Blog

  • How removing funding disparities for ‘disruptor institutions’ could help fulfil the ambition of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement

    How removing funding disparities for ‘disruptor institutions’ could help fulfil the ambition of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement

    • Professor Harriet Dunbar-Morris is Pro Vice-Chancellor Academic and Provost at The University of Buckingham.

    Whilst we are still waiting for the government to decide on the operationalisation of the future direction of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE), it is easy to agree that providing all new learners with a tuition fee loan entitlement to the equivalent of four years of post-18 education to use up to the age of 60 is a good thing in principle.

    In recent articles, Professor Deborah Johnston and Rose Stephenson have both presented useful positions and summaries on the status quo. For the University of Buckingham, the merits of the LLE are clear, but it is the relationship between the LLE and courses of different lengths that is central to our concern.

    At Buckingham, we take pride in our unique approach to education. As a disruptor institution and the only private university in the UK with a Royal Charter, we emphasise our small and independent nature. Our distinctive positioning has enabled us to create a unique learning environment. We have successfully developed ‘accelerated degrees’, including our flagship degree models: the two-year undergraduate degree and the four-and-a-half-year undergraduate medical degree.

    Where other institutions have a long summer holiday, at Buckingham we have a fourth term – the same amount of classroom time over a whole degree as in other universities, but a term in the summer which means that students can enter the labour market a year earlier and incur a year’s less accommodation and living expenses as well. 

    Alternatively, in three years, our students at Buckingham can undertake two qualifications: a foundation plus an undergraduate or an undergraduate plus a postgraduate degree. The year’s shape also more closely resembles the world of work and therefore ably prepares students more authentically for their future careers. We know this approach is working, and adds value. We are in the Top 10 for Graduate Prospects (outcomes) and:

    • 92% of our graduates agree their current activity is meaningful (sector 85%).
    • 88% of our graduates feel their current activity fits with their future plans (sector 78%).
    • 83% of our graduates say they are using what they learn while studying (sector 69%).
    • 97% of our graduates are in work or study (sector 89%).
    • 72% of our graduates are in full-time employment (sector 61%).

    Buckingham has been a beacon for accelerated degrees to help students achieve their degrees in a shorter period and get out into the workplace or onto further study sooner. We can also see this model allowing students to interrupt their studies and take their degrees in shorter chunks (each of our terms, for example), which would be possible with the LLE framework once it is implemented. However, there is a fundamental unfairness facing Buckingham and others that needs to be addressed.

    To understand this issue, we must first delve into the technical world of registering with the Office for Students (OfS), the regulator for higher education in England. Providers of higher education can (although not at the moment as new registrations are paused) register with the OfS under two categories:

    1) Approved (fee cap)

      Providers in the Approved (fee cap) category can only charge up to the fee cap of £9,250 (2024/25) / £9,535 (2025/26) for full-time students. Students can take out a tuition fee loan to cover their entire fee (for undergraduate courses). Approved (fee cap) providers can also access teaching and research grant funding. Most institutions are in this category.

      2) Approved

      Providers in the Approved category, which includes Buckingham, can charge tuition fees above the cap. However, students at these institutions can only access tuition fee loans up to the lower limit (£6,355 per annum for three-year programmes and £7,625 per annum for two-year programmes). Any additional fees charged need to be covered privately. Further, these institutions cannot access teaching and research grants.

      Because of our category of registration, students can only get the fee loan for the accelerated (two-year) degree programmes at the lower fee loan limit. Our students study for more of the year, and in each of their two years, yet they are entitled to less of a loan each year to support their learning, meaning that through the current category of registration they are discriminated against, even though our accelerated degrees are clearly better for getting students into the workforce and for the skills agenda being pushed by the new Labour government.

      What is also grossly unfair is that despite approved providers being unable to access direct government funding for learning and teaching, research, or capital activity, they remain subject to nearly every aspect of OfS regulation. One exception is the Access and Participation Plan (although we still produce an Access Statement). Yet, re-stating the above, students at approved category institutions cannot benefit from a full loan for the studying they do.

