Blog

  • ‘We simply could not practice law . . . if we were still subject to the executive order’ – First Amendment News 463

    ‘We simply could not practice law . . . if we were still subject to the executive order’ – First Amendment News 463

    “Global law firms have for years played an outsized role in undermining the judicial process and in the destruction of bedrock American principles.” — Executive Order (3-14-25)

    “Law firms refuse to represent Trump opponents in the wake of his attacks” — The Washington Post (3-25-25)

    The wolf is at the door. 

    Those who do not yet realize this may be forgiven for perhaps two reasons: They do not know the wolf is ravenous, and they do not know the door is ajar. 

    To get but a whiff of this, just read Brad Karp’s March 23 memo to his colleagues at the Paul Weiss firm, from which the title of this edition of FAN gets its title.

    Also this, from MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin:

    [The attacks on law firms] began with Trump issuing executive actions punishing three firms — Covington & Burling, which did not react; Perkins Coie, which fought back and won a partial temporary restraining order; and Paul Weiss, which ultimately capitulated to a deal announced last Thursday, the terms of which are still a matter of some debate. But the president has now directed Attorney General Pam Bondi, in a memo issued Friday night, to seek sanctions “against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States.”

    Now back to the Paul, Weiss controversy.

    A little background at the outset to help set the retributive stage: According to Wikipedia, Karp “is a bundler for Democratic Party presidential candidates . . . having raised sums for the presidential campaigns of Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, and others.” 

    In other words, if Trump was out for political retribution, Karp was a perfect target. And then consider this: One of Karp’s former partners was Mark Pomerantz, author of “People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account,” which details the attempt to prosecute former president Donald Trump, written by one of the lawyers who worked on the case and who resigned in protest when Manhattan’s district attorney refused to act.

    And now on to the Executive Order from March 14, “Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss.” Excerpts below:

    In 2022, Paul Weiss hired unethical attorney Mark Pomerantz, who had previously left Paul Weiss to join the Manhattan District Attorney’s office solely to manufacture a prosecution against me and who, according to his co-workers, unethically led witnesses in ways designed to implicate me.  After being unable to convince even Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg that a fraud case was feasible, Pomerantz engaged in a media campaign to gin up support for this unwarranted prosecution.

    Additionally, Paul Weiss discriminates against its own employees on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws.  Paul Weiss, along with nearly every other large, influential, or industry leading law firm, makes decisions around ‘targets’ based on race and sex.

    My Administration is committed to ending such unlawful discrimination perpetrated in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies and ensuring that Federal benefits support the laws and policies of the United States, including those laws and policies promoting our national security and respecting the democratic process.

    Now, the Weiss law firm’s memo in response, from Brad Karp:

    Brad Karp

    Only several days ago, our firm faced an existential crisis. The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm. It brought the full weight of the government down on our firm, our people, and our clients. In particular, it threatened our clients with the loss of their government contracts, and the loss of access to the government, if they continued to use the firm as their lawyers. And in an obvious effort to target all of you as well as the firm, it raised the specter that the government would not hire our employees.

    We were hopeful that the legal industry would rally to our side, even though it had not done so in response to executive orders targeting other firms. We had tried to persuade other firms to come out in public support of Covington and Perkins Coie. And we waited for firms to support us in the wake of the President’s executive order targeting Paul, Weiss. Disappointingly, far from support, we learned that certain other firms were seeking to exploit our vulnerabilities by aggressively soliciting our clients and recruiting our attorneys.

    We initially prepared to challenge the executive order in court, and a team of Paul, Weiss attorneys prepared a lawsuit in the finest traditions of the firm. But it became clear that, even if we were successful in initially enjoining the executive order in litigation, it would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the Administration. We could prevent the executive order from taking effect, but we couldn’t erase it. Clients had told us that they were not going to be able to stay with us, even though they wanted to. It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the Administration.

    Commentary:

    President Donald Trump’s crackdown on lawyers is having a chilling effect on his opponents’ ability to defend themselves or challenge his actions in court, according to people who say they are struggling to find legal representation as a result of his challenges.

    [Such executive orders and pressured settlements set] an ominous precedent for future presidents to exploit. . . . [H]ow can a lawyer who is considering representing a politically controversial client know that she will not be targeted the next time control of the White House changes hands? The safest course of action will be to avoid representing clients of any political salience, right or left, even if their cause is just.

    Related

    Constitutional scholars on the Trump Administration’s threats against Columbia University

    We write as constitutional scholars — some liberal and some conservative — who seek to defend academic freedom and the First Amendment in the wake of the federal government’s recent treatment of Columbia University.

    The First Amendment protects speech many of us find wrongheaded or deeply offensive, including anti-Israel advocacy and even antisemitic advocacy. The government may not threaten funding cuts as a tool to pressure recipients into suppressing such viewpoints. This is especially so for universities, which should be committed to respecting free speech.

    At the same time, the First Amendment of course doesn’t protect antisemitic violence, true threats of violence, or certain kinds of speech that may properly be labeled ‘harassment.’ Title VI rightly requires universities to protect their students and other community members from such behavior. But the lines between legally unprotected harassment on the one hand and protected speech on the other are notoriously difficult to draw and are often fact-specific. In part because of that, any sanctions imposed on universities for Title VI violations must follow that statute’s well-established procedural rules, which help make clear what speech is sanctionable and what speech is constitutionally protected.

    Yet the administration’s March 7 cancellation of $400 million in federal funding to Columbia University did not adhere to such procedural safeguards. Neither did its March 13 ultimatum stipulating that Columbia make numerous changes to its academic policies — including the demand that, within one week, it “provide a full plan” to place an entire “department under academic receivership for a minimum of five years” — as “a precondition for formal negotiations regarding Columbia University’s continued financial relationship with the United States government.”

    Signatories

    • Steven G. Calabresi
      Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor of Law, Northwestern Law School
    • Erwin Chemerinsky
      Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, Berkeley Law School
    • David Cole
      Hon. George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy, Georgetown University Law Center
    • Michael C. Dorf
      Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
    • Richard Epstein
      Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, NYU School of Law
    • Owen Fiss
      Sterling Professor Emeritus of Law, Yale Law School
    • Aziz Huq
      Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
    • Pamela Karlan
      Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law, Stanford Law School
    • Randall Kennedy
      Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
    • Genevieve Lakier
      Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Teaching Scholar, University of Chicago Law School
    • Michael McConnell
      Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
    • Michael Paulsen
      Distinguished University Chair and Professor, St. Thomas Law School
    • Robert Post
      Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law School
    • David Rabban
      Dahr Jamail, Randall Hage Jamail, and Robert Lee Jamail Regents Chair in Law, University of Texas Law School
    • Geoffrey R. Stone
      Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
    • Nadine Strossen
      John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law Emerita, New York Law School
    • Eugene Volokh
      Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
    • Keith Whittington
      David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law School

    SCOTUS denies review in case urging that Sullivan be overruled

    • Wynn v. Associated Press (issue: Whether this Court should overturn Sullivan’s actual-malice standard or, at a minimum, overrule Curtis Publishing Co.’s expansion of it to public figures)

    On the Trump administration targeting campuses

    The United States is home to the best collection of research universities in the world. Those universities have contributed tremendously to America’s prosperity, health, and security. They are magnets for outstanding talent from throughout the country and around the world. The Trump administration’s recent attack on Columbia University puts all of that at risk, presenting the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s. Every American should be concerned.

    Until recently, it was a little-known program to help Black and Latino students pursue business degrees.

