Blog

  • VICTORY: FIRE lawsuit leads California to halt law penalizing reporters, advocates, and victims who discuss publicly known information about sealed arrest records

    VICTORY: FIRE lawsuit leads California to halt law penalizing reporters, advocates, and victims who discuss publicly known information about sealed arrest records

    SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 19, 2024 — A federal court, acting on a stipulation agreed to by the California attorney general and San Francisco city attorney, today halted enforcement of a California law that officials deployed to suppress journalism about a controversial tech CEO’s sealed arrest records. 

    Under the law, any person — including journalists, advocates, witnesses, and victims of crimes — faced a civil penalty of up to $2,500 for sharing public information. The court order results from a First Amendment lawsuit filed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression in November, which led the California attorney general and San Francisco city attorney to agree not to enforce the law while the lawsuit is pending.

    “The press and public have a constitutional right to discuss what’s publicly known,” said FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh. “Government officials can’t punish the press and public when officials fail to safeguard information. That responsibility starts and ends with the government.”

    In October 2023, journalist Jack Poulson published articles about a controversial tech CEO’s arrest, sharing a copy of the arrest report sent to him by an unidentified source. The San Francisco Police Department had previously made that report public, even though the executive had successfully petitioned a state court to seal the record. 

    Almost a year after Poulson published the report, the city attorney of San Francisco — working with the tech executive — sent three letters to Poulson and his webhost, Substack, demanding they remove articles and the sealed report. Those letters threatened enforcement of California’s anti-dissemination statute, Penal Code § 851.92(c). The law imposes a civil penalty of up to $2,500 on any person (except the government officials charged with maintaining the secrecy of sealed records) who shares a sealed arrest report or any information “relating to” the report — even if the information is already publicly available.

    Concerned by the implications of the statute, FIRE sued the San Francisco city attorney and the California attorney general on behalf of the Bay Area-based First Amendment Coalition, its Director of Advocacy Ginny LaRoe, and legal commentator Eugene Volokh. Each regularly comments on censorship campaigns precisely like the one the tech CEO and city attorney launched against Paulson and Substack. But the anti-dissemination statute prohibited them from covering the CEO story, even though the information has been publicly available for over a year.

    Today, the court entered a preliminary injunction agreed to by both California and the city attorney that prohibits them from enforcing the law with respect to publicly available information. 

    The preliminary injunction protects not only FAC and Volokh, but anyone — including journalists like Poulson — who publishes information made available to the public. 

    “Discussing and sharing lawfully obtained information about arrests is not a crime — it’s a core First Amendment right,” said FIRE Staff Attorney Zach Silver. “The rich and powerful shouldn’t have the luxury of deploying the government to put their skeletons back in the closet. By standing up for their own rights, the First Amendment Coalition and Eugene Volokh have helped to protect others from facing legal action under California’s anti-dissemination law.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT:

    Jack Whitten, Communications Campaign Specialist, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

    Source link

  • How Community Colleges Can Simplify the Student Enrollment Process

    How Community Colleges Can Simplify the Student Enrollment Process

    Key Takeaways:

    • Community colleges play a vital role in addressing enrollment barriers, offering tailored support to first-generation and working students.
    • Proactive strategies, such as early communication, community outreach, and wraparound services like food assistance and mental health support, help students navigate challenges and stay engaged.
    • Leveraging technology like CRM systems and AI tools simplifies the student enrollment process and enhances conversion rates.
    • Measuring success through metrics such as conversion rates, re-enrollment, and first-semester engagement lets colleges refine their strategies and better support student persistence and retention.

    The enrollment journey at community colleges can be far from straightforward, as many students face barriers beyond academics—from concerns over affordability to balancing family and work responsibilities and navigating financial aid. For example, nearly 75% of public two-year college students work while enrolled, including 46% working full time, and two-thirds of people enrolled in community colleges are first-generation students, who often do not receive the guidance and support that other students might receive from within their support systems.

    Community colleges are uniquely positioned to open doors for these students who might otherwise never step foot into higher education. By breaking down enrollment barriers, fostering early communication, and utilizing technology, community colleges can create an enrollment experience that meets students where they are. In turn, they can build pathways that lead to success, one student at a time.

    Identifying Enrollment Barriers

    For students new to the world of higher education, the student enrollment process can feel daunting. While community colleges are open-access institutions, this does not always translate to an easy path. Many students come from communities where attending college is not the norm, and some face resistance from family members or struggle with time constraints due to family responsibilities. Financial aid is also a common sticking point. Some students worry about taking on debt, while others have families unwilling to fill out the FAFSA due to privacy concerns, which adds to the complexity of obtaining financial assistance.

    Community colleges that proactively identify these barriers can uncover solutions tailored to each student’s situation. For instance, understanding the unique financial, familial, or community pressures facing students can inform how colleges offer support. Identifying opportunities to become more transparent, such as having standardized institutional aid packages that allow students to see how much aid they would receive, exemplifies this shift toward recognizing and removing institutional barriers. By locating obstacles early, colleges can guide students more effectively throughout the enrollment process, keeping them on track and engaged.

    Strategies for Eliminating Barriers in the Student Enrollment Process

    Addressing these challenges often requires creative solutions that reach beyond academic support. A critical strategy lies in educating students—and, when possible, their communities—on the value of a college education. Many students find themselves questioning the worth of a degree, particularly in communities where traditional college education may be seen as unnecessary. To address this, some colleges have begun integrating community outreach programs that outline the tangible benefits of a college education, from career advancement to personal growth. Tracking college enrollment trends also offers insight into where additional guidance might be needed, ensuring that community colleges can adapt and refine their programs.

