Blog

  • SCOTUS decision safeguards schools’ E-rate discounts

    SCOTUS decision safeguards schools’ E-rate discounts

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday unanimously ruled that reimbursement requests filed with the federal E-rate program, which subsidizes internet access for schools and libraries, qualify as claims under the False Claims Act, allowing a whistleblower suit to proceed against a telecommunications company.

    Whistleblower Todd Heath alleged in 2008 that telecommunications provider Wisconsin Bell overcharged schools and libraries by not offering them discounted rates required under the E-rate program and submitting reimbursement requests for higher amounts than E-rate should have paid. The False Claims Act allows civilians to bring lawsuits against companies on behalf of the government when federal money is at stake.

    E-rate is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Co. under the direction of the Federal Communications Commission. Wisconsin Bell argued that because the Universal Service Administrative Co. is a private, nonprofit corporation and program money comes from fees collected by service providers, its reimbursement requests didn’t qualify as claims under the False Claims Act.

    Under that law, a request for money qualifies as a claim if the government “provides or has provided any portion of the money or property requested or demanded.” Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, rejected Wisconsin Bell’s arguments because the government provided part of the funds that schools and libraries applied for.

    “In the years in which those requests were made, the Government transferred more than $100 million from the Treasury into the pool of funds used to pay E-Rate subsidies,” Kagan wrote. “That is enough to create a ‘claim’ under the Act, and to allow a suit alleging fraud to go forward.”

    Wisconsin Bell’s argument that the $100 million was entirely from fees collected by carriers also overlooked the government’s role in delivering that money to the program, Kagan wrote, stating that the government was not a “passive throughway” for those funds.

    The Supreme Court sent Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Todd Heath back to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for its whistleblower claims to proceed.

    The Schools, Health and Libraries Broadband Coalition hailed the ruling as helping to strengthen enforcement measures and safeguard broadband funding.

    “This decision is a win for schools and libraries who rely on the E-rate program for essential broadband services,” said John Windhausen, the coalition’s executive director, in a statement. “By clarifying the applicability of the False Claims Act to E-rate reimbursements, the Court helps ensure that schools and libraries are able to obtain prices that are no higher than the rates charged to similarly situated customers. This ruling helps improve the efficiency of the Universal Service Fund and the E-Rate program.”

    Attorney Allyson Ho, who represented Wisconsin Bell in the case, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The narrow scope of the ruling, however, makes it difficult to forecast how the justices might rule on another pending E-rate matter this term. In a case consolidated from two pre-existing ones — FCC v. Consumers’ Research and Schools, Health and Libraries Broadband Coalition v. Consumers’ Research — the program’s future could be decided as the court determines the constitutionality of the funding mechanism for the FCC’s Universal Service Fund, which is overseen by USAC.

    “The court was very clear in its emphasis that it has no opinion on issues regarding the constitutionality of the universal fund and of USAC’s role that it will decide in that upcoming Consumers case,” said Noelle Ellerson Ng, associate executive director of advocacy and governance for AASA, The School Superintendents Association. 

    Source link

  • Students Explore STEM with Engineers

    Students Explore STEM with Engineers

    Middletown, PA – Phoenix Contact engineers head back into the classroom this week to teach sixth-grade science class at Middletown Area Middle School in Middletown, Pa. The classes are part of Phoenix Contact’s National Engineers Week celebration.

    Phoenix Contact has worked with the school every February since 2007. The engineers lead hands-on lessons that make science fun. The goal is to inspire young people to consider careers in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM).

    The lessons include:

    • Building catapults
    • Racing cookie tins down ramps
    • Building an electric motor
    • Learning about static electricity with the Van de Graaff generator

    “Our engineering team created this outreach program many years ago, and the partnership with Middletown Area School District has stood the test of time,” said Patty Marrero, interim vice president of human relations at Phoenix Contact. “National Engineers Week is a special time for them to share their passion for technology with students. It’s also our chance to thank our engineers for the creativity and innovations that drive our company forward.”

    About Phoenix Contact

    Phoenix Contact is a global market leader based in Germany. Since 1923, Phoenix Contact has created products to connect, distribute, and control power and data flows. Our products are found in nearly all industrial settings, but we have a strong focus on the energy, infrastructure, process, factory automation, and e-mobility markets. Sustainability and responsibility guide every action we take, and we’re proud to work with our customers to empower a smart and sustainable world for future generations. Our global network includes 22,000 employees in 100+ countries. Phoenix Contact USA has headquarters near Harrisburg, Pa., and employs more than 1,100 people across the U.S.

    For more information about Phoenix Contact or its products, visit www.phoenixcontact.com, call technical service at 800-322-3225, or email [email protected].

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link

  • The FTC is overstepping its authority — and threatening free speech online

    The FTC is overstepping its authority — and threatening free speech online

    Federal Trade Commission Chair Andrew Ferguson reached out to followers on X yesterday asking for “public submissions from anyone who has been a victim of tech censorship (banning, demonetization, shadow banning, etc.), from employees of tech platforms.” His post was accompanied by a press release from the FTC and a forum for comments on their website, both making the same requests. 

