How well did you keep up with this week’s developments in K-12 education? To find out, take our five-question quiz below. Then, share your score by tagging us on social media with #K12DivePopQuiz.
A loss of international students due to restrictive federal policies could disproportionately harm small private colleges that have specialized focuses or are affiliated with Christian churches, according to a recent report from the Brookings Institution.
Many public institutions that charge much higher tuition for international and out-of-state students could also face serious financial hits, said the report’s author, Dick Startz, an economics professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
In his analysis, Startz looked at the common traits of colleges where international students made up at least 30% of enrollment. He found that all of those colleges were private, tended to be small, and have a special focus like business or arts.
They were also disproportionately Christian colleges. According to the report, Christian institutions represent 34.3% of colleges and universities where international students comprise more than 30% of total enrollment.
“Perhaps the importance of international students to Christian schools should not be so surprising,” the report said. “Many Christian schools are affiliated with evangelical beliefs, spreading their faith globally.”
Many small private and religious colleges in the U.S. have closed in recent years amid enrollment losses. For such institutions, a sudden loss of 30% of their student population could be a “disaster,” the report warned.
“The majority of schools will see very little effect,” said Startz. “But there are a small number of schools — private schools that are not very large — and 30% of their budget could disappear. It could be devastating.”
In June, the U.S. Department of State reopened consular interviews for foreign students looking to apply or renew their student visas after freezing the process the month prior. The State Department, however, now requires those students to unlock their social media accounts so consular officers can review whether they consider their posts hostile to the U.S. or to its culture and founding principles, The Associated Press reported.
International students who were previously in the country with active visas are less likely to be affected, said Startz. But first-year students, new graduate students, or some students who need to renew their visas will be impacted, he said.
It’s unclear how much those policies will affect international student enrollment or when colleges may start seeing significant impacts, said Startz. But some major colleges and university systems are already beginning to report a major drop in international student enrollment.
Over the summer, NASFSA: Association of International Educators projected international enrollment at U.S. colleges could decline by as much as 150,000 students this semester if the federal government did not start ramping up efforts to issue visas.
International freshmen enrollment at elite institutions like Princeton University and Columbia University remained steady heading into fall, The New York Times reported. However, other institutions, such as the University at Buffalo, are reportedly experiencing significant declines in international student enrollment, NPR reported.
Volatility in international student levels could affect nearly every college in the country that enrolls foreign students, the Brookings report stated. But not every college — even the ones with large foreign student enrollments — would be affected equally.
Colleges such as the University of California, Santa Barbara — where international students make up 9% of enrollment — could face serious financial threats. That’s because those students pay triple the tuition paid by in-state students at UC Santa Barbara, the report stated.
Institutions such as New York University, Northeastern University and Arizona State University also enroll a lot of international students — but compared to their total student population, it’s “not overwhelmingly high,” said Startz.
And prestigious institutions could probably fill those students’ slots regardless, he said.
A loss in international enrollment could also impact the economies of college towns — hurting landlords and local businesses like pizza shops and bars, said Startz.
Democratic-leaning states, such as Massachusetts, could be disproportionately affected economically, the report stated. But there could also be repercussions for the U.S. in general, as many international students eventually work at high-tech firms and in university labs conducting major medical and science research, Startz added.
International students often attend U.S. colleges because they want to be taught in English, said Startz. As such, the U.S. might lose many of those students to Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and Singapore, he said.
That could affect the U.S. politically. International students often return home with a positive view of America and Americans and go on to help lead their country in politics or business, Startz said. That includes prime ministers, such as the heads of Canada, Singapore and Botswana, he said.
“There’s certainly a concern that we’re just making students feel unwelcome,” said Startz. “If they choose either not to come or they come and actually have a bad experience, way down the road that’s a really bad thing.”
Following years of financial challenges, NJCU found a lifeline in Kean after a state-appointed monitor ordered the university to find a financial partner.
The $10 million state allocation — a small fraction of the $3.1 billion New Jersey is set to spend on higher education in fiscal 2026 — will go toward “feasibility studies, planning and legal work tied to the merger” between NJCU and Kean. But it’s unlikely to cover the full cost of the process.
In 2020, a University System of Georgia regent estimated that just changing the name of an institution — updating everything from signage to stationery — cost over $3 million.
Under Kean and NJCU’s letter of intent, the former would assume the latter’s assets and liabilities and NJCU’s campus would be renamed Kean Jersey City.
