Blog

  • What I told the Senate Commerce Committee about ‘jawboning’

    What I told the Senate Commerce Committee about ‘jawboning’

    This prepared statement was delivered before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Oct. 29, 2025.

    Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and honorable members of the Committee,

    Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Will Creeley, and I am the legal director of FIRE — the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to defending the rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought, the essential qualities of liberty.

    I’ve spent nearly 20 years defending the First Amendment rights of speakers from every point on the ideological spectrum. At FIRE, we have one rule: If speech is protected, we’ll defend it.

    Typically, the censorship we fight is straightforward: The government punishes a speaker for saying things the government doesn’t like. That’s a classic First Amendment violation, a fastball down the middle. Unfortunately, that kind of textbook censorship isn’t the only way government actors silence disfavored or dissenting speech.

    Far too often, government officials from both sides of the partisan divide engage in “jawboning” — that is, they abuse the actual or perceived power of their office to threaten, bully, or coerce others into censoring speech. This indirect censorship violates the First Amendment just as surely as direct suppression.

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

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


    Read More

    This isn’t new law. The First Amendment’s prohibition against coerced censorship dates back decades, to the Supreme Court’s 1963 ruling in Bantam Books v. Sullivan. In that case, the Court confronted a Rhode Island state commission that sent threatening letters, “phrased virtually as orders,” to booksellers distributing “objectionable” titles — with follow-up visits from police, to ensure the message had been received.

    The Court held the commission’s “operation was in fact a scheme of state censorship effectuated by extra-legal sanctions; they acted as an agency not to advise but to suppress.” And in the decades since, courts have consistently heeded Bantam Books’ call to “look through forms to the substance” of censorship, and to remain vigilant against both formal and informal schemes to silence speech.

    But government officials regularly abuse their power to silence others, so the lesson of Bantam Books bears repeating. And in deciding National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo last year, the Supreme Court unanimously and emphatically reaffirmed it.

    In Vullo, New York State officials punished the NRA for its views on gun rights by threatening regulatory enforcement against insurance companies that did business with the group and offering leniency to those who stopped. New York’s backdoor censorship was successful — and unlawful.

    This regulatory carrot-and-stick approach was designed to chill speech, and the Court reiterated that “a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly: A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.”

    A government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly.

    To be sure, the government may speak for itself, and the public has an interest in hearing from it. But it may not wield that power to censor. As Judge Richard Posner put it: The government is “entitled to what it wants to say — but only within limits.” Under no circumstances may our public servants “employ threats to squelch the free speech of private citizens.”

    So the law is clear: Government actors cannot silence a speaker by threatening “we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way,” as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission did last month. Nevertheless, recent examples of jawboning abound: against private broadcasters, private universities, private social media platforms, and more. The First Amendment does not abide mob tactics.

    Despite the clarity of the law, fighting back against jawboning is difficult. Targeted speakers can’t sue federal officials for monetary damages for First Amendment violations, removing a powerful deterrent. And as a practical matter, informal censorship is often invisible to those silenced.

    That’s particularly true in the context of social media platforms, as demonstrated by another recent Supreme Court case, Murthy v. Missouri.

    Jawboning betrays our national commitment to freedom of expression.

    Murthy involved coercive demands by Biden administration officials to social media platforms about posts related to Covid-19, vaccines, elections, and other subjects, resulting in the suppression of speech the administration opposed. But the Court held the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, because the causal link between their deleted posts and the administration’s pressure wasn’t sufficiently clear.

    Murthy illustrates a severe information disparity: Users whose speech is suppressed have no way to know if government actors put their thumb on the scale. Only the government and the platforms have that knowledge, and usually neither want to share it. 

    That’s why FIRE authored model legislation that would require the government to disclose communications between federal agencies and social media companies regarding content published on its platform, with limited exceptions. But transparency is not enough. Federal officials must be meaningfully deterred from jawboning, and held accountable when they do.

    Jawboning betrays our national commitment to freedom of expression. Congress should take action to stop it.

    Thank you for your time. I welcome your questions.

    View FIRE’s full testimony with briefs for the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on October 29, 2025

    Source link

  • Shut your app: How Uncle Sam jawboned Big Tech into silencing Americans

    Shut your app: How Uncle Sam jawboned Big Tech into silencing Americans

    This prepared statement was delivered before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Oct. 29, 2025.

    Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and honorable members of the Committee,

    Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Will Creeley, and I am the legal director of FIRE — the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to defending the rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought, the essential qualities of liberty.

    I’ve spent nearly 20 years defending the First Amendment rights of speakers from every point on the ideological spectrum. At FIRE, we have one rule: If speech is protected, we’ll defend it.

    Typically, the censorship we fight is straightforward: The government punishes a speaker for saying things the government doesn’t like. That’s a classic First Amendment violation, a fastball down the middle. Unfortunately, that kind of textbook censorship isn’t the only way government actors silence disfavored or dissenting speech.

    FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley testifies before the Senate Commerce Committee on Oct. 29, 2025.