    This outreach is being conducted, according to Ferguson, “to better understand how technology platforms deny or degrade users’ access to services based on the content of their speech or affiliations, and how this conduct may have violated the law.”

    In reality, the chair is angling to label editorial decisions he doesn’t like “unfair or deceptive trade practices.” But consumer protection law is no talisman against the First Amendment, and the FTC has no power here.

    The simplified formulation of Ferguson’s argument is this: If social media platforms are not adhering to their content policies, or “consistent” (whatever that means) in their enforcement, they are engaging in “false advertising” that harms consumers.

    Calling something censorship doesn’t make it so, and framing content moderation as “unfair or deceptive trade practices” does not magically sidestep the First Amendment. 

    Now, it is true that the FTC can generally act against deceptive marketing. That’s because pure commercial speech — that is, speech which does no more than propose a commercial transaction — possesses “a lesser protection” under the First Amendment than other forms of protected speech. And commercial speech that is false or misleading receives no First Amendment protection at all. But when speech — even in a commercial context — expresses opinions about social policy, government power over that speech gives way to the First Amendment.

    Content policies and moderation decisions made by private social media platforms are inherently subjective editorial judgments. In the vast majority of cases, they convey opinions on social policy as well as what expression they find desirable in their communities. Attempts to control or punish those editorial judgments violate the First Amendment.

    The Supreme Court recently made clear that these subjective decisions enjoy broad First Amendment protection. In Moody v. NetChoice, the Court rebuffed direct attempts by Texas and Florida to regulate content moderation decisions to remediate allegedly “biased” enforcement of platform rules:

    The interest Texas asserts is in changing the balance of speech on the major platforms’ feeds, so that messages now excluded will be included. To describe that interest, the State borrows language from this Court’s First Amendment cases, maintaining that it is preventing “viewpoint discrimination.” Brief for Texas 19; see supra, at 26–27. But the Court uses that language to say what governments cannot do: They cannot prohibit private actors from expressing certain views. When Texas uses that language, it is to say what private actors cannot do: They cannot decide for themselves what views to convey. The innocent-sounding phrase does not redeem the prohibited goal. The reason Texas is regulating the content-moderation policies that the major platforms use for their feeds is to change the speech that will be displayed there. Texas does not like the way those platforms are selecting and moderating content, and wants them to create a different expressive product, communicating different values and priorities. But under the First Amendment, that is a preference Texas may not impose.

    This is no less true when the government attempts to regulate through the backdoor of “consumer protection.”

    To illustrate the problem: Imagine a claim that platforms are engaging in unfair trade practices by removing some “hate speech,” but not speech that aligns with a certain view. What constitutes “hate speech” is entirely subjective. For the FTC to assess whether a “hate speech” policy has been applied “consistently” (or at all), they would have to supplant the platform’s subjective judgment with the government’s own “official” definition of “hate speech” — which, as you can probably already guess, will likely not be the same as anyone else’s. 

    And this illustration is not the product of wild imagination. In fact, FIRE is litigating this very question before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit right now. In Volokh v. James, FIRE is challenging a New York law requiring social media platforms to develop and publish policies for responding to “hateful conduct” and to provide a mechanism for users to complain about the same. Our motion for a preliminary injunction, which the district court granted, argued that the First Amendment prohibits the government from substituting its judgments about what expression should be permitted for a platform’s own:

    Labeling speech as “hateful” requires an inherently subjective judgment, as does determining whether speech serves to “vilify, humiliate, or incite violence.” The Online Hate Speech Act’s definition is inescapably subjective—one site’s reasoned criticism is another’s “vilification”; one site’s parody is another’s “humiliation”—and New York cannot compel social media networks to adopt it. . . . The definition of “hateful,” and the understanding of what speech is “vilifying,” “humiliating,” or “incites violence,” will vary from person to person . . .

    The First Amendment empowers citizens to make these value judgments themselves, because speech that some might consider “hateful” appears in a wide variety of comedy, art, journalism, historical documentation, and commentary on matters of public concern. 

    Ferguson and the FTC’s actions are particularly egregious given the fact that it has been made perfectly — and repeatedly — clear in the past that these kinds of editorial decisions are outside of their authority.

    LAWSUIT: New York can’t target protected online speech by calling it ‘hateful conduct’

    Press Release

    Today, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression sued New York Attorney General Letitia James, challenging a new state law that forces websites and apps to address online speech that someone, somewhere finds humiliating or vilifying.


    Read More

    In 2004, the political advocacy groups MoveOn and Common Cause asked the FTC to act against Fox News’ use of the “Fair and Balanced” slogan, arguing that it was false and misleading. Then-FTC Chair Tim Muris appropriately replied, “There is no way to evaluate this petition without evaluating the content of the news at issue. That is a task the First Amendment leaves to the American people, not a government agency.”

    In 2020, the nonprofit advocacy group Prager University argued in a lawsuit that YouTube violated its free speech rights by restricting access to some of its videos and limiting its advertising. They claimed that as a result, the platform’s statements that “everyone deserves to have a voice” and “people should be able to speak freely” constituted deceptive marketing. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected this claim, holding that the platform’s statements are “impervious to being quantifiable” and, as a result, were non-actionable.