      So, as the government considers how to support the skills agenda and deliver on skills shortages, here at Buckingham we make a request on behalf of the sector and the potential students: implement the LLE and remove the disparities.

      We are calling for one of two developments:

      • A government review to address tuition fee loan eligibility (tied to current categorisations). Why should students be disadvantaged for the loan they can apply for by the category of their institution’s registration? In The University of Buckingham’s case, we have a TEF, we meet OfS requirements, and we even directly support the government’s desire to get students into work faster. Should it not be £9,250 (or now £9,535 from 2025/26) for all?
      • If not that, a change to loans for the credits studied will allow the students studying in that fourth term with us at Buckingham, and completing in two years, to be able to seek loans for the full amount of their two years of full-time study. The point here is that the implementation of the LLE means that the loan is for the credit instead, so this inequity is removed. All students can get a loan for the credit they study. Our students then would, as a bonus, gain the credit quicker, as they would study over two years.

      Most students, due to the cost of living and other responsibilities, should now be considered part-time students, and we need to consider ways to help them fit their lives around their studies – something we certainly pride ourselves on. To support those who also need to work during their intensive studies, we timetable differently and teach differently. Ultimately this is about helping every one of our students to study more effectively (and in a shorter timescale), and as presented in The University of Buckingham’s Strategic Plan 2023-28, supporting our students by embedding employability and entrepreneurship within the curriculum.

    Source link

  • Excluding Level 7 modules from the LLE is a huge, missed opportunity

    Excluding Level 7 modules from the LLE is a huge, missed opportunity

    Ahead of a House of Lords debate on the topic of lifelong learning later this week, today’s blog features two posts on the topic.

    Elsewhere on the site, Professor Harriet Dunbar-Morris, Pro Vice-Chancellor Academic and Provost at The University of Buckingham, highlights what is, in her view, a critical flaw in the LLE: the unfair funding gap facing students on accelerated two-year degree programmes, despite their clear benefits for employability and skills development. You can read that piece here.

    And below, Dr. Michelle Morgan explores the gaps in the Government’s Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE), questioning why postgraduate taught courses have been left out and what this means for students, universities, and businesses.

    So the Government has announced that the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) will come into effect in September 2026.

    The government is arguing that the LLE will allow people to develop new skills and gain new qualifications at a time that is right for them. The LLE will focus on:

    • full courses at level 4 to 6, such as degrees, technical qualifications, and designated distance learning and online courses
    • modules of high-value technical courses at levels 4 to 5.

    It is argued that it will help drive sustained economic growth, break down barriers to opportunity broaden access to high-quality, flexible education and training, and support greater learner mobility between institutions.

    However, yet again the sector’s postgraduate taught (PGT) provision has been ignored. By excluding this level of study, the ambitions of the Government will not be as great as they could be, and it is a huge, missed opportunity for higher education and this is why.

    The first problem: Declining PGT participation of UK-domiciled students

    In the past 10 years, the higher education sector has increasingly relied on international master’s students to fund itself.  EU and non-EU PGT students are nearly all undertaking master’s degrees, whereas for UK-domiciled students, a master’s degree only constitutes around 55% of those on PGT courses. Taught courses include master’s, postgraduate certificates, diplomas, and institutional credits and postgraduate certificates in education.

    For Master’s participation, 2019/20 was a pivotal year as non-EU participation surpassed UK-domiciled for the first time. In each year since 2021/22, UK-domiciled Master’s enrolments have declined (see Table 1). Although we do not have Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) return data to view for 2022/23 and 2023/24, there is a strong sense across the sector that we will see a decline in master’s participation, especially among international students.