    But in January, conservative strategist Christopher Rufo flagged the program known as The PhD Project in social media posts that caught the attention of Republican politicians. The program is now at the center of a Trump administration campaign to root out diversity, equity and inclusion programs in higher education.

    The U.S. Education Department last week said it was investigating dozens of universities for alleged racial discrimination, citing ties to the nonprofit organization. That followed a warning a month earlier that schools could lose federal money over “race-based preferences” in admissions, scholarships or any aspect of student life.

    The investigations left some school leaders startled and confused, wondering what prompted the inquiries. Many scrambled to distance themselves from The PhD Project, which has aimed to help diversify the business world and higher education faculty.

    Zoom webinar on strategies to combat attacks on free speech in academia

    “Upholding the First Amendment Webinar: Strategies to Combat the Attack on Free Speech in Academia”

    Thursday, March 27, 2025, 1:00 – 2:00 PM ET

    As efforts to silence dissent grow more aggressive, the immediate and long-term threats to our constitutional freedoms — especially in educational institutions — cannot be ignored.

     This virtual panel will bring together top legal minds and policy experts to examine how these actions affect student activists, journalists, and marginalized communities. Together, we’ll explore the legal strategies needed to safeguard First Amendment rights and resist the erosion of civil liberties.

    Featured Panelists:  Maria Kari, Human Rights Attorney  Rep. Delia Ramirez (IL-03)  Jenna Leventoff, Senior Policy Counsel, ACLU  Stephen F. Rohde, MPAC Special Advisor on Free Speech and the First Amendment  Whether you’re a student, educator, advocate, or supporter of civil rights, this is a conversation you won’t want to miss.

       ➡️ Register today and join us in defending the values that define our democracy.

    Whittington on diversity statements and college hiring

    Keith Whittington

    Keith Whittington

    The University of California is the godfather of the use of so-called diversity statements in faculty hiring. I have a piece forthcoming at the Nebraska Law Review arguing that such diversity statement requirements for general faculty hiring at state universities violate the First Amendment and violate academic freedom principles everywhere. It seems quite likely that in practice such diversity statement requirements are also used to facilitate illegal racial discrimination in faculty hiring.

    The University of California system’s board of regents has now put an end to the use of such diversity statements at those schools. This is a truly remarkable development. Not unreasonably, this decision is being put in the context of the Trump administration’s extraordinary attack on Columbia University, a move that I think is both lawless and itself a threat to academic freedom. But there’s no question that it got the attention of university leaders across the country, and if it encourages some of them to rededicate themselves to their core institutional mission and its central values then at least some good will come of it. So silver linings and all that.

    Trump rails against portrait at the Colorado Capitol

    Portrait of President Donald Trump in Colorado State Capitol

    Institute for Free Speech files brief in campaign disclosure-fee case

    The case is Sullivan v. Texas Ethics Commission. The issue in the case is whether — and if so, under what circumstances — the First Amendment permits the government to require ordinary citizens to register and pay a fee to communicate with their government representatives.

    • Amicus brief here. Counsel of record: Alan Gura. The Institute’s brief argues that the 1954 precedent of United States v. Harriss no longer reflects modern First Amendment jurisprudence and fails to protect the right to speak anonymously about matters of public policy.

    Forthcoming book by Princeton’s president on campus free speech

    Cover of the book "Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right" by Christopher Eisgruber

    The president of Princeton, a constitutional scholar, reveals how colleges are getting free speech on campuses right and how they can do better to nurture civil discourse and foster mutual respect

    Conversations about higher education teem with accusations that American colleges and universities are betraying free speech, indoctrinating students with left-wing dogma, and censoring civil discussions. But these complaints are badly misguided.

    In Terms of Respect, constitutional scholar and Princeton University president Christopher L. Eisgruber argues that colleges and universities are largely getting free speech right. Today’s students engage in vigorous discussions on sensitive topics and embrace both the opportunity to learn and the right to protest. Like past generations, they value free speech, but, like all of us, they sometimes misunderstand what it requires. Ultimately, the polarization and turmoil visible on many campuses reflect an American civic crisis that affects universities along with the rest of society. But colleges, Eisgruber argues, can help to promote civil discussion in this raucous, angry world — and they can show us how to embrace free speech without sacrificing ideals of equality, diversity, and respect.

    Urgent and original, Terms of Respect is an ardent defense of our universities, and a hopeful vision for navigating the challenges that free speech provokes for us all. 

    Forthcoming scholarly article on AI and the First Amendment

    This paper challenges the assumption that courts should grant outputs from large generative AI models, such as GPT-4 and Gemini, First Amendment protections. We argue that because these models lack intentionality, their outputs do not constitute speech as understood in the context of established legal precedent, so there can be no speech to protect. Furthermore, if the model outputs are not speech, users cannot claim a First Amendment right to receive the outputs. 

    We also argue that extending First Amendment rights to AI models would not serve the fundamental purposes of free speech, such as promoting a marketplace of ideas, facilitating self-governance, or fostering self-expression. In fact, granting First Amendment protections to AI models would be detrimental to society because it would hinder the government’s ability to regulate these powerful technologies effectively, potentially leading to the unchecked spread of misinformation and other harms.

    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 (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

    Free speech related

    • 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 462: “Executive Watch: Trump’s weaponization of civil lawsuits”

    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

  • ‘Building Balance’ at Harvard: Allison Pillinger Choi’s bid for alumni leadership

    ‘Building Balance’ at Harvard: Allison Pillinger Choi’s bid for alumni leadership

    Since its founding in 1836, the Harvard Alumni Association (HAA) has sought to “renew that interest in Harvard’s welfare and glory which separation and absence have hitherto caused too long and lamentably to slumber.”

    Today, as Harvard faces mounting challenges to its foundational commitment to Veritas (Truth) — steadily being replaced, it seems, by Pontius Pilate’s cynical sneer: Quid est veritas? (What is truth?) — a renewed interest among alumni in their alma mater’s “welfare and glory” is more vital than ever.

    And the upcoming HAA Board elections offer Harvard alumni the perfect place to start. The task is to elect leaders who will champion free expression, viewpoint diversity, civil discourse, and academic freedom — the very tools that make the pursuit of Veritas possible.

    Among the candidates seeking an elected director position, Allison Pillinger Choi, A.B. 2006, stands out with a compelling vision. Under the banner of “Building Balance,” Choi is campaigning for a Harvard where “all truth-seeking ideas — whether conservative, liberal, or otherwise — are heard, valued, and respected.”

    Choi’s life story exemplifies the very balance she aims to promote. Born and raised in South Florida to a Korean immigrant mother and a third-generation Jewish American father, she mastered the art of equilibrium early on. This instinct for poise carried her through Harvard, where she balanced an economics degree, Division I varsity tennis, editorship on The Crimson’s business board, and shifts at various Cambridge eateries.

    Allison Pillinger Choi with her husband, Brian, and two children in the Dunster House library at Harvard. 

    After a successful postgraduate career in finance and fitness — balancing checkbooks and barbells — she now lives in New York with her husband and two children while serving on local nonprofit boards dedicated to the arts, civics, and the environment. Most notably, she is the co-founder of Experiment in Dialogue, an initiative promoting conversations across ideological divides.

    Choi is also the author of the book “Bleeding Heart Conservatives,” a defense of compassionate conservatism, and a regular contributor to City Journal and the San Francisco Chronicle, where she writes on polarization and viewpoint diversity.