    The bottom line is this: Calling something censorship doesn’t make it so, and framing content moderation as “unfair or deceptive trade practices” does not magically sidestep the First Amendment. And as always, beware — authority claimed while one is in power will still exist when one is not.

    Source link

  • US Attorney Ed Martin’s bully tactics have no place in America

    US Attorney Ed Martin’s bully tactics have no place in America

    As the federal government’s chief prosecutors, United States attorneys wield significant power. The Constitution charges them with using that power to ensure “that the laws be faithfully executed.” And as any reasonable federal prosecutor would know, the First Amendment bars them from abusing their power to intimidate government critics.

    But one U.S. Attorney, Edward R. Martin Jr., doesn’t seem to have gotten the Constitution’s message or taken his oath seriously. Instead, Martin has emphasized political grandstanding and chilling dissent. Even though he’s been in office for only a few weeks, he’s unleashed the power of his office to go after speakers critical of Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk, and Supreme Court justices. And more troublingly, Martin has threatened to “chase” those critics “to the ends of the Earth,” sending a clear message: Shut up, or else. 

    So FIRE is here to remind Ed Martin — and any other prosecutor thinking about following Martin’s lead — that threatening government critics is not only inexcusable, it’s unconstitutional.

    Let’s start with a fundamental principle: Criticizing the government is not a crime. It’s free speech. And the First Amendment fiercely protects it. In fact, the First Amendment protects a lot of sharp-edged political rhetoric. That’s true whether you’re an elected official, a college student or faculty member, or just somebody posting on social media. 

    Of course, the First Amendment doesn’t protect true threats. But there’s a narrow legal definition of true threats, per the Supreme Court: statements intended “to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” Only if speech meets that exacting standard — and the speaker knew or ignored a real risk their statement would be “viewed as threatening violence” — can prosecutors like Martin target it. If not, it’s protected by the First Amendment.

    No reasonable listener could conclude Garcia was donning brass knuckles and seriously expressing, over CNN’s airwaves, an intent to beat up Elon Musk.

    Above all, in no case does an American’s protected speech turn into a “threat” just because a prosecutor disagrees with it, doesn’t find it funny, or dislikes his political pals being criticized. Any other outcome would empower the government to intimidate or jail political opponents simply by labeling dissent a “threat.” Those authoritarian tactics call to mind places like China and North Korea, but they have no place in the United States of America. 

    That’s why two weeks ago, FIRE joined a letter to Martin penned by the Freedom of the Press Foundation and Demand Progress. We expressed concern over posts by Martin on the social media platform X that appeared to promise prosecution against DOGE critics. As the letter pointed out: “Threatening to file frivolous charges against Americans and vaguely insinuating that wide swaths of constitutionally-protected speech and activity could invite criminal investigations and prosecutions” defies both the First Amendment and Martin’s professional and ethical obligations.

    Rather than heed that letter, Martin has doubled down. Yesterday, he opened a federal investigation targeting two members of Congress — part of what Martin dubs “Operation Whirlwind” — for past public statements that Martin claims threatened fellow government officials. But none of the statements come close to an unprotected true threat.

    Martin’s inquiry into Sen. Charles Schumer of New York reportedly centers on a March 2020 remark the Democratic minority leader made at an abortion rights rally outside the Supreme Court: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” (Schumer’s remarks are the namesake of Martin’s “Operation Whirlwind.”)

    And Martin’s office is investigating Rep. Robert Garcia of California for a comment the Democratic congressman made last week during a CNN interview about Elon Musk. Garcia, who posted the letter he received from Martin on X, said: “What the American public wants is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight. This is an actual fight for democracy.”

    It’s not a close call: Neither statement meets the definition of a true threat. Each is core political speech, fully protected by the First Amendment.

    Far from free speech savior, Elon Musk increasingly looks like a false prophet 

    News

    Twitter suspended the accounts of numerous journalists who Twitter owner Elon Musk accused of doxing him and his family.


    Read More

    Schumer’s remark is plain old political hyperbole. Sure, saying justices will “pay the price” and “won’t know what hit them” as a result of their decisions might be described by some as intemperate. The statement drew criticism from other members of Congress, and even condemnation from the bench: Chief Justice John Roberts chastised Schumer for the tenor of his remarks, and Schumer in turn apologized. But in no way was it “a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals,” let alone grounds for a federal investigation, nearly five years after the fact.

    The First Amendment also protects Garcia’s political rhetoric — and again, it’s not a close call. Garcia’s comparison of the current political moment to a “bar fight,” requiring “actual weapons” for “an actual fight for democracy,” is plainly metaphorical, not literal. This is especially clear from the context of Garcia’s remarks, made during a CNN interview about politics. No reasonable listener could conclude Garcia was donning brass knuckles and seriously expressing, over CNN’s airwaves, an intent to beat up Elon Musk.

    Simply put, there’s nothing to investigate.

    Neither Schumer’s nor Garcia’s remarks are true threats. If they really were actionable threats, our nation’s capital would be a far different place. From the top down, Washington is chock-full of politicians using charged language, allusions to fighting, and sometimes even explicit invitations to drop the gloves. That’s how it’s been since the beginning, as Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson would confirm.

