Tag: administration

  • Trump administration cancels $400M of Columbia’s grants and contracts amid antisemitism probe

    Trump administration cancels $400M of Columbia’s grants and contracts amid antisemitism probe

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

    Four federal agencies announced Friday they are immediately canceling $400 million of grants and contracts to Columbia University over what they described as the Ivy League institution’s “continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” 

    The cancellation of the grants and contracts comes just four days after the Trump administration’s newly created Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced a probe into Columbia. 

    The four agencies — the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Education and U.S. General Services Administration — said more cancellations will follow. The university has over $5 billion in federal grant commitments, according to the announcement. 

    “Universities must comply with all federal antidiscrimination laws if they are going to receive federal funding,” U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a Friday statement. “For too long, Columbia has abandoned that obligation to Jewish students studying on its campus. Today, we demonstrate to Columbia and other universities that we will not tolerate their appalling inaction any longer.”

    A Columbia spokesperson said Friday that officials are reviewing the announcement and plan to work with the federal government to restore the funding. 

    “We take Columbia’s legal obligations seriously and understand how serious this announcement is and are committed to combatting antisemitism and ensuring the safety and wellbeing of our students, faculty, and staff,” the spokesperson said.

    The four agencies threatened to take similar actions against other colleges. 

     “The decisive action by the DOJ, HHS, ED, and GSA to cancel Columbia’s grants and contracts serves as a notice to every school and university that receives federal dollars that this Administration will use all the tools at its disposal to protect Jewish students and end anti-Semitism on college campuses,” they said in Friday’s announcement. 

     The antisemitism task force is already poised to review several other high-profile colleges. Last week, the Justice Department said the group would visit 10 college campuses, including Columbia, where antisemitic incidents have been reported since October 2023, when Hamas attacked Israel. 

     The other campuses are George Washington University, Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, New York University, Northwestern University, University of California, Los Angeles, University of California, Berkeley, University of Minnesota and University of Southern California. 

    Even more recently, the task force on Wednesday announced a probe into the University of California over allegations that it discriminated against employees by not doing enough to prevent an antisemitic and hostile work environment. 

    Groups raise concerns over free speech

    Columbia has drawn Republican policymakers’ ire for months over the way university administrators have responded to pro-Palestinian protests on its campus. Protesters erected an encampment on the university’s lawn in April, sparking similar demonstrations nationwide that led to hundreds of student arrests. 

    This past fall, many colleges tightened their protest rules to deter encampments. Since then, Columbia and other high-profile institutions largely haven’t seen the same long-running encampments that rocked their campuses last spring, though protesters have held sit-ins and other demonstrations. 

    Columbia itself has made several policy changes — including some that have attracted criticism from free speech scholars. 

    The university’s Office of Institutional Equity — a newly created committee — has recently been bringing disciplinary cases against students who have criticized Israel, the Associated Press reported earlier this week. 

    “Based on how these cases have proceeded, the university now appears to be responding to governmental pressure to suppress and chill protected speech,” Amy Greer, an attorney advising the students under review, told AP. 

    Source link

  • Registrars assembling – the history of the Association of Heads of University Administration

    Registrars assembling – the history of the Association of Heads of University Administration

    Many will not have seen this rather wonderful short history of AHUA, the Association of Heads of University Administration, published in 2024 and written by John Hogan, who retired as registrar at Newcastle University in 2022.

    Having been involved in AHUA for 18 years to the end of 2024, including 11 years on the executive and a couple of years as Honorary Secretary, I thought I had seen quite a lot in terms of the association’s development. However, as this report shows, I really did not know the half of it and my contributions were genuinely minor alongside the achievements of those who went before.

    In development

    The origins of what is now AHUA date back, in formal records at least, to a “Registrars’ Conference” in 1939, just before the outbreak of war. It was attended by ten people representing seven different universities (with apologies from two more) and chaired by the registrar of Durham University, William Angus (later secretary at the University of Aberdeen from 1952 to 1967 and referred to by his previous colleagues as “Aberdeen Angus,” apparently).

    Extract from the minutes of the 1939 Registrars’ Conference

    While some of the issues discussed were very much of the time, such as air raid precautions, others have contemporary resonance such as ensuring inclusion of students on the electoral register. Admittedly this was a slightly different situation given that there were university constituencies at that time and there were real concerns about institutions’ ability adequately to count potential electors. Other issues though seem very familiar including student health, international students, admissions qualifications and student fees.