    FIRE recently sat down with Choi to discuss her campaign for the HAA Board, her thoughts on free expression at Harvard, and how she envisions bringing balance to her alma mater. Below is our conversation, edited for readability. 

     

     

    How has your experience at Harvard, both as a student and alum, shaped your views on free expression and intellectual diversity?

    As an undergraduate, I sensed unspoken limits on which political views were acceptable. In one instance, I remember taking a class on labor markets where the professor made it clear how he felt about unions. While I respected his research and affable style of teaching, as the daughter of a union worker, I knew the issue was more complex. 

    My father had explained to me and my brother that while unions can be a force for good, they also have downsides. I knew there was more to the argument than was offered in class, but I didn’t want to cross that invisible line — so I often just stayed quiet, went along with the prevailing view, and answered questions accordingly.

    That experience stayed with me. Over the years, as an alum, I’ve heard even more troubling stories — students and faculty feeling pressured to hide their beliefs or adjust how they talk about certain issues to avoid backlash. It made me realize that maybe I was part of the problem by staying silent. 

    Now, I want to be part of the solution — not only by encouraging people to speak up but also by helping others see that viewpoint diversity is essential for genuine intellectual growth.

    Your campaign focuses on “Bringing Balance.” Can you explain what that means and why you think it’s important right now, especially at Harvard?

    The theme of my campaign, “Building Balance,” carries several layers of meaning. For one, it’s about fostering a diversity of viewpoints. This doesn’t mean insisting on a strict 50/50 split or symmetrical representation. Rather, it’s about broadening the spectrum of perspectives and opinions. It ensures that a wide range of voices are present. This approach helps prevent institutions from falling into the trap of echo chambers, where only reinforcing viewpoints are heard and where growth is limited.

    “Building Balance” also refers to finding stability. Many higher education institutions today are navigating heightened tensions. I believe that embracing viewpoint diversity — by welcoming advocates from various personal and political backgrounds — can contribute to a healthier, more stable environment where all sincere, truth-seeking perspectives are respected and considered.

    Finally, “Building Balance” is about recognizing and strengthening the extraordinary elements present at Harvard. It’s not about dismantling, it’s about building upon a strong foundation. I believe that viewpoint diversity, civil discourse, and academic freedom are the foundational elements of our university community, and integral to continued success.

    What role do you see alumni playing in promoting free expression and viewpoint diversity at Harvard?

    Alumni have numerous ways to contribute to the promotion of free expression and viewpoint diversity at Harvard. One of the most simple and effective actions is to just show up. Attend HAA events and broader Harvard community gatherings that highlight heterodox thinkers and speakers. And why not invite an alumni friend along? Extra credit if that friend brings a different political perspective!

    The HAA is always looking for new ways to engage alumni and increase participation. With the growing number of initiatives supporting the classical liberal values of freedom and expression at Harvard, our community has more opportunities for anyone eager to champion viewpoint diversity. As an HAA elected director, I would support and expand these initiatives.

    One of the unique — and often overlooked — aspects of being a viewpoint diversity advocate is that there’s no requirement to hold any particular opinion. All that’s needed is curiosity. However, if a viewpoint diversity advocate does have strong convictions, that’s perfectly fine, too. The key is to approach differing views with humility and charity. With these qualities, every alumnus is capable of both promoting and exercising free expression and viewpoint diversity.

    Indeed, it’s an “exercise.” As Harvard professor Eric Beerbohm, head of the university’s new Civil Discourse Initiative, aptly puts it, “The ability to engage in empathetic disagreement is like a muscle — it grows stronger with deliberate practice. These kinds of scenarios, where participants are challenged to consider new perspectives and make tough decisions, provide exactly that kind of exercise.”

    How can the HAA better engage alumni who feel disconnected or frustrated with the current campus climate?

    As an elected director, I would love to help the HAA deepen alumni engagement and re-engage those who feel disconnected or frustrated. One effective approach is to expand the variety of event themes, particularly by hosting panel discussions that feature diverse viewpoints on a range of important topics. 

    While the panelists would be experts in their fields, each would offer a unique perspective and set of beliefs. The common thread among them would be their shared commitment to open inquiry and civil discourse.

    These events could be modeled after the spirit of professor Michael Sandel’s renowned undergraduate course, “Justice,” one of Harvard’s most popular classes. In Sandel’s lectures, he regularly invited professors with opposing viewpoints to debate controversial topics, with the goal of seeking truth. Professors like Sandel understand that complex issues rarely have clear-cut answers. 

    It is only through the rigorous process of challenging and questioning that we improve our understanding, move closer to truth, and expand our communities. Alumni groups could carry forward Sandel’s legacy of viewpoint diversity by hosting events where renowned thinkers debate significant topics, fostering a space for respectful and productive dialogue among heterodox thinkers and doers.

    If elected, what would success look like for you at the end of your term as an elected director?

    If elected, success at the end of my three-year term would mean accomplishing at least two key goals. The first would be seeing more HAA volunteers actively contributing to viewpoint diversity initiatives within their areas of interest. With roughly 200 Harvard clubs and 60 shared interest groups covering a range of professional fields, academic disciplines, and personal identity backgrounds, there is so much opportunity to foster diverse perspectives! 

    While these HAA groups share common interests, each alumnus brings something unique. I believe we can proactively seek and encourage a diversity of viewpoints across our HAA communities. 

    The second goal is to establish an alumni event series that pays homage to the deep friendship between Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia — both former Harvard Law students. Their remarkable bond transcended the controversial issues they often disagreed on in their judicial decisions. 

    United by their shared love of country and opera, among other interests, they demonstrated how mutual respect and admiration can flourish despite ideological differences. I want to celebrate this sentiment through events that feature speakers of opposing views, followed by a post-debate social.

    Allison Pillinger Choi’s candidacy for HAA Board is a call to action –– to awaken alumni from their “slumber” and take an interest in the “welfare and glory” of Harvard. If you are a Harvard alum and are interested in supporting Choi’s vision for “Building Balance,” be sure to make your voice heard in this important election. 

    The HAA Board election begins on April 1 and will remain open until 5 p.m. EST on May 20th. All Harvard degree holders as of Jan. 1, 2025 are eligible to vote. Alumni can cast their ballots online, via the alumni portal, or by paper ballot, which you will receive in the mail, to fill six openings among the HAA elected directors.

    Source link

  • Transform Learning With Accurate Networking Simulations

    Transform Learning With Accurate Networking Simulations

    Reading Time: 6 minutes

    Today, I want to talk about an innovative and exciting tool for teaching and learning the subject of computer networking. I’ve been teaching and learning the expansive subject of computer networking for more than 25 years at the community college level. I also write networking and operating system textbooks for Cengage. I’ve always wished there was a tool available that offers accurate networking simulations while not being overly complicated for introductory students; that was focused first and foremost on teaching and learning the sometimes-difficult topic of networking.  LabHUB Network Emulator from DTI Publishing is just such a tool.

    I recently retired from full-time teaching, and I feel cheated that I will miss out using this tool in the classroom with my students. The good news for me is that I’m still writing networking textbooks, and this tool will be my go-to for developing virtual networking labs as a supplement to physical networking equipment labs. 

     

    What is LabHUB Network Emulator?

    Network Emulator is a web-based networking simulation tool that anyone with a web browser and internet connection can access — no software installation required. For students, it’s easy to use. It visually shows the movement of network data through the network and allows students to configure network devices and topologies. It also gives immediate feedback as students work through lab exercises. For instructors, it’s fully customizable. While a library of pre-created, self-grading labs will be available with certain textbooks from Cengage, instructors can create their own labs to focus on the topics they feel are most important for students to grasp.  