    If Martin really wanted to prioritize officials’ safety, he’s got plenty of actual work to do. He could start with the real bomb threats, death threats, and swatting attacks federal lawmakers and officials have reported receiving over the past year. Instead, he’s targeting standard-issue political rhetoric from partisans on the other side of the aisle.

    It’s bad enough when a dean of students distorts the line between protected speech and true threats. But a federal prosecutor? That’s indefensible — and dangerous to a free society.

    That all leaves one conclusion. Martin’s “Operation Whirlwind” is a political stunt — and a dangerously unconstitutional one, threatening to blow a chilling wind across our nation’s political debate. Government investigations that target plainly protected expression violate the First Amendment. And any reasonable government official, especially a federal prosecutor, would know as much.

    To be sure, Martin’s not the first prosecutor to target protected political speech in recent months. Last November, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes launched an investigation into then-candidate Donald Trump’s sharp-but-protected comments about former Rep. Liz Cheney. Mayes was as wrong to do so then as Martin is now.

    “Whatever one might think of Trump’s rhetoric here, it’s not a true threat,” wrote FIRE’s Aaron Terr at the time. “It’s constitutionally protected political speech.” The partisan coordinates may have flipped, but the same conclusion holds.

    Other government officials have followed the same playbook. For instance, FIRE could fill a book with examples of campus administrators shutting down plainly protected student and faculty speech by claiming it was somehow “threatening.”

    Take student Hayden Barnes, expelled for a Facebook collage criticizing his university’s plan to spend $30 million on a new parking garage. Or Austin Tong, barred from campus for his anti-communist Instagram post commemorating the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. FIRE has defended faculty members disciplined for “threats” for caustic but protected criticism of both President Trump and Black Lives Matter protesters. We’ve even seen students and faculty punished for obvious jokes and political satire. The list goes on and on.

    Here’s the bottom line: When government officials cynically mislabel protected speech as a “threat” to silence speech with which they disagree, it’s classic censorship that the First Amendment forbids. It’s bad enough when a dean of students distorts the line between protected speech and true threats. But a federal prosecutor? That’s indefensible — and dangerous to a free society.

    Source link

  • EY and Microsoft equip the next generation with AI skills

    EY and Microsoft equip the next generation with AI skills

    The EY organization and Microsoft announced this month the launch of the AI Skills Passport (AISP), which assists students aged 16 and older in learning about artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, and how to work with and apply them to various industries and careers. This free online program is part of an ongoing social impact collaboration focused on supporting young people and those furthest from opportunity to build the AI skills necessary to thrive in today’s AI economy.

    According to Randstad research, demand for AI skills in job postings has surged by 2,000%. However, a recent EY and TeachAI survey, with support from Microsoft, found that only 15% of Gen Z respondents feel fully satisfied with how their schools or employers are preparing them for the implications of AI and the use of AI tools. The AISP aims to bridge this gap by equipping learners with essential AI skills for the modern workplace, with a goal of upskilling one million individuals.

    The free online learning program is accessible on web and mobile platforms and participants can take the 10-hour course at their own pace to learn about key topics such as the fundamentals of AI, ethical considerations and its applications across business, sustainability and technology careers. By completing the course, participants will receive an EY and Microsoft certificate of completion to strengthen resumes and gain access to additional learning and employment resources.

    The EY organization and Microsoft have now successfully activated the course in the United States, United Kingdom, India, Italy, Greece, Belgium, S. Africa, Ireland, Switzerland, Cyprus, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Sweden, China and India. Expansion plans are underway to roll out to additional countries through 2025 — and to translate to five languages.

    Together, the EY organization and Microsoft have collaborated on a multitude of programs to help empower job seekers and impact entrepreneurs with the skills needed for an AI-driven future, furthering the EY Ripples ambition to impact one billion lives by 2030.

    Other high-impact EY and Microsoft social programs include:

    • Microsoft Entrepreneurship for Positive Impact: This Microsoft program provides support to innovative tech-first entrepreneurs who are addressing our world’s most pressing challenges. The EY organization and Microsoft run a series of Skills Labs to support more than 100 entrepreneurs to date on key growth challenges identified, such as investment strategies, financial planning, environmental, social and governance (ESG) strategy and business resilience.
    • EY and Microsoft Green Skills Passport: A program aimed to help learners aged 16 and over develop skills to find green jobs and pursue opportunities in the growing green economy. To date, more than 46,000 learners have completed this free course and are on their way to a green skills career.
    • Future Skills Workshops (FSW): An EY offering to upskill young or underserved groups equipping them with knowledge to help them navigate a changing world. The “All about AI” module is the newest module and will be launched across Latin America through in-person delivery with the EY organization, Microsoft and Trust for Americas.

    Gillian Hinde, EY Global Corporate Responsibility Leader, says:

    “The EY and Microsoft collaboration is a powerful example of how organizations can come together to help drive meaningful social change and help shape the future with confidence. The AI Skills Passport program aims to equip young people and underserved communities with the AI experience needed to thrive in today’s digital age, while also sharing the skills necessary for tomorrow.”  