As the two universities go through the merger process, Kean is also to receive state funding for over 1,100 NJCU jobs in the form of a loan, per the state’s budget. If the merger falls through, the funded positions will return to NJCU.
A 2019 working paper found that, on average, a merger between two nonprofit colleges raised tuition prices by students between 5% and 7%.
But Kean appears to be poised to buck that trend with its elimination of out-of-state tuition. Under the new plan, the university will drop out-of-state tuition for current and new undergraduate and graduate students.
“Kean’s outstanding academics, proximity to New York City and growing research programs make the University appealing to students outside of New Jersey,” Michael Salvatore, Kean’s executive vice president for academic and administrative operations, said in a Tuesday statement. “This will enable us to tap into expanded markets while bringing students into the state.”
In the 2025-26 academic year, full-time students from New Jersey paid $7,649.80 per semester in tuition and fees, while their out-of-state counterparts paid $12,008.58. In-state and out-of-state graduate students paid $1,019.54 and $1,206.64 per credit, respectively.
As public outrage grows over the astronomical cost of prescription drugs, a quieter but equally consequential dynamic demands scrutiny: the entanglement of higher education institutions with the pharmaceutical industry. Universities—especially those with medical schools and biomedical research centers—have become indispensable players in Big Pharma’s pipeline. While these partnerships often promise innovation and public benefit, they also raise troubling questions about academic independence, ethical boundaries, and the commodification of publicly funded science.
Medical Education: A Curriculum Under Influence
Medical schools are tasked with training future physicians in evidence-based care. Yet many institutions maintain financial ties with pharmaceutical companies that risk compromising the integrity of their curricula. Faculty members often receive consulting fees, research grants, and honoraria from drug manufacturers. In some cases, industry-sponsored materials and lectures are integrated into coursework, subtly shaping how students understand disease treatment and drug efficacy.
This influence extends beyond the classroom. Continuing medical education (CME), a requirement for practicing physicians, is frequently funded by pharmaceutical companies. Critics argue that this model incentivizes the promotion of branded drugs over generics or non-pharmaceutical interventions, reinforcing prescribing habits that benefit corporate interests more than patient outcomes.
University Research: Innovation or Outsourcing?
Academic research is a cornerstone of pharmaceutical development. Universities conduct early-stage investigations into disease mechanisms, drug targets, and therapeutic compounds—often funded by public grants. Pharmaceutical companies then step in to commercialize promising discoveries, assuming control over clinical trials, regulatory approval, and marketing.
While this division of labor can accelerate drug development, it also shifts the locus of control. Universities may prioritize research that aligns with industry interests, sidelining studies that lack commercial appeal. Moreover, corporate sponsors can exert influence over publication timelines, data interpretation, and intellectual property rights. The result is a research ecosystem where profit potential increasingly dictates scientific inquiry.
Case Studies: The University-Pharma Nexus in Action
Harvard University
Harvard Medical School has faced scrutiny over the financial relationships between its faculty and pharmaceutical companies. A 2009 investigation by The New York Times revealed that more than 1,600 Harvard-affiliated physicians had financial ties to drug and medical device makers. The controversy sparked student protests and led to reforms requiring faculty to disclose industry ties and limiting pharma-funded materials in classrooms.
Harvard’s research enterprise is deeply intertwined with Big Pharma. Its partnership with Novartis in developing personalized cancer treatments—particularly CAR-T cell therapy—illustrates how academic science feeds into high-cost commercial therapies. While the treatment represents a breakthrough, its price tag (often exceeding $400,000 per patient) raises questions about the public’s return on investment.
Yale University
Yale’s collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on PROTACs (proteolysis-targeting chimeras) showcases the university’s role in pioneering new drug technologies. Under the agreement, Yale and GSK formed a joint research team to advance PROTACs from lab concept to clinical candidate. GSK gained rights to use the technology across multiple therapeutic areas, while Yale stood to receive milestone payments and royalties.
Yale’s Center for Clinical Investigation (YCCI) saw an 850% increase in industry-sponsored trials between 2006 and 2019. To address concerns about equity, YCCI launched the Cultural Ambassador Program to diversify trial participation. While this initiative promotes inclusivity, it also serves the interests of pharmaceutical sponsors seeking broader demographic data for regulatory approval.