    Far too often, government officials from both sides of the partisan divide engage in “jawboning” — that is, they abuse the actual or perceived power of their office to threaten, bully, or coerce others into censoring speech. This indirect censorship violates the First Amendment just as surely as direct suppression.

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

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


    Read More

    This isn’t new law. The First Amendment’s prohibition against coerced censorship dates back decades, to the Supreme Court’s 1963 ruling in Bantam Books v. Sullivan. In that case, the Court confronted a Rhode Island state commission that sent threatening letters, “phrased virtually as orders,” to booksellers distributing “objectionable” titles — with follow-up visits from police, to ensure the message had been received.

    The Court held the commission’s “operation was in fact a scheme of state censorship effectuated by extra-legal sanctions; they acted as an agency not to advise but to suppress.” And in the decades since, courts have consistently heeded Bantam Books’ call to “look through forms to the substance” of censorship, and to remain vigilant against both formal and informal schemes to silence speech.

    But government officials regularly abuse their power to silence others, so the lesson of Bantam Books bears repeating. And in deciding National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo last year, the Supreme Court unanimously and emphatically reaffirmed it.

    In Vullo, New York State officials punished the NRA for its views on gun rights by threatening regulatory enforcement against insurance companies that did business with the group and offering leniency to those who stopped. New York’s backdoor censorship was successful — and unlawful.

    This regulatory carrot-and-stick approach was designed to chill speech, and the Court reiterated that “a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly: A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.”

    A government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly.

    To be sure, the government may speak for itself, and the public has an interest in hearing from it. But it may not wield that power to censor. As Judge Richard Posner put it: The government is “entitled to what it wants to say — but only within limits.” Under no circumstances may our public servants “employ threats to squelch the free speech of private citizens.”

    So the law is clear: Government actors cannot silence a speaker by threatening “we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way,” as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission did last month. Nevertheless, recent examples of jawboning abound: against private broadcasters, private universities, private social media platforms, and more. The First Amendment does not abide mob tactics.

    Despite the clarity of the law, fighting back against jawboning is difficult. Targeted speakers can’t sue federal officials for monetary damages for First Amendment violations, removing a powerful deterrent. And as a practical matter, informal censorship is often invisible to those silenced.

    That’s particularly true in the context of social media platforms, as demonstrated by another recent Supreme Court case, Murthy v. Missouri.

    Jawboning betrays our national commitment to freedom of expression.

    Murthy involved coercive demands by Biden administration officials to social media platforms about posts related to Covid-19, vaccines, elections, and other subjects, resulting in the suppression of speech the administration opposed. But the Court held the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, because the causal link between their deleted posts and the administration’s pressure wasn’t sufficiently clear.

    Murthy illustrates a severe information disparity: Users whose speech is suppressed have no way to know if government actors put their thumb on the scale. Only the government and the platforms have that knowledge, and usually neither want to share it. 

    That’s why FIRE authored model legislation that would require the government to disclose communications between federal agencies and social media companies regarding content published on its platform, with limited exceptions. But transparency is not enough. Federal officials must be meaningfully deterred from jawboning, and held accountable when they do.

    Jawboning betrays our national commitment to freedom of expression. Congress should take action to stop it.

    Thank you for your time. I welcome your questions.

    View FIRE’s full testimony with briefs before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on October 29, 2025

    Source link

  • Can journalists coexist with AI?

    Can journalists coexist with AI?

    But then the same thing could be happening now to the heads of news organizations who then subsequently pull back their journalists from various news beats. Since those news organizations are the ones who report news, would we ever know that was happening?

    The reality is that artificial intelligence could kill journalism without replacing it, leaving people without information they can rely on. When there are no reliable, credible sources of news, rumors spread and take on a life of their own. People panic and riot and revolt based on fears born from misinformation. Lawlessness prevails.

    Do algorithms have all the answers?

    Right now, entire news organizations are disappearing. The Brookings report found that last year some 2.5 local news outlets folded every week in the United States. Data collected by researcher Amy Watson in August 2023 found that in the UK, each year over a 10-year period ending 2022, more news outlets closed than were launched.

    CNN reported in June 2023 that Germany’s biggest news organization, Bild, was laying off 20% of its employees, replacing them with artificial intelligence.

    But ChatGPT had this to say: “ Rather than viewing AI as a threat, journalists can leverage technology to enhance their work. Automated tools can assist with tasks such as data analysis, fact-checking and content distribution, freeing up time for reporters to focus on more complex and impactful storytelling.”

    One of News Decoder’s many human correspondents, Tom Heneghan, spoke to students on this topic in November and expressed some optimism.

    “It will take away a lot of the drudge work, the donkey work that journalists have to do,” Heneghan said. “It’s amazing how much work is done by somebody at a much higher level than what is actually needed.”

    Working with artificial intelligence

    Once those tasks are automated, the journalist can pursue more substantive stories, Heneghan said. Plus the evolving sophistication of things like deep fake technology will make tasks like fact-checking and verification more important. “

    That’s going to come up more and more,” Heneghan said. “What artificial intelligence takes away may actually create some other jobs.”