    Kate Behncken, Global Head of Microsoft Philanthropies, says:

    “Through this new initiative with EY, we’re helping young people build the AI skills they need to succeed in the evolving AI economy. By bridging the gap between education and employability, we’re creating opportunities for the next generation to contribute, innovate, and thrive in the new AI economy.”

    Learn more about the EY-Microsoft AI Skills Passport here.

    Kevin Hogan
    Latest posts by Kevin Hogan (see all)

    Source link

  • ‘Free text box’ concern for UK agent-on-CAS protocol

    ‘Free text box’ concern for UK agent-on-CAS protocol

    The British Universities International Liaison Association (BUILA) has expressed concerns that the UKVI’s intention to introduce a new mandatory requirement to add agent details to the CAS will be undermined by inconsistency.

    Representing 144 institutions, BUILA has insisted that the proposed listing of agents on the CAS evidence form should be done by selecting from a drop-down list or combo box.

    A formal list of certified agents who have engaged with the national Agent Quality Framework training modules already exists and could be utilised to this effect.

    In advance of this new CAS requirement, BUILA members are also preparing a sector-wide database of contracted agents, where information on vetting and compliance issues can be shared among international directors to improve standards.   

    The UKVI, however, has reportedly told stakeholders that a standardised list of agents in a drop-down box format will not possible due to technical system limitations.

    The PIE News has contacted UKVI for clarification.

    In the past, the government has been criticised for its poor data infrastructure relating to visa applicant data, with many universities turning to private sector solutions such as the Enroly platform to improve data quality.

    The use of free-text form fields to capture information can greatly increase the variation of responses captured, making consistent reporting difficult. This issue already persists with naming protocols for international qualifications and language tests across the sector.

    The use of free-text form fields to capture information can greatly increase the variation of responses captured

    Recording agent names will be further complicated by variations in trading names for different global territories, along with the frequent use of subcontracted agents and franchises.

    The current expectation from UKVI is that universities will manually write the name of the contracted agent in the new field as it appears on their official service agreements.

    As such, this may be different to the name that a student might associate with having contracted application services from.

    Andrew Bird, chair of BUILA, speaking to concerned agents at the QA Higher Education conference said that it was still “unclear” why the government is collecting agent data or what the information will be used for.

    The news comes as the Labour government starts to release more information on policies relating to immigration. The use and monitoring of agents in the UK higher education was raised by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) in its review of the Graduate Route in 2024, with these new measures forming part of a direct response to those concerns.

    Recording agent names on CAS evidence will be tested later in Spring 2025, before becoming a mandatory requirement in the summer during the peak visa application period.

    Professor Brian Bell, chair of MAC, will be speaking at The PIE Live Europe, March 11-12 2025, alongside a town hall session from BUILA, where this issue will be discussed further. Tickets are still available for sector professionals wishing to participate.

    Source link

  • A ‘Dear Colleague’ Letter in Defense of DEI, by Shaun Harper

    A ‘Dear Colleague’ Letter in Defense of DEI, by Shaun Harper

    Dear Colleague:

    The U.S. Department of Education’s Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights issued a “Dear Colleague” letter last week that overflowed with misrepresentations of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in our nation’s educational institutions. The threat of losing federal funding has understandably spooked many of you. It is clear to others and me that inciting such fear, as opposed to actually holding institutions accountable for doing right by students and employees whom racial discrimination most persistently harm, was the aim of the Department’s letter.

    I am writing to publicly furnish guidance that I have privately offered to principals, superintendents, college and university presidents, education governing board members, and journalists over the past seven days. But before doing so, I start with a question that I posed in this Forbes article more than a year ago: “What sense does it make to know something is a lie and to have examples of what’s actually true, yet deliberately hide those truths for fear of what liars might do?” Much of what was conveyed in the Department’s letter was largely untrue—at best based on anecdotes, not on credible evidence systematically collected from surveys of students and employees, or from rigorous analyses of discrimination reports disaggregated by race.

    To be sure, persons (no matter how small in number) who experience discrimination, harassment, abuse, and other forms of injustice deserve protections and remedies from their educational institutions and the federal government. But the Department’s letter insists that it is white and Asian students who are most on the receiving end of these experiences. A corpus of evidence published over five decades makes irrefutably clear that Asian American, Black, Indigenous, Latino, and multiracial students and employees most often experience racism on campuses. Paradoxically, the Department’s letter calls for the elimination of policies, offices, programs, and activities that aim to address those historical and contemporary norms. This is guaranteed to result in more discrimination, harassment and abuse. In addition, racialized opportunity and outcomes disparities that disadvantage people of color will widen and new racial inequities will emerge.

