Blog

  • Trump administration’s coercion at Columbia is unlawful and unconstitutional

    Trump administration’s coercion at Columbia is unlawful and unconstitutional

    FIRE today filed a “friend of the court” brief in support of the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers in their lawsuit against the Department of Justice and other federal agencies. FIRE argues that the Trump administration’s actions against Columbia University are unlawful and unconstitutional attacks on freedom of expression, freedom of association, and academic freedom. The brief’s summary of argument follows.


    The federal government characterizes its abrupt revocation of $400 million in federal grants to Columbia University — and the government’s threat to revoke billions more if its demands are not met — as necessary to address anti-Semitism on campus in the wake of pro-Palestinian protests that sometimes veered into unlawful activity. Addressing discrimination is a worthy end. But it cannot justify the government’s flatly unconstitutional means here. While Columbia’s response to campus misconduct may raise questions about the university’s obligations under federal anti-discrimination law, there is no question about the government’s failure to meet its obligations under the First Amendment. The administration’s coercion is a blatant end-run around statutory safeguards and a flagrant attempt to jawbone the university into surrendering its institutional autonomy to federal officials. For the sake of Columbia’s students, faculty, and our free society, this government intimidation cannot stand unanswered.

    The same federal statute that governs institutional responses to allegations of anti-Semitism — Title VI — requires funding recipients like Columbia to receive notice, a hearing, and an opportunity to come into compliance voluntarily before the government can terminate funding. These provisions protect students, faculty, and institutions from precisely the kind of repressive, capricious government overreach that now harms Plaintiffs. Yet despite its professed interest in addressing campus anti-Semitism, the administration chose to ignore entirely the lawful statutory means by which it may do so. Instead, it has instituted rule by fiat: arbitrarily declaring Columbia subject to punishment, cancelling hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and threatening worse to come, and leaving Columbia faculty and students at the mercy of unchecked federal authority under the specter of a hostile takeover.

    This is unlawful. Just last year, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the government cannot jawbone private actors into punishing speech that the First Amendment protects from state intrusion. Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am. v. Vullo, 2024). But jawboning is exactly what the administration is doing to Columbia — except here, the government’s bullying is so extreme it might more accurately be called extortion. Wielding the threat of crippling financial consequences like a mobster gripping a baseball bat, the government forced Columbia to adopt a restrictive speech code that punishes disfavored or dissenting viewpoints. Not only would it be unconstitutional at a public university, the speech code also violates Columbia’s free speech promises and its right as a private entity to set its own rules regarding speech. The government further forced Columbia to surrender control of an entire academic department and to relinquish its right to make independent decisions about discipline and admissions — all of which violate longstanding precepts of academic freedom, institutional independence, and university self-governance.

    These demands are unconstitutional. Again, just last year, the Supreme Court reemphasized the limits the Constitution places on the government in its interactions with private institutions. “On the spectrum of dangers to free expression,” the Court wrote, “there are few greater than allowing the government to change the speech of private actors in order to achieve its own conception of speech nirvana.” (Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 2024). As Defendants trample constitutional barriers in seeking to effectively outlaw certain political views on campus, this grave danger that the Court identified is fully realized.

    The government’s gambit is not permissible simply because federal funding is involved. The Supreme Court long ago established that “even in the provision of subsidies, the Government may not ‘ai[m] at the suppression of dangerous ideas’” — and that the First Amendment demands judicial intervention if funding is “‘manipulated’ to have a ‘coercive effect.’” (Nat’l Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 1998) (quoting Regan v. Tax’n With Representation of Wash., 1983). Few things could be more manipulative or coercive than revoking grants in an explicit attempt to override the expressive and associational rights of a private institution of higher education, its students, and its faculty.

    This case illustrates the grave threat to core First Amendment freedoms posed by expansive — and here, extralegal and unbounded — conceptions of governmental power to address discrimination. For more than a quarter century, amicus FIRE has advocated against overly broad and impossibly vague campus speech codes promulgated under federal anti-discrimination law. To that end, FIRE successfully led the charge against the Obama administration’s attempt to pressure institutions to adopt a federal definition of “sexual harassment” — advanced as a national “blueprint” — that subjected wide swaths of protected speech to investigation and punishment. And yet as misguided as that initiative was, those pressure tactics pale in comparison to the scope and intensity of the unlawful shakedown Defendants mount here.

    The government’s aggression against Columbia is alarming not just because it is unlawful and unconstitutional, but because its plain aim is “suppression of free speech and creative inquiry in one of the vital centers for the Nation’s intellectual life, its college and university campuses.” Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 1995). While Columbia was the first institution targeted by the administration, it has not been the last — the list of colleges facing coercive funding cuts and chilling demands is growing.

    Addressing anti-Semitism does not and cannot require violating the First Amendment. Left unchecked, the administration will continue to deploy its distorted conception of federal anti-discrimination law as a battering ram against institutional autonomy and to seize for itself power to control permissible speech and instruction on our campuses. The stakes are high: “Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.” Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 1957). This Court must act now to protect freedom of expression, academic freedom, and our institutions of higher education from a hostile federal takeover.

    Source link

  • Limestone University may have a ‘lifeline’ to avert closure

    Limestone University may have a ‘lifeline’ to avert closure

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Limestone University may have the “financial lifeline” it needs to avoid shutting down and maintain its in-person courses and operations, its board of trustees said Tuesday. The announcement did not disclose details on the funding source. 
    • The private Christian institution, in South Carolina, signaled last week it could be forced to close or turn to online-only operations without an immediate cash injection. The board said it has tabled those discussions for now and plans to reconvene no later than April 29.
    • However, the 179-year-old university will proceed as though it will be online-only after the semester ends, Limestone President Nathan Copeland said in a statement. “I regret the uncertainty of the situation, but we must be exceptionally cautious,” he added.

    Dive Insight:

     In a statement, board Chair Randall Richardson was frank about just how deep Limestone’s financial troubles run. 

    Last week, we were at the brink of a possible closure or transition to online-only classes,” Richardson said. “Now, we are pausing that discussion so we can wait on more information about a potential financial lifeline.”

    Officials offered no details on the financing, saying only that “a possible funding source has surfaced” that could mitigate the university’s current crisis. A university spokesperson declined Wednesday to share more information about the funding source.

    Previously, officials said the university would need a $6 million emergency fund to stave off closure and keep its physical campus and activities running. 

    In the university’s announcement Tuesday, it said the proposed cash infusion would “stabilize operations and give the university the opportunity to pursue long-term solutions that preserve its on-campus identity.”

    Richardson said the board was “cautiously optimistic about the future of Limestone,” but added a hedge: “We want to emphasize, this is just a possibility at the current time.”

    Limestone attributed its financial woes in part to falling enrollment. Between 2018 and 2023, its fall headcount dropped 27% to 1,782 students, per federal data. The university said Tuesday that enrollment now stands at about 1,600 students.

    High costs have also added pressure. The university has faced persistent budget deficits — $9.2 million in fiscal 2024, following an $11.4 million gap in 2023, according to its latest financials. 

    Limestone has tapped its endowment to fund its operations amid the financial strain. Between fiscal years 2023 and 2024, Limestone’s net assets declined by more than $12 million, to $61 million, as the university ramped spending from its endowment.

    In its latest financial statement, the university’s auditors issued a “going concern” warning, indicating they found “substantial doubt” about Limestone’s ability to continue operating over the next year.

    For now, Limestone’s uncertain fate remains a predicament for officials, employees and students alike as they try to plan for upcoming semesters — a challenge which the university’s leaders acknowledged. 