University of Bristol (UK)
The University of Bristol has maintained a decade-long partnership with GSK, spanning vaccine development, childhood disease research, and oral health. GSK funds PhD studentships and undergraduate placements and collaborates on data integrity initiatives. While the partnership aims to improve global health outcomes, it also serves GSK’s need to secure early-stage innovation and talent.
Temple University
Temple’s Moulder Center for Drug Discovery Research exemplifies the shift toward academic-led drug discovery. Pharmaceutical companies increasingly rely on centers like this to conduct early-stage research, reducing their own financial risk. As patents expire and blockbuster drugs lose exclusivity, pharma firms turn to universities to replenish their pipelines—often with taxpayer-funded science.
ETH Zurich (Switzerland)
ETH Zurich has become a hub for synthetic organic and medicinal chemistry, attracting partnerships with major pharmaceutical firms. Researchers at ETH conduct foundational work that pharma companies later commercialize. This reflects a broader trend: the outsourcing of riskier, cost-intensive research to academic institutions, often without proportional public benefit.
The Dark Legacy of Elite University Medical Centers
Beyond research and education, elite university medical centers have long been implicated in systemic inequality and exploitation. As detailed in The Dark Legacy of Elite Medical Centers, these institutions have historically treated marginalized and low-income patients as expendable research subjects. The term “Medical Apartheid,” coined by Harriet Washington, captures the racial and class-based exploitation embedded in American medical history.
The disparities extend to labor conditions as well. Support staff—often immigrants and people of color—face low wages, poor working conditions, and job insecurity, despite being essential to hospital operations. Meanwhile, early-career researchers and postdocs, many from working-class backgrounds, endure long hours and precarious employment while driving the innovation that fuels Big Pharma’s profits.
Even diversity initiatives at these institutions often fall short, focusing on optics rather than structural reform. As the article argues, “The institutional focus on ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ often overlooks the more significant structural issues, such as the affordability of education, the class-based access to healthcare, and the economic barriers that continue to undermine the ability of disadvantaged individuals to receive quality care.”
Technology Transfer and Patents: The Profit Pipeline
Many universities have established technology transfer offices to manage the commercialization of academic discoveries. These offices negotiate licensing agreements with pharmaceutical companies, often securing royalties or equity stakes in exchange. While such arrangements can generate substantial revenue—especially for elite institutions—they also entangle universities in the profit-driven logic of the pharmaceutical market.
This entanglement has real-world consequences. Drugs developed with public funding and academic expertise are frequently priced out of reach for many patients. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which allows universities to patent federally funded research, was intended to spur innovation. But critics argue it has enabled the privatization of public science, with universities acting as gatekeepers to life-saving treatments.
Ethical Crossroads: Transparency and Reform
The growing influence of Big Pharma in higher education has prompted calls for greater transparency and accountability. Some institutions have implemented conflict-of-interest policies, requiring faculty to disclose financial ties and limiting industry-sponsored events. Student-led movements have also emerged, demanding reforms to ensure that education and research serve the public good rather than corporate profit.
Yet systemic change remains elusive. The financial incentives are substantial, and the boundaries between academia and industry continue to blur. Without robust oversight and a recommitment to academic independence, universities risk becoming complicit in a system that prioritizes shareholder value over human health.
Rethinking the Role of Higher Ed and Medicine
Higher education institutions occupy a unique position in society—as centers of knowledge, innovation, and public trust. Their collaboration with Big Pharma is not inherently problematic, but it must be guided by ethical principles and a commitment to transparency. As the cost of healthcare continues to rise, universities must critically examine their role in the pharmaceutical ecosystem and ask whether their pursuit of profit is undermining their mission to serve the public.
The legacy of elite university medical centers is not just about innovation—it’s also about inequality. Until these institutions confront their role in perpetuating racial and class-based disparities, their contributions to public health will remain compromised.