    Here are 11 actions I recommend for higher education institutions that are truly committed to anti-discrimination and anti-racism:

    1. Maintain mission fidelity: Many college and university mission statements have long included language about fostering inclusive learning environments, preparing students for citizenship and work in a diverse democracy, and other values that qualify as DEI. If and when the Department probes an institution, you must be prepared to show how and why various DEI efforts are essential for mission actualization.
    2. Show your work: The Department’s letter will compel many of you to hide, rename, or altogether discontinue DEI initiatives. I insist on doing the opposite. Now is the time to showcase DEI activities to confirm that they are not the racist, divisive, discriminatory, and anti-American activities that obstructionists erroneously claim.
    3. Show your racial equity data: Transparency about racial disparities in student outcomes and various employee trends should be used to justify the existence of DEI policies and programs. Black undergraduate men, for instance, are often at the bottom of most statistical measures of educational progress and performance; my and other scholars’ research confirms that it is not because those students were undeserving of admission or are academically less capable. Data like these could help justify the need for Black male student success initiatives.
    4. Show racial discrimination data trends: Educational institutions are required to have reporting and investigation processes for claims of racial discrimination. As previously noted, the Department’s letter makes is seem as if white and Asian students are being most routinely discriminated against. It might just be that your campus data shows something different. It is important to present year-over-year trends, as opposed to a one-time snapshot. These data could be used to justify the existence of various DEI policies and programs.
    5. Assess the campus racial climate: The National Assessment of Collegiate Campus Climates (NACCC) is a suite of peer-reviewed, expert-validated quantitative surveys that are administered to every student or employee at a participating institution, including white people. Whether you use the NACCC or some other data tool, now is the time to formally assess the climate to determine if and how persons from different racial groups are experiencing the institution. The NACCC has been administered on hundreds of campuses over the past six years—very few white respondents have reported what the Department’s letter alleges. It is important for institutions to provide climate survey data about which groups most frequently encounter discrimination, harassment, abuse, and exclusion.
    6. Rely on evidence: A dozen highly respected researchers contributed to Truths About DEI on College Campuses: Evidence-Based Expert Responses to Politicized Misinformation, a report published last March. This document is just one of several hundred research-based resources (including peer-reviewed studies published in top academic journals) that confirm the educational and democratic value of DEI in higher education. You should use these evidence-based resources to justify the continuation of your institution’s policies and programs.
    7. Insist on evidence: DEI attackers make numerous untrue and exaggerated claims about what is occurring on campuses. Educational leaders have the right to insist that outside accusers furnish evidence of widespread discrimination, harassment, and abuse. Data sources must be rigorous, trustworthy, and verifiable. One-off examples and small numbers of anecdotes ought not be accepted as evidence of pervasive wrongdoing. Imagine if someone told lies about you as an individual person—you would demand proof. Institutions that have committed themselves to DEI deserve this, too.
    8. Articulate consequences: As the federal government, state legislators, and others scrutinize campus DEI efforts, it behooves leaders and employees not only to amplify the value of these policies and programs, but also to forecast what would occur in their absence. For example, how the discontinuation of a first-year transition program for Indigenous students would widen first-to-second-year persistence rate disparities between them and peers from other racial groups. Or how financially devastating lawsuits would be to institutions if less attention was paid to improving the workplace climate for the groups of employees whom years of investigations data confirms experience the highest levels of discrimination and harassment on campus.
    9. Ensure reporting equity: The Department’s letter includes a link to this webpage where “anyone who believes that a covered entity has unlawfully discriminated may file a complaint with OCR.” It is important for white and Asian American, as well as for Black, Indigenous, Latino, and multiracial people to know this reporting site exists. If it is distributed through only a limited number of cable news and social media channels, then there is a chance that those who experience discrimination most often will not be aware of its existence. It is similarly important to remind students and employees of how to access campus-level reporting resources.
    10. Humanize DEI professionals: As many DEI professionals were being fired from their federal jobs last month, I recognized their humanity in this TIME article. I specifically noted the following consequences for them: “Some of these workers now won’t be able to afford daycare for their kids or elder care for their aging parents. Others have children in college whose tuition payments are suddenly in limbo because of politics. Some will lose their healthcare benefits. Too many of these workers will struggle to find other jobs because of the false narratives that are being told about DEI.” Professionals who do DEI work everywhere, including in higher education, deserve greater protections from their employers. These innocent people deserve colleagues like you who use your platforms to communicate threats to their lives and careers.
    11. Form coalitions: The tone of the Department’s letter is serious. It has many people scrambling on their individual campuses. We need institutions to come together to collectively strategize, defend their DEI commitments, push back and sue. Attempting to do this in isolation will not yield the macro-level outcomes that our democracy and its educational institutions deserve. Last fall, I launched the National DEI Defense Coalition. So far, hundreds of scholars, leaders, and DEI professionals have contributed. In the next few weeks, I will publicly announce ways for others to participate. But meanwhile, please leverage existing networks (professional associations, athletic conference memberships, and so on).

    These are not the only ways institutions can defend DEI policies and programs, but my hope is that they provide some helpful guidance in response to the Department’s letter as well as to other politicized misinformation, disinformation and anecdotal exaggerations about who is being most frequently discriminated against on campuses.

    For Democracy,

    Shaun Harper

    Shaun Harper is university professor and provost professor of Education, Business and Public Policy at the University of Southern California, where he holds the Clifford and Betty Allen Chair in Urban Leadership.