    Community colleges can better aid students by offering wraparound services, such as food assistance, mental health counseling, transportation services, and financial literacy courses. Food insecurity, for example, is a widespread problem affecting 23% of community college students. Liaison’s IMPACT Grant, which champions initiatives such as on-campus food pantries, is an excellent example of how colleges can tackle this barrier head-on. By promoting awareness of available resources, colleges make sure students know where to find the support they need, allowing them to focus on their studies rather than their next meal or car troubles.

    Free community college programs, now offered in 36 states, also alleviate the financial strain of pursuing a credential by removing student debt as a barrier to entry. As more colleges promote these programs, the cost of higher education becomes less intimidating, particularly for first-generation and low-income students who might otherwise forgo college due to cost concerns.

    The Critical Role of Early Communication

    Community colleges often enter the higher education conversation with prospective students later than four-year institutions, missing critical opportunities to provide guidance. While some universities engage students as early as their freshman year of high school, community colleges might not start outreach until a student’s senior year. This timing can make a significant difference: earlier communication lets students weigh all their options without feeling pressured by high tuition at traditional four-year colleges. It also opens up time to explore scholarships, grants, and other options.

    Reaching students sooner can reduce enrollment anxiety, allowing them to explore programs that align with their financial needs and career goals. By actively promoting programs and resources through social media, local events, and high school partnerships, community colleges can position themselves as accessible, affordable, and valuable options for higher education.

    Leveraging Technology to Support Enrollment Journeys

    Innovative technology, such as CRM systems and AI-driven tools, plays a transformative role in simplifying the enrollment process. Liaison’s TargetX and Outcomes CRMs, for example, provide tailored platforms for managing student engagement and application processing. With tools for omnichannel marketing, application management, and progress tracking, these platforms allow students to communicate with advisors and gain clear guidance throughout the admissions process. As a result, institutions are able to improve conversion rates and enroll more best-fit students.

    AI-powered chatbots, now integrated into these CRMs, also assist students in navigating questions and concerns in real-time. This technology offers immediate, practical support that keeps students on track toward enrollment and reduces logistical barriers.

    Measuring Enrollment Success

    To understand the impact of their enrollment strategies, community colleges must look at specific metrics that reflect student progress and satisfaction. Identifying conversion rates at each enrollment stage offers insight into where students might drop off and allows administrators to refine support systems accordingly. Once students are on campus, tracking their first-semester engagement—particularly through the crucial first four weeks—can highlight early challenges and help colleges design interventions to boost retention as well as persistence after the first year.

    Examining re-enrollment rates from semester to semester is another key indicator of success. Demonstrating steady improvements in these areas reflects well on the effectiveness of a school’s holistic support and technology. Such data can also indicate how effectively institutions are offsetting the rate of community college enrollment decline, a pressing issue for those seeking to sustain their missions.

    Community colleges serve as the best opportunity to access higher education for many students. By removing enrollment barriers, actively communicating early and often, and leveraging technology to simplify the admissions process, community colleges can create pathways that lead students to fulfilling educational journeys. The more colleges embrace these strategies, the more efficient and successful the enrollment journey becomes for all students, leading to an increasingly inclusive and accessible higher education landscape.

    Liaison is committed to helping community colleges streamline admissions and improve student outcomes. Contact us today to learn more about our products and services.


    Source link

  • O holy fight: New Hampshire Satanic Temple statue threatened by more than vandals

    O holy fight: New Hampshire Satanic Temple statue threatened by more than vandals

    It’s the holiday season, when the lights are blinking, the bells are ringing, and families are lining up to see festive displays of the demon-god Baphomet in the town square. 

    But this year, citizens in Concord, New Hampshire, might not get to enjoy all the holiday cheer after vandals decapitated the Baphomet display set up by the Satanic Temple. In fact, the display has proven so controversial that city officials promised to review the display policy next year.

    Concord’s government would do well to remember that any rules about expressive displays in public spaces must be viewpoint-neutral, meaning the Satanic Temple has the same right to put up a holiday display as any other group. 

    Protecting the Satanic Temple’s right to speak also protects the expressive rights of Christians — and Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and everyone else. 

    ‘Happy Hellidays!’ from the Satanic Temple

    So what happened? 

    Concord’s City Plaza is open for unattended displays by private groups during the holiday season. In early December, the Satanic Temple — which describes itself as a religious organization with a mission to “encourage benevolence and empathy among all people, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense, oppose injustice, and undertake noble pursuits” — put up a statue of the goat-headed deity Baphomet in Concord’s City Plaza, under a permit granted by the city. 

    Baphomet’s temporary neighbors included a nativity scene placed by a rural civic group and a Bill of Rights display put up by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. But just days after the Satanic Temple’s statue went up, it was vandalized — its goat head knocked off, its robed torso severed from its legs, and its tablet bearing the tenets of the Satanic Temple smashed to pieces. Police are investigating the vandalism, but the destroyed statue was taken down.

    Then, earlier this week, a new statue went up, this time accompanied by a copy of the permit allowing its placement. In less than 48 hours, that statue, too, was destroyed. The police identified a suspect and said charges are forthcoming. That’s the proper response to vandalism of lawful displays: arrest and prosecute the vandals — don’t impose a “heckler’s veto” by censoring expression that provokes public hostility.