    We will update everyone as soon as we know more,” Richardson said. “Please be patient and continue to pray for a viable solution to save this historic university.” 

    Source link

  • The government's money, the government's rules?

    The government's money, the government's rules?

    Our guests today signed onto a statement by a group of 18 law
    professors who opposed the Trump administration’s funding threats
    at Columbia on free speech and academic freedom grounds. Since
    then, Northwestern, Cornell, Princeton, Harvard, and…

    Source link

  • Thankfully, Larry David mocks Bill Maher – First Amendment News 467

    Thankfully, Larry David mocks Bill Maher – First Amendment News 467

    “Look, I get it. It doesn’t matter who he is at a private dinner with a comedian. It matters who he is on the world stage. I’m just taking it as a positive that this person exists.” – Bill Maher, recounting his dinner with President Trump, HBO

    “I knew I couldn’t change his views, but we need to talk to the other side — even if it has invaded and annexed other countries and committed unspeakable crimes against humanity.” – Larry David, “My Dinner with Adolf,” The New York Times

    By and large, I have long appreciated Bill Maher’s “Real Time” comic stings. Just the sort of thing that social comedy should do. In 2002, we shared a stage as recipients of a Hugh Hefner First Amendment Award. It was an honor, even though I found him rather full of himself.

    That said, after watching my fill of Rachel Maddow and others, I take escapist pleasure in watching Bill slay any variety of righteous types with his comic axe. That is, until I watched the April 11 episode of “Real Time,” the one where he joked about his dinner at the White House with President Trump.

    While Maher did note Trump’s attacks on him, and his counter-attacks on Trump, he did so in a way that made Trump seem like little more than a nice guy with different views. Maher normalized the man who time and again has attacked First Amendment values with authoritarian abandon — the very values Maher champions.

    Ah, Bill’s dinner with Donald was so delightfully memorable: Donald was “gracious and measured.” And catch this: he’s no “crazy person,” said Maher, though he “plays a crazy person on TV.” Moreover, he’s “much more self-aware than he lets on.” He’s “just not as fucked up as I thought [he] was.” 

    Oh, the private Donald was so tolerant, so engaging, so rational, and so open to hearing the other side. Ya just got to get to know the guy, break bread with him, warts and all. Hell (and that’s the word), in person he is actually “measured,” even if he presents a real threat to constitutional democracy and a clear and present danger to almost every value of First Amendment law.

    The folks at “Fox And Friends” loved the Maher/Trump “Kumbaya” moment, though they did not buy Maher’s private/public distinction regarding Trump’s personality. Hardly. For them, what Maher portrayed was the real Trump: “What Bill Maher saw was what the American public as a whole has come to see. . . He’s not pretending to be something he isn’t. And that’s what stood out.” 

    All of it made me want to puke! 

    “You know,” I said to my wife Susan, “I wonder what he’d say if he met Hitler and found him to be ‘gracious.’”

    Cut to Tuesday morning: It’s early, and Susan says, “You gotta read this Larry David piece in the Times. It’s titled ‘My Dinner With Adolf.’ It tracks what Maher said about Trump while mocking Maher every inch of the way.” 

    Ok, match on! 

    Just as sometimes one must “fight fire with fire,” so too sometimes one must fight “comedy with comedy.” Enter Larry David. Here’s how his satiric response to Maher’s dinner with Trump opens:

    Imagine my surprise when in the spring of 1939 a letter arrived at my house inviting me to dinner at the Old Chancellery with the world’s most reviled man, Adolf Hitler. I had been a vocal critic of his on the radio from the beginning, pretty much predicting everything he was going to do on the road to dictatorship. No one I knew encouraged me to go. “He’s Hitler. He’s a monster.” But eventually I concluded that hate gets us nowhere. I knew I couldn’t change his views, but we need to talk to the other side — even if it has invaded and annexed other countries and committed unspeakable crimes against humanity.

    Larry David at the induction ceremony for Mary Steenburgen into the  Hollywood Walk of Fame

    Larry David at the induction ceremony for Mary Steenburgen into the  Hollywood Walk of Fame (Shutterstock.com)

    And here’s how David ends his deliciously jeering counter to Maher:

    Two hours later, the dinner was over, and the Führer escorted me to the door. “I am so glad to have met you. I hope I’m no longer the monster you thought I was.” “I must say, mein Führer, I’m so thankful I came. Although we disagree on many issues, it doesn’t mean that we have to hate each other.” And with that, I gave him a Nazi salute and walked out into the night.

    Note to Bill: You gotta curb your enthusiasm for your “gracious” and “measured” friend. Tyranny isn’t funny, it’s evil!

    Hold on! Maher got worse when Banon arrived:

    Awful as his naïve Trump dinner fiasco was, I was nonetheless eager to hear Maher’s interview with Steve Bannon thereafter. When he wasn’t joking around, the good news was that Bill asked tough questions. The bad news was that, save for an opening exchange about Trump’s third-term aspirations, Maher really didn’t press Bannon every time he responded with an evasive answer. He just let it sit there and moved on to another tough question followed by more evasive answers . . . followed by “bro bonding.”

    Really Bill! What the fuck happened to your strong sting, bro? You were more like a soft butterfly.

    Remember:

    ‘60 Minutes’ producer quits over journalistic independence

    Bill Owens

    Bill Owens

    CBS News entered a new period of turmoil on Tuesday after the executive producer of “60 Minutes,” Bill Owens, said that he would resign from the long-running Sunday news program, citing encroachments on his journalistic independence.

    In an extraordinary declaration, Mr. Owens — only the third person to run the program in its 57-year history — told his staff in a memo that “over the past months, it has become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it, to make independent decisions based on what was right for ‘60 Minutes,’ right for the audience.”

    “So, having defended this show — and what we stand for — from every angle, over time with everything I could, I am stepping aside so the show can move forward,” he wrote in the memo, which was obtained by The New York Times.

    ‘60 Minutes’ has faced mounting pressure in recent months from both President Trump, who sued CBS for $10 billion and has accused the program of “unlawful and illegal behavior,” and its own corporate ownership at Paramount, the parent company of CBS News.

    Paramount’s controlling shareholder, Shari Redstone, is eager to secure the Trump administration’s approval for a multibillion-dollar sale of her company to Skydance, a company run by the son of the tech billionaire Larry Ellison.”

    Comments offered to FAN by Floyd Abrams and Ira Glasser

    “It is deeply troubling that Bill Owens, whose leadership of ‘60 Minutes’ as its executive producer has been repeatedly honored through the years, has been obliged to resign because of pressure from the Trump Administration and ABC’s new corporate owner. It is a blow to independent journalism and a great loss to the American public.” — Floyd Abrams

    “Unless the Supreme Court radically changes First Amendment law, Trump’s suit has no legal merit.  If Paramount isn’t interested in defending CBS’ right to criticize public officials, it ought to sell CBS to someone who is, and stick to the entertainment business. What Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite constructed, Shari Redstone [executive chairwoman of Paramount Global] is tearing down.” — Ira Glasser

    Related


    Coming Next Wednesday

    Zick’s Resources Compilation of Executive Actions Affecting First Amendment Rights 

    Coming as soon as next Wednesday, Professor Stephen Solomon and his colleagues over at First Amendment Watch will launch Professor Timothy Zick’s invaluable Resources pages, replete with a comprehensive, topical, and hyperlinked set of references to virtually all of the Trump executive orders and related actions affecting free expression. This user-friendly and topic-specific resources page provides the most detailed and yet across-the-board account of what has happened within the last 100 days of this Administration in matters concerning the First Amendment.