Sources:
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health: Pharma and Digital Innovation in China
Harvard Business School Case Study: Novartis and Personalized Cancer Treatment
Yale Law School: Pharmaceutical Public-Private Partnerships
GSK and Yale PROTAC Collaboration Press Release
Yale Center for Clinical Investigation Case Study
University of Bristol and GSK Case Study
Pharmaphorum: Universities and Pharma Companies Need Each Other
Chemical & Engineering News: The Great Pharmaceutical-Academic Merger
Faculty and staff members at Auburn University, Eastern New Mexico University–Roswell and Coastal Carolina University are among those who have been punished for their comments on Charlie Kirk’s death.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images | Nordin Catic/Getty Images/The Cambridge Union | Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
College faculty and staff members have become popular targets of the right-wing doxing firestorm that ignited in the hours after Charlie Kirk was shot and killed last week during an event at Utah Valley University. As of Thursday afternoon, Inside Higher Ed had identified 37 faculty and staff members who are being harassed online for allegedly critical or insensitive social media posts about Kirk. So far, at least 24 of those employees have been terminated, suspended or put on administrative leave, including employees at Auburn University, Eastern New Mexico University–Roswell and Coastal Carolina University.
The force and scale of the doxing campaigns—and the speed with which institutions have moved to suspend or terminate their targets—paints a grim picture of free speech rights on public college campuses. Widespread doxing as a political tool to punish universities and academics is not a new phenomenon, but right now it’s particularly virulent, explained Keith Whittington, a professor at Yale Law School and an expert on free speech. “The size of the activity, the pressure campaign and the … short period of time is highly unusual,” he said. “Universities feel like they’re under intense pressure to mollify right-wing activists and try not to draw negative attention from the [Trump] administration.”
Most of the higher education targets of doxing campaigns have been identified first by users on X, Facebook or other social media sites. Then anonymous accounts broadcast their name, employer, photo and contact information, along with calls for their firing. A group that calls itself the Charlie Kirk Data Foundation has also asked the public to submit via email or online the names, identifying information and screenshots of any person who has criticized Kirk or appeared to celebrate his death. On Sunday, the group claimed to have received more than 63,000 unique names.
The first call-outs that gained traction were particularly inflammatory. For example, a University of Toronto professor—who has since been placed on leave—posted in a comment on X, “shooting is honestly too good for so many of you fascist cunts.” This type of speech is often “universally condemned,” but it should still be protected by universities committed to First Amendment values, Whittington said. (Or Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.) Now, doxers are attacking even those who engage in mild criticism of Kirk or his supporters, as well as those who merely quote Kirk’s own views on gun control and other topics in juxtaposition to the news of his death.
“We do seem to see a pattern in which activists are very quickly moving beyond [more egregious] instances to much more marginal cases, where … we might not think that these particular examples of speech violated any widespread view that it is inappropriate or beyond the pale,” Whittington said.
A staff member at Wake Forest University in North Carolina was doxed and later terminated after posting on social media the lyrics, “He had it coming, he had it coming” from the Chicago song “Cell Block Tango.” One University of South Carolina professor was targeted by doxers for a critical Facebook comment about a state representative who supported Kirk and was later relieved of teaching duties because of it. A faculty member at East Tennessee State University was put on administrative leave after posting, “You can’t be upset if one of those deaths in [sic] yours #charliekirk” in response to a news headline that quoted Kirk saying, “It’s worth [it] to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.” Inside Higher Ed has opted not to name employees that haven’t been confirmed by their university in order to prevent further harassment.
The number of doxing campaigns targeting educators is on the rise. Experts say higher ed employees can stay safe by keeping work and personal accounts separate, using email masks, and removing personal information from data broker sites. For more tips, see our story here.
So far no higher ed institution has faced as swift and fierce a condemnation from conservatives online as Clemson University, which, in response to the political pressure, has now terminated two faculty members and one staff member over their social media posts about Kirk. An assistant professor at Clemson was among the first to be named and shamed. On Sept. 10, the day Kirk was shot and killed, they posted, “Today was one of the most beautiful days ever. The weather was perfect, sunny with a light breeze. This was such a beautiful day.” Kirk’s supporters interpreted this comment as a celebration of his death. The Clemson professor also reposted jokes about the killing—including “no one mourns the Wicked” and “[N-word] worried about DEI and DIED instead.”
From there, the doxing machine roared to life. The student group Clemson College Republicans was the first to identify the professor and share their posts, according to U.S. representative Russell Fry, whose Sept. 11 post on X about the professor garnered 1.2 million views. The post was amplified by hundreds of right-wing accounts and other politicians, including U.S. representative Nancy Mace, who has commented on and reposted dozens of similar call-outs. Clemson officials issued a statement on Sept. 12, writing that “the deeply inappropriate remarks made on social media in response to the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk are reprehensible and do not reflect the University values and principles that define our University community.” They made no mention of disciplining the employees involved and noted only that the university will “take appropriate action for speech that constitutes a genuine threat which is not protected by the Constitution.”
