Tag: Agenda

  • Getting in and getting on needs to go up the agenda, not down

    Getting in and getting on needs to go up the agenda, not down

    In January I attended an event alongside colleagues from over 50 universities spanning the breadth of the country.

    Collectively we held a significant chunk of the sector’s strategic responsibility for developing, writing and delivering activity linked to the Office for Students’ vision for fair access and participation.

    We came from different regions and geographic contexts, working in a range of providers of different sizes, histories, and specialisms.

    What brought us together, however, was a passion and commitment to a set of underlying principles which form the foundation of our collective endeavours.

    The Forum for Access and Continuing Education (FACE), a charity committed to enabling opportunities across the educational landscape, held their annual summit at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama.

    With speakers such as Public First and John Blake, Director for Fair Access at the Office for Students, the event examined how work which promoted fair access and participation could help us navigate a period of significant turbulence within the HE sector, and society as a whole.

    Challenges and threats

    It’s fair to say that doing so won’t be easy. The opening plenary from Public First brought home the gravity of the challenge ahead. Whilst many of us thought that a change in government, and an end to the relentless attacks on the sector linked to culture wars narratives, would make life easier for the sector, we may have been overly optimistic.

    Providers may not be bracing themselves for a barrage of criticism from policymakers, but we are far from the top of the list of governmental priorities for support.

    Polling of voters demonstrated that education, let alone higher education, just wasn’t at the top of issues that they cared about. When this is combined with the fact that, compared to schools with leaky roofs and a Further Education sector whose funding has been decimated, universities seem pretty awash with cash – and it makes it difficult to gain the buy-in necessary to bring about much-needed reform in the sector.

    Without reform, it is highly likely that those who will be hardest hit by challenges linked to a financial crisis will be students who already navigate multiple barriers linked to experiences of inequality.

    Whether it be cuts to university access funding, the hours that they will have to work alongside their studies, or a lack of subject breadth available to study locally due to course closures, we would be naive to assume that these challenges wouldn’t be compounded for students who have fewer cultural, social and economic opportunities afforded to them to begin with.

    It leaves us facing the possibility that, without these students being robustly advocated for in conversations linked to policy and practice, any progress made in greater equity of opportunity to date could unravel quickly and significantly.

    Opportunities

    But where there are threats and challenges, there are also opportunities – for a bold, innovative approach to the ways in which we meet them.

    It would be fair to say that, at times, the sector may have rested on laurels with regard to fair access and participation. Generally speaking, the Blairite goal of “getting more bright poor kids” to university has succeeded. We’ve seen a massive expansion of student numbers, and a significant increase in the diversity of the sector in terms of types and sizes of institution.

    However, it has also become painfully obvious that this isn’t enough. For our sector to truly fulfil its potential, we need to demonstrate how it can be achieved through enabling opportunity. The conversation about this to some degree has already begun. In December John Blake, announced his vision for the future of collaborative outreach. Within this was greater focus on regional partnerships as cornerstones in our national efforts to tackle inequity of opportunity.

    Within the ocean of policy decisions facing the new government, this is just a ripple. DfE has consultations on on the school curriculum and school inspections, there’s a delay in the rollout of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement, and serious thought is being given toward a National Youth Strategy.

    For those of us who work as professionals in university access and participation, the capacity for our work to contribute to the generation of civic, social and economic opportunities are readily apparent.

    But when it comes to the articulation of higher education’s value, our significant efforts are often overlooked or untapped. As a community, we convened at the FACE Summit to mobilise and become larger than the sum of our parts – to, as a collective, begin to proactively engage in policy issues which directly impact upon on the lives of people, young and old, who we have made it our vocation to support.

    That means creatively and innovatively engaging with the role of universities in meeting the challenges presented in wider society, and to be bold in our articulation of a fairer, more equitable future.

    If the sector wishes to robustly demonstrate how it breaks down barriers to opportunity, talking to us would be a very good place to start.

    Source link

  • The Death of DEI (Margaret Kimberly, Black Agenda Report)

    The Death of DEI (Margaret Kimberly, Black Agenda Report)

    Black
    people must be discerning about racist attacks on DEI programs while
    also acknowledging that “diversity” can be a con that damages Black
    politics, just as it was meant to do.