    So here’s the thing: We wouldn’t have to fear AI eliminating the crucial role of journalism — informing the public with accurate information, reporting from multiple perspectives so that minority voices are heard and uncovering corruption, exploitation and oppression — if the businesses that controlled the purse strings of journalism were committed to its public service functions.

    I then asked ChatGPT this question: Are media corporations driven solely by money?

    It concluded: “While financial considerations undoubtedly influence the actions of media corporations, they are not the sole driving force behind their decisions.” It went on: “A complex interplay of financial goals, societal responsibilities and individual values shapes the behavior of these entities.

    Understanding this multifaceted nature is essential for accurately assessing the role and impact of media corporations in modern society.” I found that reassuring, until I glanced at the disclaimer at the bottom of the AI’s page:

    ChatGPT can make mistakes. Consider checking important information.

    Questions to consider:

    1. What is an essential role of journalism in society?

    2. What did both the ChatGPT app and the human correspondent seem to agree on in this article?

    3. What, if anything, worries you about artifiical intelligence and how you get your information?

    Source link

  • Breaking the Bottleneck: How Process Mapping and Policy Reform Drive Enrollment Growth

    Breaking the Bottleneck: How Process Mapping and Policy Reform Drive Enrollment Growth

    In today’s fiercely competitive higher education landscape, enrollment leaders are being asked to do more with less. That means more inquiries, more conversions, and more starts, all while working with fewer resources and a shrinking pool of students actively seeking traditional degree paths.

    What separates the institutions that are growing from those that are treading water? In my experience, it’s the willingness to question the status quo. The leaders seeing results are the ones taking a hard look at internal processes and policies and making bold decisions to remove what’s in the way of progress.

    The urgency to remove enrollment barriers

    Many institutions face enrollment plateaus not because they lack student interest, but because of self-imposed friction. Burdensome application requirements, slow review cycles, and legacy processes that haven’t evolved with changing student expectations can all stand in the way of progress.

    Students today expect seamless, responsive experiences. They compare your enrollment process not only to peer institutions but also to the intuitive digital experiences they encounter every day. If your application process is full of red tape or requires too many steps, students will disengage and likely move on to a more accessible option.

    Colleges and universities that want to stay competitive need to start clearing the path. By taking the time to understand how your enrollment process actually operates and identifying where students tend to get stuck, you can make meaningful changes that increase both efficiency and enrollment success.

    Start with a map: Uncovering friction through process review

    The first step to solving an enrollment slowdown is understanding where it’s happening. That’s where process mapping comes in.

    At Collegis, we partner with institutions to conduct comprehensive process assessments. We document and analyze every step of the applicant journey, from inquiry through registration, to uncover inconsistencies, delays, and points of friction that may be limiting your enrollment funnel. We often find that a student’s experience varies widely depending on who they interact with or when they enter the process, revealing a need for greater consistency and coordination.

    In many cases, we find students getting stuck at multiple points across the enrollment journey, starting with the application itself. Lengthy or confusing questions, lack of helpful guidance, and irrelevant fields can all create unnecessary complexity early on. Students may also encounter inconsistent or impersonal communication, making it unclear what to expect next or where they stand in the process.

    Further down the funnel, delays often occur during application review, sometimes taking a week or more due to internal handoffs or manual processes. In some cases, applications sit idle because there’s no system in place to move files forward or flag them for outreach. These gaps add up, slowing momentum and causing potential students to disengage.

    When you can see the entire process visualized, it becomes easier to ask the right questions:

    • Is the application process intuitive and easy to navigate, or are we introducing unnecessary complexity?
    • Are there clear next steps and calls to action for students at each stage?
    • Do students receive consistent, timely communication that reflects where they are in the journey?
    • Is the messaging and cadence of our marketing and operational emails aligned with what students hear from admissions counselors?
    • Are there opportunities to streamline handoffs, automate manual steps, or standardize the process to ensure every student receives a cohesive experience?

    Process mapping isn’t just a troubleshooting exercise. It’s a strategic investment in institutional agility and student-centered design. Institutions that complete this type of review often uncover both quick wins and opportunities for deeper transformation.

    Ready for a Smarter Way Forward?

    Higher ed is hard — but you don’t have to figure it out alone. We can help you transform challenges into opportunities.

    Rethink the rules: Policies that reduce friction and drive results

    Some of the most impactful improvements we’ve seen don’t require major investments or cutting-edge technologies. More often, they come from rethinking the policies that shape your admissions process and how those policies either support or hinder the student experience.

    When we conduct policy reviews with our partner institutions, we often find that some admissions requirements add more complexity than value. It’s crucial to determine whether each requirement is truly essential to making an informed admissions decision. By removing or refining requirements that no longer serve a clear purpose (such as excessive documentation or overly rigid review criteria) institutions can streamline internal workflows and reduce avoidable delays. These targeted adjustments not only improve operational efficiency but also create a more accessible and student-centered experience.