    Jury rules against Palin in defamation against The New York Times

    The New York Times did not libel former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in a 2017 editorial that contained an error she claimed had damaged her reputation, a jury concluded Tuesday. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin campaigned for the state’s U.S. House seat in 2022 with the support of President Trump. She did not win.

    The jury deliberated a little over two hours before reaching its verdict. A judge and a different jury had reached the same conclusion about Palin’s defamation claims in 2022, but her lawsuit was revived by an appeals court.

    Palin was subdued as she left the courthouse and made her way to a waiting car, telling reporters: “I get to go home to a beautiful family of five kids and grandkids and a beautiful property and get on with life. And that’s nice.”

    FIRE fires back in Trump pollster fraud suit

    “This lawsuit is, as the Bard put it, a tale ‘full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.’”

    This case is built entirely on a tissue of shopworn campaign rhetoric and fever-dream conspiracy theories, yet even accepting Plaintiffs’ wild factual assertions as true, the Complaint lacks any plausible legal theory on which to grant relief. The allegations of “fraudulent news” are an affront to basic First Amendment law, and Plaintiffs continue to butcher elementary concepts like duty, reliance, causation, and damages under Iowa law. The Court should dismiss the Amended Complaint.

    Arguments

    1. Plaintiffs’ Claim That Election Polls and the News Coverage They Generate Can Be Labelled “Fraud” Unprotected by the First Amendment is Utterly Baseless.
    2. There is No General First Amendment Exception for False Speech.
    3. Election Polling is Not Commercial Speech and is Fully Protected Election News Coverage.
    4. No Case Law Supports Plaintiffs’ Theory of Liability.
    5. Plaintiffs’ Claims are Facially Deficient Under Iowa Law
    6. Plaintiffs Fail to Plead a Cognizable ICFA Claim.
    7. Plaintiffs Fail to Plead a Fraudulent Misrepresentation Claim.
    8. Plaintiffs Fail to Plead a Negligent Misrepresentation Claim.
    9. Piercing the Corporate Veil.

    Conclusion

    This lawsuit is, as the Bard put it, a tale “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” William Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5. Once you get past the groundless assertions, campaign-style hyperbole, and overheated conspiracy theories, there is nothing left. No legal basis whatsoever supports the claims, and Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motions to dismiss reveals both shocking unfamiliarity with basic concepts of First Amendment law and a disregard of the pleading requirements for fraud or misrepresentation under Iowa law. As one court summed it up in another of President Trump’s attacks on free speech: “This case should never have been brought. Its inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start. No reasonable lawyer would have filed it. Intended for a political purpose, none of the counts of the amended complaint stated a cognizable legal claim.” Trump v. Clinton, 653 F.Supp.3d at 1207. The Court should dismiss this case with prejudice.

    Attorneys for Defendants J. Ann Selzer, and Selzer & Company: Robert Corn-Revere, Conor T. Fitzpatrick, Greg H. Greubel, and Matthew A. McGuire

    School district ordered to pay attorney fees to censored parent

    Bret Nolan of the Federalist Society

    Bret Nolan (Federalist Society)

    A federal judge has ordered that the Sheridan County (WY) School District must pay attorneys’ fees following a lawsuit with Harry Pollak, a parent censored during a 2022 school board meeting

    Following a lengthy legal dispute, the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming has awarded attorneys’ fees totaling $156,000 to the litigation team representing Harry Pollak of Sheridan County. Mr. Pollak was represented by Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Brett Nolan and local counsel Seth Johnson.

    Mr. Pollak initially filed suit against the Sheridan County School District in March 2022 after he was cut off from speaking from speaking critically about the superintendent at a school board meeting. The board cited a policy against discussing “personnel matters” as the reason for censoring him, and it called the police to escort him out of the building.

    Last fall, the district court ruled in favor of Mr. Pollak, declaring that the school board violated his First Amendment rights and awarded him nominal damages of $17.91 (a symbolic amount referring to the year the First Amendment was ratified). The court also permanently enjoined the board from enforcing its policy to prevent speakers like Mr. Pollak who want to criticize school staff by name.

    [ . . . ]

    To read the full fees order, Pollak v. Wilson, et al., click here.

    Mchangama and Marami on deportation and dissent

    The Trump administration is invoking a clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that allows the Secretary of State broad discretion to deport anyone he believes “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.” As such, a recently released memo detailing the government’s case against the most prominent of the activists, Mahmoud Khalil, refrains from charging him with any crime. On Friday, a Louisiana immigration judge upheld the Government’s decision to deport Khalil. Constitutional scholars debate whether and to what extent the First Amendment protects noncitizens in such cases, and the Supreme Court may eventually weigh in.

    But the question is not only constitutional — it is foundational. Is deporting foreigners for expressing disfavored views compatible with a robust commitment to a culture of free speech?

    As it turns out, history has a lot to tell us about states that exclude foreigners with controversial opinions and those that welcome non-native dissenters.

    [ . . . ]

    From Zenger to Hitchens, from Abrams to Arendt, it has often been immigrants who tested the boundaries of the First Amendment — and in doing so, helped define its meaning. To now deport people for unpopular opinions is not merely a constitutional gray zone. It is a betrayal of the very idea that truth and progress emerge from argument, not conformity.

    Silencing foreign voices won’t make America safer. It will make it smaller and less resilient. A confident, free nation doesn’t banish speech — it engages it.

    The odd couple: Franks and Corn-Revere in dialogue (and debate) at Brooklyn Law School event

    Robert Corn-Revere and Mary Anne Franks at Fearless Speech

    FIRE Chief Counsel Robert Corn-Revere (left) and Professor Mary Anne Franks

     

    April 17, 2025: Book Talk: Dr. Mary Anne Franks’ Fearless Speech

    Featuring: 

    Dr. Mary Anne Franks — Eugene L. and Barbara A. Bernard Professor in Intellectual Property, Technology, and Civil Rights Law, George Washington Law School; President and Legislative & Tech Policy Director, Cyber Civil Rights Initiative

    Robert Corn-Revere — Chief Counsel, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)

    Moderators

    William Araiza, Stanley A. August Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School

    Joel Gora, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School

    Discussants

    Ron Collins, Co-founder of the History Book Festival and former Harold S. Shefelman Scholar, University of Washington Law School

    Sarah C. Haan, Class of 1958 Uncas and Anne McThenia Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law

    More in the news

    2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases

    Cases decided

    • Villarreal v. Alaniz (Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
    • Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
    • TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (9-0: The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)

    Review granted

    Pending petitions

    Petitions denied

    Emergency Applications

    • Yost v. Ohio Attorney General (Kavanaugh, J., “IT IS ORDERED that the March 14, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, case No. 2:24-cv-1401, is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Wednesday, April 16, 2025, by 5 p.m. (EDT).”)

    Free speech related

    • Mahmoud v. Taylor (Free exercise case — Issue: Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.)
    • Thompson v. United States (Decided: 3-21-25/ 9-0 w special concurrences by Alito and Jackson) (Interpretation of 18 U. S. C. §1014 re “false statements”)

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 466: “Sixty-one media organizations and press freedom advocates contest Perkins Coie executive order

    This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.