    In addition, instructors can create self-check questions that provide immediate feedback with detailed explanations to validate learning outcomes as students work through lab steps. As I mentioned, this tool is focused on teaching and learning, so if a student gets stuck on a task, there’s a “Show Me” option that provides an explanation or plays a short video about the task at hand. 

     

    The vision behind Network Emulator

    Every feature of Network Emulator was developed with teaching and learning in mind, and that has been the focus of the founder of DTI Publishing, Pierre Askmo, with all of DTI’s products.  There are a few competing products in this space, and I asked Pierre why he decided to take on the competition and develop Network Emulator. 

    “We saw a need in the space between educational platforms with a fair amount of learning components but were static, and highly interactive professional network simulators geared towards engineers, which had hardly any learning features. The LabHUB Network Emulator merges the two to offer a highly interactive and educational network emulation platform.” 

    I pressed him further by asking what makes Network Emulator unique amongst the competition. 

    “It’s the ability to add educational features to a network emulation tool. Our tool was developed with students and instructors in mind. It enables instructors to insert questions, hints, and remedial texts while getting complete grading of the student’s actions. The LabHUB Network Emulator is an emulator developed for education.”

    From what I have seen so far, that’s spot on. 

    Network Emulator has a clean, straightforward interface, as you can see from the figure. Moving from left to right in the figure, the lab written instructions are on the left, and you see a menu of devices and other options next, followed by the workspace. At the top are some controls including the Show Me option I mentioned before. The workspace can be pre-populated with devices as in the figure, and devices can be partially configured if desired depending on the learning objectives of the lab. The workspace can also be left completely empty so students can add and configure the necessary devices to complete the objectives of the lab. 

    Feedback in action: guiding students to understand networking concepts

    One of the great things about Network Emulator is the feedback students get as they watch packets travel from device to device. The next figure shows a ping reply packet as it travels through the network from Computer B to Computer A. At the top right of the workspace, you see the current status of the packet, the source and destination devices, and the type of packet. At the very top of the workspace is the Network Log which is a running narrative of what is happening as the packet makes its way through the network.  

    Students can click the arrow at the top right of the screen and see the narrative history to better understand what occurred to get to this point in the packet’s journey. The Send control at the top of the workspace sends the packet so students can watch it traverse the network automatically. The Move to next device control simply forwards the packet to the next device, allowing students to click on the packet to see the packet details at any device. 

    Screenshot from Network Emulator demonstrating the "Send" and "Move to next device" controls.

    The next two figures show packet contents and a partial view of the expanded Network Log. You can use the scroll bar to see the full log. When a packet reaches its destination, you’ll see a green checkmark and the status line reports “Successful.” 

    Screenshot of packet contents and a partial view of the expanded Network Log.Screenshot of packet contents and a partial view of the expanded Network Log.

    So, what happens if something goes wrong? For example, what if a student tries to send a ping packet, but the devices are not properly configured for a successful transmission? Again, feedback is the key. In the next figure, a ping was attempted between Computer A and Computer C. But, since a router is in between the computers, more configuration is required. The status bar at the top reports that the packet cannot be sent and if you hover your mouse over the exclamation point, you see a message: “No default gateway configured.” This type of feedback is excellent for students who are learning the basics of networking.  

    Screenshot demonstrating the feedback a student receives when they make a mistake; the status bar reads "Cannot send packet from Computer A to Computer C"

     How instructors can build a personalized learning experience with Network Emulator

    For instructors, Network Emulator allows them to create their own labs. Instructions can be written in Edit Lab Mode and audio instructions can be included. This is also where instructors can include a Show Me which can include a text narrative, a video, and audio. 

    Screenshot that demonstrates how instructors can create their own labs, including text, audio and video instructions if desired.

    In Studio Mode, instructors can design the topology with an initial state that students will see when they start the lab, and a correct state which is the state of the topology when the student completes the lab step.  

    Screenshot of Studio Mode, where instructors can see an initial state that students will see when they start the lab, and a correct state which is the state of the topology when the student completes the lab step.

    Studio Mode is also where you can create self-check questions and configure grading criteria. After each step, instructors can create a self-check question to reinforce the learning objective for the lab step. Students will get instant correct/incorrect feedback and an explanation for the correct answer. In the Grading Settings, instructors can choose which configuration tasks are graded for each step. The next two figures show the grading settings and a self-check question. 

    Screenshot of the Grading Settings screen. Screenshot of the Grading Settings screen.

     

    There isn’t room on this blog post to show all the features of LabHUB Network Emulator, but what I’ve seen so far has me excited to incorporate Network Emulator labs into my Guide to Networking Essentials book. It has the right mix of accurate networking simulation capabilities and teaching and learning features for most introductory networking courses and certifications. And development is ongoing, so new features and capabilities are being added based on instructor and student feedback.  

    Speaking of development, I had a conversation with the chief architect of Network Emulator and asked him what was the most challenging aspect of developing the tool. He said, “I’d say the most challenging aspect was providing a SaaS platform where authors could create a multitude of diverse labs visually that students could access from anywhere in the world.” I bet that was a challenge! And it’s one of the things that makes Network Emulator so unique; whether you’re a student or instructor, if you have a web browser, you can use it.

     

    Written by Greg Tomsho, author of “Guide to Networking Essentials” 9e and “Microsoft Exam AZ-801: Guide to Configuring Windows Server Hybrid Advanced Services” 1e. 

     

    Coming soon: the LabHUB Network Emulator will be available in MindTap for our next edition CompTIA Cloud+ and CompTIA A+ titles. In the meantime, visit our Computing & Information Technology page to find more engaging course materials from Cengage. 

    Source link

  • Check-in on Administrative Bloat, 2025 Edition

    Check-in on Administrative Bloat, 2025 Edition

    Check-in on Administrative Bloat, 2025 Edition

    It’s been a little over five years since I took a serious dive into the question of “administrative bloat,” which apparently exists everywhere but in the statistics. Still, always good to check assumptions every once in a while, and I thought five years was long enough to make a new look at the data worthwhile. So here goes:

    Let’s start by reviewing what we can and cannot know about staffing at Canadian universities. StatsCan tracks the number of permanent ranked faculty pretty accurately through its University and College Academic Staff Survey (UCASS), and in a loosey-goosier fashion through the Labour Force Survey. The latter gives much higher numbers than the former, as shown below in Figure 1, which compares the number of “ranked” academics from UCASS with the number of permanent, full-time academics from the LFS.

    Figure 1 – Full-time Academic Staff Numbers According to LFS and UCASS

    StatsCan also tracks the total number of employees—both salaried and hourly—in the university sector using the Survey of Employment, Payroll and Hours (SEPH). However, in theory, if you subtract the number of FT academic staff from the number of total staff, you should be able to get the total number of non-academic staff, right? Well, unfortunately, this is where the discrepancy between UCASS and LFS runs into some problems. In Figure 2, I show the implied number of non-academics using both methods. The growth rates are different because of the difference in observations in the early period, but the two estimates do both converge on the observation that there are about 130,000 non-academic staff at Canadian universities, or about two and a half times the complement of academic staff.