    Source: Who’s studying in HE? | HESA

    The decline is the same pattern that occurred leading up to 2010/11. The only reason why master’s participation continued to increase then was due to non-EU enrolments. The response by the Government to re-energise the UK-domiciled market after the Higher Funding Council for England’s (HEFCE, which was then the regulator) Phase 1 and 2 of the Postgraduate Support Scheme was to bring in the Postgraduate Loan. As soon as this happened, you could hear an audible sigh of relief across the sector, and there was an attitude of ‘that will solve the problem so let’s just focus on growing the master’s market’. The sector did not consider the demand for master’s qualifications by business and industry, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

    Employer demand for Master’s graduates

    There are disciplines where a master’s is required for career progression such as professional accreditation. However, as the 11 University Postgraduate Experience Project found, which was one of 20 projects funded as part of the HEFCE Phase 1 Postgraduate Support Scheme, many SMEs did not need master’s graduates. Most useful to them was for higher education to provide short courses and modules that provided their staff with advanced skills in key areas such as Business and IT and emerging ones such as Generative AI. According to the Department for Business and Trade’s report on Business population estimates for the UK and regions in 2024, there were 5.6 million UK businesses in 2024 of which 5.5 million were SMEs, accounting for 99.8% of all businesses. By ignoring the needs of business and industry, we are losing an opportunity to engage with a critical market.

    Funding and repayment

    As soon as the Postgraduate Loan was introduced, most universities immediately raised their fees. The aim of the £10,000 loan was to cover fees and some maintenance. Although the loan for September 2024 English starters is now £12,471, for many this will not come close to covering their costs. What is also not factored into any discussion is that someone who has both an undergraduate and a postgraduate loan must pay them back concurrently. This equates to 9% for the undergraduate loan and 6% for the postgraduate, or 15% of someone’s salary on top of tax, National Insurance and any other employee-related costs. Although employers’ national insurance contributions are increasing next year, if there is any tax or National Insurance increase for the individual next year, this will further reduce their disposable income.

    The Postgraduate Loan also differs between UK countries. In England, the loan does not cover stand-alone postgraduate certificates and diplomas, unlike in Scotland, where non-master’s postgraduate taught course participation is 56% compared to 44% in England. If they were included, then maybe the LLE as it stands would not be quite as restricted. The English loan system is not agile enough to support engagement in short or non-master’s courses, and English universities plan their finances for master’s enrolments and anticipated completions. A student should not have to register and enrol on a master’s if they only want or need to do a postgraduate certificate or diploma. If an individual needs a master’s for professional accreditation, this will not stop them from doing a master’s. In fact, we may see an increase in integrated degrees being undertaken where a master’s is incorporated into the undergraduate degree as a result.

    Additionally, we have just had the announcement that undergraduate loans are slightly increasing, but no announcement has been made for postgraduate loans. The current system hinders engagement. It also adopts a deficit model approach, as these qualifications are deemed exit qualifications if someone fails to achieve the Master’s.

    Ability to participate in master’s study

    What is also overlooked in discussions are the debt levels of undergraduate alumni and how this could explain the decreasing number of UK-domiciled 21-24-year-old participants. The majority of PGT enrolments are for the age group of 30 years and over.

    table visualization

    Source: Who’s studying in HE? | HESA

    When the Postgraduate Loan was introduced in 2016, only one cohort had graduated under the £9,000 a year fee regime introduced in 2012.  We now have 10 cohorts who graduated under that regime. It is maybe not a surprise therefore that the largest group investing in postgraduate taught study are those with the smallest amount of undergraduate debt.

    Last year, I got the results of a Freedom of Information request from the Student Loan Company regarding the debt levels for English-domiciled recipients entering postgraduate Master’s study in 2021/22 (see Figure 1). Of the 72,618, 74.8% had debt in excess of £40,000 and 11.9% over £70,000. This debt will include any repeated years as well as longer length undergraduate courses such as integrated degrees with placements. With the recent announcement that fee levels will rise by £285 to £9,535 in 2025/26, this will increase individual debt.