    Source link

  • mindtap-coding-labs-build-career-readiness-with-github – The Cengage Blog

    mindtap-coding-labs-build-career-readiness-with-github – The Cengage Blog

    Reading Time: 3 minutes

    Now more than ever, today’s higher ed institutions are prioritizing the fundamental on-the-job skills students will need to thrive in their future careers. In fact, according to our 2024 Graduate Employability report, 69% of education institutions are facilitating internships, cooperative education programs and work-related learning opportunities to provide students with practical experience.

    Experience MindTap with GitHub

    With that in mind, we’d like to share exciting news for computer science instructors hoping to equip their students with real-world career experience. Over the last several months, we’ve made key improvements to MindTap with GitHub Codespaces. GitHub is the world’s leading AI-powered developer platform to build, scale and deliver secure software, allowing your students to practice and code in an actual platform that’s used by coding professionals. By integrating GitHub Codespaces with MindTap, students can complete their coding assignments in an authentic coding lab environment, anytime, anywhere.

    MindTap with GitHub Codespaces not only facilitates learning and practice, but also ensures that your students are well prepared as they enter the job market. By actively using industry-standard coding tools, computer science students gain valuable coding experience and proficiency, positioning them to seamlessly transition into their desired careers.

    Significant improvements and updates

    1. Two Critical Functionality Updates:

    • Review Mode lets you review student work directly in MindTap, eliminating the need for students to bundle and share their work.
    • Auto-Grading Functionality has been reinstated for those of you using the following Web Programming titles:

    Since each title has a mix of auto-graded, manually graded and practice labs, we suggest you search the Cengage Instructor Center for your title to get the latest list of labs, available under the Resources tab.

    2. Better Support for Introductory-Level Students — Based on Customer Feedback: 

    • We’ve made updates to existing instructions and feedback, including providing additional information where needed.
    • UX/UI Enhancements, such as the minimization of select popups, help students focus on the salient parts of the experience.
    • We added prerequisite assignments that aim to familiarize students with the GitHub experience. These assignments are available in the Getting Started Folder in the MindTap learning path.
    • Additional Reviews and Quality Assurance were implemented overall to address errors.

    3. Companion Tab New Features: 

    • Pagination allows your students to easily navigate through tasks within an assignment. With just a few clicks, they can jump to the exact page they’re searching for.
    • Selective File Execution is specific to programming languages titles (Python, C++, Java and C#), and gives students the option to select and run code on a specific file.
    • Reset Exercise Button gives students the option to reset their progress, providing them with a fresh version of the assignment.
    • Sidebar Updates include the new Task Summary button, which gives students the completion status of their tasks, as well as the new run code button, which has been updated from a lightning bolt icon to a standard play button icon.

    4. Support Resources:  

    All Getting Started resources for students are now available in the Getting Started folder within the learning path of your MindTap course. You can also locate this content in our Student Help and Instructor Help guides.

    • A Comprehensive List of Labs associated with your title is now available in the Cengage Instructor Center, under the Resources tab. Download the document, “List of Labs – Grading Type” for a categorization of labs based on grading type: auto-graded, manually graded and practice.
    • We’ve enhanced program speed to one third of the original run time, restoring performance to 2023 levels.

    Prep your course with GitHub Readiness Checklist

    Not sure where to begin? Best Practices for Setting Up GitHub in MindTap provides you with an actionable checklist of preliminary tasks to complete as you navigate through course preparation. In addition, you’ll find various linked resources including a list of available titles with GitHub lab activities, a step-by-step video showing how to create your GitHub account, needed technical requirements and more.

    Source link

  • Can your story stay fresh?

    Can your story stay fresh?

    At News Decoder we publish stories intended to help young people understand the wider world they live in. To do that we look for stories in places that are underreported and on problems that many people in many places are struggling to solve.

    But we don’t expect our readers to read these stories the second we publish. Young people are busy and teachers might want to focus a class on a particular topic weeks if not months after we publish. So our stories are meant to be “evergreen.” 

    That’s a journalism term to mean that a story is about something that isn’t just happening now. It will still be relevant a year from now or two or three years in the future. 

    But it is a challenge to write a story that will grab readers’ attention now and still be worth reading a year from now. 

    The prize is that you get new readers all the time. We have stories on News Decoder that reappear on our most-read list years after we originally published them as the topics become hot and people search for information on them. 

    Make your story “evergreen”.

    So how do you make a story that isn’t necessarily time-sensitive grab a reader’s attention and at the same time be relevant for those who come to it much later? We’ll show you.

    1. Take the time and space to explain events and their context. This way readers in the future will understand what the heck you are talking about. Right now a lot of people are talking about DOGE — the Department of Government Efficiency, an initiative created by U.S. President Donald Trump and led by the world’s richest person Elon Musk. But two years from now who knows? DOGE might be all but forgotten. 

    2. Connect what is happening now to universal concepts. Musk and DOGE are systematically going through the U.S. government laying off thousands of people and cutting funding to thousands of programs. These moves are affecting programs that involve food, health, housing, travel, education and recreation. Those are topics people are always concerned about and interested in. Chances are, a year from now a top news event will concern the government and one of those things and your story will connect to it. 