    Impact in action: Practical examples of enrollment transformation

    These are not just hypothetical improvements. We’ve worked directly with institutions to implement these strategies and have seen the tangible impact they can deliver. Here are a few real-world examples that show how practical adjustments have translated into measurable results:

    • Waiving letters of recommendation for applicants who meet a defined GPA threshold. This eliminates a common bottleneck while maintaining admissions rigor.
    • Simplifying transcript requirements by only requesting documentation that includes a conferred degree and any prerequisite coursework required for program entry. Additional transcripts are collected later if necessary, which speeds up the initial review process.
    • Automating workflows that trigger application reviews as soon as all checklist items are complete. This ensures students move through the process without unnecessary delays.
    • Setting up notifications to ensure timely engagement. For example, alerts can be set when a new inquiry or applicant hasn’t received contact from an admissions counselor within 24 hours, or when application reviews are taking longer than expected.

    These types of changes create a more efficient, student-centered process that helps institutions convert interest into enrollment more effectively.

    Don’t just tweak the process, transform it

    If your institution is still relying on outdated processes and rigid policies, now is the time to reevaluate. The enrollment environment is only becoming more competitive. But with the right changes, your institution can become more efficient, more agile, and more appealing to today’s students.

    This isn’t about cutting corners or lowering standards. It’s about rethinking how your process serves students. Process mapping helps uncover ways to simplify steps, ensure consistency, and build trust through clear communication and meaningful staff connections. The result is an experience that’s more efficient, more personal, and better aligned with your institution’s goals.

    Let’s break the bottleneck together

    A process mapping assessment is a powerful starting point. At Collegis, we go beyond identifying issues. We work side by side with our partners to solve them. Our approach is collaborative, our recommendations are practical, and our focus is always on impact.

    If your institution is ready to accelerate enrollment growth, strengthen internal operations, and deliver a more consistent and personalized experience for your students, let’s talk.

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Jim Callinan leads enrollment strategy and operational excellence at Collegis Education, where he partners with higher education institutions to design and deploy data-informed admissions and student-journey models. With nearly 20 years of higher education experience, Jim brings deep expertise in aligning cross-functional teams across technology, marketing, analytics, enrollment, and student success to drive growth, streamline operations, and elevate the student and staff experience. His collaborative approach helps institutions align strategy, process, and performance to achieve sustainable success.

    Source link

  • Pull the Plug on H-1B Workers

    Pull the Plug on H-1B Workers

    Florida governor Ron DeSantis on Wednesday ordered the state’s public universities “to pull the plug on the use of these H-1B visas in our universities.” In doing so, the Republican appeared to call for his state to go further than President Trump in restricting entry of these foreign employees—an issue that has divided prominent conservatives.

    Since fiscal year 2022, Florida public universities have employed nearly 2,000 people via the H-1B program—nearly half at the University of Florida. The program is capped at 85,000 new visas a year, but colleges, universities and some other organizations aren’t subject to that cap. In the first three quarters of 2025, nearly 16,800 visas were approved for employees at colleges and universities; 395 of the visas were for jobs at Florida’s public universities. Universities use the program to hire faculty, doctors and researchers and argue it’s required to meet needs in health care, engineering and other areas.

    Last month, Trump announced a $100,000 application fee for H-1B visas. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services says the fee will apply to new H-1B petitions filed on or after Sept. 21 and must be paid before the petition is filed. It said there could be exceptions from the fee in an “extraordinarily rare circumstance” in which the Homeland Security secretary determines a foreigner’s presence in the U.S. “is in the national interest.”

    Lawsuits have been filed over the fee, and higher ed associations and institutions have spoken out in opposition. The Trump administration says employers are abusing the program to avoid hiring Americans.

    In a speech at the University of South Florida on Wednesday, DeSantis called on the state board governing public universities to “pull the plug” on H-1B visa employees. He didn’t mention any exceptions.

    If this the ban happens, it would be another example of a red state going further than the Republican-controlled federal government in restricting public higher ed institutions. In states such as Texas and Ohio, GOP politicians have exceeded Trump in regulating curricula and restricting faculty rights. Before Trump retook office, DeSantis put Florida on the leading edge of the conservative overhaul of higher ed, from cracking down on what he called “woke” education to putting allies in charge of universities—a playbook other states have followed.

    It’s unclear, however, whether the Florida Board of Governors, which oversees the state’s public universities but not it’s public colleges, will follow DeSantis’s directive. Fourteen of the board’s 17 members are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate.

    It’s also unclear what his directive specifically means; a news release the governor’s office issued Wednesday didn’t, unlike his speech, go as far as suggesting an end to all H-1B visa employees at public universities.

    But neither the State University System of Florida nor the governor’s office provided more details in response to Inside Higher Ed’s questions about DeSantis’s intent. A news release from the governor’s office said DeSantis directed the board to “crack down on H-1B Visa abuse in higher education” but didn’t repeat the governor’s apparent call to end H-1B employment completely.