    Source link

  • Private School Marketing: SEO Strategies for Visibility

    Private School Marketing: SEO Strategies for Visibility

    Reading Time: 8 minutes

    To stand out amidst competition, private schools must ensure their online presence is strong enough to attract prospective students and parents. While traditional marketing methods such as word-of-mouth and print advertising still hold value, digital visibility has become crucial to school enrollment. Are you wondering how to market a private school to maximize visibility? Leveraging SEO effectively is the key to being discovered by your target audience online. 

    Search engine optimization (SEO) is pivotal in increasing online visibility, helping private schools rank higher on search engine results pages (SERPs) and ensuring they remain top-of-mind for potential applicants. However, using SEO for private school marketing has unique challenges, requiring a strategic and well-rounded approach. Keep reading to understand your unique SEO needs as a private educational institution and how to maximize your school’s SEO performance.

    Struggling with enrollment?

    Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!

    The Unique Challenges of Private School SEO

    Private schools face a distinct set of Search engine optimization challenges that require tailored solutions – can you relate to any of these? 

    • Competition: Private institutions must differentiate themselves from public schools, charter schools, and other private institutions in their region. 
    • Broad Search Results: prospective students and parents may not be searching for a specific school name but rather for general terms such as “best private schools near me” or “top elementary schools in [city].” If a school’s website is not optimized for these search queries, it may struggle to appear in search results.
    • Balancing local and national SEO efforts:  While private schools typically serve a local audience, some institutions attract students from other regions or even internationally. This means that their SEO strategy must account for both location-based searches and broader queries related to curriculum, extracurricular offerings, and student outcomes. 
    • Keeping up with seasonal search trends:  as interest in enrollment spikes at certain times of the year, requiring a dynamic and proactive approach to content updates and digital marketing efforts.

    How can you create a strategy that offsets these unique challenges? Let’s explore the importance of SEO and how you can implement it effectively. 

    The Importance of SEO for Private School Marketing

    SEO is crucial for private education marketing because it directly impacts discoverability. Parents and students rely on search engines to research potential educational opportunities, and a well-optimized website ensures that a school is easily found. 

    A strong SEO strategy also helps build credibility and trust, as higher search rankings are often associated with authority and reliability. Moreover, SEO provides a cost-effective marketing strategy compared to traditional advertising, offering long-term benefits without the recurring costs of paid campaigns.

    Beyond visibility, SEO enhances the user experience. A well-structured website that loads quickly, is easy to navigate, and contains high-quality content will rank better and engage visitors more effectively. This engagement translates to longer time spent on the site, higher conversion rates, and ultimately, more inquiries from prospective students and parents.

    Image 1Image 1

    Best Practices for Optimizing SEO for Private Schools

    The first step to reinventing your private school marketing plan is to assess your digital presence and set realistic goals. Understanding where your school stands in search rankings, what competitors are doing, and which areas need improvement will guide your SEO strategy effectively. 

    Start by analyzing website traffic using tools like Google Analytics, identifying which pages attract the most visitors, and pinpointing gaps where SEO enhancements can improve visibility. Additionally, schools should develop a content strategy that aligns with parent concerns, frequently asked questions and key search trends. By taking these preparatory steps, private schools can ensure their SEO efforts are targeted, strategic, and effective. Now, let’s explore some specific strategies! 

    Example: What metrics should you evaluate before reinventing your private school SEO strategy? Take a look at the image below for some ideas. Using a tool like Google Analytics, determine how many total visits your site gets to understand your reach. Your page views will provide insight into site user engagement and what content is most popular.

    Image 2Image 2

    Source: HEM

    The bounce rate refers to the proportion of visitors who leave after viewing just one page. A high bounce rate (over 40%) can indicate a need for more relevant or compelling content. Finally, discovering which source of traffic gets you the most visits is valuable information when it comes to allocating funds. An SEO audit from a professional team is a great starting point if you’re looking for a preliminary view of your private school’s existing site performance.

    1. Conduct Thorough Keyword Research

    The foundation of any successful SEO strategy is understanding what prospective families are searching for. Private schools should conduct in-depth keyword research to identify high-value search terms related to education, admissions, and academic programs. Tools such as Google Keyword Planner, Ahrefs, and SEMrush can provide insights into relevant keywords and search volume.

    Schools should target both short-tail and long-tail keywords. For example, while “private school in Toronto” is a valuable keyword, more specific terms like “Montessori private school in Toronto with small class sizes” can help attract highly relevant traffic. Additionally, considering intent-based keywords such as “affordable private schools near me” or “best private schools with financial aid options” can attract parents who are actively researching enrollment options.

    Example: This is what keyword research could look like. In the list below, you’ll see examples of both short and long-tail keywords. You’ll want to use a combination of keywords with a high search volume to reach a broader audience (like “international school” with 6600 searches) and longer, more detailed keywords to reach a specific audience (like abroad programs for international students with 40 searches).

    Image 3Image 3

    Source: HEM

    2. Optimize On-Page SEO Elements

    Once the right keywords have been identified, they should be strategically incorporated into website elements such as:

    • Title Tags and Meta Descriptions: These should include primary keywords while also being compelling enough to encourage clicks.
    • Header Tags (H1, H2, H3): Properly structured headers enhance readability and improve SEO rankings.
    • URL Structure: Clean and descriptive URLs (e.g., “yourschool.edu/admissions-process”) make it easier for search engines to understand page content.
    • Alt Text for Images: Adding descriptive alt text to images improves accessibility and helps search engines index visual content. Try to include keywords
    • Internal Linking: Strategically linking to other pages within the website helps distribute page authority and improves navigation, making it easier for users and search engines to explore content.

    Image 4Image 4

    Source: HEM

    3. Create High-Quality, Engaging Content

    Content marketing is an essential component of SEO. Private schools should focus on producing valuable, informative, and engaging content that answers common questions and concerns of prospective families. This includes:

    • Blog posts on topics like “How to Choose the Right Private School for Your Child.”
    • Parent testimonials and student success stories.
    • Virtual campus tours and video interviews with faculty.
    • FAQs addressing tuition, admissions, and extracurricular activities.
    • In-depth guides on topics such as “How to Apply for Financial Aid at a Private School” or “What to Expect in Your Child’s First Year of Private School.”

    Publishing fresh, relevant content regularly helps keep the website dynamic and signals to search engines that the site is actively maintained.

    Example: This SEO- friendly video content covers a topic that many private school prospects are searching for. Don’t underestimate the value of optimizing your video content! With YouTube being the preferred video content platform as of 2024, Google is no longer the only online space where SEO matters.

    YouTube videoYouTube video

    Source: CTS College of Business & Computer Science

    4. Implement a Local SEO Strategy

    Since most private schools serve specific geographic areas, local SEO is critical. Schools should ensure their name, address, and phone number (NAP) are consistent across all online directories, including Google Business Profile, Yelp, and local education listings. Encouraging satisfied parents to leave positive reviews on Google can boost local search rankings.

    Optimizing for location-based keywords, such as “best private middle school in Los Angeles,” helps schools appear in “near me” searches. Embedding a Google Map on the website’s contact page further improves local SEO. Schools should also engage in community outreach efforts that can generate local press mentions and backlinks, further strengthening their local search presence.

    5. Enhance Website Performance and User Experience

    Search engines prioritize websites that offer a seamless user experience. Private schools should ensure their websites are:

    • Fast-loading: Page speed impacts rankings, so schools should optimize images, leverage browser caching, and minimize code.
    • Mobile-friendly: With many parents researching schools via mobile devices, responsive design is essential.
    • Secure: HTTPS encryption builds trust and improves rankings.
    • Structured with Clear Calls-to-Action (CTAs): Encouraging prospective students and parents to schedule a visit, request information, or apply online enhances conversions.