    Social media post by WMUR reporter Ross Ketschke before the Satanic Temple’s statue of Baphomet was vandalized a second time in Concord, New Hampshire. (@RossWMUR / X.com)

    City officials decry Satanic holiday display, promise review next year

    But Baphomet’s future — and the First Amendment rights of citizens and groups to put up such displays — is threatened by more than just vandals in Concord. 

    Baphomet found his way to the city, because Concord created a public forum, where the government’s authority to restrict expression is strictly limited. Concord can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on expressive activity there, including permit requirements for temporary installations, but viewpoint-based restrictions are unconstitutional.

    You can’t allow one group to put up a nativity display but ban the Satanic Temple from putting up Baphomet. The same constitutional principles that protect the Baphomet statue also protect the civic group’s right to put up its nativity scene in the very same plaza. 

    Although we don’t yet know if the Satanic Temple and its supporters will put up a third Baphomet statue this year, FIRE commends Concord officials for approving the display in the first place, in line with their constitutional obligations.

    For example, in 2017, Boston officials told Harold Shurtleff that he couldn’t raise a Christian flag during his event on City Hall Plaza, although the city regularly allowed other outside groups to fly flags of their choosing during events. Shurtleff sued the city, and in 2022, the Supreme Court weighed in and agreed the city violated Shurtleff’s First Amendment rights. 

    The city’s initial decision to grant the Satanic Temple a permit for the Baphomet display recognized its First Amendment obligations. In a Facebook post, the city explained, “Under the First Amendment and to avoid litigation, the City needed to choose whether to ban all holiday displays installed by other groups, or otherwise, to allow it. After reviewing its legal options, the City ultimately decided to continue the policy of allowing unattended displays at City Plaza during this holiday season and to allow the statue.”

    However, some city officials were unhappy with the decision. Notably, Concord Mayor Byron Champlin opposed the permit, explicitly saying he would have preferred to risk a lawsuit rather than grant the permit “because I believe the request was made not in the interest of promoting religious equity but in order to drive an anti-religious agenda.” 

    Even as city officials explained why they had to approve the Satanic Temple’s request, they also said they planned to review the permit policy for unattended displays next year. 

    That left FIRE concerned that Concord may engage in viewpoint discrimination and deny applications in the future. So, we’re calling on city officials to reaffirm their commitment to their constitutional obligations. 

    As FIRE’s letter to the city explains:

    Concord may not restrict displays simply because, in its view, they reflect an antagonistic or divisive ideology or perspective. Even if — in fact, especially if — the Satanic Temple put up the display, as Mayor Champlin believes, “in order to drive an anti-religious agenda” or as a “calculated political effort,” rather than to promote “religious equity,” the government may not disfavor “anti-religious” speech. The fact that Concord, or some of those through whom it acts, may believe a display is “a deliberately provocative and disturbing effigy” does not make it any less constitutionally protected, as “[g]iving offense is a viewpoint.”

    The letter also highlights a recent Texas case involving holiday displays put up by private groups. In that case, Texas’ governor had the Texas State Preservation Board take down a previously-approved “Bill of Rights nativity” display in which cutouts of several Founding Fathers stood over a Bill of Rights in a manger. This decision violated the Constitution, and years of litigation ensued. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ultimately stated that it was “not seriously disputed . . . that the Board’s removal of the exhibit violated the First Amendment.” And the suit ultimately cost Texas and Texans almost $360,000. 

    Concord officials should take note of that Texas case when deciding whether to “accept the risk” of a lawsuit by engaging in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Although we don’t yet know if the Satanic Temple and its supporters will put up a third Baphomet statue this year, FIRE commends Concord officials for approving the display in the first place, in line with their constitutional obligations.

    Given the controversy surrounding the display, FIRE calls on Concord to affirm that it will continue to fulfill those obligations. After all, handing over the authority to restrict minority viewpoints sets a dangerous precedent.

    Source link

  • OfS approves renaming of UCLan and University of Bolton

    OfS approves renaming of UCLan and University of Bolton

    In two separate hearings published on December 19, the OfS granted approval for the University of Bolton to be renamed the University of Greater Manchester, and for the University of Central Lancaster (UCLan) to become the University of Lancashire.  

    The regulator permitted Bolton becoming the University of Greater Manchester despite objections from the University of Manchester that the change would be “very confusing and misleading”. Manchester Metropolitan University and the University of Salford also objected to the name change.  

    In a consultation on UCLan’s rebranding to the University of Lancashire, 90% of the 1,812 respondents said that the new name could be “confusing or misleading”, given that the existing Lancaster University carries the same official title.  

    During the ruling, the regulator considered the name change could be particularly confusing for international students “less familiar with contextual information” but concluded that it was “unlikely to lead to any material harm or detriment”. 

    The consultations in Bolton also garnered widespread opposition to the rebrand, with 64% of respondents saying the name change could cause confusion.  

    The OfS recognised that both instances could be confusing “for particular groups of stakeholders, including for example those for whom English is not their first language or who have difficulties in distinguishing or processing information”. 

    However, it concluded that “the range of contextual information that students use when applying to study” would help to prevent material harm arising from such confusion.   