    As the organisation developed as the Conference of Registrars and Secretaries (CRS), after the war it became UK-wide and spent considerable time in the 1960s discussing and dealing with an expanded HE sector such that it had 23 UK universities in membership by then.

    As noted in John Hogan’s report – and as is evident from the photographs from conferences in the 60s through to the early 90s – it was a hugely white male-dominated organisation for many years, reflective of university administrations at that time.

    Fortunately, much has changed in composition since then. Structures in universities were rather different in those days too although for the whole membership, regardless of title, a core duty was acting as a confidential source of advice and support for the vice chancellor. Further elements identified in the 1960s which continue to be a part of many AHUA members’ roles include leading a significant portfolio of university services and advising the university’s statutory bodies and other senior officers. Relative to today numbers were tiny – only around 400 administrative staff in 1953 rising to a still modest figure of around 1,900 by 1973, although both of these numbers exclude what were deemed “clerical” posts.

    It is also interesting to note that, under the auspices of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (CVCP), a number of registrars were heavily involved in the establishment of the Universities Central Council on Admissions (UCCA) in 1961. This body, reformed as the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service – UCAS – in 1993, was for many years notable as an example of a genuinely efficient and effective shared service in supporting university admissions (although its governance structure and mission has changed somewhat since then).

    Topical matters

    In determining conference topics members were consulted via paper questionnaires on the issues of the day (although, entertainingly, this process generated a big bureaucracy which had to be scaled back). In 1964, responses were sought on the following:

    What information was held in student records, the ratio of secretarial to academic staff, the operation of telephone systems, the appointment of supervisors for higher degrees, amongst many other matters.

    Moreover, the records uncovered by the author show some problems are perennial:

    The fraudulent publication of degree certificates was a concern at the 1948 Conference. Student behaviour, and car parking both featured in 1962. Pressure to change the academic year from October–September to January–December was first acknowledged in 1965. Nearly all universities had considered the possibility and rejected it.

    Excitingly, IT became a white-hot topic in the 1960s and there were discussions over the national coordination of student records – this led to a working party involving the UGC and the Royal Statistical Society. As I recently noted here, the issue has not gone away…

    As Hogan notes, the records of proceedings appear generally cordial, although:

    The occasional acerbic comment was captured in the minutes. Ernest Bettenson, (Registrar of the University of Durham 1952 then of University of Newcastle upon Tyne 1963–1976) expressed the view that the 1972 “…White Paper was like Mrs Thatcher (its author as Education Minister) – well set out and attractive, but somehow unlovable.

    Beyond these formal matters, conferences also included cultural and social events including a formal dinner which, I am astonished to learn, was black tie until 2006 (thankfully that stopped before I joined in the following year). Other features which have, mercifully, not survived include the spouses’ programme, golf sessions and alcohol sponsorship (no fewer than three distilleries were sponsors for the 1995 conference in Aberdeen).

    Grappling with the issues

    CRS operations became a bit more business-like towards the end of the 1970s with the establishment of a standing steering committee and the appointment of a business secretary. Following the significant cuts in funding from 1981–82 the focus of discussions was very much on the consequent organisational challenges and, as Hogan notes:

    More horizon-scanning can be identified in CRS’s discussions during the 1980s than previously. William Waldegrave, then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department of Education and Science, predicted mergers across the so-called binary line, between universities and polytechnics, within the following ten years, when he spoke to the Conference in 1983.

    Plenty of contemporary echoes there. The Jarratt Report (1985) on management efficiency divided opinion in the CRS, with some supportive and others more sceptical or indeed scathing. Apparently, Jim Walsh, registrar at the University of Leeds, was particularly vocal:

    …warning members that he would oppose any attempt to turn the Conference into a kind of “Jarratt Enforcement” agency and distributing a criticism of the proposals under the title “A Load of Old Cobblers?”

    It is reassuring that CRS members struggled with its name back in the late 1980s in the same way as successors have ever since. It was accepted that “the name ‘conference’ was unhelpful, and ‘association’ was more attractive except for the resulting acronym – ARS.”

    However, before that issue could be resolved the CRS had to grapple with the more serious issue of the impact of the ending of the binary line. While almost every established university in 1992 had a registrar or secretary, the structures in the newer universities was much more varied meaning that it took some time to come to a full settlement on who would be eligible to join an expanded organisation.