    A well-structured site with intuitive navigation reduces bounce rates and encourages visitors to explore more pages.

    6. Build a Strong Backlink Profile

    Backlinks, links from other reputable websites to a school’s site, signal authority to search engines. Schools can earn high-quality backlinks by:

    • Partnering with local businesses and educational organizations.
    • Contributing guest posts to education-related blogs.
    • Issuing press releases about notable achievements or events.
    • Getting listed in school directories, alumni association pages, and educational forums.

    Additionally, ensuring the school is listed on authoritative education directories and accreditation bodies’ websites can further boost credibility.

    7. Leverage Social Media for SEO

    While social media does not directly impact search rankings, it enhances brand visibility and drives traffic to a school’s website. Are you wondering how to market your private school with social media? Maintain active profiles on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, regularly sharing engaging content and linking back to key web pages. Encouraging faculty, alumni, and students to share content can increase organic reach and generate social signals that indirectly benefit SEO.

    Example: Rundle Schools does a great job of optimizing its Instagram page to drive organic traffic to its site. Consider using a tool like Linktree to make it easy for prospects to find your site and other important profiles. Rundle Schools is committed to a multi-channel SEO content strategy as you can see in the centre post where they promote their podcast.

    Image 5Image 5

    Source: Rundle Schools | Instagram

    Get Support to Elevate Your Private Schools SEO Strategy 

    At Higher Education Marketing (HEM), we understand the unique challenges private schools face in improving their online visibility. From keyword research and content marketing to local SEO optimization and paid advertising, our team of education marketing experts tailors strategies to the specific needs of private schools. 

    At HEM, we’ve helped countless private schools boost their online visibility, attract more prospective families, and exceed their enrollment goals through proven results-driven SEO strategies. Ready to elevate your school’s digital presence? Let’s craft an SEO strategy that sets you apart, connect with HEM today!

    Struggling with enrollment?

    Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!

    Frequently Asked Questions 

    Question: How to market a private school? 

    Answer: Leveraging SEO effectively is the key to being discovered by your target audience online. Search engine optimization (SEO) is pivotal in increasing online visibility, helping private schools rank higher on search engine results pages (SERPs), and ensuring they remain top-of-mind for potential applicants.

    Question: How to market your private school with social media? 

    Answer: Maintain active profiles on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, regularly sharing engaging content and linking back to key web pages. Encouraging faculty, alumni, and students to share content can increase organic reach and generate social signals that indirectly benefit SEO.

    Source link

  • Six Strategies for Supporting the Non-Exempt Higher Ed Workforce

    Six Strategies for Supporting the Non-Exempt Higher Ed Workforce

    by Julie Burrell | April 23, 2025

    Non-exempt staff make up more than a quarter of the higher ed workforce and provide frontline support to the campus community. They are the electricians, safety and security staff, custodians, office assistants, food service workers, and others who power higher ed’s day-to-day operations.

    This vital workforce has also been shrinking. New research from CUPA-HR has shown a 9% decrease in the full-time non-exempt workforce since 2017, and an 8% decrease in the part-time non-exempt workforce during the same period.

    It’s more important than ever to support your non-exempt employees by preventing burnout and bolstering work-life balance. Retention and recruitment must also remain a priority, with turnover rates for hourly non-exempt workers persistently high.

    Here are six ideas for strengthening your employee value proposition for this key segment of the higher ed workforce.

    Create Internal Career Pathways

    Career growth is a key factor in employee satisfaction. Review your learning, development and promotion opportunities to ensure they provide pathways for all employees and are accessible to those who work outside of traditional office hours.

    Upskilling non-exempt employees is also critical. Encourage managers and supervisors to identify who might step up to fill critical roles and who might need additional skills, certifications and competencies.

    Don’t forget to include non-exempt employees in succession planning. Particular attention should be given to skilled craft staff, an area where the decreasing number of employees over the age of 55 might signal a potentially critical pipeline challenge.

    Resource Spotlight: Hocus Pocus, Time to Focus: Innovative Career Development for Staff is an on-demand webinar detailing how the University of Tennessee Knoxville HR team built an innovative new career development unit. And learn how the University of Texas at Dallas’ BRIGHT leaders program uses a flexible model that encourages all employees to lead from where they are. 

    Prioritize Pay

    Continue periodic pay equity reviews and work toward pay equity for all employees. Our research into the non-exempt workforce has found that women of all races/ethnicities continue to be paid less than White men who hold the same non-exempt staff positions.

    Resource Spotlight: Reserve your spot in the upcoming CUPA-HR webinar Transitioning From a Broadband to a Market-Based Pay Structure to learn how University of Pittsburgh leaders replaced a 25-year-old classification system with a market-based job and compensation framework, including FLSA status adjustments. And learn about Maricopa Community College District’s strategic compensation plan in this two-part series on implementing a living wage strategy and establishing internal pay equity and market alignment.

    Provide Flexibility When Possible

    Many non-exempt staff need to be on campus to provide critical, in-person support to students and colleagues. But during the slower summer months, consider offering summer Fridays (either full or half-days off) and/or the option of longer shifts in exchange for fewer days per week worked.

    For office employees, no-meetings Fridays set employees up for a successful Monday, ensuring they can wrap up their week and head into their weekend with less stress.

    Last year, turnover was the highest among part-time hourly employees, at a rate of 25%. For this group, provide — and advertise — hours that support working parents and caregivers.

    Tout Your Benefits

    For both potential and current employees, benefits can be a key difference in recruitment and retention.

    Do you offer competitive matching retirement contributions? Tuition benefits for employees and their families? Competitively priced health insurance? Prominently feature these benefits in your job recruitment materials. And partner with educational consultants from your retirement and insurance plans to make your current employees aware of their benefits.

    Are outdated policies inadvertently causing turnover? Periodically review policies to increase benefits at no cost. For example, if your probationary period doesn’t allow sick leave, you may be losing recently onboarded staff.

    Prevent Burnout

    Because the non-exempt workforce is shrinking, it’s critical to avoid the overwork trap. Expecting non-exempt employees to do the work of multiple people can negatively impact job satisfaction.

    What work might be discontinued or altered to adjust to less availability of staff? What work might be outsourced to help close the gap between staff availability and required work? Reductions in staffing should always be reviewed to determine what ongoing work is feasible and what work must be changed or eliminated.

    Boost Culture

    In addition to good benefits, culture is higher ed’s competitive advantage in the labor market.

    Are both part-time and full-time non-exempt staff regularly being recognized for their work? Recognition is one of the lowest-cost retention tools that remains underused in higher ed overall. Examine how your HRIS and social media channels can be used to highlight consistently excellent employees.

    Consider incorporating budget-friendly employee get-togethers into your campus routines, such as ice cream socials or pizza parties.

    Resource Spotlight: Learn how to audit and boost your recognition program in Recalibrating Employee Recognition in Higher Education.

    Explore more recommendations and the full data on the non-exempt workforce in CUPA-HR’s report, The Non-Exempt Higher Education Staff Workforce: Trends in Composition, Size, and Pay Equity.

     



    Source link

  • We have met the enemy…

    We have met the enemy…

    Class conflict has always been woven into the fabric of American higher education. The struggle over access, affordability, and control of knowledge production has long pitted economic elites against working-class and middle-class students, faculty, and staff. Since the 1960s, these tensions have only deepened, exacerbated by policy shifts that have served to entrench inequality rather than dismantle it.