The pressure campaign continued. Two other employees of the public university—a staff member and another professor—were also targeted for their posts about Kirk’s death, and Republican politicians called for their firing, too. Clemson officials issued another statement a day later, stating that an employee had been suspended and reiterating that officials would take action “in cases where speech is not protected under the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment.”
The university did not name any employees or say what the suspended employee posted. However, the posts circulating online from the three Clemson employees in question appear to be protected speech, according to the way most First Amendment scholars interpret it.
Over the weekend, U.S. representative Ralph Norman, the X account for the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary Republicans and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina joined in the calls for the employees’ firing, and some politicians called for the State Legislature to defund Clemson. So did President Donald Trump, who reposted a Truth Social post from South Carolina state representative Jordan Pace that said, “Now Clemson faculty is inciting violence against conservatives. It’s time for a special session to end this. Defund Clemson. End Tenure at State colleges.”
Clemson officials did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment. The university’s academic freedom policy for faculty states, “When they speak or write as private persons, faculty shall be free from institutional censorship or disciplinary action, but they shall avoid creating an impression that they are speaking or acting for the University.” The Faculty Handbook doesn’t outline any clear exceptions to this rule but does note that “as professional educators and academic officers, they are aware that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence, faculty members should endeavor to be accurate, to exercise due restraint, to show respect for the utterances of others, and, when appropriate, to indicate that they are not officially representing Clemson University.”
On Monday, Clemson announced it had terminated the staff member and removed both faculty members from their teaching duties. By Tuesday, all three employees had been terminated. South Carolina attorney general Alan Wilson told Clemson’s president he had the “full legal authority” to terminate the employees, writing in a statement, “The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it does not shield threats, glorification of violence, or behavior that undermines the mission of our state institutions.” This contradicts what experts at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and other free speech experts have said in recent days: that speech, even if it’s poorly timed, tasteless, inappropriate, controversial or a nonspecific endorsement of violence, is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
While these name-and-shame campaigns constitute a particularly harsh attack on campus speech, they are nothing new. In fact, they’ve increased in frequency since 2023, when many pro-Palestinian academics were targeted, said Heather Steffen, a humanities professor at Georgetown University and director of the American Association of University Professors’ Faculty First Responders group.
“Faculty who speak about certain issues have been more vulnerable to doxing for a long time,” Steffen said. “So anyone who talks about issues of race or racism, gender and sexuality, or Palestine tends to be more likely to be doxed or somehow otherwise attacked in a politically motivated fashion, as do academics who are faculty of color, or queer faculty, or trans faculty or pro-Palestinian faculty.”
Ultimately, it’s not about what the employees said, Whittington explained. It’s about the political outcomes.
“This is primarily about exercising political power and trying to silence and suppress people who disagree with you politically,” he said. “It doesn’t matter that the offense is trivial … What matters is you’re identifying people that you politically disagree with and you have a moment in which you can exercise power over those people. And there are lots of people willing to take advantage of those opportunities.”
Over the past 10 days, dozens of faculty and staff members have had their personal contact information, photos and sometimes addresses broadcast online by anonymous right-wing social media accounts seeking to punish them for comments they allegedly made about the death of conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk. This public campaign of online harassment and intimidation, known as doxing, is “off the charts” right now, said Heather Steffen, an adjunct professor of humanities at Georgetown University.
Steffen is also the director of Faculty First Responders, a group created by the American Association of University Professors in 2020 to track and help faculty members targeted by right-wing media. Doxing has been on the rise since protests over the Israel-Hamas war fractured campuses in 2023, but educators are increasingly coming under attack in “ideologically motivated efforts” to silence dissent, according to an August report from the National Association of Attorneys General. “This shift signals the evolution of doxxing from isolated conduct to a more coordinated form of digital persecution,” the report said.
While the attacks are becoming more frequent and sophisticated, higher ed employees can take steps to minimize the risk of doxing, as well as the damage incurred if it does happen.
1. Keep your personal and work accounts separate.
Remove employers’ names from all of your personal social media accounts—if it’s in your bio, take it out, Steffen advised. “You can state in your bio on social media that your views do not represent your employer, and you don’t need to name the employer in order to do that,” she said.