    And then, of course, a new name was required. ARS was off the table so the “Association of University Heads of Administration” or the “Association of Heads of University Administration” were the preferred options. CVCP was consulted and it seems some vice chancellors were unhappy with the title on the basis that they saw themselves as the head of the administration. Anyway, a decision was made and the name and abbreviation everyone struggles to pronounce to this day was agreed upon.

    You’ve come a long way

    Hogan goes on to note the broader engagement of AHUA and its member with regulators and other sector agencies from the late 1990s onwards as well as the importance of its regional groupings and the key role played by full-time professional staff support from 2001 (Catherine Webb served as Executive Secretary from 2006 to 2024, providing vital continuity and vast expertise). Policy concerns at executive meetings and conferences throughout the last two decades have included governance, statute changes, pensions, the need for better regulation and a reduction in the regulatory burden.

    Other significant developments in the recent period have included development programmes, for new and aspiring registrars, growing the association’s communications and influencing activities, developing the national Ambitious Futures graduate training programme (which sadly ended as a consequence of the pandemic) and a reciprocal mentoring programme between staff of colour and AHUA launched. All were driven forward by a (much missed) former chair, Jonathan Nicholls, who also sought to establish AHUA as the “go-to” professional organisation in the sector.

    AHUA, as Hogan’s history shows, has come a long way but remains a key UK-wide sector organisation with a slightly more diverse membership than in the past, but there is still some way to go there. It’s an organisation of which I hugely valued being a part and it is great to read this short but comprehensive report on AHUA’s origins and development.

    AHUA Spring Conference 2024 at the University of Leeds

    Source link

  • Trump administration rescinds Title IX guidance on athlete pay

    Trump administration rescinds Title IX guidance on athlete pay

    The Trump administration announced Wednesday it is rolling back guidance issued in the final days of the Biden administration that said payments to college athletes through revenue-sharing agreements or from name, image and likeness deals “must be made proportionately available to male and female athletes.”

    Republicans quickly criticized the guidance and called for its rescission, arguing that mandating equal pay between men and women’s sports could cause some colleges to cut athletics programs.

    Under Title IX, colleges must provide “substantially proportionate” financial assistance to male and female athletes, though it wasn’t clear until the Biden guidance whether that requirement applied to NIL deals or revenue-sharing agreements. A settlement reached in the House v. NCAA case would require colleges to share revenue with athletes starting in the 2025–26 academic year and provide back pay.

    The Trump administration said the guidance was “overly burdensome” and “profoundly unfair.”

    “Enacted over 50 years ago, Title IX says nothing about how revenue-generating athletics programs should allocate compensation among student athletes,” acting assistant secretary for civil rights Craig Trainor said in a statement. “The claim that Title IX forces schools and colleges to distribute student-athlete revenues proportionately based on gender equity considerations is sweeping and would require clear legal authority to support it.”

    A federal judge is set to sign off on the House settlement later this spring. Several athletes have objected to the plan, including some groups of women athletes who argue the revenue won’t be shared equitably and will primarily benefit men who play football and basketball.

    Source link

  • ‘Self-inflicted wound’: Widespread alarm as Trump administration slashes NIH funding

    ‘Self-inflicted wound’: Widespread alarm as Trump administration slashes NIH funding

    UPDATE: Feb. 11, 2025: A federal judge late Monday barred the National Institutes of Health from enforcing massive cuts to grant funding for researchers’ indirect costs, a move widely decried by universities and other research institutions. 

    U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley issued restraining orders in two separate cases filed earlier Monday against NIH, including one by 22 state attorneys general and another by the Association of American Medical Colleges and other groups. A third lawsuit — brought by the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, the American Council on Education and the Association of American Universities — was also filed late Monday. 

    Regarding the AAMC case, Kelley wrote that plaintiffs would “sustain immediate and irreparable injury” without a restraining order against the NIH funding cap. Along with restraining orders, Kelley required NIH to provide biweekly status reports confirming regular disbursements.

    Dive Brief:

    • A coalition of 22 attorneys general filed a lawsuit in federal court on Monday seeking to block the National Institutes of Health’s newly announced research funding cuts.
    • NIH announced Friday it would cut roughly $4 billion a year worth of funding for indirect research costs such as administration and facilities — by capping reimbursement for these expenses at 15% for current and new grants. 
    • Research institutions have previously negotiated individual indirect cost rates, with an average of 27% to 28%, NIH said. Organizations, universities and researchers quickly raised alarms about the cuts, warning they could hurt important medical research and the economy.