    Figure 1: Debt levels of 72,618 English-domiciled master’s students who also have an undergraduate loan (fee and maintenance) in 2021/22 only 

    The recent Times and Sunday Times showed how parental financial support differs by student groups and universities. The universities where parents pay the most – up to £30,000 – are mainly Russell Groups. And when you explore postgraduate taught participation by ethnicity,  66% are White. How will the factors highlighted above enable widening participation at the postgraduate level which delivers advanced skills, competencies and knowledge?

    We need a rethink

    The LLE that will be introduced will not super-proof the pipeline for longevity of postgraduate taught study nor provide the advanced skills that are accessible, meaningful and needed for the individual, society or business and industry.

    So we need to start thinking now about the long-term implications of student debt, and social and economic needs so we can develop policy, strategy and practice. To do this though, the sector needs to start thinking about how we can reimagine and do things differently, Government needs to listen to key stakeholders, and we must proactively work together and not against one another.

    Source link

  • Dismantle Of DEI, Mass Deportation (Breakfast Club Power 105.1)

    Dismantle Of DEI, Mass Deportation (Breakfast Club Power 105.1)







    Higher Education Inquirer : Thoughts On Trump Signing Executive Orders: Dismantle Of DEI, Mass Deportation (Breakfast Club Power 105.1)




    Source link

  • What is the antidote to ‘wage theft’ in universities? – Opinion

    What is the antidote to ‘wage theft’ in universities? – Opinion

    Australia’s universities are some of the most prestigious and highly-ranked in the OECD. Yet the sector is arguably in crisis.

    It narrowly escaped a potentially devastating hit to the $47.8 billion in annual revenue generated by international education, with proposed international students caps only just scuppered in parliament’s last sitting fortnight of the year. 

    But it is again being rocked by headlines around “wage theft” and millions of dollars wasted on consulting fees by some of our biggest universities.

    A damning report by the National Tertiary Education Union has labelled this a “crisis of governance” constituting “reckless spending’’ by “the overpaid executive class”.

    Ouch.

    Yet Australia’s education system is strong by global standards, ranking third globally, and is home to several prestigious universities that consistently rank among the best in the world. 

    It is unlikely that a sector built on advancing human potential has solely reached this point by maliciously setting out to hurt its own backbone – its faculty.

    Rather, systemic problems often indicate structural sectoral flaws, and ineffective means to address them. And Australia’s university system is not immune by any means.

    A legacy issue of systemic complexity

    We cannot know with certainty if there are indeed some bad actors in this story. Possibly.

    But what is undeniably evident are the range of sectoral factors contributing to the sector’s longstanding history of poor record-keeping, including the challenges posed by its complex workforce structure.

    Payroll compliance in universities is highly complex due to the combination of intricate awards, unique enterprise agreements, and a history of poor record-keeping. 

    For instance, universities rely heavily on casual staff, working under often-opaque arrangements. Compensable tasks such as marking essays or tutorial attendance are governed by intricate rules or piece-rate agreements, complicating the tracking of hours and payment. 

    These layers of complexity create incomplete and inaccurate timesheet data, making it nearly impossible for a human to verify when employees worked and whether they were paid correctly.  

    And so the resulting payroll errors aren’t just mistakes – they represent a systemic failing with devastating consequences all round. 

    Underpaid employees face reduced morale, a loss of trust in their employers, and financial stress that often disproportionately affects the most vulnerable. Menwhile, the underpaying universities risk potentially enormous fines and suffer from deep reputational damage, as has been demonstrated recently.

    Worse still, is the fact that attempts at resolving these issues are also failing, because they represent nothing more than curative and labour-intensive bandaid “solutions”.

    For instance, many universities, after spending millions on consultants to recalculate and backpay impacted employees, have now shifted to hiring large internal teams to manage ongoing compliance efforts. 

    These teams are tasked with monitoring timesheet accuracy, tracking errors, and managing ongoing remediation efforts, seemingly indefinitely, as if fixing this problem should somehow just be “business as usual”.

    Yet treatments should never be “business as usual”, because this is to accept that the problem will never be resolved. 

    Instead, systemic problems like this one require systemic solutions that assume eliminating the problem is indeed possible. 