    The name change is very good news for our students, very good news for the institution, very good news for the town and amazing news for jobs

    Professor George Holmes, University of Greater Manchester

    In both cases, the OfS ruled that its duties to protect the “institutional autonomy” of providers and “encourage competition” between universities weighted in favour of consenting to both new names.  

    In Bolton, the proposals to change the university’s name sparked backlash from local politicians and members of the public, with a motion put to Bolton Council in 2023 calling on the university to rethink the name change.  

    Announcing the news on December 19, vice chancellor Professor George Holmes told a group of staff members that he was “delighted” to announce the change.  

    “The name change is very good news for our students, very good news for the institution, very good news for the town and amazing news for jobs,” said Holmes, adding that it was “an important accolade to have the University of Greater Manchester based in Bolton”.  

    Professor Graham Baldwin, UCLan vice chancellor, also welcomed his institution’s new title, saying that it would “better reflect our regional economic importance and aid continuing efforts to raise brand awareness further afield. 

    “Locally the acronym UCLan was widely used but for many outside the region they didn’t know it was the title of a university nor where it was located,” said Baldwin.

    On December 2, 2024 the OfS announced it was temporarily pausing the registration of new institutions, as well as suspending applications for an institution to change its name “where it already holds university title”. Applications already submitted would be completed, it said.  

    Source link

  • Poor Harvard Numbers Show Impact of SCOTUS Affirmative Action Ruling

    Poor Harvard Numbers Show Impact of SCOTUS Affirmative Action Ruling

    No one feels like confirming nor denying how affirmative action’s death is destroying a sense of inclusion in higher ed.Emil Guillermo

    But make no mistake, the destruction is under way. 

    Harvard College sent out letters to its early admits, but hasn’t disclosed what the demographics are yet for this year. Waiting until all the admits are sent out in the Spring buys them time to make excuses. But Harvard Law has issued its numbers and the alarm bells should be going off. There were just 19 first year Black students, 3.4 percent of the Harvard Law school class, according to data from the American Bar Association, as reported by the New York Times. It’s the lowest number since the 1960s, a period when affirmative action and civil rights was much more in vogue. 

    Woke wasn’t considered a disease back then. People were interested in fighting racist segregation. Inclusion and diversity weren’t institutionalized notions back then. They were the values we hoped would take us out of the darkness. But compare this years 19 Harvard Law admits with the 43 admits from the previous year, and you see the wounds have been reopened. David Wilkins, a Harvard Law professor who has kept tabs on these matters told the Times it was related to the Supreme Court ruling, and its “chilling effect.”

    Since the 60s, the numbers have been around 50-70 a year. And then came this year’s 19. Hispanic students were also lower at 39, 6.9 percent of the class versus 63 students or 11 percent of the class in 2023.

    The big winners in the admissions at Harvard Law? Whites and Asian American students, the latter, the principal plaintiffs in the suit before the court last year.

    Now that we have diminished the game to numbers, the numbers don’t lie. When you can’t address the need of inclusion directly, we leave it up to chance. 

    This year at Harvard Law was not a good year. Harvard miscalculated by not settling with the anti-affirmative action SFAA front and going to court. But that allowed for a right-wing Supreme Court to set the precedent for all schools not just Harvard. Anti-affirmative action advocates will try to put a positive spin on the low numbers, saying it’s not as low as it sounds. They’ll talk about different recording standards set by the A.B.A. There’s also the issue of multi-race students, and those who decline to state. 

    But secretly opponents of affirmative action are gleeful. They got their way. Their court. And last November their president, elected by voters who believe that educational attainment, not race nor class, is the new dividing line in America. The less education the better. Who needs affirmative action?  Let that sink in academia.

    Consider the Harvard Law School numbers the first of many signs to come that will let us know just how fast we are an America in reverse.

    Emil Guillermo is a journalist, commentator, and former adjunct professor. 

     

    Source link

  • FIRE to Congress: More work needed to protect free speech on college campuses

    FIRE to Congress: More work needed to protect free speech on college campuses

    What is the state of free speech on college campuses? More students now support shouting down speakers. Several institutions faced external pressure from government entities to punish constitutionally protected speech. And the number of “red light” institutions — those with policies that significantly restrict free speech — rose for the second year in a row, reversing a 15-year trend of decreasing percentages of red light schools, according to FIRE research.

    These are just a few of the concerns shared by FIRE’s Lead Counsel for Government Affairs Tyler Coward, who joined lawmakers, alumni groups, students, and stakeholders last week in a discussion on the importance of improving freedom of expression on campus.

    Rep. Greg Murphy led the roundtable, along with Rep. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and Rep. Burgess Owens. 

    But the picture on campus isn’t all bad news. Tyler highlighted some positive developments, including: an increase in “green light” institutions — schools with written policies that do not seriously threaten student expression — along with commitments to institutional neutrality, and “more and more institutions are voluntarily abandoning their requirements that faculty and students submit so-called DEI statements for admission, application, promotion, and tenure review.”

    Tyler noted the passage of the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act in the House. The bill requires public institutions of higher education to “ensure their free speech policies align with Supreme Court precedent that protects students’ rights — regardless of their ideology or viewpoint.” Furthermore, crucial Title IX litigation has resulted in the Biden rules being enjoined in 26 states due to concerns over due process and free speech.

    Lastly, Tyler highlighted areas of concern drawn from FIRE’s surveys of students and faculty on campus, including the impact of student encampment protests on free expression on college campuses.


