit amounts to program participants’ EBT cards.

The California governor’s office on Thursday said that “benefits are now beginning to be available on recipients’ cards.” The Oregon Department of Human Services said SNAP recipients in the state will see “100% of their November benefit amount” starting today. Similarly, Wisconsin’s website notes that full November SNAP benefits are now available.

The USDA had previously told states on Wednesday that, based on new calculations, it could fund 65% instead of half of SNAP benefits for November.

At the start of this week, a senior USDA official said in court filings that procedural challenges with recoding systems in order to partially dole out benefits would likely result in weeks or even months of delays. The Rhode Island judge, who had initially urged the federal government to fund SNAP even if it could only partially do so, noted that key reasons for the Thursday ruling were those expected delays as well as the availability of other emergency funds, which the USDA had said it didn’t want to use.
Source link
November 7, 2025
Indiana AG sues Indianapolis Public Schools for hindering ICE efforts
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita alleges Indianapolis Public Schools has multiple policies that violate state laws by prohibiting local government entities from limiting or restricting federal immigration enforcement.
- In a lawsuit filed Thursday, Rokita claims the 30,000-student district has policies barring federal immigration officers from accessing nonpublic areas on school property without a judicial warrant, and that these policies are illegal under Indiana law and pose “grave risks to public safety.”
- Rokita’s lawsuit also cited an incident on Jan. 8, 2025, in which IPS’ policies “directly contributed to the failure” of federal immigration officers attempting to deport an undocumented Honduran man.
Dive Insight:

The IPS Board of School Commissioners said in a Thursday statement that Rokita’s lawsuit is a “heavy burden” and “silly litigation and political posturing” that impacts students, families and taxpayers.

“Every dollar spent on defensive legal posture is a dollar not spent on instructional support, teacher development, student services, or enrichment,” the board said. “In this case, Mr. Rokita prefers those dollars go to fight gratuitous political battles, as has too often been the case.”

The board emphasized that it has always upheld the law and will continue to do so while ensuring “safe, supportive, and welcoming learning environments for all students.”

Beyond denying access to immigration enforcement officers to school property without a judicial warrant, IPS also requires its employees to not assist immigration efforts unless legally required and authorized by the superintendent, according to Rokita’s lawsuit. The other IPS policy challenged in the complaint is that district staff are prohibited from collecting, maintaining or sharing information about the immigration status of a student, their parents or a school employee.

The IPS Board of School Commissioners said it has been “actively collaborating” with Rokita’s office to go over relevant policies of concern. The board said, however, that Rokita only gave the district five business days to review and respond to his opinion on the policies.

“Yet, these important issues deserve thoughtful, deliberative weighing of important legal rights — not impulsive, superficial efforts for political gain,” the board said.

The IPS policies being challenged, however, are a common practice in other school districts looking to protect students affected by the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration enforcement in communities nationwide this year.

In fact, immigration lawyers have advised districts across the country to train their principals and teachers to know that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers cannot enter school property without a warrant signed by a judge.

Immigration advocates have also pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in Plyler v. Doe, which ruled that states cannot constitutionally deny students a free public education based on their immigration status. Additionally, other state and local guidance has reminded school administrators this year that districts must maintain the confidentiality of all personally identifiable information in education records related to students under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

As ICE efforts go on near school communities, some district leaders — most recently at Chicago Public Schools — are calling for virtual schooling for students and families living in fear of federal immigration enforcement presence. Educators, advocates and child psychology experts are continuing to sound the alarm on the traumatic impacts immigration enforcement has on students, including school avoidance and stress.

But in Indiana, Attorney General Rokita said in a Thursday statement that sanctuary policies like those in place at IPS “are bad in any context, but they are especially troubling in our schools.” He added that, “schools across the country are vulnerable to infiltration by criminal illegal aliens — it’s happened in many other states — and it is essential that ICE be able to take action when that occurs to help keep our kids safe.”

Rokita’s lawsuit also alleged that in January, ICE’s efforts to deport an undocumented Honduran man living in Indiana were thwarted because IPS did not let the man’s son, who is an IPS student, reunite and leave the U.S. on a flight with his father, who volunteered to board.

“IPS took the position that it would not release the child to an ICE officer unless the officer had a judicial warrant or other court order,” the lawsuit said. “ICE responded that it simply was asking that the son be released to the father so that they could depart the country as the father had agreed to do and that such action did not require a court order.”