    The sight of Al Sharpton
    holding a protest at a New York City Costco store is a sure sign that
    very problematic politics are being practiced. In this instance,
    Sharpton’s theatrics were inspired by the corporations which
    discontinued their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. DEI
    has been in conservative crosshairs with conservative think tanks and activists
    filing numerous lawsuits claiming that the programs are discriminatory.
    The same corporations who joined in the performative DEI programs when
    it was convenient have now run for cover. Costco is one of the few who
    didn’t and so got the seal of approval from Reverend Al.

    Corporate DEI programs came into vogue in 2020 in
    the wake of nationwide protest after the police killing of George Floyd.
    The fact that both white police and corporate CEOs were “taking a knee”
    allegedly in sympathy with protesters should have been a sign that
    anything emanating from these gestures was a joke at best and a betrayal
    at worst.

    According to a 2023 report ,
    only 4% of chief diversity officer positions in U.S. corporations were
    held by Black people, who also had the lowest average salaries. DEI
    mania was a public relations effort intended to stem Black protest while
    doing nothing to improve the material conditions of Black workers, even
    for those who were involved in this project. The usual hierarchies
    remained in place, with white men and women getting the top jobs and the
    most money. Also Black people were not the only group subject to DEI
    policies, as other “people of color,” women, and the LGBTQ+ community
    were also competing for a piece of the questionable action.

    In addition to the right wing legal attack, Donald Trump is so obsessed
    with ending DEI in the federal government that all employees connected
    with such programs were placed on administrative leave after one of his
    many executive orders were issued. Federal workers were instructed to report
    on their knowledge of any DEI activity that hadn’t been ferreted out.
    The Trump administration DEI ban means that agencies are being told not
    to even allow for any affinity events or celebrations. Although that
    idea might not be bad if it prevented the FBI from claiming to honor Martin Luther KIng , a man they surveilled, harassed, and encouraged to commit suicide. Not to be deterred in the Trumpian witch hunt, the Air Force
    briefly deleted information about the Tuskegee Airmen and Women Army
    Service Pilots (WASPs) from a basic training curriculum, only to return
    the information after public outrage emerged when military heroes,
    usually revered, were getting the usual rough treatment meted out to
    Black people.

    Yet it is difficult to ignore the Trump anti-DEI
    frenzy. At its core it is an effort to disappear Black people from
    public life altogether under the guise of protecting a white meritocracy
    which never existed. However, it would be a mistake to embrace a failed
    effort which succeeds only at liberal virtue signalling and creating a
    more diverse group of managers to help in running the ruling class machinery.

    DEI was a repackaging of affirmative action, a term
    which fell into disfavor after years of complaint from aggrieved white
    people and which was undone by Supreme Court decisions. Like affirmative
    action, it was a calculated response to serious political action,
    action which threatened to upend a system in dire need of disrupting and
    bringing the justice and the democracy that are so often bragged about
    yet that remain so elusive.

    As always, Black people are caught between the
    proverbial rock and hard place, not wanting to ignore Trumpian antics
    while also being wary of any connection with the likes of Al Sharpton.
    The confusion about what to do is rampant and mirrors the general sense
    of confusion about Black political activity.

    When the Target retail outlet ended its DEI
    programs there were calls for boycotts. Of course others pointed out
    that Target sold products created by Black owned companies
    which would be harmed by the absence of Black shoppers. All of the
    proposals are well meaning, meant to mitigate harm and to help Black
    people in their endeavors. Yet they all miss the point.

    The reality of an oppressive system renders such
    concerns moot. Racial capitalism may give out a crumb here and another
    there, and allow a few Black businesses some space on store shelves. If
    nothing else it knows how to preserve itself and to co-opt at opportune
    moments. Yet the fundamentals do not change. DEI is of little use. But
    by ending it, Trump evokes great fear in a group of people whose
    situation is so tenuous that it still clings to the useless and
    discredited Democratic Party to protect itself from Trump and his ilk.

    It is absolutely necessary to leave the false
    comfort of denial that gives the impression Trump is offering some new
    danger to Black people. The last thing Black people need is for the CIA
    or the State Department to hide their dirty deeds behind King birthday
    celebrations or Black History Month events. Black History Month should
    be a time when plans for liberation are hatched, making it unattractive
    to enemy government agencies to even consider using for propaganda
    purposes.

    The death of DEI should not be mourned. Its
    existence is an affront to Black peoples’ history and valiant struggles.
    DEI is just one of many means to keep us compliant and to give
    legitimacy to what isn’t legitimate. If Al Sharpton is marching anywhere
    the best course of action is to stay very far away.