In many cases, work may demand that you list some contact information publicly, but don’t use that information for personal business, said Rob Shavell, CEO and co-founder of DeleteMe, a service that will find and try to wipe members’ personal information from the web. “The data brokers are getting very good at correlating [work and personal] data and putting them into one dossier,” he said. These days, when DeleteMe’s privacy advisers scan the web for members’ information, they return an average of 750 pieces of personally identifying information per person, up from 225 pieces four years ago.
Also, be aware of what devices, accounts and Wi-Fi networks you’re using, and be sure not to use work-provided equipment or resources for anything other than work, Steffen added.
2. Scrub your information from data-broker websites.
Data brokers collect and sell personal information. Companies like DeleteMe and Incogni will remove your personal information from data-broker websites for a fee; DeleteMe charges $129 per member annually. But for anyone who wants to take a do-it-yourself approach, DeleteMe has published free opt-out guides that walk readers through removing their information from the sites, including Experian, TransUnion and CoreLogic. Steffen also suggests following the steps outlined in the Big Ass Data Broker Opt-Out List, a Github project that explains how to scrub your information from data brokers.
3. Use an email mask or alias when possible.
“Masked emails or phone numbers or even credit cards allow you to sign up for things or make calls or buy things without revealing to every counterparty your real personal information,” Shavell said. DeleteMe offers masking, as do companies like Apple and NordPass. These services create a faux address that will then forward emails to your real account. Google also offers free alias phone numbers through Google Voice that will forward calls to your personal phone. In addition to better security, masking also decreases spam and phishing risks.
4. Breathe before you post (and remember the risk of screenshots).
Even if you’re posting to a private account—say, a “close friends” story on your personal Instagram—anything you put online can still be screenshotted and shared widely, Steffen warned. “Anytime you’re posting or reposting something, a good tool can be to pause and think: Would I be comfortable with my employer, my students and my community knowing that I hold this view, and would I be comfortable with them seeing it expressed in this way?” she said.
5. Protect your accounts with complex passwords and two-factor authentication.
It’s boring, but it’s important, said Viktorya Vilk, director for digital safety and free expression at the nonprofit PEN America, which offers digital safety training to colleges and universities and has created a “what to do” resource for people who have been doxed. “If someone hacks into your Facebook or your email, it’s so hard to get that account back. And it’s also incredibly intrusive and unsettling,” she said. “Having a long, secure password and two-factor authentication makes it almost impossible for someone to be able to hack into your account.”
6. In the event you are doxed: Center yourself, and then secure your physical safety.
“People often have a fight, flight or freeze response. It can be incredibly traumatizing and so very difficult to take steps or use your judgment about what to do when you’re being doxed,” Vilk said. “And so, counterintuitively, the very first thing to do is to take a minute and try to center yourself. For some people that’s taking some deep breaths. For other people, it’s just, like, moving around, wiggling around.”
After that, make sure you’re physically safe, she advised. If your address has been shared, consider staying at a hotel or with friends or family until the storm passes. Consider contacting law enforcement to report the threats, file a police report and let them know you’re at increased risk for swatting—a harassment tactic that involves making a false emergency call in order to dispatch law enforcement to a specific location.
7. Once you are physically safe, document the harassment and lock down your accounts.
Set your social accounts to private mode if they’re not already, and take any steps to limit visibility of your posts, Vilk said. “That’s very easy to switch back after the storm dies down,” she added. Be careful communicating with unfamiliar accounts, emails or phone numbers, and document any threats or harassment you receive. Don’t download attachments or click on links from unknown senders, and do a quick search online to find out more about them before responding.
“Take screenshots when you receive them and then report them to the platform where they’re happening. That can be really stressful, so we really recommend that people recruit friends or family or trusted colleagues to help them do that so that they’re not doing it alone,” Vilk said.
Your cellphone number can also be stolen. “If it starts to circulate online, people will call your cellphone company and pretend to be you and try to reroute traffic,” she said. Protect your number by calling the company and placing a PIN on your account.
On Wednesday ABC announced that it had taken Kimmel’s late-night show off the air “indefinitely.”
More professors in the United States have been fired for controversial views in the past week than any other week in all of American history. The violations of academic freedom, free speech and due process on campuses in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination have been extraordinary and indefensible.