    WATCH VIDEO: FIRE Lead Counsel for Government Affairs Tyler Coward delivers remarks at Rep. Greg Murphy’s 4th Annual Campus Free Speech Roundtable on Dec. 11, 2024.

    Students across the political spectrum are facing backlash or threats of censorship for voicing their opinions. Jasmyn Jordan, an undergraduate student at University of Iowa and the National Chairwoman of Young Americans for Freedom, shared personal experiences of censorship YAF members have faced on campus due to their political beliefs. Gabby Dankanich, also from YAF, provided additional examples, including the Clovis Community College case. At Clovis, the administration ordered the removal of flyers YAF students posted citing a policy against “inappropriate or offensive language or themes.” (FIRE helped secure a permanent injunction on behalf of the students. Additionally, Clovis’s community college district will have to pay the students a total of $330,000 in damages and attorney’s fees.)  

    VICTORY: California college that censored conservative students must pay $330,000, adopt new speech-protective policy, and train staff

    Press Release

    Federal court orders Clovis and three other community colleges to stop discriminating against student-group speech based on viewpoint.


    Read More

    Conservative students aren’t the only ones facing challenges in expressing their ideas on campus. Kenny Xu, executive director of Davidsonians for Free Speech and Discourse, emphasized that free speech is not a partisan issue. Citing FIRE data, he noted that 70% of students feel at least somewhat uncomfortable publicly disagreeing with a professor in class. “I can assure you that 70% of students are not conservatives,” he remarked. Kyle Beltramini from the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, reinforced this point. Sharing findings from ACTA’s own research, he emphasized that “this is not a problem faced by a single group of students but rather an experience shared across the ideological spectrum.”

    The roundtable identified faculty as a critical part of the solution, though they acknowledged faculty members often fear speaking up. FIRE’s recent survey of over 6,000 faculty across 55 U.S. colleges and universities supports this claim. According to the results, “35% of faculty say they recently toned down their writing for fear of controversy, compared to 9% who said the same during the McCarthy era.”

    While this data underscores the challenges faculty face, it also points to a broader issue within higher education. Institutions, Tyler said, have a dual obligation to “ensure that speech rights are protected” and that “students remain free from harassment based on a protected characteristic.” Institutions did not get this balance right this year. But, ACTA’s Kyle Beltramini noted the positive development that these longstanding issues have finally migrated into the public consciousness: “By and large, policy makers and the public have been unaware of the vast censorial machines that colleges and universities have been building up to police free speech, enforce censorship, and maintain ideological hegemony in the name of protecting and supporting their students,” he stated. This moment presents an opportunity to provide constructive feedback to institutions to hopefully address these shortcomings.

    FIRE thanks Rep. Murphy for the opportunity to contribute to this vital conversation. We remain committed to working with legislators who share our dedication to fostering a society that values free inquiry and expression.

    Alumni are also speaking up, and at the roundtable they shared their perspectives on promoting free speech and intellectual diversity in higher education. Among them was Tom Neale, UVA alumnus and president of The Jefferson Council and the Alumni Free Speech Alliance, who highlighted the importance of connecting with alumni from institutions like Cornell, Davidson, and Princeton, since they’re “all united by their common goal to restore true intellectual diversity and civil discourse in American higher-ed.”

    Other participants at the roundtable included members of Speech First, and Princetonians for Free Speech. 

    So what can be done? Participants proposed several solutions, including passing legislation that prohibits the use of political litmus tests in college admissions, hiring, and promotion decisions. They also suggested integrating First Amendment education into student orientation programs to ensure incoming undergraduates understand their rights and responsibilities on campus. Additionally, they emphasized the importance of developing programs that teach students how to engage constructively in disagreements — rather than resorting to censorship — and to promote curiosity, dissent, talking across lines of difference, and an overall culture of free expression on campus. 

    FIRE thanks Rep. Murphy for the opportunity to contribute to this vital conversation. We remain committed to working with legislators who share our dedication to fostering a society that values free inquiry and expression.

    You can watch the roundtable on Rep. Murphy’s YouTube channel.

    Source link

  • College faculty are more likely to self-censor now than at the height of McCarthyism

    College faculty are more likely to self-censor now than at the height of McCarthyism

    For a number of faculty members, the threat of censorship is so pervasive on campuses across America that not even the cloak of anonymity is enough to make them feel safe expressing their ideas.

    This year, FIRE surveyed 6,269 faculty members at 55 major colleges and universities for “Silence in the Classroom: The 2024 FIRE Faculty Survey Report,” the largest faculty free speech survey ever performed.

    What we found shocked even us here at FIRE. A deeply entrenched atmosphere of silence and fear is endemic across higher education. 

    We found that self-censorship on US campuses is currently four times worse than it was at the height of the McCarthy era. Today, 35% of faculty say they have toned down their written work for fear of causing controversy. In a major survey conducted in 1954, the height of McCarthyism, by the sociologists Paul Lazarsfeld and Wagner Thielens, only 9% of social scientists said the same. 

    Front page of The Michigan Daily newspaper on May 13, 1954.

    In fact, the problem is so bad that some academics were afraid even to respond to our already anonymous survey for fear of retaliation. Some asked us by email, or in their free response replies, to keep certain details they shared private. Some asked us to direct all correspondence to a private personal email. Others reached out beforehand just to confirm the results would truly be anonymous. Still others simply refused to speak at all.