    The 1960s marked a critical turning point in the political battle over higher education. Ronald Reagan’s war on the University of California system while he was governor set the tone for a broader conservative backlash against public higher education, which had been expanding to accommodate the postwar baby boom and increasing calls for racial and economic justice. Reagan’s attacks on free tuition and student activism foreshadowed decades of policies designed to limit public investment in higher education while encouraging privatization and corporate influence.

    Since the 1970s, economic inequality in the US has grown dramatically, and higher education has been both a battleground and a casualty in this ongoing class war. Today, the sector is experiencing a long-running meltdown, with no signs of reversal. The following key issues illustrate the breadth of the crisis:

    Educated Underclass and Underemployment

    The promise of higher education as a pathway to economic security has eroded. A growing segment of college graduates, particularly those from working-class backgrounds, find themselves in precarious employment, often saddled with student debt and working jobs that do not require a degree. The rise of the educated underclass reflects a broader trend of economic stratification in the US, where social mobility is increasingly constrained.

    Student Loan Debt Crisis

    Student loan debt has surpassed $1.7 trillion, shackling millions of Americans to a lifetime of financial insecurity. The cost of higher education has skyrocketed, while wages have stagnated, leaving many borrowers unable to pay off their loans. Rather than addressing this crisis with systemic reform, policymakers have largely chosen half-measures and band-aid solutions that fail to address the structural drivers of student debt.

    The Role of Foreign Students in US Higher Education

    The influx of international students, particularly from wealthy families abroad, has been used as a revenue stream for cash-strapped universities. While diversity in higher education is valuable, the prioritization of full-tuition-paying international students over domestic students, especially those from working-class backgrounds, reflects a troubling shift in university priorities from public good to profit-seeking.

    Academic Labor and Adjunctification

    Higher education’s labor crisis is one of its most glaring failures. Over the past several decades, universities have replaced tenured faculty with contingent faculty—adjuncts and lecturers who work for low wages with no job security. This adjunctification has degraded the quality of education while exacerbating economic precarity for instructors, who now make up the majority of faculty positions in the US.

    Identity Politics and DEI as a Substitute for Racial Justice

    Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives have become a central focus of university policies, yet they often serve as a superficial substitute for genuine racial and economic justice. Originating in part from efforts like those of Ward Connerly in California, DEI programs provide cover for institutions that continue to perpetuate racial and economic inequities, while failing to address core issues such as wealth redistribution, labor rights, and equitable access to higher education.

    Privatization of Higher Education

    Public funding for universities has declined, and in its place, privatization has surged. Universities have increasingly outsourced services, partnered with corporations, and relied on private donors and endowments to stay afloat. This shift has transformed higher education into a commodity rather than a public good, further marginalizing low-income students and faculty who cannot compete in a system driven by financial interests.

    Online Education and the For-Profit Takeover

    The rise of online education, fueled by for-profit colleges and Online Program Managers (OPMs), has introduced new layers of exploitation and inequality. While online education promises accessibility, in practice, it has been used to cut costs, lower instructional quality, and extract profits from students—many of whom are left with degrees of questionable value and significant debt.

    Alienation and Anomie in Higher Education

    As economic pressures mount and academic work becomes more precarious, feelings of alienation and anomie have intensified. Students and faculty alike find themselves disconnected from the traditional mission of higher education as a space for critical thought and democratic engagement. The result is a crisis of meaning that extends beyond the university into broader society.

    The Power of Elite Universities

    At the other end of the spectrum, elite universities continue to amass enormous endowments, wielding disproportionate influence over higher education policy and urban development. These institutions contribute to gentrification, driving up housing costs in surrounding areas while serving as gatekeepers to elite status. Their governing structures—dominated by trustees from finance, industry, and politics—reflect the interests of the wealthy rather than the needs of students and faculty.

    The Way Forward

    To avoid the full entrenchment of an oligarchic system, those who hold power in higher education must step aside and allow for systemic transformation. This means prioritizing policies that restore public investment in education, dismantle student debt, protect academic labor, and democratize decision-making processes. The fight for a more just and equitable higher education system is inseparable from the broader struggle for democracy itself.

    As history has shown, real change will not come from those at the top—it will come from the courageous efforts of students, faculty, and workers who refuse to accept a system built on exploitation and inequality. The time to act is now.

    Source link

  • China-U.S. animosity goes way back

    China-U.S. animosity goes way back

    The United States and China are increasingly at each other’s throats because of deep-seated distrust, a growing range of disputes and festering wounds from the 19th Century. The current deterioration in bilateral relations risks jeopardizing the global economy and could presage a new chapter in post-1945 great-power competition.

    Their mutual antagonism has not been deeper since U.S. President Richard Nixon embarked on a landmark trip to “Red China” in 1972 to pave the way to normalized relations.

    Ahead of the U.S. presidential election on November 3, disputes have flared over the handling of the coronavirus pandemic, Taiwan, the South China Sea, digital security, trade, journalist expulsions and human rights in Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet.

    Some experts describe the rancor as verging on a “new Cold War”, with the potential to disrupt bilateral cooperation in the fight against COVID-19, climate change, terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons.

    U.S. President Nixon in China

    Nixon traveled to China during the Cold War struggle between the United States and the former Soviet Union. The start of formal ties between China and the United States was a game-changer: the two had been on opposite sides during the Vietnam War, but each was at odds with Moscow.

    The trip set the stage for an effort to shape China’s strategic choices after the upheaval spurred by Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong. Mao had sought to instill the spirit of China’s revolution in the younger generation during his tumultuous last decade in power (1966-76).

    Mindful that the two countries’ systems were radically at odds, Nixon said in his 1972 icebreaking toast in Beijing: “If we can find common ground to work together, the chance of world peace is immeasurably increased.”

    Nearly 50 years later, the relationship lies largely in tatters. Tensions have risen in recent days over self-ruled, U.S.-armed Taiwan, which China deems a breakaway province that must return to the fold. Taiwan scrambled fighter jets last week after Chinese aircraft buzzed the island in response to a visit by the highest-level U.S. State Department official in four decades.

    Washington and Beijing have entered into a fundamentally new phase of their relationship, and that strategic distrust between them is likely to intensify regardless of who wins this November’s presidential election,” Kurt Campbell, a former U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and Ali Wyne of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, wrote recently.

    Trump and Xi

    Analysts attribute the mounting friction to a more confrontational U.S. administration under U.S. President Donald Trump and a more assertive China under President Xi Jinping.

    Xi became General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party in 2012 and added the state presidency in March 2013. Later in 2013, China began building military outposts in the contested South China Sea, and Xi launched the Belt and Road Initiative, a vast plan to build infrastructure links — and increase China’s influence — across the globe.

    The China-U.S. rift could put pressure on some nations to choose sides, as during the 1947-91 Cold War, or to tweak the hedging strategies that some have adopted to remain neutral.

    The path to warmer China-U.S. ties is very narrow, “as the required compromises go against the instincts of both countries’ current leaders,” Carnegie Asia research program’s Yukon Huang, a former World Bank country director for China, wrote this month in an analysis.

    Both Xi and Trump came to power with strong populist agendas, each vowing to return their countries to some vision of past greatness. Seeking reelection, Trump has accused his Democratic opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, of being soft on China.

    “If Joe Biden becomes president, China will own the United States,” Trump said last month.

    COVID provocations

    Referring to COVID-19 by turns as “the China virus,” “Wuhan virus” and “Kung Flu,” Trump has faulted China for “secrecy, deceptions, and cover-up” in its handling of the disease that emerged in the central Chinese city of Wuhan late last year.