    Figure 2 – Implied Non-Academic Staff Numbers using SEPH, LFS and UCASS

    So, that’s evidence of bloat, right? Well, maybe. Personally, what I take from Figure 2 is that either (or both) the LFS numbers and the SEPH numbers are probably flaming hot garbage. There’s simply no way that the number of non-academic staff has increased by 170% in the past twenty years, as a combination of the SEPH and LFS data suggests. For reasons that will become apparent shortly, I also have serious doubts that it’s increased by 85% either, as the combination of SPEH and UCASS suggests. Because there is a second set of data available to look at this question, one that shows expenditure on salaries, and it shows a much different picture.

    The annual FIUC survey shows how much money is spent on wages for ranked academics as well as how much is spent on non-academics (it also shows wages for instructional staff without academic rank,” but I exclude this here for ease of analysis). Over the past three years, it is true that non-academic salary mass has risen, and academic ones have not (score for the bloat theory!), but looked at with a 25-year lens, Figure 3 shows that the rate of increase is about the same (score one against).

    Figure 3 – Total Expenditures on Salaries by Employee Group, in millions of $2023

    Basically, the salary data in Figure 3 tells a completely different story than the SEPH/LFS/UCASS data in Figure 2. All you do is divide the spending data by the implied headcounts to see what I mean (which I do below). Figure 4 shows the implied change in average academic pay and average A&S pay, dividing total FIUC pay by the UCASS academic staff numbers and the A&S staff numbers implied by subtracting the UCASS numbers from the SEPH numbers, i.e., the orange line from Figure 2. To believe both sets of data, you have to believe that average academic salaries have increased substantially while average salaries for non-academics have declined substantially.

    Figure 4 – Change in Implied Average Pay, Academic Staff vs. A&S Staff, 2001-02 = 100

    In Figure 4, the blue line representing academic salaries is more or less consistent with the long-term trend in salaries we have seen by looking at salary survey data (which I last did back here): significant growth in the 00s and much slower growth thereafter. There are no staff salary surveys to use for comparison, but let’s put it this way: when people talk about “bloat” in non-academic staff positions, they normally mean it in the sense that the bloat is coming from expensive A&S staff, overpaid A&S staff, etc. For Figure 4 to be true, the growth in staff numbers would need to come almost entirely from more junior, less well-paid staff. It’s not impossible that this is true, but it’s not consistent with the general vibe about bloat, either

    So who knows, really? There’s a lot of contradictory data here, some of which argues strongly in favour of the bloat argument, but quite a bit of which points in the other direction. Better data is needed to answer this question probably isn’t forthcoming.

    Meanwhile, we can take one last look at A&S expenditure data. We can check to see if the pattern of A&S salary expenditures across university operating functions has changed over time. As Figure 5 shows, the answer is “a little bit.” Central Administration now takes up 25% of total A&S salary expenditures, up from 22% 20 years ago. Student services and external relations are up much more sharply in proportional terms, but since they were both starting from a low base, they don’t impact the overall numbers that much. Libraries, physical plant, and non-credit instruction are the categories losing share.

    Figure 5: Share of Total A&S Salary Mass by Function, Canadian University Operating Grants, Select Years

    And there you have it: more data than you probably needed on administrative bloat. See you back here again in 2030.

    Source link

  • Should the government punish you for allegedly ‘undermining’ American diplomacy?

    Should the government punish you for allegedly ‘undermining’ American diplomacy?

    American foreign policy is vast, complex, and can change by the hour. The First Amendment protects our right to support, challenge, protest, or question the policy of the United States and every other government around the world.

    But in seeking deportations of some legal residents in the United States, federal officials are claiming to target immigrants for expression that could, in their view, impact American diplomacy — and the implications for free expression are profound.

    This broad justification effectively means any legal immigrant in the United States cannot speak his or her mind about any political issue without risking deportation, lest their words in some way implicate present or future foreign policy matters.

    That’s the thing about broad justifications for censorship: They invite broad application.

    In the case of Badar Khan Suri — an Indian citizen, Georgetown University postdoctoral fellow, and recent deportation target — The New York Times reported last week that “an official familiar with Dr. Suri’s case” asserted that “the State Department justified his deportation by arguing that he engaged in antisemitic activity that would undermine diplomatic efforts to get Israel and Hamas to agree to a cease-fire.” 

    Suri is a fellow at Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. In a statement, the school said Suri “has committed no crime.” His father-in-law, Ahmed Yousef, was “a former adviser to Hamas” over a decade ago and “for his part, has criticized the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel.” The ACLU of Virginia, which is serving on Suri’s legal team, asserts that his deportation is “in direct retaliation for his speech in support of Palestinian rights and his family’s ties to Gaza.” 

    And on Friday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted that he “will continue to cancel the visas of those whose presence or activities have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for our country.”

    This justification should set off a warning bell for anyone concerned about protecting freedom of expression in the U.S. There is effectively no limiting principle around speech that would allegedly “undermine diplomatic efforts.” 

    Can legal immigrants in the United States discuss human rights violations in Xinjiang or Hong Kong, even though doing so could theoretically imperil tariff talks or trade negotiations with China? What about criticism of the notion that Canada should become the “51st state”? Can Ukrainian immigrants criticize the actions of President Vladimir Putin while the U.S. is involved in talks between Russia and Ukraine? 

    That’s the thing about broad justifications for censorship: They invite broad application.

    And that’s why, last week, FIRE filed a “friend of the court” brief along with a coalition of civil liberties groups contesting the federal government’s detention of lawful permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil. 

    The brief challenged the administration’s use of a statute empowering the secretary of state to deport a lawful non-citizen resident if the secretary determines their “presence or activities” has a “potentially serious” effect on American foreign policy. 

    As FIRE explains, none of the many immigrants in the U.S., including the million-plus on campus, “will feel safe criticizing the American government of the day — in class, scholarship, or on their own time — if a current or future secretary of state may, whenever he chooses and at his unreviewable discretion, deem them adverse to American foreign policy and have them deported.”

    Noncitizens lawfully in the United States may lose their residency for many reasons, like criminal activity or overstaying beyond the authorized date.

    Exercising the freedoms protected by our First Amendment should not be one of them. 

    Source link

  • Why doesn’t higher education make a difference?

    Why doesn’t higher education make a difference?

    by Amir Shahsavari and Mohammad Eslahi

    This blog is based on research reported in Shahsavari, A, & Eslahi, M (2025) ‘Dynamics of Imbalanced Higher Education Development: Analysing Factors and Policy Implications’ in Policy Reviews in Higher Education.

    Our study addresses the paradox of expanding higher education, particularly in Iran, failing to translate into substantial societal impact. We adopted an interpretive research paradigm to explore participants’ experiences and perspectives, emphasising qualitative inquiry. Specifically, we applied a basic qualitative research approach, focusing on thematic data analysis to understand underlying meanings and patterns. We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 23 professionals from Iran’s higher education system, including executive experts and academic scholars. The data was analysed using qualitative theme analysis with the thematic network approach. It highlights the interplay of internal and external factors driving this imbalance and offers practical recommendations for policymakers and university administrators. The study identifies multiple external and internal factors contributing to the imbalanced development of Iranian higher education.

    External Factors:

    1. Conflicting Political Discourse: Political divisions create inconsistent policy directions that hinder higher education reform. The resulting instability restricts universities from pursuing coherent strategies for social development.
    2. Deficient Decision-Making Structures: Inefficient policy frameworks restrict universities’ ability to align with national development goals. This limits their capacity to engage in long-term planning, research commercialization, and innovation.
    3. Lack of Social and Cultural Cohesion: Weak societal integration reduces higher education’s ability to contribute to social progress. Universities struggle to connect their knowledge outputs to broader societal needs without a shared cultural framework.
    4. Low Demand for Science and Technology in the Economy: Limited integration of scientific advancements into economic sectors hinders universities’ relevance. Weak industry-university linkages prevent research outcomes from driving innovation and economic growth.
    5. International Sanctions: Economic constraints and restricted access to global knowledge networks impede higher education progress. This isolation limits opportunities for research collaboration, technological exchange, and funding access.