    3. Connect what is happening now to events in the past. In this way you show your audience how the past repeats and how the present is affected by what has happened before. For readers coming in much later they can start connecting what happened when the story was first published to what is happening in their world when they read it.

    For the past year, we’ve been republishing articles that connect to something happening now. We call it our Decoder Replay. On 19 February, for instance, we republished a story about how China censors mentions of the Tiananmen Square protests and massacre that occurred in 1989 because now a Chinese artificial intelligence program called DeepSeek seems to negate any reference to Tiananmen Square. 

    The week before we republished a story from 2020 about the role of the World Health Organization (WHO) in fighting the Covid pandemic. Then U.S. President Donald Trump had denounced the WHO. We connected it to now President Trump pulling the United States out of the WHO.

    One of the reasons many people feel disconnected from news articles is that the articles focus on “news” — what is happening now even when such things don’t have much relevance in people’s lives — isolated crimes that happen far away, for example.

    So next time you decide to take on a hot topic, think about the readers who come to the story six months from now, or a year from now. How might the story resonate with them?

    Source link

  • What’s in a name? That which we call a university…

    What’s in a name? That which we call a university…

    by Rob Cuthbert

    In England the use of the title ‘university’ is regulated by law, a duty which now lies with the regulator, the Office for Students (OfS). When a new institution is created, or when an existing institution wishes to change its name, the OfS must consult on the proposed new name and may or may not approve it after consideration of responses to the consultation. The responsible agency for naming was once simply the Privy Council, a responsibility transferred to the OfS with the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. For existing older universities where legislative change is needed, the Privy Council must also still approve, but will only do so with a letter of support from the OfS. The arrangements were helpfully summarised in a blog by David Kernohan and Michael Salmon of Wonkhe on 8 April 2024, before most of the recent changes had been decided.

    That which we call a university would probably not smell quite as sweet if it could not use the university title, and with its new power the OfS has made a series of decisions which risk putting it in bad odour. In July 2024 it allowed AECC University College to call itself the Health Sciences University. Although AECC University College was a perfectly respectable provider of health-related courses, this name change surely flew in the face of the many larger and prestigious universities which had an apparently greater claim to expertise in both teaching and research in health sciences. The criteria for name changes are set out by the OfS: “The OfS will assess whether the provider meets the criteria for university college or university title and will, in particular: …  Determine whether the provider’s chosen title may be, or may have the potential to be, confusing.” It is hard to see how that criterion was satisfied in the case of the Health Sciences University.

    Even worse was to come. In 2024 Bolton University applied to use the title University of Greater Manchester, despite the large and looming presence of both Manchester University and Manchester Metropolitan University. And the OfS said yes. If you google the names Bolton or Greater Manchester University you may even find the University of Bolton Manchester, which is neither the University of Bolton nor the University of Manchester, but is “Partnered with the University of Bolton and situated within the centre of Manchester” – indeed, very near the Oxford Road heartland location of Manchester and Manchester Metropolitan universities.

    This is rather more confusing and misleading than University Academy 92, founded by a group of famous football team-mates at Manchester United, formed in August 2017 and based near Old Trafford. Wikipedia says that “the approval by the Department of Education (DoE) to allow UA92 the use of ‘University Academy 92’ was questioned with critics claiming the decision to approve the use of the name makes it ‘too easy’ for new providers to use ‘university’ in a new institution’s name”. This criticism continues to have some merit, but a high-profile football-related initiative, now broadened, is perhaps less likely to cause any confusion in the minds of its potential students. It may be significant that it was created at the same time as the HERA legislation was enacted, with government perhaps relaxing its grip in the last exercise of university title approval powers before the Privy Council handed over to the OfS. UA92 was and continues to be a deliverer of degrees validated by Lancaster University. In 2024 the OfS the University of Central Lancashire applied to be renamed the University of Lancashire, despite the obvious potential confusion with Lancaster University. And the OfS said yes.

    It was not ever thus. The Privy Council would consult and take serious account of responses to consultation, especially from existing universities, as it did after the Further and Higher Education 1992 when 30 or so polytechnics were granted university title. A massive renaming exercise was carefully managed under the Privy Council’s watchful eye. As someone centrally involved in one such exercise, at Bristol Polytechnic, I know that the Privy Council would not allow liberties to be taken. The renaming exercise naturally stretched over many months; the Polytechnic conducted its own consultations both among its staff and students, but also much more widely in schools and other agencies across the South West region. Throughout that period, in a longstanding joke, the Polytechnic Director playfully mocked the Vice-Chancellor of Bristol University by suggesting that the polytechnic might seek to become the ‘Greater Bristol University’. It was a joke because all parties knew that the Privy Council, quite properly, would never countenance such a confusing and misleading proposal.

    How would that name change play out now? In the words (almost) of Cole Porter: “In olden days a glimpse of mocking was looked on as something shocking, now heaven knows, anything goes.”

    Rob Cuthbert is the editor of SRHE News and Blog, and a partner in the Practical Academics consultancy. He was previously Deputy Vice-Chancellor and professor of higher education management at the University of the West of England.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

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

    Source link