    Fixing the system, not the symptoms

    For this to occur, Australia’s tertiary education sector must urgently stop outdated and cumbersome legacy practices and instead embrace preventative long-term solutions that rebuild trust, and support fair and accurate pay for all employees.

    In practice, this would involve the adoption of advanced compliance tools and technologies that enable payroll teams to efficiently and accurately monitor payroll end-to-end. This allows teams to rapidly identify errors before, not after, a pay run, and drastically reduce the need for constant manual interventions.

    Introducing independent oversight by risk and compliance teams will also help to reduce the risk of a “marking your own homework” approach by human resources and payroll teams, bringing a fresh perspective to compliance checks.

    Regular training to keep payroll and compliance teams up to date on changes in legislation, award conditions, and enterprise agreements are also a must in industries like education where payroll practices are complex and dynamic.

    And, finally, all of these processes should be consistent across all schools and faculties to avoid disparities and confusion, and reduce errors caused by varying practices.

    Any university with the courage to break from centuries of backwards-looking remediation practices and instead embrace a forward-looking, technology-based approach would not only demonstrate bold and refreshing leadership. 

    It would also help to create enormous goodwill for a sector in desperate need of positive news and, critically, potentially save millions in the process.

    Fred van er Tang is chief executive of payroll compliance technology company PaidRight.

    Read more:

    Source link

  • Innovative Research Universities’ pre-budget wishlist

    Innovative Research Universities’ pre-budget wishlist




    By: Erin Morley

    in Funding, Policy & Reform, Politics, Top Stories


    February 5, 2025

    Innovative Research Universities (IRU) has asked the federal government to invest in four key areas in the next budget, due March 25.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • QUT anti-semitism review leader announced, responds to parliamentary inquiry

    QUT anti-semitism review leader announced, responds to parliamentary inquiry

    Professor Margaret Sheil (right) speaks to the press. Picture: John Gass



    By: Erin Morley and NCA Newswire

    in News, Top Stories


    February 5, 2025

    The Queensland University of Technology has announced more details about its independent review into last month’s controversial National Symposium on Unifying Anti-Racist Research and Action event.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Job titles matter for inclusive and meaningful work

    Job titles matter for inclusive and meaningful work

    Job titles, and the names given to organisational roles, are important for the meaning that individuals derive from their work and their engagement with their work.

    Yet within many UK universities, and especially the post-92s, the trend is towards new job titles with potentially negative connotations for the job holders in terms of the meaning of their work and their commitment to it and to their institution.

    Such universities have been moving away from the conventional “lecturer” titles, adopting the US system of titles. US institutions typically designate their junior (un-tenured) academics as Assistant Professors, with an intermediate grade of Associate Professor and then a full Professor grade. Within the US system, most long serving and effective staff can expect to progress to full Professor by mid-career.

    Yet, in this new UK system, only around 15-20 per cent of academics are (and likely ever to be) full Professors and many academics will spend their entire careers as Assistant Professors or Associate Professors, retiring with one of these diminutive job titles.

    The previous, additive, job titles of Lecturer to Senior Lecturer and then to Principal Lecturer or Reader had meaning outside the university and, crucially, had meaning for the post-holders, giving a sense of achievement and pride as they progressed. Retiring as a Senior or Principal Lecturer was deemed more than acceptable.

    Status and self-esteem

    It is not hard to imagine the impact that the changes in job titles is having upon mid and late-career academics who may have little chance of gaining promotion to full professor, perhaps because quite simply they draw the line at working “just” 60 hours a week, 50 weeks a year. The impact on status and self-esteem is immense. Imagine explaining to your grandkids that you are, in essence, an assistant to a professor. As an Associate Professor, and particularly in a vocational discipline, one of the authors is often asked, “I can understand you wanting to work part-time for a university, but what’s your main job?” Associate, affiliate, adjunct – these names are pretty much the same thing to outsiders.