    Dive Insight:

    NIH framed its unilateral decision to cut indirect costs as bringing them in line with practices at nonprofits such as the Gates Foundation, which caps indirect costs at 10% for higher education institutions, and the Rockefeller Foundation, which sets a 15% ceiling for colleges and universities.

    In a Friday memo outlining the new policy, the agency said the new cap would “allow grant recipients a reasonable and realistic recovery of indirect costs while helping NIH ensure that grant funds are, to the maximum extent possible, spent on furthering its mission.”

    The same day, the agency flagged on the social media platform X the “old” indirect cost rates negotiated by Harvard University, Yale University and Johns Hopkins University — which are all between 63.7% and 69% — as well as those institutions’ endowments ranging from $13 billion to $53 billion. 

    NIH noted that of the $35 billion it spent on grants in fiscal 2023 to universities, medical schools and other research institutions, about $26 billion went to direct research and $9 billion went to overhead in the form of indirect costs. 

    Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, described NIH’s move as an illegal violation of an appropriations bill that prohibits modifications to NIH’s indirect cost funding. Murray also said that the move will shift costs onto states rather than reducing them.

    In their lawsuit, the attorneys general argued, “Without relief from NIH’s action, these institutions’ cutting-edge work to cure and treat human disease will grind to a halt.” 

    They pointed to the legislation flagged by Murray that protected indirect reimbursements: During President Donald Trump’s first term, his administration in 2017 included a 10% cap in its budget proposal, but Congress responded the next year with an appropriations provision prohibiting NIH from modifying reimbursement rates, the lawsuit said.

    Filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, the 59-page lawsuit — brought overwhelmingly by Democrat-led states — seeks both preliminary and permanent injunctions blocking NIH from enforcing the rate cap. 

    Many in the higher education sector reacted with dismay over NIH’s move.

    The decision “sabotages the decades-long partnership that has ensured U.S. global leadership in life-saving medical research,” American Council on Education President Ted Mitchell said in a statement on Friday. 

    “This decision is short-sighted, naive, and dangerous,” Mitchell added. “It is a self-inflicted wound that, if not reversed, will have dire consequences on U.S. jobs, global competitiveness, and the future growth of a skilled workforce.”

    Mark Becker, president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, described NIH’s policy change as a “direct and massive cut to lifesaving medical research.” 

    “NIH slashing the reimbursement of research costs will slow and limit medical breakthroughs that cure cancer and address chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease,” Becker said in a statement. APLU noted that funded indirect costs include patient safety, research security and hazardous waste disposal. 

    Jeremy Day, director of the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s Comprehensive Neuroscience Center, said on social media that NIH’s cut would “cripple research infrastructure at hundreds of US institutions, and threatens to end our global superiority in scientific research.” 

    Meanwhile, institutions are grappling with what it means for their research programs going forward. The University of Michigan, for instance, said in a statement that NIH’s indirect cost funding supports development and maintenance of its laboratories as well as information technology and administrative support for regulatory compliance. 

    “This change would result in a significant decrease in the amount that U-M receives from the federal government to conduct vital research,” the university said. 

    Others echoed the warning. In a statement, the University of Wisconsin-Madison said NIH’s directive would “significantly disrupt vital research activity and delay lifesaving discoveries and cures.”

    “Indirect costs contribute to everything from utilities charges to building out the laboratories where science is done, to infrastructure for clinical trials of new medicines and treatments,” the university said.

    Source link

  • Immigration arrests at schools loom after Trump changes longstanding policy

    Immigration arrests at schools loom after Trump changes longstanding policy

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.

    The Trump administration has cleared the way for immigration arrests at or near schools, ending a decades-old approach.

    Republican and Democratic administrations alike have treated schools and child care centers, along with churches and hospitals, as “sensitive” or “protected” locations where immigration enforcement should only take place when there is an immediate danger to the public.

    But U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials announced on January 21 that they had rescinded the latest version of the policy, which was issued in 2021 by the Biden administration. The news was first reported early on January 21 by Fox News.

    A copy of the Homeland Security memo was not immediately available for review.

    But in a statement, a Homeland Security spokesperson said that Acting Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued a directive on Monday that rescinded the sensitive locations policy. The spokesperson said the action would help federal authorities enforce immigration law and catch criminals who entered the country illegally. Immigration agents will be asked to use “common sense” in enforcing the law.

    “Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest,” the statement read.