    University of Florida interim president Donald Landry spoke at the press conference after DeSantis and mentioned his institution was called out. 

    “It’s a complex issue, and we can chat,” Landry said, to laughs from the audience. He did list one benefit, saying H-1Bs are mainly used at UF to hire new faculty from the international student population.

    “Occasionally, some bright light might be good enough for the faculty, and then we will try and retain the person into whom we have invested so much,” he said. 

    UF is conducting its own review of the H-1B program, he added. “We know that H-1B is not handled in a pristine fashion, even in academia,” he said.

    Robert Cassanello, president of the United Faculty of Florida union and a tenured associate history professor at the University of Central Florida, suggested that banning H-1B visa holders would be illegal.

    “You can’t discriminate against someone based on foreign birth,” Cassanello said. “My big question coming away from this is: Where’s the authority?”

    ‘Do It’ With Florida Residents

    In his speech, DeSantis started his criticism of the H-1B program from a national perspective. He said, “Tech companies will fire Americans and hire H-1B at a discount, and they’re basically indentured servants … They’re indentured to the company, so the company can basically pay them low.”

    He then turned to Florida universities, appearing to read from a list of positions occupied by H-1B holders at unnamed institutions. (His office didn’t provide the list Wednesday.)

    After mentioning a public policy professor from China, DeSantis said, “Why do we need to bring someone from China to talk about public policy?” Later—apparently looking at information on another H-1B holder—he exclaimed, “Wuhan, China!”

    Although DeSantis’s complaints focused on supposed international scholars from China, he didn’t spare those from other countries.

    “Assistant swim coach from Spain, on an H-1B visa—are you kidding me, we can’t produce an assistant swim coach in this country?” he said. He then turned to the Middle East.

    “Clinical assistant professor from the West Bank, clinical assistant professor from supposed Palestine,” he said. “Is that just social justice that they’re doing? And that’s University of Florida.”

    “We need to make sure our citizens here in Florida are first in line for job opportunities,” DeSantis said. But he also suggested he doesn’t fully know why universities are hiring H-1B workers.

    “I guess there’s probably reasons why it ends up being this way,” DeSantis said. “But I think it’s a poor reflection on some of the decisions that some of these universities have made that they’re trying to say they need an H-1B visa to do some of these jobs … We can do it with our residents in Florida, or with Americans, and if we can’t do it then—man—we need to really look deeply about what is going on.”

    Sarah Spreitzer, vice president and chief of staff for government relations at the American Council on Education, said DeSantis’s move would limit universities’ ability to hire the best researchers.

    “It’s going to have an enormous impact, obviously, on Florida institutions,” Spreitzer said.

    Cassanello, who said his union includes some H-1B holders, called DeSantis’s speech a “xenophobic and nativist diatribe.”

    “He’s a nativist, he’s anti-immigrant and so he’s coming to these decisions based on no facts,” Cassanello said. He also said DeSantis opposed diversity, equity and inclusion programs by arguing they were anti-meritocratic, but now, “all of a sudden, he’s willing to throw out meritocracy.”

    “He’s using fear of people of color and fear of immigrants to sort of impose his will on the running of our public colleges and universities,” Cassanello said. He said the speech represents “a further attack from DeSantis and our state political leaders on the autonomy of our public colleges and universities.”

    Source link

  • Making career readiness meaningful in today’s classrooms

    Making career readiness meaningful in today’s classrooms

    Key points:

    As a high school STEM teacher at Baldwin Preparatory Academy, I often ask myself: How can we make classroom learning more meaningful for our students? In today’s rapidly evolving world, preparing learners for the future isn’t about gathering academic knowledge. It is also about helping all learners explore potential careers and develop the future-ready skills that will support success in the “real world” beyond graduation.

    One way to bring those two goals together is by drawing a clear connection between what is learned in the classroom and future careers. In fact, research from the Education Insights Report shows that a whopping 87 percent of high school students believe that career connections make school engaging–and as we all know, deeper student engagement leads to improved academic growth.

    I’ve tried a lot of different tactics to get kids engaged in careers over my 9 years of teaching. Here are my current top recommendations:

    Internship opportunities
    As many educators know, hands-on learning is effective for students. The same goes for learning about careers. Internship opportunities give students a way to practice a career by doing the job.

    I advise students to contact local businesses about internships during the school year and summer. Looking local is a wonderful way to make connections, learn an industry, and practice career skills–all while gaining professional experience.

    Tallo is another good internship resource because it’s a digital network of internships across a range of industries and internship types. With everything managed in Tallo, it’s easy for high school students to find and get real-world work experience relevant to school learning and career goals. For educators, this resource is helpful because it provides pathways for students to gain employable skills and transition into the workforce or higher education.

    Career events
    In-person career events where students get to meet individuals in industries they are interested in are a great way for students to explore future careers. One initiative that stands out is the upcoming Futures Fair by Discovery Education. Futures Fair is a free virtual event on November 5, 2025, to inspire and equip students for career success.