The campus firings are too numerous to describe in full, but consider the case of Darren Michael, professor of theater at Austin Peay State University, who was fired because he reposted on social media a 2023 Newsweek headline: “Charlie Kirk Says Gun Deaths ‘Unfortunately’ Worth It to Keep 2nd Amendment.” Tennessee’s U.S. senator Marsha Blackburn reposted Michael’s view on X, asking the university to take action.
Austin Peay administrators declared, “A faculty member of Austin Peay State University reshared a post on social media that was insensitive, disrespectful and interpreted by many as propagating justification for unlawful death. Such actions do not align with Austin Peay’s commitment to mutual respect and human dignity. The university deems these actions unacceptable and has terminated the faculty member.”
This is an utterly appalling excuse to punish anyone, and certainly not an adequate reason for a university to terminate a professor without any due process. There is absolutely no rule at Austin Peay banning people from being insensitive or disrespectful, since any rule like that would clearly violate the First Amendment. And the idea that posting a headline quoting Kirk’s views would somehow justify his murder is insane. It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize anyone for favoring or opposing gun control. This critique of Kirk is anything but pro-murder.
The violations of due process involved in these arbitrary firings, with no opportunity for a hearing or a defense, are terrible in themselves. But the justifications for the firings are so insubstantial that they cannot merit any kind of penalty, let alone an immediate dismissal.
It is perfectly legitimate to criticize and even insult both the dead and the living. Any conservative who thinks Charlie Kirk hated free speech so much that he would want his critics purged from campuses is making a far worse insult against Kirk than what any offensive leftist has written or said.
Of course, the suppression of free speech goes far beyond academia.
The suspension of Jimmy Kimmel by ABC on Sept. 17 following FCC chair Brendan Carr’s demands for his removal and threats against broadcast licenses represent an alarming repression of free speech, with the combination of corporate censorship and government suppression.
On his Sept. 15 show, Kimmel said, “We had some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and with everything they can to score political points from it.” What Kimmel said was, in fact, technically true: Conservatives were doing everything they could to claim that Kirk’s murderer was not one of them. And the murderer was, in fact, a white male college dropout from a Republican family in Utah that taught him to shoot and provided him with guns.
Of course, conservatives are probably correct to call the murderer a leftist with political motives, and if Kimmel was trying to invoke theories that the killer was actually a right-winger, that seems unlikely now based on evidence released after Kimmel’s show aired. But even if Kimmel was trying to make a dubious claim that has now been discredited, that’s protected by the First Amendment and principles of free speech.
The second part of Kimmel’s claim—that conservatives were using Kirk’s murder to “score political points”—was never in doubt and has been proven yet again by his removal from the airwaves.
Kimmel didn’t celebrate any violence or say anything bad about Charlie Kirk. The glorification of Kirk is a cover for an authoritarian agenda to suppress political enemies. Donald Trump immediately celebrated Kimmel’s banishment and called for NBC hosts Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers to also be fired.
This is the slippery slope of censorship: First they come for those who celebrate murder, then they come for anyone who questions the hagiography of the victim, then they go after anyone who quotes the victim’s own words, then they silence anyone who objects to the repression itself. This is why even offensive and stupid comments about Charlie Kirk must not be punished.
But when Vice President JD Vance urges everyone to “call their employer” in response to offensive comments, that’s not critique or argument: That’s cancel culture, pure and simple. That’s government-mandated repression.
The right to free expression must include the right to say horrible and evil things. It protects all of the conservatives (including Donald Trump, his son and Charlie Kirk) who joked about the attempted murder of Paul Pelosi. It protects the Fox News host Brian Kilmeade, who urged mass executions of homeless people.
As David Letterman noted about Kimmel, “You can’t go around firing somebody because you’re fearful or trying to suck up to an authoritarian criminal administration in the Oval Office.”
Less than two years ago, before he began issuing government commands to silence the media, Carr posted on X, “Free speech is the counterweight—it is the check on government control. That is why censorship is the authoritarian’s dream.”
We are living in the authoritarian’s dream, and it’s a nightmare for free speech and democracy.
Creighton University has received a $100 million gift from the Heider Family Foundation to launch a nearly $300 million campaign for a sprawling recreational and athletic development on the east side of the Omaha campus.
Creighton’s Fly Together plan will establish or upgrade athletic facilities and outdoor spaces covering 12 blocks and roughly 700,000 square feet. It includes a new student fitness center, a pedestrian walkway connecting the private Jesuit campus to a downtown business district and a new sports performance center for Creighton’s student athletes.