    Since Trump’s reelection, observers anticipated the end of treating certain locations as “sensitive” with respect to immigration enforcement. News reports surfaced in mid-December that the incoming Trump administration was planning to get rid of the policy. Since then, schools have been bracing for the possibility of immigration agents showing up at their doors.

    Even before this policy existed, large-scale immigration raids weren’t conducted at schools. But Trump’s policy change paves the way for immigration agents to detain parents during dropoff or pickup, as has happened occasionally in the past.

    Immigrant rights advocates worry that could lead to more absenteeism among children with immigrant parents, who may now fear being stopped by immigration agents while driving or walking their kids to school. That happened during the first Trump administration. Advocates also worry about the potential for routine interactions with school police to reveal a student or family’s immigration status, and lead to their deportation.

    Some school districts have issued explicit instructions to educators and parents about how school staff should handle an immigration agent’s presence on campus. Some districts have also said they will not permit a federal agent on school premises without a judicial warrant, and that staff will be instructed to call the school system’s lawyer if these agents do show up.

    Some of the nation’s largest districts, including Los Angeles and Chicago, have re-upped or expanded existing policies meant to protect immigrant students and families. New York City is scheduled to vote on a resolution this week that would reaffirm a policy preventing school safety agents from collaborating with federal immigration authorities in most cases.

    Others, including several Texas school districts near the U.S.-Mexico border, are taking a “wait and see” approach to avoid causing confusion or fear among families. At the same time, immigrant rights advocates say it’s helpful to inform families of their rights and show them how to make a plan in case a parent is detained.

    The end of treating schools as sensitive locations is just one of many executive actions on immigration that the new Trump administration has taken since taking office on January 20.

    Trump also signed an executive order that seeks to end the automatic right to citizenship for any child born in the U.S. On January 21, 18 states announced they were suing to block the policy change.

    This story has been updated to include confirmation and comments from the Department of Homeland Security about the policy change.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

    Related:
    Trump has won a second term–here’s what that means for schools
    Trump picks Linda McMahon to lead, and possibly dismantle, Education Department
    For more news on education policy, visit eSN’s Educational Leadership hub

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Colombia, first nationals deported under the Donald Trump administration arrived (TeleSur English)

    Colombia, first nationals deported under the Donald Trump administration arrived (TeleSur English)

    The first flights carrying migrants deported from the United States to Colombia. The Colombian government confirmed on Tuesday that two planes
    carrying migrants had landed. Some were reportedly shackled. A total of 201 migrants: 110 sent from
    California and 90 from Texas were on board. Among the deportees were two pregnant women and more than 20 children. The cost to US taxpayers is estimated to be $100,000 to $700,000 per flight. The long-term costs and consequences of this program with Latin America, like many others over the last century, have not been estimated. 

    Source link

  • Trump Administration Threatens to Cut Off Grants to Higher Ed

    Trump Administration Threatens to Cut Off Grants to Higher Ed

    More information at the College Investor. 

    Source link

  • Trump administration allows immigration arrests at colleges

    Trump administration allows immigration arrests at colleges

    The acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday rescinded guidance that prevented immigration arrests at schools, churches and colleges.

    Since 1993, federal policy has barred immigration enforcement actions near or at these so-called sensitive areas. The decision to end the policy comes as the Trump administration is moving to crack down on illegal immigration and stoking fears of mass deportations. 

    “This action empowers the brave men and women in [Customs and Border Protection] and [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] to enforce our immigration laws and catch criminal aliens—including murders and rapists—who have illegally come into our country,” acting DHS secretary Benjamine Huffman said in a statement. “Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest. The Trump administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense.”

    Advocates for undocumented people have warned that such a policy change was possible, and some college leaders have said they won’t voluntarily assist in any effort to deport students or faculty solely because of their citizenship status, although they said they would comply with the law. On Wednesday, the Justice Department said it would investigate state and local officials who don’t enforce Trump’s immigration policies.

    Source link

  • Student-Athlete Unionization Efforts Withdrawn Prior to Second Trump Administration

    Student-Athlete Unionization Efforts Withdrawn Prior to Second Trump Administration

    by CUPA-HR | January 21, 2025

    Two efforts to extend collective bargaining rights to college athletes have been withdrawn in recent weeks in anticipation of the Trump administration taking control of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

    On December 31, 2024, the Dartmouth men’s basketball team withdrew their petition to unionize. Members of the team overwhelmingly voted in March 2024 to join the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The vote came one month after an NLRB regional director ruled that the players were employees of the college and were thus eligible to unionize.