Because the father was unable to get custody of his son to board the flight with him, the father missed his flight, and the voluntary departure order expired, according to the complaint. As a result, the lawsuit said that “an illegal alien who should have departed the United States — who had voluntarily agreed to depart the United States — therefore remained in the United States because of IPS’s actions.”
Source link
November 7, 2025
Cornell inks $60M deal with Trump administration to restore funding
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- Cornell University on Friday struck a deal with the Trump administration, agreeing to pay $60 million and adhere to strict reporting conditions in exchange for having more than $250 million in federal funding reinstated.
- In addition to the financial payments, the Ivy League institution will submit expanded undergraduate admissions data to the federal government, and include the U.S. Department of Justice’s July guidance against diversity, equity and inclusion efforts as “a training resource” for employees. Cornell’s president will provide regular compliance reports to the administration.
- In turn, three federal agencies — the DOJ and U.S. departments of Education and Health and Human Services — agreed to close their civil rights investigations into the New York university. Cornell is the fifth university to publicly strike a deal with the Trump administration to restore federal funding.
Dive Insight:

Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff on Friday said the deal reverses costly federal funding cuts that caused significant disruption to the university.

“The months of stop-work orders, grant terminations, and funding freezes have stalled cutting-edge research, upended lives and careers, and threatened the future of academic programs at Cornell,” he said in a statement.

Under the deal, Cornell will pay the federal government $30 million over three years.

It will pay an additional $30 million over the same period toward agriculture research programs that “directly benefit U.S. farmers through lower costs of production and enhanced efficiency.” Both the agreement and Kotlikoff’s statement emphasized Cornell’s history as a land-grant university.

Kotlikoff noted that the bargain does not require Cornell to admit wrongdoing, and he said it does not turn over the university’s academic freedoms to the federal government.

As part of the deal, the university will report additional admissions data to the Education Department. Once a quarter through 2028, the university will submit undergraduate admissions disaggregated by students’ race, GPA, performance on standardized tests, and major. Much of the criteria align with a Trump administration proposal to dramatically expand the type of admissions data colleges must report.

The university will also use the DOJ’s wide-ranging anti-DEI guidance as a training resource for faculty and staff. The document labels race-based scholarships and student resources dedicated to specific racial or ethnic groups as illegal and warns colleges they could lose federal grant funding over such practices.

Colleges could similarly lose funding if the DOJ decides they are using “facially neutral” criteria as proxies for federally protected characteristics, such as asking job applicants to demonstrate “cultural competence” as a means of assessing someone’s racial or ethnic background.

The U.S. Department of Education released a similar document in February threatening federal funding over DEI practices. At the time, Kotlikoff called diversity a driver of Cornell’s excellence. The Education Department’s guidance has since been struck down as unconstitutional in federal court.

On Friday, Cornell said it will continue to conduct an annual campus climate survey, including on the experience of students with shared Jewish ancestry. Questions will include whether students feel welcome on campus and safe to report antisemitism.

Kotlikoff agreed to provide the Trump administration with quarterly reports demonstrating Cornell’s compliance.

Cornell’s agreement shares some elements with that signed by the University of Virginia last month. The public flagship similarly agreed to comply with the DOJ’s anti-DEI guidance and provide quarterly compliance reports to the Trump administration.

And like Brown University, Cornell agreed to pay money into a cause seemingly unrelated to the charges the Trump administration levied against it — in Brown’s case, $50 million to workforce development organizations in Rhode Island.

“Today’s deal is a positive outcome that illustrates the value of universities working with this administration,” Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a Friday statement.

U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said the Cornell deal is an example of the Trump administration forcing colleges to refocus “their attention on merit, rigor, and truth seeking — not ideology.”

Kotlikoff instead called the deal a reaffirmation of “principles to which we have already independently and publicly committed” and noted that the university already conducts annual campus climate surveys.

Cornell, he said, “looks forward to resuming the long and fruitful partnership with the federal government.”
Source link
November 7, 2025
Teachers Create Tool to Help NYC Families Find Childcare

Educators tap two tech firms to create NYC Childcare Navigator, a free platform that cuts through the chaos.