    Internal Factors:

    1. Limited Engagement with National and Local Ecosystem Needs: Universities lack meaningful interaction with regional industries and communities. This disconnect limits their ability to address localized development challenges.
    2. Insufficient Attention to Territorial Advantages in Development Planning: Universities often fail to leverage local strengths and opportunities, weakening their contribution to regional economic development.
    3. Weak Endogenous Creativity: Overreliance on Western educational models stifles innovative academic approaches. As a result, Iranian universities struggle to develop unique solutions suited to local challenges.
    4. Promotion of Emigration: University environments inadvertently encourage student and faculty migration, reducing local impact. This trend diminishes the human capital available to drive national innovation.

    This study contributes new insights by highlighting the interplay between external political pressures and internal university strategies. While previous studies have emphasized government interventions and economic constraints, this research reveals the disruptive effects of conflicting political ideologies and weak social cohesion. Additionally, the study expands on the “quadruple helix” model by illustrating the absence of place-based leadership and strategies as critical gaps in Iranian higher education. The study also introduces a framework for integrating participatory governance models into university decision-making processes, enhancing institutions’ responsiveness to societal needs. The study emphasizes three key strategies for improving higher education’s societal impact:

    1. Promoting National Dialogues via Universities: Encouraging open dialogue among academic leaders and policymakers can bridge ideological divides, fostering consensus on long-term educational goals. This step is vital to mitigate political interference and improve strategic planning for university development. Higher education can contribute to national stability and long-term planning by positioning universities as mediators in political debates.
    2. Increasing Science and Technology Demand: Policymakers should enhance economic incentives for scientific research integration. Encouraging industrial partnerships and market-driven research will amplify universities’ role in economic growth. By creating a more dynamic innovation ecosystem, universities can expand their influence on industry practices and economic modernization.
    3. Developing Science and Technology Diplomacy: Expanding diplomatic ties to bypass sanctions can enhance Iranian universities’ access to global scientific collaboration, fostering innovation and knowledge exchange. Such efforts include developing partnerships with international research centers and increasing participation in global academic networks.

    The study to address internal factors recommends:

    • Expanding participatory teaching models, such as service learning, to connect universities with community development. These models empower students to engage with social challenges directly, enhancing their sense of responsibility and practical skills.
    • Aligning government support for universities based on regional strengths, promoting competition, and enhancing educational quality. By linking funding models to regional priorities, universities can better tailor their strategies to local economic and social needs.
    • Supporting creative teaching and research initiatives to foster academic innovation. This includes incentivising faculty to develop unconventional teaching methods and interdisciplinary research projects.
    • Encouraging initiatives that promote national pride and social responsibility among students and faculty, mitigating emigration trends. Universities can strengthen students’ connection to local development through values-based education and encourage talent retention.

    The study highlights a critical limitation: its participants were drawn solely from the supply side of the science and technology ecosystem (university faculty and administrators). Future research should include stakeholders from the demand side, such as industry leaders, policymakers, and civil society representatives, to develop a more comprehensive understanding of higher education’s role in societal development. Exploring the interplay between social values, economic incentives, and political frameworks would provide deeper insights into higher education’s transformative potential.

    This research underscores the need for a holistic approach to higher education reform. By addressing internal and external challenges, policymakers can create an educational landscape promoting social, economic, and political progress. Universities must evolve beyond expanding access to higher education and focus on fostering creativity, engagement, and accountability to enhance their contributions to society. Developing partnerships with industry, embracing participatory governance, and promoting inclusive dialogues will empower universities to become key drivers of social and economic transformation.

    Amir Shahsavari is an Assistant Professor of Higher Education at Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran, Iran. His academic interests lie in higher education policy, academic management and planning, and teaching and learning, mainly focusing on higher education studies in Iran. Drawing on his research, he seeks to contribute to a deeper understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing Iranian universities to inform policy and improve educational practices. [email protected]

    Mohammad Eslahi holds a PhD in Higher Education from the University of Tehran, Iran, specializing in Educational Administration and Planning. His research interests focus on the economics of higher education and the economics of university research. He is a lecturer and research assistant at the University of Tehran, actively contributing to teaching and scholarly endeavors in these fields. [email protected]

    Author: SRHE News Blog

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

    Source link

  • A dangerous time for the press

    A dangerous time for the press

    The media landscape in the Balkans, however, paints a different picture. According to the World Media Freedom Index for 2023 that is compiled by Reporters Without Borders, among the Western Balkan countries only Serbia — with more than 2,500 media outlets registered in the country — saw its standing on the Index drop. It now stands at number 91 out of 180 countries.

    Other Balkan countries were labeled under the category of “satisfactory” press freedom in 2023, but that left me both intrigued and somewhat skeptical.

    Having walked the corridors of Balkan newsrooms, I find it hard to align with such a rosy classification.

    You can talk truth to power but does it answer back?

    Allow me to rewind to a particular moment that epitomizes the uphill battle faced by journalists in the Balkans. It was during a presidential election in the Balkans, where I, as a reporter, faced a common challenge.

    I wanted to know what a candidate planned to do for education reform if he won. To my surprise, he brushed off the question, saying he didn’t have time for “those things.”

    This incident reflects a broader issue journalists in the Balkans deal with. It’s not just about getting information; it’s about holding politicians accountable to their promises. This encounter showed how some crucial topics get ignored in the fast-paced world of politics.

    In the bigger picture, it represents the challenges journalists face in the Balkans. Beyond the struggle for information, there’s a sense that politicians are sometimes disconnected from the issues that really matter to the people they represent.

    As we talk about press freedom in the Balkans, this story highlights the need for a media environment where politicians are not only accessible but also willing to discuss important matters. The challenges in the newsroom go beyond just finding information; journalists dig into the heart of the region’s political scene, where uncovering the truth often faces significant obstacles.

    The tension between media and politics

    In Bosnia and Herzegovina, I share common ground with others who have navigated the multifaceted challenges, including economic pressures, political interference and a lack of public understanding of the vital role of journalism.

    The erosion of institutions, with government services often ignoring or withholding information from journalists, further compounds the difficulties. There’s an urgent need for public support and understanding, essential components often lacking in a society where journalists struggle to assert a role in shaping a transparent and accountable governance structure.

    Progress has been made, but an undercurrent of danger and hostility still defines the media landscape in many parts of the Western Balkans.

    One cannot dissect the state of press freedom in the Balkans without acknowledging the omnipresent forces of political and economic pressure. It’s a delicate dance where journalists strive to maintain their professional integrity amidst the looming shadows of political influence. While Western counterparts may experience a healthy tension between media and politics, in the Balkans, the scales often tip in favor of political dominance.

    Press freedom is more than a legal framework; it’s a delicate ecosystem that requires protection from both overt and subtle threats. Even with seemingly robust legal safeguards, journalists in the Balkans find themselves grappling with political pressures, compromising the very essence of an independent press. The contrast between what is envisioned in theory and what actually happens in practice is evident, posing a challenge for journalists as they navigate intricate situations.

    An informed citizenry relies on information.