    For some, the danger is clear and concrete. As one professor wrote, “I am not at liberty to even share anonymously for fear of retribution.”

    For others, it’s more nebulous, but the fear is no less real. 

    “I almost avoided filling out the survey for fear of losing my job somehow‚” one professor told us, adding that they “waited about two weeks before getting the courage to take the risk.”

    It is totally unacceptable that this is a reality on today’s campuses.

    For what I’m paid to teach the courses that I do, it’s just not enough to outweigh the risk of potential public excoriation for wrong-think and its personal and professional impact on myself, my family, and my business.

    We at FIRE even had to devise additional ways of disguising academics and their schools so others could not “out” them using their responses, including by describing certain schools in general terms such as “a flagship state university in the south.” As one professor remarked, “The fact that I’m worried about even filling out polls where my opinions are anonymous is an indication that we, as institutions and as society, have lost the thread concerning ideas.” This person isn’t wrong.

    So the next time you’re talking politics with friends or having dinner conversation, remember this fact — four times as many faculty are scared to speak candidly than at the height  of McCarthyism!

    FIRE SURVEY: Only 20% of university faculty say a conservative would fit in well in their department

    Press Release

    A third of faculty say they self-censor their written work, nearly four times the number of social scientists who said the same in 1954 at the height of McCarthyism.


    Read More

    Few other university issues — arguably, few other issues in America, period — matter more. The exchange of ideas and information is the entire reason universities exist. As the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” For more than a third of faculty, that ending has already begun. 

    Consider this final heartbreaking message from an educator who told us they felt the urge to self-censor on the survey even though it was anonymous. 

    “I had already decided that this year will be the last one I teach at the university,” they reflected. “For what I’m paid to teach the courses that I do, it’s just not enough to outweigh the risk of potential public excoriation for wrong-think and its personal and professional impact on myself, my family, and my business.”

    Read the full report and learn more about the full extent of what the climate of higher ed is doing to faculty’s search for truth in higher education today.

    Source link

  • Q&A with Vanessa Walker – The Cengage Blog

    Q&A with Vanessa Walker – The Cengage Blog

    Reading Time: 5 minutes

    We recently had the opportunity to talk with Vanessa Walker, new co-author of “Major Problems in American History, Volume I,” 5th edition. In this Q&A, Professor Walker discusses her background, why she’s thrilled to be a part of the “Major Problems” series and what sets this text apart from the crowd.

    Tell us a little bit about yourself and your background. 

    I am the Gordon Levin Associate Professor of Diplomatic History at Amherst College where I teach classes on US foreign relations, politics, social movements and the history and politics of human rights. I became interested in these topics as an undergraduate student at Whitman College, where I wrote my thesis on Carter’s human rights policy, a subject that became my dissertation topic at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I published my first book, “Principles in Power: Latin America and the Politics of US Human Rights Diplomacy” with Cornell University Press in 2020, and have written several articles on the Carter administration’s foreign policy and the role of nongovernment activists in influencing high level diplomacy. I live in Western Massachusetts with my husband, who is also a historian, and our two kids. I love to spend a lot of time outdoors hiking, skiing and swimming in lakes, especially in Vermont.

    Why were you excited to join the Major Problems in American History series as a co-author?

    I was excited to join the “Major Problems” series because I have used these volumes in the classroom, both as a student and as an instructor. As a student, I remember using them in my college history courses, relying on the competing perspectives in classroom debates, and combing through the documents and essays when writing my papers. When I began teaching, I turned to them again as a way to introduce my students to the ways historians think, and to help me curate and frame the core themes and ideas I wanted to integrate into my class. These volumes reflect the way I approach my teaching and learning, so I was excited to shape that for another generation of students and faculty.

    History encompasses such a vast array of topics. In what ways does your textbook offer something truly unique and differentiating to the field?

    I think one of the distinctive features of “Major Problems in American History” is in its name. Rather than synthesizing debates and interpretations, or offering a consensus position on a topic, this edition highlights the scholarly conversation and raw materials that comprise the fabric of producing historical knowledge. The text does not attempt to be comprehensive. Instead, by focusing on core debates within the field, it allows students to develop their own interpretations, and for teachers to challenge dominant or singular narratives and perspectives on complex topics and issues.

    Given the ever-evolving nature of history, how does your textbook discuss the complexities of current events and modern issues to remain relevant and impactful for students, and what are they?

    This edition engages with the creation of modern America. By studying its foundations and evolution, students unavoidably confront how many of the issues and debates we think of as contemporary problems have much deeper roots. The study of history is inherently one that involves change over time. Highlighting themes of gender, race, economic security and democratic inclusion, this volume invites students to consider major inflection points and persistent dynamics that have defined the modern United States.

    How do you see this textbook deepening students’ understanding of history and fostering a more active engagement with its core concepts?

    “Major Problems in American History,” by design, demands that students move away from the idea that history is the practice of memorizing names and dates. This text instead involves them in the process of integrating and prioritizing competing interpretations and arguments. Each chapter invites students to explore how different figures viewed critical moments and ideas, and really think about the assumptions and experiences that might give rise to divergent interpretations.

    With learners from diverse academic backgrounds, how does Major Problems in American History accommodate both those majoring in history and those encountering it through general education?