A one-stop shop

Frustrated by the maze of agencies, websites, and applications families face to find childcare and possible financial support, New York City teachers said, “Enough!”

The United Federation of Teachers, the union that represents more than 200,000 educators and professionals in New York City, teamed up with two tech firms to build a better approach: NYC Childcare Navigator.

Navigator is a platform that connects New York City families to upwards of 12,000 childcare options across the five boroughs. It offers instant eligibility checks for money-saving programs, step-by-step application support, and the most comprehensive directory of childcare providers in the city — all in one free, easy-to-use website.

The union created the tool as a benefit for its own members, but it was so successful that the union opened it up to all New York City residents in October.

“We couldn’t gatekeep something that we knew so many New York City families needed,” said Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers.

Centralizing tailored childcare

The union partnered with Mirza, a city-based tech firm that builds platforms to connect low-wage workers with local, state, and federal benefits, including for childcare.

“We wanted to get meaningful benefits to parents, but there wasn’t a single place that would allow a parent to see all the options available. That felt like a big missing piece. But it also pointed toward a solution,” said Siran Cao, CEO and Co-Founder of Mirza, who said she was inspired by how her own mother navigated a new country and the impact that a few well-timed bits of financial support had on her own family.

The union then introduced Upfront, a software company that consolidates multiple sources of childcare providers into a single, centralized database. The result: parents using the NYC Childcare Navigator can see every licensed program in NYC (center, home, and school-based), searchable by zip code, child’s age, availability, languages spoken, special needs, and many other filters. For the first time, childcare providers can claim a dedicated page to share current information about their specific childcare services.

“It’s everything in a single location instead of having to make dozens of calls and scour multiple, incomplete websites,” said Levin-Robinson, who said she was motivated by how challenging it was to find care for her own children.

Source link

November 7, 2025
How Educators Seek to Shape AI Use in Classrooms

For educators, using artificial intelligence in the classroom only makes sense if they have a real say in its development.

Building on expert experience

This summer, the American Federation of Teachers and its New York City affiliate, the United Federation of Teachers, announced a $23 million partnership with Microsoft, OpenAI, and Anthropic to establish a first-of-its-kind teacher institute for artificial intelligence: the National Academy for AI Instruction.

“Technology is routinely weaponized against us,” said UFT President Michael Mulgrew. “We were not going to sit by and watch that happen again. This initiative allows us to take control of AI in the education sphere and develop it for and by educators.”

While the physical plant will take 12–18 months to build, the academy has already started hosting its first series of AI workshops, introducing attendees to tools to help teachers plan, manage their workload, and meet student needs more effectively. Teachers received guidance on writing AI prompts and discussed ethics and the responsible use of AI.

“The academy is saying to teachers: You bring expertise to the classroom. You bring high-value pedagogy to the classroom,” said Rob Weil, Chief Executive Officer of the Academy. “We want you to use that pedagogy and expand that pedagogy, and there are resources you can use to make your expertise better. This is not about replacing your expertise; it’s about expanding your expertise.”

AI use influenced by teachers

Workshops this fall will engage educators in 200 New York City schools and then extend to educators in AFT union affiliates across the country. Organizers said the content will deepen as educators gain experience. And while supporting the exploration of AI, the AFT and the UFT were clear that neither organization endorsed specific AI tools or platforms.

Iolani Grullon, a teacher at P.S. 4 in Manhattan who attended two sets of AI workshops this summer, said AI could be “a game changer” for educators.

“This is where things are going,” Grullon said. “If we resist, we’re only going to make our lives harder. We need to be part of the conversation, learn how to use these tools, and influence their next iteration. We are the voice of the classroom. We know what educators and students need. And if these tools can streamline planning and paperwork, it allows for more time to build relationships with students.”

“It does not replace the human component,” Grullon said. “You need to see my face. You need to hear me say, ‘Great job!’ or ‘Let’s try this again’ or ‘Are you OK?’”

Source link

November 7, 2025
Responsible AI Adoption: Empowering Educators While Safeguarding Equity

Artificial intelligence is reshaping classrooms nationwide. Experts share how schools can adopt AI responsibly, ensuring equity, ethics, and human-centered teaching remain at the forefront.

A partner in learning

Artificial intelligence is no longer a distant promise — it’s here, and schools are grappling with how best to use it. For educational leaders, the question is not whether to use AI, but how to adopt it responsibly.