“Fly Together will serve students and student-athletes, but importantly, it will serve the Omaha community itself,” said Scott Heider, a university trustee as well as a trustee of the Heider Family Foundation, which was established by his parents, Charles and Mary.
“We are incredibly grateful to the Heider family and the additional donors who are making this moment possible,” said Creighton president Daniel Hendrickson. “This gift … benefits everyone. It enhances student life, intramurals, premier club sports and intercollegiate athletics. It also strengthens Creighton’s connection to downtown and the broader Omaha community.”
The full version of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid is scheduled to launch Oct. 1.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | SimoneN/iStock/Getty Images
All students can now access a beta version of the 2026–27 Free Application for Federal Student Aid, the Department of Education announced Wednesday.
The grant application platform won’t officially launch until Oct. 1, the congressionally mandated FAFSA launch deadline, but for the 12 days between now and then, students and families can start their application by participating in the test model.
“We’re using this time to monitor a limited number of FAFSA submissions to ensure our systems are performing as expected,” the department’s Federal Student Aid website explains. “This is a common practice in website and software development.”
The first round of beta testing was opened to a limited number of students in early August. Students who submit their form during the test will only have to submit it once, the department website states.
McMahon said the department’s plan to move career and technical education programs to the Labor Department is one way to show that other agencies can run Education Department programs more efficiently.
Connor McLaren for the Ronald Reagan Institute
Washington, D.C.—Education Secretary Linda McMahon made clear at a series of policy summits this week that while she remains committed to one day shuttering her department, there’s still much work left to be done.
“You don’t just shut off the lights and walk out the door if you are trying to return education to the states,” McMahon said at one event Wednesday, adding that offices like Civil Rights and Federal Student Aid can’t simply be eliminated. “Really, what we’re trying to do is to show how we can move different parts of the Department of Education to show that they can be more efficient operating in other agencies.”
Throughout her remarks at both events—the Education Law and Policy Conference hosted by the Federalist Society and the Defense of Freedom Institute on Wednesday and the Reagan Institute Summit on Education on Thursday—the secretary stressed that a key way to test this concept is by moving workforce development programs to the Department of Labor.
“Let’s be sure that we are not moving hastily, but that we are taking the right steps at the right pace for success,” McMahon told the Federalist Society audience. “And if we show that this is an incredibly efficient and effective way to manage these programs, it is my hope that Congress will look at that and approve these moves.”
However, some advocates for students, institutional lobbyists, Democrats in Congress and left-leaning policy analysts have taken issue with the plan to move adult, career and technical education programs to the Labor Department, arguing that it’s illegal and will create more headaches for the providers who rely on the money.
Regardless, the Trump administration is moving forward with its plans. ED signed an interagency agreement with the Department of Labor earlier this spring and has more recently moved many of its staff members to the DOL office. (Funding for the salaries of these employees and the programs they lead, however, will still come from the Education Department budget.)
On Thursday at the Reagan Institute, McMahon noted that the combined staff is working on a new learning and employment report as well as a “skills wallet” that will help show employers what students have learned and students what employers are looking for.
“It’s an exciting time in labor development in that country, but it’s a challenge and a real responsibility for us to not get stuck,” she said.
Aside from career and technical education and some of her other priorities, such as cracking down on alleged campus antisemitism and racial preferencing, much of the conversation both days was centered around the recent shooting of conservative figurehead Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University and how to prevent political violence on campus.
McMahon was quick to describe the Turning Point USA president’s death as a travesty and to charge colleges with the responsibility of promoting more healthy civic discourse. At both events, she cited Kirk himself as a prime example of what such debate looks like, saying that while his approach was at times “aggressive,” he was always “very polite” and “civil.”
“He wasn’t antagonistic, but he was challenging. And there’s a clever art to being able to do that,” she said. “I don’t think that we show our students how to do that enough.”
Thursday, she denounced the faculty, staff and students who appeared to have been apathetic toward or allegedly celebrated Kirk’s death, building upon comments she made in a social media video earlier this week. But just as she suggested condemning certain individuals for crossing an “ethical line,” she added that “if you shut down the speech of one side to allow the freedom of speech for another, you’d have actually compromised the entire principle, and that we cannot have.”
She closed on Thursday by urging educators to foster their students’ compassion.
“We’ve lost a little of our humanity,” she said. “Let’s make sure we grab that back in peace and show it through leadership.”