    Economic challenges further compound the struggle for press freedom. The media landscape is fragmented, with limited resources allocated to quality journalism. The survival of news outlets often hinges on their ability to generate revenue. That results in pushing stories towards sensationalism and entertainment to capture audience attention. It’s a dilemma where the pursuit of truth clashes with the demands of a market-driven media economy.

    It is noteworthy though that the people of the Balkans believe in the role of the press. In 2023, the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Bosnia and Herzegovina conducted a survey on the level of media freedom and trust in the media among the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    They found that citizens trust the media more than they do religious groups, government institutions and the international community and that most people believe that politicians violate journalistic rights.

    As the political landscape in the Balkans continues to shape the narrative, journalists walk a tightrope between reporting the facts and navigating the intricate web of political sensitivities.

    The advent of digital platforms offers a glimmer of hope, yet challenges persist. Around 200 podcasts have emerged in the Balkans, attempting to carve a space in a landscape still dominated by traditional media. The struggle to monetize content and the scarcity of advanced recording technology remain barriers, hindering the potential growth of this burgeoning form of media.

    These days, I’m directing News Decoder’s part in a project called WePod that brings together nine organizations from seven European countries to study and hopefully nurture the podcasting industry in Europe, create collaborative audio content and train and connect podcasting professionals.

    In some ways it brings me back to where I began. From exploring the buzzing airwaves of radio I am now doing so with its digital counterpart. But what hasn’t changed is the need for people to support journalism by purchasing content that offers quality, verified information and sharing content from trusted sources. They are the are essential steps that every informed citizen can take to bolster independent media. Because without this type of media, we won’t have informed citizens.

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. What was different about how the press operated in Paris that surprised the author?
    2. What is one thing that makes reporting in the Balkans challenging for journalists?
    3. In your country do you think people trust the press more than they do the government? Why is that?

    Source link

  • AAUP, Middle East Studies Group Sue Trump Over Deportations

    AAUP, Middle East Studies Group Sue Trump Over Deportations

    Accusing the Trump administration of creating a “climate of repression and fear on university campuses,” two faculty groups sued the federal government Tuesday to stop the president’s efforts to deport noncitizen students and faculty who have participated in pro-Palestinian protests.

    The Middle East Studies Association and the American Association of University Professors argue in the lawsuit that what they call Trump’s “ideological-deportation policy” violates the First and Fifth Amendments and the Administrative Procedure Act. They are asking a federal judge to rule that the policy is unconstitutional. This is the second lawsuit challenging the policy, though this legal action includes more faculty and students.

    The litigation comes after immigration officers have, over the past month, targeted international students and postdoctoral fellows for alleged participation in pro-Palestinian protests, raiding their dorm rooms and revoking their visas.

    Tuesday afternoon, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from deporting a Columbia student, who moved to the United States from Korea when she was 7 but is now a legal permanent resident. The New York Times reported that the government argued Yunseo Chung’s “presence in the United States hinders the administration’s foreign policy goal of stopping the spread of antisemitism.”

    But the judge said Tuesday that “nothing in the record” showed that Chung posed a “foreign-policy risk,” according to the Times.

    Chung has not yet been detained. She’s just the latest student to come under fire from the administration’s crackdown on those who protested the Israel-Hamas war. That crackdown has included revoking the visas of students and faculty, giving universities names of students to target, and a social media surveillance program, according to the AAUP lawsuit.

    The MESA and AAUP lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, specifically cites the cases of Chung; Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown University postdoc; and Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate. Judges have also blocked the government from deporting both men.

    “While President Trump and other administration officials have described pro-Palestinian campus protests as ‘pro-Hamas,’ they have stretched that label beyond the breaking point to encompass any speech supportive of Palestinian human rights or critical of Israel’s military actions in Gaza,” the suit says. “They have left no doubt that their new policy entails the arrest, detention and deportation of noncitizen students and faculty for constitutionally protected speech and association.”

    Attorneys from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia are among the lawyers representing the scholarly groups.

    MESA and the AAUP—along with the AAUP chapters at Harvard, New York and Rutgers Universities—filed the suit against the federal government, Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem and Immigration and Customs Enforcement acting director Todd Lyons, plus their agencies.

    A DHS spokesperson said in a statement that “taking over buildings, defacing private property, and harassing Jewish students does not constitute free speech.”

    “It is a privilege to be granted a visa to live and study in the United States of America,” the spokesperson added. “When you advocate for violence and terrorism that privilege should be revoked, and you should not be in this country.”

    The White House provided a similar statement from a Justice Department spokesperson, who said, “This department makes no apologies for its efforts to defend President Trump’s agenda in court and protect Jewish Americans from vile antisemitism.”

    Beyond the immediate implications for students and faculty who face deportation, the policy has a broader chilling effect on campus free speech, the lawsuit argues.

    “Out of fear that they might be arrested and deported for lawful expression and association, some noncitizen students and faculty have stopped attending public protests or resigned from campus groups that engage in political advocacy,” the suit says. “Others have declined opportunities to publish commentary and scholarship, stopped contributing to classroom discussions, or deleted past work from online databases and websites. Many now hesitate to address political issues on social media, or even in private texts.”

    The lawsuit adds the policy harms the plaintiff associations “because they are no longer able to learn from and engage with noncitizen members to the extent they once did, and because they have had to divert resources from other projects to address the all-too-real possibility that their noncitizen members will be arrested, imprisoned, and deported for exercising rights that the Constitution guarantees.”

    Source link

  • Three Questions With Lee Bradshaw on the Evolving Online Program Landscape

    Three Questions With Lee Bradshaw on the Evolving Online Program Landscape

    Last time we checked in with Lee Bradshaw, the founding CEO of Rhodes Advisors, he shared insights into how universities might grow online programs without breaking the bank. As a follow-up, I wanted to pick Lee’s brain about what he is hearing from the higher education leaders he works with on the evolving online program landscape.

    Q: As the online program ecosystem has grown and a few large universities have invested heavily in scaling their offerings, do you still see room for colleges and universities to enter the online degree market?

    A: Yes, the demand is still there, but the landscape has changed. We’re supporting universities launching new programs that achieve substantial first-term numbers—even in saturated markets. Growth is happening, but expecting 1,000 percent five-year ROIs like a decade ago isn’t realistic. Universities must temper expectations and/or focus on innovative, sustainable wins. That said, as we address in your third question later, I’m unaware of many investments an institution can make that carry a 275 percent ROI over five years. 

    If institutions want to launch online degrees that start strong and stay strong, here are four things they should prioritize.

    1. Market research that drives big decisions. Legacy OPMs excelled at data-driven market research before launching a program. Universities taking control of their growth need to do the same. Predictive, high-quality market research isn’t cheap or easy, but it’s indispensable. I’m bullish on how AI-facilitated deep research is advancing—within two years, I expect the cost to drop by 90 percent or more. However, the need for sound, evidence-based planning remains the same.
    2. Regionalization for most institutions. The earliest entrants focused on scaling national brands. But for universities growing in-house, regional strategies pay off, too. Think targeted regional marketing, employer partnerships tied to local workforce needs and even weaving apprenticeships or other learn-and-earn models directly into degree pathways. It’s not about being everywhere—it’s about playing to your strengths in your region.
    3. Breaking down silos to build relevant programs. One trend I like and am supporting is cross-campus collaborations leading to hybrid or interdisciplinary graduate programs. Northeastern’s combined majors model is well-known in undergraduate circles. We’re seeing more deans replicate that at the graduate level—joint programs, additional tracks and revenue-sharing agreements between schools. They’re savvy partnerships that pull together institutional strengths rather than competing internally.
    4. Scrutinize your tech stack. When I started the company, I assumed going inside universities would be illuminating. I wasn’t prepared for the delta in capability between OPM and campus technology stacks. Technology should be frictionless to the point that it’s invisible. And you should feel your stack moving from software as a service to results as a service. Before spending hundreds of thousands or millions in digital marketing to grow, I suggest a rigorous evaluation and professionally led tech discovery phase before doing any significant online endeavors. We’ve begun doing assessment and development work on Salesforce, Slate, WordPress, Drupal and more to unlock technological gains for our partners. Candidly, it wasn’t on my 2025 bingo card. But it’s critical work, so we had to add it as a service.