    Managerially, though, the change from designating academics as Senior Lecturer to Assistant Professors and from Principal Lecturers to Associate Professors is genius. These diminutive job titles confer inferiority – but with the promise that if you keep your nose to the grindstone and keep up the 60+ hour weeks, 50 weeks a year, you might be in with a chance of a decent job title, as a professor. What a fantastic, and completely friction-free, way of turning the performative screw.

    The UK university sector is not alone and other public sector organisations have similarly got into a meaning muddle from the naming of their jobs. For example, in the British civil service, a key middle management role is labelled “Grade B2+”, whereas a relatively junior operational role is designated a rather grand sounding “Executive Officer”. And just last autumn, the NHS acknowledged that names do matter, abandoning the designation of “junior” doctor which was used to encompass all medics that sit within the grades below what is known as “consultant”, and which their union described as “misleading and demeaning” – it’s been replaced with “resident” doctor.

    Meaningful work

    A name gives meaning to workers. It gives status, prestige, and identity. While those organisations such as universities who fail to realise the importance of job titles may be able to turn the screw in the short-term, extracting ever more work from their junior-sounding Assistant and Associate Professors, they will in the longer-term, for sure, have an ever more demoralised and demotivated workforce for whom the job has little meaning other than the pay.

    And, since pay for university academics in the UK has been so badly eroded in recent decades, job title conventions are a self-inflicted injury – one that risks academics’ engagement and wellbeing and, ultimately, their institutions’ performance.

    Source link

  • Why unified data and technology is critical to student experience and university success

    Why unified data and technology is critical to student experience and university success

    The Australian higher education sector continues to evolve rapidly, with hybrid learning,
    non-linear education, and the current skills shortage all shaping how universities operate.

    At the same time, universities are grappling with rising operational costs and decreased funding, leading to fierce competition for new enrolments.

    Amidst the dynamic landscape of higher education, the student experience has become a crucial factor in attracting and retaining students.

    The student experience encompasses a wide array of interactions, from how students first learn about an institution through to the enrolment process, coursework, social activities, wellbeing support and career connections. With so many student touchpoints to manage, institutions are turning to data and technology integrations to help streamline communications and improve their adaptability to change.

    Download the white paper: Why Unifying Data and Technology is Critical to the Success and Future of Universities

    Enhancing institutional efficiency and effectiveness
    Universities face an increasingly fragmented IT landscape, with siloed data and legacy systems making it difficult to support growth ambitions and improve student experiences.

    By integrating systems and data, institutions are starting to align digital and business strategies so that they can meet operational goals while providing more connected, seamless and personalised experiences for students.

    One of the most effective ways universities can achieve this is by consolidating disparate systems into a cloud-based Customer Relationship Management (CRM) solution, such as Salesforce.

    Optimising admissions and enhancing student engagement
    In recent years, there have been significant fluctuations in the enrolment of higher education students for numerous reasons – Covid-19 restrictions, declining domestic student numbers, high cost of living, proposed international student caps, and volatile labour market conditions being just a few.

    To better capture the attention of prospective students, institutions are now focusing on delivering more personalised and targeted engagement strategies. Integrated CRM and marketing automation is increasingly being used to attract more prospective students with tailored, well-timed communication.

    Universities are also using CRM tools to support student retention and minimise attrition. According to a Forrester study, students are 15 per cent more likely to stay with an institution when Salesforce is used to provide communications, learning resources and support services.

    Streamlining communication and collaboration
    By creating a centralised system of engagement, universities can not only support students throughout their academic journey, but also oversee their wellbeing.

    For example, a leading university in Sydney has developed a system that provides a comprehensive view of students and their needs, allowing for integrated and holistic support and transforming its incident reporting and case management.

    Fostering stronger alumni and industry relations
    Another area where CRM systems play a pivotal role is in building alumni and industry relationships. Alumni who feel valued by their university – through personalised engagement – are more likely to return when seeking upskilling, or to lend financial support.

    Personalising communication to industry partners can also help strengthen relationships, potentially leading to sponsored research, grants, and donations, as well as internships and career placements.