    Held over a series of 30-minute virtual sessions, students meet with professionals from various industries sharing an overview of their job, industry, and the path they took to achieve it. Organizations participating in the Futures Fair are 3M, ASME, Clayco, CVS Health, Drug Enforcement Administration, Genentech, Hartford, Honda, Honeywell, Illumina, LIV Golf, Meta, Norton, Nucor, Polar Bears International, Prologis, The Home Depot, Verizon, and Warner Bros. Discovery.

    Students will see how the future-ready skills they are learning today are used in a range of careers. These virtual sessions will be accompanied by standards-aligned, hands-on student learning tasks designed to reinforce the skills outlined by industry presenters. 

    CTE Connections
    All students at Baldwin Preparatory Academy participate in a career and technical education pathway of their choosing, taking 6-9 career specific credits, and obtaining an industry-recognized credential over the course of their secondary education. As a STEM teacher, I like to connect with my CTE and core subject colleagues to learn about the latest innovations in their space. Then I connect those innovations to my classroom instruction so that all students get the benefit of learning about new career paths.

    For example, my industry partners advise me about the trending career clusters that are experiencing significant growth in job demand. These are industries like cybersecurity, energy, and data science. With this insight, I looked for relevant reads or classroom activities related to one of those clusters. Then, I shared the resources back with my CTE and core team so there’s an easy through line for the students.

    As educators, our role extends beyond teaching content–we’re shaping futures. Events like Futures Fair and other career readiness programs help students see the relevance of their learning and give them the confidence to pursue their goals. With resources like these, we can help make career readiness meaningful, engaging, and empowering for every student.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Higher ed groups push for colleges to be exempt from $100K H-1B visa fee

    Higher ed groups push for colleges to be exempt from $100K H-1B visa fee

    Dive Brief:

    • Nearly three dozen higher education organizations are urging U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to exempt colleges from the new $100,000 fee for H-1B visa petitions, arguing in an Oct. 23 letter that these employees do work “crucial to the U.S. economy.”
    • President Donald Trump caught the higher education sector by surprise when he announced the large fee last month. Large research universities heavily rely on the H-1B visa program to hire international scholars. 
    • Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, said in the Thursday letter that colleges’ H-1B workers educate domestic students for “high-demand occupations, conduct essential research, provide critical patient care, and support the core infrastructure of our universities.” 

    Dive Insight: 

    Trump shocked the higher ed world sector on Sept. 19 when he declared that new petitions for H-1B visas must come with a $100,000 payment to be processed. Yet colleges were left unsure which of their workers would be impacted amid scant details on the new policy and mixed messages from administration officials. The federal government is facing at least two lawsuits over the fee.

    In the days and weeks since the fee was announced, the Trump administration has released additional information about the new policy. Just last week, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services released guidance that said the new fee wouldn’t apply to visa holders inside the country who are requesting a change of status or extension of stay — potentially exempting international students who recently graduated and have H1-B sponsorship. 

    Mitchell’s letter asked Noem to confirm that the new USCIS guidance includes those on F-1 or J-1 visas — both of which cover international students — converting to H-1B status. He also asked if the government would return the $100,000 fee if a petition is denied and how USCIS would process H-1B applications in a timely manner given the new requirements. 

    The letter points out that the proclamation included language that allows DHS to issue exemptions for workers if government officials deem hiring them is in the nation’s interest and doesn’t pose a security risk. 

    “The continuing education of our postsecondary students is in the national interest of the United States,” Mitchell wrote. 

    He cited recent CUPA-HR data showing that 7 in 10 faculty on H-1B visas in the U.S. are in tenured or tenure-track positions, with the largest shares in business, engineering and health disciplines. 

    Mitchell contended that exempting colleges from the new fee would be similar to the higher education sector’s current exemption from the cap on H-1B visas, which are awarded via a lottery process. The cap limits annual H-1B visa awards to 65,000 workers, with an additional 20,000 for international students who finished U.S. graduate programs. 

    Congress exempted higher education from the cap in recognition “of the special role that institutions of higher education play in hiring H-1Bs on our campuses,” Mitchell wrote. 

    ACE also took issue with a recent proposal that would change how the lottery system works. Under the new proposal from USCIS, visas for higher-wage applicants would be given more priority. 

    Mitchell urged USCIS to withdraw the rule in a public comment submitted Friday on behalf of ACE and 19 other higher education groups. He argued the change would harm international enrollment, as foreign students entering the workforce after completing their degrees at U.S. institutions would have much lower access to the H-1B visa program. 

    “A central reason for the excellence of our postsecondary institutions is their ability to attract and enroll talented, motivated, and curious students, whether born in this country or abroad,” Mitchell wrote. “This proposed rule will limit the ability of our institutions to recruit and retain these students, especially those that wish to remain in the United States.”

    Source link

  • Higher Ed Lobbying Drops in Third Quarter

    Higher Ed Lobbying Drops in Third Quarter

    Beleaguered by the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape higher education to align with conservative policy priorities, major universities continue to spend heavily on lobbying efforts to protect their interests.