Dr. Joseph Rene Corbeil, Professor of Educational Technology at The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, reminds us of Arthur C. Clarke’s famous line: “Any teacher that can be replaced by a machine should be.” To him, AI can ease repetitive tasks like practice feedback, freeing teachers to do what machines cannot — mentor, inspire, and connect.

His colleague, Dr. Maria Elena Corbeil, emphasizes that responsible adoption must be “curious and intentional.” She encourages faculty to experiment openly with AI alongside students, showing that technology is a partner in learning, not a shortcut.

But both caution against widening divides. “If left unchecked, AI could create a two-tiered system where those who can afford premium tools gain an advantage,” Rene warns. Maria Elena points to unequal access to devices, internet, and faculty support as critical barriers.

AI use shaped by classroom realities

For Yanbei Chen, a Ph.D. student at Syracuse University, responsible adoption must also account for culture, language, and diverse learning needs. In her courses, students use AI image generators to visualize inclusive classrooms — an exercise that enhanced creativity while sparking dialogue about equity and accessibility.

Equity also drives the work of Dr. Veronika Abramenka-Lachheb, Assistant Professor at Boise State University and Director of the LENS Lab. She argues that responsible adoption begins with respect for learner privacy, autonomy, and agency. Her call to action for schools is to create values-based guidelines rooted in classroom realities, not one-size-fits-all policies.

Qiu (Stephen) Wang, Professor of Measurement and Research Methodology at the University of South Florida, likens AI to “handing scissors to a kindergartner.” Useful, yes — but only with oversight. In his graduate classes, students use AI for brainstorming, then critique its outputs against pedagogy, learning both creativity and skepticism.

Across perspectives, one theme stands out: AI should amplify human teaching, not replace it. Responsible adoption means prioritizing equity, ethics, and transparency, ensuring technology empowers every learner while keeping human judgment at the heart of education.

Source link

November 7, 2025
Protecting Schools in the Digital Age: Beyond Firewalls and Filters

In today’s connected world, school safety extends far beyond hallways. Experts highlight how to protect students through cybersecurity, digital literacy, and trust-centered policies.

Safety starts with digital literacy

For schools today, safety means more than locked doors. In an era where student data is currency and misinformation spreads at viral speed, digital security has become just as critical as physical protection.

Megan Derrick, Ph.D. candidate at the University of South Florida and instructional designer at Hillsborough College, identifies “two big red flags: data privacy and misinformation. Hackers love student data, and AI makes fake news spread faster than a viral TikTok.” For her, protecting schools requires both strong cybersecurity systems and teaching students to be critical consumers of information.

But safety isn’t only technical. “True protection is both technical and human,” says Yanbei Chen, a doctoral researcher at Syracuse University. Her work emphasizes combining infrastructure with education in digital citizenship, so students and teachers feel safe engaging with technology.

Both Derrick and Chen agree that digital literacy should be integrated across subjects, not siloed into a single workshop. “Students should know how to fact-check a source and avoid clicking on emails that promise free AirPods,” Derrick says. Chen adds that administrators and teachers can model responsible online behavior, weave discussions of privacy and bias into lessons, and provide opportunities for students to practice safe decision-making.

Safety ensures trust and resilience

Balancing safety with openness remains a key challenge. Derrick emphasizes the role of transparency: “Policies should not feel like surveillance. They should feel supportive.” When students and teachers understand the reasons behind safeguards, collaborative and creative learning can thrive within secure boundaries.

Looking ahead, emerging technologies and stronger policies offer hope. Transparent data practices, inclusive design, and human-centered AI can help schools build environments that are both innovative and resilient.

As Chen puts it, “Digital literacy and cybersecurity are not just technical skills — they’re part of preparing students to be thoughtful, ethical participants in a digital society.”

In short, protecting schools in the digital age means equipping students and educators not only to avoid risks but to thrive. That requires blending strong safeguards with a culture of trust, transparency, and resilience.

Source link

November 7, 2025
Cornell Settles With the Trump Administration

Cornell University has reached a deal with the Trump administration to pay the government a $30 million settlement—and invest another $30 million in agricultural research—in exchange for having its frozen federal research funding restored.