    Interpretation of sources—both primary and secondary—depends on a basic knowledge to frame and contextualize the issues at play. To support students regardless of their expertise, we have expanded the introductory essays to each chapter. We also provide a timeline for each chapter, highlighting key events and relevant dates. Additionally, we situate the secondary sources within broader themes and scholarly debates central to the chapter’s topic. These elements, together, empower students to explore primary and secondary sources, so they can become aware of their broader settings and the important dynamics at play.

    What do you hope instructors will take away from this textbook that will enhance their teaching?

    With this edition, we’ve given more focus to the idea of one or two “major problems” to shape the conversations around each chapter’s historical moment or theme. We hope this will provide instructors with the ability to go deeper into crucial topics, while also bringing in their own areas of expertise to broaden out the themes and ideas highlighted in each chapter. We’ve also included more primary sources that capture voices outside of government, which are often harder to find. Additionally, we’ve also increased the number of images to provide greater diversity of primary source materials.

    Lastly, what do you hope is the most significant takeaway students will carry with them after using your textbook?

    I hope that students will come away with an awareness that history, fundamentally, is about the ability to take in and explore different peoples’ perspectives, which might be radically different than their own. I believe that exercising critical thinking about the past can shed new light on assumptions and biases attached to current problems and issues. I believe that grappling with debates presented in the text will help students develop the skills and awareness necessary to apply these same approaches beyond their study of history. Additionally, I hope it will allow them to productively engage those who hold fundamentally different opinions, and use that as a foundation for pursuing their interests outside of the classroom.

     

    Vanessa Walker is the Gordon Levin Associate Professor of Diplomatic History at Amherst College, where she teaches classes on U.S. politics, foreign relations and human rights. She received her B.A. from Whitman College and her M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is the author of “Principles in Power: Latin America and the Politics of U.S. Human Rights Diplomacy” (Cornell University Press, 2020), and co-author of “Major Problems in American History, Volume I” 5e. She is currently working on a project exploring U.S. domestic human rights campaign as a response to the decline of the liberal state in the 1970s.

     

    Interested in learning more about “Major Problems in American History”? Explore this new edition for your history course.

     

    Source link

  • Bridging borders in knowledge: the internationalisation of Chinese social sciences

    Bridging borders in knowledge: the internationalisation of Chinese social sciences

    by Márton Demeter, Manuel Goyanes, Gergő Háló and Xin Xu

    The dynamics of Chinese social sciences are shifting rapidly. As policies aim to balance domestic priorities with global integration, the interplay between China’s academic output and its international reception highlights critical challenges and opportunities. In a recent study published in Policy Reviews in Higher Education, we analyzed 8,962 publications by the top 500 most productive China-affiliated scholars in Economics, Education, and Political Science between 2016 and 2020.

    Uneven impacts across disciplines

    Our analysis reveals that most Chinese-authored works in these disciplines are published in Western-edited journals. Political Science publications often focus on China-specific topics, creating what may be interpreted as intellectual silos.

    By contrast, Economics stands out for its significant global impact, with Chinese scholars’ publications frequently outpacing the citation rates of their Western peers. Meanwhile, Education and Political Science publications from China generally attract fewer citations compared to those from the U.S., U.K., and Germany.

    Why does Economics perform so well? The field’s emphasis on data-driven, globally relevant research – addressing topics like economic policy, market dynamics, and financial crises – positions it effectively within international discourse. Substantial funding and resources further strengthen Economics’ visibility and impact.

    In contrast, Education often highlights region-specific practices that may resonate less with a global audience, while Political Science is constrained by political sensitivities and limited opportunities for broad international collaboration.

    Patterns of collaboration

    Collaboration offers another perspective of Chinese academia’s strengths and limitations. Scholars in Economics and Education often engage in diverse partnerships, with strong connections to both Western and Asian institutions. In contrast, Political Science remains more insular, with most co-authorships occurring within mainland China. This inward focus may restrict the field’s integration into global academic conversations.

    At an institutional level, hybrid collaborations – combining domestic and international partnerships – highlight China’s strategic approach to bridging local and global aspirations. However, the predominance of Western collaborators, particularly from the United States, underscores a continued reliance on established academic hubs.

    The duality of “siloed internationalisation”

    A significant finding of our study is the duality evident in Political Science research: while these publications often appear in international journals, their focus on China-specific issues reflects a form of “scientific nationalism”. This approach limits their global engagement, confining them to niche scholarly communities rather than positioning them as contributors to broader, international dialogues.

    The “international in format but national in essence” approach underscores a broader challenge for Chinese academia. It must navigate the tension between adhering to global visibility standards while championing non-Western perspectives and priorities.

    Policy and practical implications

    Our findings also carry critical implications for policymakers, institutions, and global academic networks. For China, fostering more diverse collaborations – beyond traditional Western partners – can reduce overreliance on dominant paradigms and contribute to a more equitable global knowledge production system. Initiatives with an emphasis on partnerships with Asia-Pacific, Africa, and Eastern Europe, could play a key role in reshaping these dynamics.

    We believe that, for the global academic community, greater inclusivity requires deliberate efforts to decenter Western paradigms. Platforms that ensure equitable participation and strategies to protect collaborations from geopolitical tensions are vital for sustaining open and impactful scientific exchange.

    Looking forward

    The field of Economics exemplifies how targeted investment and international integration can amplify visibility and impact. To replicate this success in Education and Political Science, expanding international collaboration and addressing thematic silos are essential. At the same time, global academic networks must also embrace diverse perspectives to ensure that voices from regions like China enrich rather than merely adapt to dominant discourses.