    While lobbying expenses over all have boomed during 2025 compared to last year, spending fell in the third quarter, according to an Inside Higher Ed analysis of major research universities.

    Members of the Association of American Universities spent less in the third quarter of 2025 than in either of the first two quarters, racking up more than $8.6 million in lobbying costs, compared to $9 million in the first quarter and more than $10 million in Q2.

    AAU’s member institutions have already spent more than $27.8 million combined on lobbying this year.

    Top Spenders

    Among individual AAU members, Johns Hopkins University spent the most on lobbying in the third quarter, shelling out $390,000. JHU spent $170,000 in the first quarter and $380,000 in Q2, for a total of more than $940,000 so far this year.

    JHU’s lobbying disclosure form shows the private university in Baltimore engaged Congress on multiple issues, including the Trump administration’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, student loans and psychedelic research.

    “We continue to advocate for our research mission through all appropriate channels,” a Johns Hopkins University spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement to Inside Higher Ed.

    Others that invested heavily in lobbying include Yale University, which spent $370,000 in the third quarter, and its Ivy league counterpart the University of Pennsylvania, which spent $360,000. The University of Washington was the top-spending public institution at $310,000, while Columbia University rounded out the top five with $290,000 in lobbying expenses for Q3.

    “Communicating the impact of Columbia’s researchers, scientists, scholars, and clinicians to policymakers in Washington, New York, and locally is vital, and we utilize a combination of in-house and outside professionals to ensure our message reaches key stakeholders, including our New York delegation,” a Columbia spokesperson wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed.

    In addition to research funding and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, common areas of focus noted in lobbying disclosure forms include appropriations, student visas and immigration, among other concerns that college officials have raised in private conversations with lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

    Including their third-quarter expenditures, several of the institutions above are among the top spenders for the year. Northwestern leads AAU members in lobbying expenses at $1.1 million, followed by the University of Washington at $1 million, JHU and Yale at $940,000, and Cornell at $914,000.

    Many universities dialed back lobbying expenses in the third quarter, some by significant amounts. Emory University, for example, spent $500,000 on lobbying in the second quarter but only $185,000 in Q3. Emory has spent $855,000 on lobbying in 2025.

    Though still among the top-spending AAU members, Cornell pulled back on lobbying, which fell to $240,000 in Q3 compared to $444,000 in the second quarter.

    Northwestern has cut spending in each successive quarter. The private university spent $607,000 on federal lobbying in Q1, the most of any university in any quarter this year. But that number fell to $306,000 in the second quarter and $230,000 more recently.

    Outliers

    Some universities outside the AAU also spent heavily on lobbying in the third quarter.

    The University of Phoenix, for example, spent $480,000 on federal lobbying efforts. Phoenix has spent consistently across all three quarters, totaling $1.4 million in lobbying expenditures in 2025. That appears to make the for-profit institution the top individual spender across the sector this year.

    Lobbying disclosure forms show Phoenix engaged on legislation, including the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and a bill related to student veteran benefits, but also on broad public policy issues.

    Phoenix officials declined to comment.

    Northeastern University is another top spender that falls outside of AAU membership. The university has spent $270,000 in each quarter, totaling $810,000 in 2024 lobbying expenditures.

    Source link

  • Denied Emerita, Reid Named “Honorary Alum” at New College

    Denied Emerita, Reid Named “Honorary Alum” at New College

    Reid retired in August after 30 years at New College.

    Thomas Simonetti/The Washington Post/Getty Images

    Amy Reid, a former professor of French at New College of Florida, was granted “honorary alumni” status by the New College Alumni Association Board of Directors in a unanimous vote nearly three weeks after she was denied emerita status by college president Richard Corcoran.

    “I was honored when my colleagues nominated me for emerita status and when the New College Alumni Association adopted me as one of their own, in recognition of my long teaching career and my vocal advocacy for the College, its academic program, and for the position of gender studies in the liberal arts,” Reid said in a statement to Inside Higher Ed. “New College students have made their mark because they are fiercely independent and courageous learners. I’ll try to live up to their standards. To the Novo community: Honor & Respect.”

    The honorary designation, rarely bestowed, gives Reid the same “rights and privileges” as other New College alumni, including access to alumni events, according to the alumni association’s motion. Reid retired in August after teaching at New College for more than 30 years and now serves as interim director of PEN America’s Freedom to Learn program.

    Reid was also the founder of the now-defunct gender studies program at New College, which the then–newly appointed conservative board eliminated in 2023. The college was mired in controversy again the following summer when officials tossed books from its former Gender and Diversity Center in the trash.

    Despite what alumni association governance committee chair Chris Van Dyk described as “overwhelming recommendation” for emerita status, including from New College provost David Rohrbacher and leaders in the Division of Humanities, Corcoran denied Reid the emerita title because of her outspoken faculty advocacy and criticism of conservative leadership at New College.