The agreement, announced Friday, makes Cornell the latest institution to strike a deal with the federal government in an effort to settle investigations into alleged civil rights violations. The settlement follows similar arrangements at the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, Brown University and the University of Virginia. Concessions varied by university, with Columbia making the biggest payout at $221 million.

Collectively, those institutions were targeted for a range of alleged violations, including allowing transgender athletes to compete on women’s sports teams, failing to police campus antisemitism amid pro-Palestinian protests and operating supposedly illegal diversity, equity and inclusion practices as the Trump administration cracked down on DEI initiatives.

Now the university will see roughly $250 million in frozen federal research funding immediately restored. The federal government will also close ongoing civil rights investigations into Cornell.

While some institutions, including Columbia, have given tremendous deference to the federal government and agreed to sweeping changes across admissions, hiring and academic programs, the deal at Cornell appears to be relatively constrained, despite the $30 million payout.

Under the agreement, Cornell must share anonymized admissions data broken down by race, GPA and standardized test scores with the federal government through 2028; conduct annual campus climate surveys; and ensure compliance with various federal laws. Cornell also agreed to share as a training resource with faculty and staff a July memo from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi barring the use of race in hiring, admissions practices and scholarship programs. And in addition to paying the federal government $30 million over three years, Cornell will invest $30 million “in research programs that will directly benefit U.S. farmers through lower costs of production and enhanced efficiency, including but not limited to programs that incorporate [artificial intelligence] and robotics,” according to a copy of the agreement.

Cornell leaders cast the deal as a positive for the university.

“I am pleased that our good faith discussions with the White House, Department of Justice, and Department of Education have concluded with an agreement that acknowledges the government’s commitment to enforce existing anti-discrimination law, while protecting our academic freedom and institutional independence,” Cornell president Michael Kotlikoff said in a statement shared with Inside Higher Ed. “These discussions have now yielded a result that will enable us to return to our teaching and research in restored partnership with federal agencies.”

Education Secretary Linda McMahon also celebrated the deal in a post on X.

“The Trump Administration has secured another transformative commitment from an Ivy League institution to end divisive DEI policies. Thanks to this deal with Cornell and the ongoing work of DOJ, HHS, and the team at ED, U.S. universities are refocusing their attention on merit, rigor, and truth-seeking—not ideology. These reforms are a huge win in the fight to restore excellence to American higher education and make our schools the greatest in the world,” she wrote.

Some outside observers, however, excoriated the settlement as capitulation to authoritarianism.

“The Trump administration’s corrupt extortion of higher ed institutions must end. Americans want an education system that serves the public good, not a dangerously narrow far right ideology that serves billionaires,” American Association of University Professors President Todd Wolfson said in a statement, which also urged colleges to fight intrusion by the federal government.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

Source link

November 7, 2025
Congress Accuses GMU President of Lying About DEI Efforts

House Republicans have accused George Mason University President Gregory Washington of lying to Congress about diversity practices at his institution, ratcheting up pressure on the president to step down.

The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee alleged in a report released Thursday night that Washington made “multiple false statements to Congress” in testimony about diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts at GMU. The public university has been under fire for months over allegedly illegal DEI practices as the Trump administration has sought to crack down on such initiatives, claiming they are discriminatory and violate federal civil rights law. The Judiciary Committee report also alleged that the university “likely violated federal civil rights law by discriminating based on race in its hiring practices to advance Dr. Washington’s diversity, equity, and inclusion initiative.”

Washington has denied breaking the law through efforts to diversify GMU’s faculty and staff, telling Congress that the university did not practice illegal discrimination under his leadership.

The report is the latest salvo from Republicans who have launched federal investigations into GMU over its hiring policies, including demands that the embattled president apologize for allegedly discriminatory practices, which he has refused to do as he denies any wrongdoing.

What’s in the Report

The House Judiciary Committee’s report zoomed in on an effort by GMU, launched shortly after Washington took office in July 2020, to diversify employee ranks. The Anti-Racism and Inclusive Excellence initiative the president introduced aimed to make faculty and staff “mirror student Demographics” at GMU, which is among the most diverse institutions in the country. As part of that effort, GMU tasked schools and departments with hiring more underrepresented individuals.

But in Congressional testimony, Washington denied the initiative was a strict mandate.

“These are overall goals and they’re aspirational in focus,” Washington said, according to a transcript of his Sept. 17 interview released by the House Judiciary Committee Thursday.