    Additionally, on January 10, 2025, the National College Players Association (NCPA) withdrew its case against the University of Southern California, the Pac-12 Conference and the NCAA. In the original complaint, the NCPA claimed the three plaintiffs violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by misclassifying the student-athletes as non-employees. They also argued all three plaintiffs were joint employers of the student-athletes.

    Both of these efforts were pursued after NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memorandum arguing that student-athletes are employees under the NLRA and are therefore afforded all statutory protections as prescribed under the law. The incoming administration will likely rescind the memorandum, halting or at least hindering unionization efforts among student-athletes.

    The decision to withdraw both petitions is likely meant to avoid an unfavorable outcome and precedent from a soon-to-be Republican-controlled NLRB. The SEIU explained in a statement following their withdrawal request that they sought “to preserve the precedent set by this exceptional group of young people on the men’s varsity basketball team.”

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates related to student-athlete employment classification and unionization.



    Source link

  • Biden administration opened ‘new chapter’ on college financing, Kvaal says

    Biden administration opened ‘new chapter’ on college financing, Kvaal says

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

    James Kvaal is the outgoing U.S. under secretary of education. His tenure ends with the inauguration of Donald Trump on Jan. 20.

    After decades of an accelerating student debt crisis, Joe Biden is the first president to use every available tool to alleviate the burden of borrowing for college. He will be remembered for turning the page on the worst consequences of the country’s failed experiment with debt-financed college and beginning a new chapter on how to pay for higher education.

    For the past two generations, increasing reliance on student debt seemed like an easy solution to paying for college. Loan terms were set at no cost to the government, and students were expected to easily earn enough to pay the loans back following graduation.

    But it didn’t work out that way. One in three borrowers don’t graduate, leaving them with debt but no degree. Because interest piles up so fast, more than 20 million people owe more than they borrowed. Before the pandemic, more than a million people default on their college loans every year.

    Some critics say that student debt affects borrowers of all income levels equally. But hair stylists, massage therapists and other workers earning modest wages often went into debt to get the training, certificates or degrees needed for their jobs. And debt is not just a problem for the roughly 43 million people with student loans. It hurts their families and communities because it stands in the way of economic security, homeownership and potential new businesses.

    .

    James Kvaal, the U.S. under secretary of education under President Joe Biden

    Permission granted by U.S. Department of Education

     

    Others say we should eliminate student debt altogether. But until Congress and states invest in lower tuitions and larger scholarships — as President Biden has proposed — loans will remain essential for many low-income and middle-class students.

    The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated these festering problems. Nearly 3 of every 5 students lacked adequate access to food or housing during the pandemic, putting them at risk of dropping out. And most borrowers of modest means expected they couldn’t afford loan payments.

    By pausing payments and interest on federal loans, the administration saved the average borrower in repayment more than $3,800 and helped them persevere through the national emergency. President Biden also fought partisan opponents in court for up to $20,000 in one-time relief for borrowers — all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    While the pause gave borrowers a break, the U.S. Department of Education worked on long-term solutions.

    First, we focused on people who were owed forgiveness but were blocked by bureaucracy.

    For example, only 7,000 people had ever received Public Service Loan Forgiveness from the program’s creation in 2007 to when President Biden took office in 2021. Many public servants planned their careers around this benefit only to learn too late that they had the wrong type of loan or had spent years in the wrong repayment plan. Now, more than 1 million borrowers have received the relief they earned.

    We also kept promises to borrowers with permanent disabilities and those who were cheated by colleges. In total, we have approved more than 5 million people for loan relief. Many more borrowers are set to benefit in the years to come.

    I’ve heard countless stories about what this life-changing relief has meant for Americans. They say they are finally able to plan for retirement, pay off medical expenses, or even have more children.

    At the same time, not all of our efforts succeeded. Some 40 million borrowers and their families continue to feel the weight of both the Supreme Court decision to deny one-time relief and litigation hindering our ability to help borrowers experiencing hardship.

    Second, to help people with low incomes and high debts, the Biden administration created Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE — an income-driven repayment plan that could cut monthly payments in half for eligible borrowers. People making payments would finally see their balances going down, instead of up due to ballooning interest.

    SAVE served almost 8 million people before partisan lawsuits held it up, and it’s now under judicial review. The SAVE plan is similar to other repayment plans the department has created over the past 30 years, and we continue to defend it in court.

    Source link