    Importantly, in an era of geopolitical uncertainty, research can serve as a vital conduit for mutual understanding and collaboration. By prioritising equitable partnerships and sustaining global dialogue, we can work toward a more inclusive and, therefore, more resilient academic ecosystem.

    Our study offers practical guidance for addressing the challenges of internationalization in Chinese social sciences, providing valuable tools for scholars, institutions, and policymakers working to advance global knowledge production.

    For more details, explore our full paper:

    Demeter, M, Goyanes, M. Háló, G and Xu, X (2024) ‘The Internationalisation of Chinese Social Sciences Research: Publication, Collaboration, and Citation Patterns in Economics, Education, and Political Science’ https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2024.2438240.

    Márton Demeter is a Full Professor at the University of Public Service, Budapest at the Department of Social Communication, and he is the Head of Department for Science Strategy. He has extensively published on academic knowledge production in communication studies and beyond.

    Manuel Goyanes serves as Associate Professor of Research Methods at Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. His interdisciplinary work revolves around theoretically designing, and empirically testing, cutting-edge quantitative and qualitative methodological procedures to scientifically address challenging aspects of social science inquiry 

    Gergő Háló, an assistant professor at the National University of Public Service Budapest, specialises in socio-critical studies of geopolitical and gender inequalities in science, academic performance, research assessment frameworks, and higher education policies.

    Xin Xu is a Departmental Lecturer in Higher/Tertiary Education at the Department of Education, University of Oxford, and the deputy director of the Centre for Skills, Knowledge, and Organisational Performance (SKOPE). Her research focuses on tertiary education and the research on research.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • What does Christmas shopping have to do with higher education?

    What does Christmas shopping have to do with higher education?

    For the time being, John Cater is the longest-serving Vice-Chancellor in UK higher education, having held his current post for approaching 32 years. He hands over the reins at Edge Hill University at the end of January 2025. In the blog below he finds parallels between what is happening in the high street and in the university sector…

    This week Mark Allen, the Chief Executive of Land Securities, announced that his company had paid £490m for a 92% stake in Liverpool One, the shopping centre. In quotes, he explained that the top one per cent of UK retail shopping destinations provide access to 30 per cent of all in-store retail spend, “which is why we continue to see brands focus on fewer but bigger and better stores in the best locations”.

    You may well ask, ‘What has this to do with higher education?’ First, there is a tangential link, in that Mark Allen is a former Chief Executive of Unite Students, the sector’s largest housing provider and a company that has, indeed, sought to maximise access to student residential spend and in the ‘best’ locations, typically cities with universities that are part of the perceptual elite.

    But are we seeing this in higher education too? Any graph of higher education participation since the removal of the student number cap in 2015 has seen an increasing bifurcation between high-tariff institutions and, initially, low and, more recently, mid-tariff institutions. If you’re in the latter categories and you look at the 2024 intake data, the new cohort is in the sector, just not, in all probability, in your institution.

    So, are we seeing Land Securities’ retail revolution, a race to the best locations, a clear focus of demand, in higher education? A decade of ‘spending’ decisions by each new intake, their friends, families and schools and colleges – ‘where do I go to draw down my loan?’ – says so. The UCAS 2024 End of Cycle data, as ever ably summarised by David Kernohan for Wonkhe, makes it clear that “higher tariff providers have been fishing in deeper waters”, with both lower tariff offers and a more flexible approach to clearing. And this is clearly understood by those making ‘purchasing’ decisions, with the exponential growth of self-release highlighting (perceived) trading-up.

    With no constraints on an institution’s numbers, this trend appears inexorable, whilst a constraint on numbers would constitute a significant reduction in choice. There may be a middle road, a managed market, with limitations on the pace of growth, possibly determined by discipline, but the howls of protest would reverberate, particularly in elements of the media, constituency postbags and selective schools. And, whilst the Department for Education has indicated that it is no longer using Russell Group entries as a measure of a school’s success, the Treasury has yet to mirror that action.

    The crunch is coming. With very few exceptions, university sustainability depends on two variables, number and price. The failure to secure, at least to date, a five-year index-linked settlement has curtailed price, and, with it, investment and forward planning. And a broadly static market, with no signs of an increase in all-age participation, is reflected in curtailed demand and fewer numbers.

    From 2030 the age cohort declines by one-sixth. Demand for traditional higher education is broadly static and increasingly differentiated by tariff. Innovation, be it Lifelong Learning or apprenticeships, has yet to grip the market.

    In retail investment has headed in two directions, niche providers in up-market ‘village’ style communities, whilst the big city retail brands, such as those in Liverpool One, acquire floor space and greater market penetration. Quoted companies pay nine figure sums for a piece of the big city pie, whilst non-niche players, the poor, the periphery, the ‘red wall’ towns, suffer.

    Is this relevant to higher education? I believe so. Demand for higher education is broadly static and increasingly concentrated in a smaller number of providers. In-migration is severely constrained and the number of UK-resident eighteen-year-olds is heading towards a cliff edge.

    I have written previously on the possible shape of higher education in the coming decade. Trifurcation: a three-way split. A perceptual elite offering three-year away from home residential degrees. Sub-regional providers closely tied to further education, anchor institutions in their communities. And, a (re-) emergence of global online players in the education marketplace, with strong brands and an almost uncapped resource; providers with the capacity, largely unfettered, to shape opinions and behaviours on whim.

    Source link