    “Although I recognize Professor Reid’s contributions to New College in teaching and scholarship, I cannot concur with the Division and Provost that she be honored with the title of emeritus,” Corcoran wrote in an email to Rohrbacher. “When I became president with a mandate for change from the Board of Trustees, there was need for reasoned and respectful exchange between the faculty and administration. Regrettably, Professor Reid was one of the leading voices of hyperbolic alarmism and needless obstruction. In her letter of resignation, Professor Reid wrote that ‘the New College where I once taught no longer exists.’ She need not be burdened by further association with it.”

    After the former faculty representative to the New College Board of Trustees quit in protest, Reid was elected to fill the role in 2023. She and student representative Grace Keenan were the only two board members to vote against Corcoran’s appointment as permanent president, Florida Politics reported.

    Emeritus status is largely symbolic, but it does usually come with some concrete perks, including the continued use of institutional email accounts, library and athletic facilities access, and sometimes free campus parking.

    Source link

  • Northwestern, Cornell Still Working to Unfreeze Federal Funds

    Northwestern, Cornell Still Working to Unfreeze Federal Funds

    The Trump administration reportedly froze nearly $6 billion in grants and contracts, but most of that has since been restored.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | arlutz73 and Wolterk/iStock/Getty Images

    Thanks to a series of settlements and court orders, some universities that had their grants frozen by the Trump administration earlier this year have seen that funding restored.

    But others are still trying to unfreeze the grants and learn more about why they were suspended in the first place.

    Since March, the Trump administration has said that it put nearly $6 billion on hold at nine universities. Three universities—Columbia, Penn and Brown—cut deals with the administration to restore the funding, while the University of California, Los Angeles, and Harvard got the money back via court orders. The fate of the remaining four freezes—at Duke, Cornell, Northwestern and Princeton Universities—remains uncertain.

    Princeton has seen about half of its frozen grants restored, President Christopher Eisgruber told the alumni magazine in late August. Roughly $200 million was put on hold initially.

    Eisgruber said Princeton never learned why the funds were frozen, beyond media reports that connected it to concerns over antisemitism on campus. A Princeton spokesperson confirmed the magazine’s report but declined to share more details about the status of the remaining grants.

    At Northwestern, the Trump administration reportedly froze about $790 million in early April, though officials said at the time they never received formal notification about why the funds were put on hold. Since then, Northwestern officials have said they are working to restore the grants—a process that apparently hasn’t gone smoothly.

    Northwestern University interim president Henry Bienen told The Daily Northwestern in an Oct. 17 interview that “a negotiation really requires two parties, at least, and at the present time, there’s not been anybody on the other end of the line.”

    As the freeze persists, Northwestern has said it will continue to support researchers’ “essential funding needs” at least through the end of the calendar year. Bienen told the student newspaper that supporting the research costs $30 million to $40 million a month.

    The university has laid off more than 400 employees and instituted other measures to cut costs, though officials said those moves were driven by more than just the funding freeze.

    Cornell University is also in talks with the administration to find a solution to the freeze. However, President Michael Kotlikoff recently shared new information about the impact of the freeze that calls into question the Trump administration’s figures.

    Trump officials told media outlets in April that they froze more than $1 billion at Cornell. But Kotlikoff said last week in his State of the University address that Cornell is actually facing about $250 million in canceled or unpaid research funds. (The university’s research expenditures totaled $1.6 billion in the 2023–24 academic year.)

    Like Northwestern and Princeton, Cornell hasn’t received a formal letter about the freeze, though media reports suggested that the administration froze the grants “because of concerns around antisemitism following pro-Palestinian activities on campus beginning in fall of 2023,” Kotlikoff said.

    Following news stories about the freeze, Kotlikoff said the university “started receiving stop-work orders ‘by direction of the White House’: halting research on everything from better tests for tick-borne diseases, to pediatric heart assist pumps, to ultrafast lasers for national defense, to AI optimization for blood transfusion delivery. At the same time, many other research grants, while not officially canceled, stopped being paid.” (About $74 million of the $250 million is in unpaid bills, he said.)

    Kotlikoff added that Cornell has been talking with the federal government for six months “to identify their concerns, provide evidence to address them, and return to a productive partnership.” In August, Bloomberg reported that the White House wanted to reach a $100 million settlement with Cornell.

    But Kotlikoff also criticized the administration for not using established legal processes to investigate potential civil rights violations, echoing a point experts have made for months.

    “I want to be clear that there are established procedures in place for the government to handle such concerns,” he said in his State of the University address. “Accusations of discrimination should be supported by, and adjudicated on the basis of, facts. This has not happened.”

    Kotlikoff, who was appointed president in March, made clear in his address to the Board of Trustees and university alumni that Cornell won’t agree to give up control of admissions or curricular decisions, among other things.

    “We will not agree to allow the government to dictate our institution’s policies, or how to enforce them,” he said. “And we will never abandon our commitment to be an institution where any person can find instruction in any study.”

    The administration has also said it froze about $108 million at Duke University, but neither Duke nor the National Institutes of Health responded to Inside Higher Ed’s request for an update.

    Source link