    “We must hold accountable the nation which unleashed this plague onto the world, China,” Trump said in taped remarks delivered to the United Nations General Assembly this week. More than 200,000 Americans have died from COVID-19, more than in any other country.

    Xi, in his address to the General Assembly, called for enhanced cooperation over the pandemic and said China had no intention of fighting “either a Cold War or a hot war with any country.”

    At home, Xi cannot afford to appear weak in the face of foreign demands, and he is bound to his signature “Great Chinese dream,” a drive for greater prosperity for the 1.3 billion Chinese, a larger role on the world stage and international respect consistent with China’s military, financial and economic influence.

    Beijing is angry over what it calls foreign provocations, including protests in Hong Kong it claims were stirred by outsiders, growing U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, visits by senior U.S. officials to Taipei and U.S. moves against Chinese companies including telecom giant Huawei and social media apps TikTok and WeChat.

    Hostility in diplomacy

    U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has stepped up criticism of the ruling Communist Party of China, which he says is seeking global hegemony.

    We must admit a hard truth that should guide us in the years and decades to come,” he said in a July 23 speech at Nixon’s boyhood home and library at Yorba Linda, California.

    “That if we want to have a free 21st century, and not the Chinese century of which Xi Jinping dreams, the old paradigm of blind engagement with China simply won’t get it done. We must not continue it and we must not return to it,” he said.

    Alluding to the 90 million-plus member Chinese Communist party, Pompeo added: “We must also engage and empower the Chinese people – a dynamic, freedom-loving people who are completely distinct from the Chinese Communist Party.”

    In Beijing’s eyes, the Trump administration has been meddling in Chinese internal affairs, threatening its core interests and leading efforts to contain China, which still smarts from what it calls “a century of humiliation,” largely at Western hands.

    “Century of National Humiliation”

    The “long century” of 110 years was marked by carve-ups of Chinese territory by Britain, the United States and other Western powers, as well as by Russia and Japan, from 1839 to 1949, when Mao’s Communist Party seized power after a five-year civil war.

    A trade war that roiled the world in 1839 pitted Britain against China’s Qing Dynasty. Britain had been buying silks, porcelain and tea from China. But Chinese consumers had scant interest in British-made goods, and Britain started running a significant trade deficit with China.

    To address the trade imbalance, British firms began illegally smuggling in Indian-grown opium, fueling drug addiction in China. The balance of trade soon turned in Britain’s favor, but a Chinese crackdown led to the first Opium War between Britain and China from 1839 to 1842.

    After defeating the Chinese in a series of naval conflicts, the British put a series of demands to the weaker Qing Government in what became the Anglo-Chinese Treaty of Nanjing. Not to be outdone, U.S. negotiators sought to conclude a similar treaty with the Chinese to guarantee the United States many of the favorable terms awarded the British, according to “Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations,” a U.S. State Department publication.

    Long underpinning the Chinese Communist Party’s hold on power have been inequitable treaties, lingering resentment over the earlier era’s losses and extraterritorial laws imposed on China.

    China learnt its lessons from this period of time,” Lu Jingxian, deputy editor of the state-controlled Global Times tabloid, wrote in a column last year. “Lagging leaves you vulnerable to bullying.”

    “Chinese people have walked out of the pathos of century of humiliation, though the West seemingly wants its century of bullying to continue,” he said.

    Meteoric rise

    China stunned the world with the depth and breadth of its economic growth after embracing market-based reforms in 1978, just before formal relations with the United States began in January 1979.

    It is now projected to supplant the United States as the world’s biggest economy by 2030 or 2040. Scholars consider the bilateral relationship to be the 21st Century’s most consequential for the international order.

    China’s meteoric rise began under Deng Xiaoping, who gradually rose to power after Mao’s death and earned the reputation as the architect of modern China. His market-oriented policies transformed one of the world’s oldest civilizations from crushing poverty to a modern powerhouse in military matters, finance, technology and manufacturing.

    China has become the world’s largest manufacturer, merchandise trader, holder of foreign exchange reserves, energy consumer and emitter of greenhouse gases.

    It became the world’s largest economy on a purchasing power parity basis in 2014, according to the McKinsey Global Institute.

    With economic growth averaging almost 10% a year since 1978, China has doubled its Gross Domestic Product every eight years and lifted an estimated 850 million people out of poverty, according to the World Bank.

    China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury securities, which help fund U.S. federal debt and keep U.S. interest rates low — reflecting the interdependence of the two economies.

    South China Sea

    Since Trump was elected in 2016, tensions have risen in the disputed, resource-rich South China Sea (SCS).

    They spiked in mid-July when the U.S. State Department for the first time formally opposed China’s claim to almost all of these waters, calling it “completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them.”

    The United States will keep up the pace of its freedom of navigation operations in the SCS, which hit an all-time high last year, U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said at the time.

    Four Southeast Asian states — Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam — have maritime claims that conflict with China’s, as does Taiwan. An estimated $3.37 trillion worth of global trade passes through the SCS annually, which accounts for as much as a third of global maritime trade.

    Over the next 18 months, “a let-up in tensions is unlikely,” Ian Storey, co-editor of Contemporary Southeast Asia at Singapore’s ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute, wrote in a recent survey of the dispute.

    “China and the United States will increase their military activities in the South China Sea, raising the risk of a confrontation,” regardless of who wins the U.S. presidential election, he said.

    Beijing’s actions in the region have strengthened a conviction on the part of some U.S. strategists that Beijing is seeking control of an area of strategic, political and economic importance to the United States and its allies.

    Taiwan

    The future of Taiwan, an island democracy of 23.6 million people, is a core concern for Beijing.

    Taiwan has been ruled separately since Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists fled there after losing the Chinese civil war in 1949. Beijing views Taiwan as sovereign territory that must eventually be unified with the mainland.

    Last month, Alex Azar, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, met President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan in the highest-level visit by a U.S. official since Washington cut formal ties to the island in 1979. As a condition for establishing bilateral relations with Beijing at the time, the United States committed to maintaining only unofficial relations with Taiwan.

    In a further poke at Beijing, a senior State Department official traveled to the island this month in another high-profile visit. The decision to send Keith Krach, Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment, amounted to a rebuke of China’s efforts to isolate Taiwan.

    Chinese military drills off Taiwan’s southwest coast this month were a “necessary action” to protect China’s sovereignty, Beijing said on September 16, after Taiwan complained about large-scale Chinese air and naval drills.

    Hong Kong, Xinjiang

    Another rub has involved Hong Kong, a former British colony and a world financial center that was guaranteed a measure of autonomy by China as part of negotiations for its 1997 return from Britain.

    In May, Trump said he was taking steps to end Hong Kong’s preferential trading status with the United States after China enacted a harsh new security law. The law in effect rolls back the semiautonomous status that had been promised to Hong Kong by Beijing under the mantle of “one country, two systems.”

    In June, Beijing threatened retaliation after Trump signed legislation calling for sanctions against those responsible for repression of ethnic Uighurs and other Muslims in western China’s Xinjiang region. The U.S. State Department has accused Chinese officials of subjecting Muslims to torture, abuse and “trying to basically erase their culture and their religion.”

    Trump did not hold a ceremony to mark his signing of the legislation, which came as newspapers published excerpts from a new book by Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton. Among other allegations, Bolton said Trump sought Xi’s help to win reelection during a closed-door 2019 meeting and that Trump said Xi should go ahead with building camps in Xinjiang.