    University of Technology Sydney, for example, adopted a centralised data-led strategy for Corporate Relations to change how it works with strategic partners, significantly strengthening its partner network across the university.

    Unlocking the value of data and integration

    With unified data and digital technology driving personalised student interactions, university ICT departments can empower faculty and staff to exceed enrolment goals, foster lifelong student relationships and drive institutional growth.

    To learn more about the strategies and technologies to maximise institutional business value, download the white paper.

    Do you have an idea for a story?
    Email [email protected]

    Source link

  • Trump reiterates plan to abolish the Education Department

    Trump reiterates plan to abolish the Education Department

    Amid reports that the White House is finalizing an executive order to get rid of the Education Department, President Donald Trump said Tuesday that when he nominated Linda McMahon as secretary, he instructed her to “put herself out of a job.” 

    “Linda, I hope you do a great job and put yourself out of a job,” the president said to a group of reporters in the Oval Office.

    The comment was the first time Trump has publicly talked about his campaign promise to dissolve the department since taking office last month. Several media outlets reported Monday that the administration is preparing an executive order that would direct department officials to shut down some functions and develop a plan for the agency’s demise. The timing of such an order is still unclear.

    When asked Tuesday whether abolishing the department was something he could legally do, the president said, “I’d like to be able to do that.” He later added that “there are some people that think I could.” Many experts say that only Congress can kill off the federal agency.

    Trump said that the largest obstacle in the way of passing a bill to dissolve the department is teachers’ unions.

    “The teachers’ unions are the only ones that are opposed to it,” he said. “No one else would want to hold [us] back.”

    A recent Wall Street Journal poll found that 61 percent of registered voters oppose getting rid of the department. Numerous education lobbying groups, higher education experts and Democratic lawmakers have criticized the concept, saying that it would cause chaotic disruptions and make college hard to access for low-income students and those with disabilities.

    “Investment in our children is an investment in our future. Dismantling the Department of Education would do the opposite by making it harder for children to achieve and for parents, caregivers, and communities to thrive,” Senator Edward Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, said in a news release. “President Trump wants to lock the promise of public education—of equal opportunity and hope for all—behind an ivory tower accessible only to his billionaire donors … It is callous and cynical.” 

    Source link

  • Media outlets must not cave to Trump’s lawfare

    Media outlets must not cave to Trump’s lawfare

    What happens to freedom of the press when the president can bully media outlets he doesn’t like into paying big money to end his meritless lawsuits against them?   

    Buckle up. We’re about to find out.

    Per reports, Paramount Global — the parent company of CBS News — is in talks to settle a $10 billion dollar lawsuit President Donald Trump filed against the network last November shortly after the election. The president’s lawsuit claims “60 Minutes,” the network’s flagship news program, violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by editing an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris to make her more appealing to viewers.

    The suit is flatly without merit. For starters, editing interviews is standard journalistic practice. Just ask FOX News, which has edited its own interviews and coverage of the president to tighten up rambling answers. Those cuts are protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees the press broad freedom to make editorial decisions about the content they print or air. And laws like Texas’ are designed to prevent used car salesmen from passing off lemons to unsuspecting buyers, not to police journalism.

    That’s why CBS’ initial public statements about Trump’s suit rightly struck a defiant and principled tone. The network promised it would “vigorously defend” itself, correctly arguing Trump’s attempt to “punish” CBS for its editorial choices is “barred by the First Amendment.”

    So what happened? Why is CBS now reported to be capitulating? There are two reasons, neither of them good for our free and independent press: Money and power. 

    Trump’s lawsuit isn’t concerned with winning so much as imposing a financial and political cost on people that say things he doesn’t like.

    First, the money. Paramount Global hopes to merge with Skydance Media, a deal worth some $8 billion to heiress Shari Redstone, Paramount’s owner — but only if it’s approved by the Federal Communications Commission.