Though the Anti-Racism and Inclusive Excellence initiative stemmed from his office, Washington told Congress that faculty in each department developed plans for their unit. He also cast the creation of such plans as optional, telling Congress “if units did not want to develop a plan, they did not have to.”

But the House Judiciary Committee claimed Washington lied about that.

“Documents and testimony obtained by the Committee … show that Dr. Washington and his deputies actively sought to punish schools that did not comply with his racial discrimination mandates,” the committee report states. “A senior GMU official told the Committee that GMU financially punished any school that resisted Dr. Washington’s unconstitutional initiative.”

Congress pointed to testimony from Ken Randall, the dean of George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, as evidence that Washington lied about the plan being optional.

“You’d get fired if you didn’t have a plan,” Randall said, according to an interview transcript.

Washington also denied the administration formally reviewed plans to diversify faculty hiring. Republicans accused him of lying about that, too, pointing to internal remarks from then-vice president of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Sharnnia Artis (who now has a different title), in which she said the DEI team “consistently reviewed, monitored, and supported” such plans.

“Again, the evidence contradicts Dr. Washington’s testimony,” the report states.

However, Douglas Gansler, a lawyer representing the GMU president sharply disrupted claims that his client lied to Congress, which he accused of carrying out a “political lynching” in an emailed statement to Inside Higher Ed.

“The political theater of the politicians accusing Dr. Washington of misrepresenting anything to them is unadulterated nonsense. Dr. Washington has never discriminated against anybody for any reason and did not utter one syllable of anything not verifiably completely true,” Gansler wrote.

What Happens Next

The GMU Board of Visitors has said little in the immediate aftermath of the report.

“Today, the Board of Visitors received an interim staff report from the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. We are reviewing the report and consulting with University counsel and counsel for Dr. Washington,” board members wrote in a brief statement. “The Board remains focused on serving our students, faculty and the Commonwealth, ensuring full compliance with federal law and positioning GMU for continued excellence.”

While the board is reviewing the report, it appears unlikely members would be able to take action against Washington. GMU’s board, which is stocked with GOP donors and political figures appointed by Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin, is currently without a quorum after Virginia Democrats blocked multiple appointments in recent months. Now a legal battle over those blocked appointments is slowly winding its way through the judicial system. While the Virginia Supreme Court heard arguments in the case last month, it has yet to issue a ruling on the matter. In the meantime, with only six of its 16 seats filled, GMU’s board is hobbled.

Youngkin’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

The George Mason chapter of the American Association of University Professors offered a fiery defense of Washington, arguing in a statement the committee was carrying out a politically motivated attack designed to erode institutional autonomy and impose partisan control over the public university.

“The Committee’s unfounded accusations, dependence on clearly compromised sources, and selective presentation of ‘evidence’ represent an unprecedented abuse of congressional power—designed not to find the truth, but to silence leadership that refuses to yield to political pressure,” the GMU-AAUP chapter wrote in an emailed statement to Inside Higher Ed.

GMU students, employees and community members rallied in support of president Gregory Washington earlier this year, amid concerns the board would fire him.

With Washington under pressure from Congress, state and national Democrats have rallied to his defense, accusing the GOP of waging an ideological war on universities and hypocrisy by focusing on the GMU president’s alleged dishonesty while federal officials brazenly lie in court.

“In Donald Trump’s Gangster State, they pick the target first and figure out the charges later,” House Judiciary Democrats wrote on X. “Today’s target: GMU President Gregory Washington. The Trump Education Department failed to find evidence of employment discrimination at GMU. So [House Judiciary committee] Chairman [Jim] Jordan opened his own investigation. When that one only confirmed Dr. Washington followed Virginia law, Jordan pivoted and conjured up an absurd and convoluted criminal referral based on an alleged lie that takes 8 pages to explain.”

Representative James Walkinshaw—a Democrat in Virginia’s 11th district, which includes GMU—called Washington “an exemplary leader” in a biting statement posted on Bluesky.

“Make no mistake, this is an attack on free speech and academic freedom,” Walkinshaw wrote. “It’s cancel culture at its worst and the American people are tired of right-wing snowflakes like Jim Jordan trying to silence anyone who doesn’t bend the knee to their bizarre MAGA ideology.”

Source link

November 7, 2025