    Trump and Xi have refrained so far from ad hominem personal attacks on each other, leaving a door ajar for possible one-on-one efforts to halt the deterioration in ties.


     

    Three questions to consider:

    1. Why have Chinese-U.S. relations spiraled downward?

    2. What are the main concerns of each country?

    3. What are the implications of the situation for the world?


     

    Source link

  • McMahon Defends Harvard Cuts, Faces Grilling During CNBC Interview

    McMahon Defends Harvard Cuts, Faces Grilling During CNBC Interview

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended the Trump administration’s crackdown on Harvard University and other colleges during a contentious appearance Tuesday on CNBC’s Squawk Box as she faced questions about the government’s decision to freeze universities’ federal funding.

    Andrew Ross Sorkin and Joe Kernen, the morning talk show’s hosts, grilled McMahon during the 12-minute segment about whether freezing billions in grants and contracts was due to valid civil rights concerns or unjustified political and ideological standards; they suggested it was the latter. (Harvard sued Monday over the funding freeze, which followed the university’s decision to reject the Trump administration’s sweeping demands.)

    But McMahon reiterated that, for her, it was a matter of holding colleges accountable for antisemitism on campus—not an alleged liberal bias.

    “I made it very clear these are not First Amendment infractions; this is civil rights,” she said. “This is making sure that students on all campuses can come and learn and be safe.”

    Harvard argued in the lawsuit that some of the demands—like auditing faculty for viewpoint diversity—do not directly address antisemitism and infringe on the private institution’s First Amendment rights.

    Sorkin echoed Harvard’s argument during the interview and questioned McMahon about the lawsuit’s claims.

    “The question is whether viewpoint diversity is really about free speech,” he said. 

    In defense, McMahon said that “this letter [of demands] that was sent to Harvard was a point of negotiation … and it was really not a final offer.” She added that she hoped Harvard would come back to the table. (Trump officials told The New York Times that the April 11 letter was sent by mistake.)

    “We would like to be able to move forward with them and other universities,” she said.

    McMahon later reiterated her argument that this was a civil rights matter and said, “I think we’re on very solid grounds” regarding the lawsuit.

    But Kernen countered that requiring universities to hire conservative faculty members is just as bad as historically maintaining liberal ones, calling the act “thought control.”

    “It’s the other side of the same coin, isn’t it?” he said.

    McMahon said it’s fair to take a look at some faculty members.

    Near the end of the interview, Sorkin asked McMahon about her end goal if universities lose their federal funding and tax-exempt status. (The IRS is reportedly reviewing Harvard’s tax-exemption.)

    “We have not said that the tax exemption should be taken away, but I think it’s worth having a look at,” McMahon said. “I think the president has put all the tools on the table and we should have the ability to utilize all of those particular tools.”

    Source link

  • Texas State Helps Students Bounce Back From 2.0 GPA

    Texas State Helps Students Bounce Back From 2.0 GPA

    As more colleges and universities consider initiatives, processes and policies to create a more student-focused campus, they are zeroing in on two areas of concern: academic probation and academic recovery.

    A growing body of research highlights the way negative life experiences and competing priorities impact students’ academic achievement, sometimes exerting a stronger influence than prior academic preparation.

    Texas State University has established a new initiative, Bobcats Bounce Back, to help students whose grades have fallen below a 2.0 learn self-efficacy, resiliency and strong study skills.

    The background: The university has a goal of increasing its first-year retention rate from 77 percent in 2012 to 85 percent by 2025, said Cynthia Hernandez, vice president for student success. Early on, officials recognized that the institution lacked a strong academic recovery program, so Hernandez and her team prioritized devising a proactive solution to reduce the number of students who fell into poor academic standing.

    Since 2009, the university’s policy has been that students who fall below a 2.0 cumulative GPA must meet with an academic adviser at least once a semester. The intervention has proven mostly successful, in that some students have moved back into good academic standing—though not everyone has, said Jason O’Brien, assistant director for academic engagement at Texas State.

    An analysis of institutional data revealed that students who improved their academic trajectory used support services at least once a month, or four times per term.

    “If students are [showing up], I know they’ve got the time and they’ve got a goal, they know what they’re working on,” O’Brien said. The challenge is getting each student to be proactive and engage early, not wait until the end of the semester, before finals.

    Using institutional data, Texas State leaders revamped academic probation requirements to encourage students to make at least four connections with support services each semester; those who don’t, receive personalized outreach.

    How it works: In the Bobcats Bounce Back program, students with a 2.0 GPA or lower are asked to participate in at least four support services, which could include success coaching, tutoring or a student success webinar. Students must meet with an academic adviser for at least one of their mandatory check-ins and they receive weekly communication from the office of academic engagement to encourage them to meet their goals.

    A few weeks into the term, O’Brien’s team runs a report that identifies students on academic probation who have yet to engage with a support office. Students who live off-campus receive communication from the academic engagement team and those in the residence halls receive outreach from their residence life director.

    “We’re not asking, ‘How are your classes going?’” O’Brien said. “We’re saying, ‘How are you doing? What’s going on in [your] life right now? Do you feel safe? Are you able to eat? Do you have any needs that aren’t met? Is your family OK?’ We’re trying to make sure that all of those basic needs, all that it takes to be a successful human is on track, and then from there we move on to, ‘OK, talk to me about classes.’”

    The aim is to be human-centered and conversational in order to learn from the student and bridge any gaps in services and resources the university can provide to promote student success.

    Sometimes this means helping students understand ways to correct their academic transcript, such as repeating a course or asking for an administrative withdrawal when relevant.

    “We make a lot of asset-based assumptions,” O’Brien said. “My assumption is that no student is choosing to fail a course; they are choosing to be successful in something else out of necessity,’” which could include prioritizing their health, caring for a family member or working extra hours to make ends meet. “What we want to do is find out about those early enough to prevent it from impacting a transcript.”

    The impact: During the inaugural program term in fall 2024, Bobcats Bounce Back supported 1,706 undergraduates; this term it is assisting 2,579 students. (Most academic recovery programs see higher rates of participation in the spring term because first-year students are most likely to face academic challenges in their first term, which can dramatically impact their GPA, O’Brien said).

    During fall 2024, Bobcats Bounce Back participants engaged, on average, with support resources 3.11 times, up 270 percent compared to students on academic probation in 2023 (who averaged .84 engagements). The university also saw a 3 percent increase in the number of students who regained good academic standing from fall 2023 to fall 2024, and a 7 percent decrease in academic suspensions.

    At the 12-week mark in spring 2025, average engagements among students on academic probation were up 74.8 percent, from 1.31 to 2.29.

    The data illustrates the program’s success so far, and O’Brien believes it’s due in part to their responsiveness to student needs. As the program has grown, more students are willing to seek out the office and engage. “They’re starting to have faith in us and ask for the support they need,” O’Brien said.

    Program participants also have an opportunity to submit a guided reflection, called a B3 Field Note, every four weeks to build their socioemotional skills. Each prompt is rooted in research-backed strategies to improve academic self-efficacy and engagement. O’Brien has been amazed at the thoughtful responses he’s seen thus far and plans to conduct a critical discourse analysis project to identify students who may need additional support based on their field note submissions.

    In the future, college leaders hope to target additional students who may be at-risk, but haven’t quite fallen below the 2.0 cumulative GPA threshold, a group Hernandez called the “murky middle.”

    If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

    This article has been updated to clarify average engagement rates for program participants in fall 2024 and how that growth compared to the previous fall.

    Source link