    That’s where the raw governmental power comes in. Brendan Carr, Trump’s pick to run the FCC, has made clear in public comments that the agency’s review of the merger will take into consideration Trump’s “news distortion complaint.” And in private, Carr reportedly warned Paramount that addressing Trump’s dissatisfaction was a precursor to approval. In other words: Nice little network you got there — be a shame if anything happened to it.

    This kind of pressure from government regulators — “jawboning” — is all the more objectionable when it’s aimed toward the personal benefit of the president. Rather than stand up for the journalists at CBS, Redstone appears to be playing ball, even handing over an unedited transcript to the FCC after refusing to do so for months.

    What is jawboning? And does it violate the First Amendment?

    Issue Pages

    Indirect government censorship is still government censorship — and it must be stopped.


    Read More

    That’s bad enough. But wait — there’s more.

    Our litigious president is fresh off settling his 2021 lawsuit against Meta, which alleged the company’s decision to ban Trump from Facebook after Jan. 6, 2021, violated his First Amendment rights. Like his suit against CBS, Trump’s class action suit was without merit; private social media companies have their own First Amendment right to run their platforms as they see fit. They are not government actors, as the district court dismissing the cases against social media companies easily concluded. Nevertheless, the company agreed this week to pay $25 million to end the appeal. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who attended the president’s inauguration, appears to have concluded that settling the suit was a small price to pay for political favor and access.

    Late last year, Trump also settled with ABC News for $15 million dollars, ending a defamation suit. That suit centered on a George Stephanopoulos interview with Rep. Nancy Mace during which Stephanopoulos mischaracterized the outcome of writer E. Jean Carroll’s successful sexual abuse and defamation claims against the former president. Stephanopoulos stated that Trump was “found liable for rape” and “defaming the victim of that rape,” when a jury had concluded Trump sexually abused Carroll — not that he raped her, as the term is narrowly defined in New York’s criminal code.

    Trump’s dictatorial appetite to use lawfare to silence or punish outlets that publish content he doesn’t like is most plainly on display in his ongoing suit against pollster J. Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register. 

    ABC’s case presented real challenges, but the network may have been able to mount a sturdy defense. The First Amendment provides news outlets significant breathing room when commenting on public figures like President Trump, as established in the Supreme Court’s landmark 1964 ruling New York Times v. Sullivan. While the jury specifically rejected finding Trump guilty of rape, the district court judge noted the “definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of ‘rape’ in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes, and elsewhere.”

    Per reports, however, the network ultimately chose to settle what might have proven to be a challenging case rather than risk Trump’s ire — or provide the current Supreme Court a potential opportunity to weaken Sullivan’s broad protections. After all, the plaintiff has been loud and clear about his desire to “open up” American libel law. 

    Trump’s dictatorial appetite to use lawfare to silence or punish outlets that publish content he doesn’t like is most plainly on display in his ongoing suit against pollster J. Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register. 

    FIRE’s defense of pollster J. Ann Selzer against Donald Trump’s lawsuit is First Amendment 101

    News

    A polling miss isn’t ‘consumer fraud’ or ‘election interference’ — it’s just a prediction and is protected by the First Amendment.


    Read More

    Selzer, hailed for decades by political observers as the dean of Iowa polling, conducted an early November poll published by The Register giving Harris a three-point lead in the Hawkeye State. Despite correctly forecasting Trump’s Iowa victories in 2016 and 2020, Selzer’s polling missed the mark this cycle. But Trump wasn’t content to take the win, choosing instead to file a claim against her under Iowa’s Consumer Fraud Act. 

    FIRE represents Selzer against the president’s bogus claim. Americans have a First Amendment right to make political predictions, and newspapers have a First Amendment right to publish them. But Trump’s lawsuit isn’t concerned with winning so much as imposing a financial and political cost on people that say things he doesn’t like. That’s un-American.

    Elections have consequences, it’s true. But silence cannot be one of them. We must protect our free press against meritless lawsuits and the coercive power of the federal government — lest we miss it when it’s gone.

    Source link