    Q: Given the pricing pressures on online degrees, with some well-known universities offering sub-$30,000 online master’s, how might institutions unable to offer lower-cost online degrees compete?

    A: Josh, I founded my first business in high school and my second in college—so I always nerd out on the entrepreneurial edges of higher education. And, of course, I’m in favor of lowering the cost of degrees while preserving quality. Some innovative higher education leaders and friends I deeply respect have entered the low-cost arena. They’ve gone to market with the support of MOOC platforms, which point millions of course takers’ eyes to the programs. 

    And if you’ve spent enough time around John Katzman, you’ve probably heard him say, “Low cost generally means low faculty.” That’s stuck with me. So, if that’s the architecture, we need to ask ourselves where the “low-faculty” model can work before stripping away any components required for quality learning outcomes. For example, I wouldn’t point that strategy at clinical nursing, education or health sciences degrees anytime soon. And frankly, we haven’t seen rigorous, long-term research on these $30,000 degrees yet, outside of self-published enrollment and graduation rates. Before diving in headfirst, I’d argue it’s worth conducting objective studies on the ROI for learners.

    To your question about institutions that might not have access to that scale, I’d advise them to call me. My team will sign an NDA and pressure-test their plan as a favor. I won’t tiptoe around this: I predict a MOOC-fed degree correction within a year from now. So, Rhodes Advisors is architecting solutions that leverage a next-gen course platform, AI-guided admissions and fresh tactics to drive lead volume, should that correction happen.

    MOOC platforms (and, to an extent, significant B2B relationships) are the only proven route for low-cost degrees to compete at scale in the hand-to-hand combat environment of online degree growth. Why? Fundamentally, platforms reduce your marketing overhead and let you tap into sophisticated conversion practices they’ve been working hard on.

    If you’re using a low-cost degree to serve a mission-driven purpose, you don’t need millions of learners from a platform. I’d suggest covering the delta in tuition with a foundation or donor. And I’d focus heavily on messaging and positioning so learners see you’ve struck the right balance between value and price. Rhodes Advisors is often brought in to do that work, too.

    Q: Let’s talk numbers. Say a university wants to build a new online master’s degree or certificate program. How much money does developing, launching, recruiting and running that program cost? To set some boundaries, let’s say that the online master’s tuition is about $50,000 and the target enrollment at steady state is 150. Help us understand the economics of the online learning business.

    A: I prefer talking numbers and using them to cut through the noise, so I’m glad you went there. We’ve recently run this analysis for several universities evaluating alternative revenue strategies. I’ll extend this answer beyond the basic analysis data and into some significant trends I’m seeing that your readers will find helpful. 

    But first, any degree analysis requires a few caveats—there are a lot of variables when estimating costs to launch a stand-alone program. But assuming you have a competent tech stack, a skilled team and you’re building something the market favors, you can launch a 30-credit online master’s degree for roughly $900,000 to $1.2 million in the early years before breaking even as enrollment comes in. As your readers know, most of those costs fall into course development, faculty compensation and marketing/enrollment services. Assuming steady demand, the five-year ROI will land around 275 percent, or about $3.7 million. Anyone quoting a smaller up-front investment number is likely at a small private with fully centralized operations—or running programs with a few dozen students, not 150-plus as you asked about. And anyone quoting a significantly larger ROI has been lucky enough to find a niche.

    On the certificate side, launching a 12-credit stand-alone certificate typically requires $200,000 to $400,000 up front, with a best-case five-year ROI of around 70 percent or $500,000 total return. But certificates face steeper competition: They’re up against degrees in the digital keyword bids, and the market heavily favors industry certifications (Google, Microsoft, etc.) or programs offered by elite universities in business, tech, or licensure-required fields. So, while master’s degrees demand more up front, long-term economics almost always favor them.

    Reducing costs while maintaining growth has never been more critical than it is in 2025. Improving ROI, especially in new ventures, requires scrutinizing every operational lever—especially in learning design, marketing and enrollment management. There are two things I’m seeing play out that have a material impact on efficiency:

    1. Integrating core online and in-person program operations and functions like admissions, recruitment, student services, alumni affairs and career services has become essential. When universities unify these areas, they eliminate redundancies, lower operational costs and deliver a seamless experience for students moving between all modalities. That said, I typically see skill and knowledge gaps surface quickly when tasking a residentially focused function with online program efforts, so we’ll usually dedicate capacity-building and training efforts during a transitional period.
    2. Anywhere AI can streamline effort or lower direct costs should be surfaced immediately and prioritized. For instance, we’ve worked closely with the University of Virginia this year, and they have been able to drive down centralized course production directionally by applying AI tools in specific and strategic ways. Another partner is preparing to launch a master’s degree in our co-pilot DIY model, intentionally designing enrollment operations to be AI-first. Applicants interact with an AI chat bot to handle basic program details before reaching a human adviser. Early signs suggest that approach will cut costs by more than 50 percent—though we’ll let the data speak as it matures.

    I hope this check-in was helpful. And I’d love to come back and share more as we continue down an exciting and fulfilling path at Rhodes Advisors!

    Source link

  • Faculty Organizations Sue on Behalf of Columbia Members

    Faculty Organizations Sue on Behalf of Columbia Members

    Days after Columbia University yielded to a list of demands from the Trump administration, the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers filed a lawsuit on behalf of members at Columbia over $400 million in frozen federal research funding.

    The lawsuit names multiple government agencies, including the Departments of Justice, Education and Health and Human Services and the General Services Administration.

    Columbia had been in a standoff with the Trump administration over the decision to freeze federal research funding due to alleged antisemitism stemming from pro-Palestinian student protests last year. Ultimately, university leaders decided to avoid a legal fight, even as legal scholars at Columbia and in conservative circles questioned whether the demands were lawful.

    In a news release Tuesday, the same day they filed the lawsuit, the AAUP and AFT alleged that the Trump administration used “cuts as a cudgel to coerce a private institution to adopt restrictive speech codes and allow government control over teaching and learning.”

    The 87-page lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York.

    The AAUP and AFT have cast Trump’s demands and the freezing of $400 million in grants and contracts as a “coercive tactic” that undermines institutional autonomy and harms scientific research. Plaintiffs are asking the court to order the Trump administration to lift its freeze on Columbia’s research funding and declare the government’s demands for reform unlawful. They have also requested unspecified damages.

    “We’re seeing university leadership across the country failing to take any action to counter the Trump administration’s unlawful assault on academic freedom,” Reinhold Martin, president of Columbia-AAUP and a professor of architecture, said in the statement announcing the lawsuit. “As faculty, we don’t have the luxury of inaction. The integrity of civic discourse and the freedoms that form the basis of a democratic society are under attack. We have to stand up.”

    The Department of Education did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    Source link