    Margaret Kimberley is the author of Prejudential: Black America and the Presidents . You can support her work on Patreon and also find it on the Twitter , Bluesky , and Telegram platforms. She can be reached via email at [email protected]



    Source link

  • U.S. Department of Education’s Trump Appointees and America First Agenda

    U.S. Department of Education’s Trump Appointees and America First Agenda

    Rachel
    Oglesby most recently served as America First Policy Institute’s Chief
    State Action Officer & Director, Center for the American Worker. In
    this role, she worked to advance policies that promote worker freedom,
    create opportunities outside of a four-year college degree, and provide
    workers with the necessary skills to succeed in the modern economy, as
    well as leading all of AFPI’s state policy development and advocacy
    work. She previously worked as Chief of Policy and Deputy Chief of Staff
    for Governor Kristi Noem in South Dakota, overseeing the implementation
    of the Governor’s pro-freedom agenda across all policy areas and state
    government agencies. Oglesby holds a master’s degree in public policy
    from George Mason University and earned her bachelor’s degree in
    philosophy from Wake Forest University. 

    Jonathan Pidluzny – Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Programs 

    Jonathan
    Pidluzny most recently served as Director of the Higher Education
    Reform Initiative at the America First Policy Institute. Prior to that,
    he was Vice President of Academic Affairs at the American Council of
    Trustees and Alumni, where his work focused on academic freedom and
    general education. Jonathan began his career in higher education
    teaching political science at Morehead State University, where he was an
    associate professor, program coordinator, and faculty regent from
    2017-2019. He received his Ph.D from Boston College and holds a
    bachelor’s degree and master’s degree from the University of Alberta. 

    Chase Forrester – Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations 

    Virginia
    “Chase” Forrester most recently served as the Chief Events Officer at
    America First Policy Institute, where she oversaw the planning and
    execution of 80+ high-profile events annually for AFPI’s 22 policy
    centers, featuring former Cabinet Officials and other distinguished
    speakers. Chase previously served as Operations Manager on the
    Trump-Pence 2020 presidential campaign    , where she spearheaded all event
    operations for the Vice President of the United States and the Second
    Family. Chase worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee
    during the Senate run-off races in Georgia and as a fundraiser for
    Members of Congress. Chase graduated from Clemson University with a
    bachelor’s degree in political science and a double-minor in Spanish and
    legal studies.

    Steve Warzoha – White House Liaison

    Steve
    Warzoha joins the U.S. Department of Education after most recently
    serving on the Trump-Vance Transition Team. A native of Greenwich, CT,
    he is a former local legislator who served on the Education Committee
    and as Vice Chairman of both the Budget Overview and Transportation
    Committees. He is also an elected leader of the Greenwich Republican
    Town Committee. Steve has run and served in senior positions on numerous
    local, state, and federal campaigns. Steve comes from a family of
    educators and public servants and is a proud product of Greenwich Public
    Schools and an Eagle Scout. 

    Tom Wheeler – Principal Deputy General Counsel 

    Tom
    Wheeler’s prior federal service includes as the Acting Assistant
    Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, a
    Senior Advisor to the White House Federal Commission on School Safety,
    and as a Senior Advisor/Counsel to the Secretary of Education    . He has
    also been asked to serve on many Boards and Commissions, including as
    Chair of the Hate Crimes Sub-Committee for the Federal Violent Crime
    Reduction Task Force, a member of the Department of Justice’s Regulatory
    Reform Task Force    , and as an advisor to the White House Coronavirus
    Task Force    , where he worked with the CDC and HHS to develop guidelines
    for the safe reopening of schools and guidelines for law enforcement and
    jails/prisons. Prior to rejoining the U.S. Department of Education, Tom
    was a partner at an AM-100 law firm, where he represented federal,
    state, and local public entities including educational institutions and
    law enforcement agencies in regulatory, administrative, trial, and
    appellate matters in local, state and federal venues. He is a frequent
    author and speaker in the areas of civil rights, free speech, and
    Constitutional issues, improving law enforcement, and school safety. 

    Craig Trainor – Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office for Civil Rights 

    Craig
    Trainor most recently served as Senior Special Counsel with the U.S.
    House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary under Chairman Jim
    Jordan (R-OH)    , where Mr. Trainor investigated and conducted oversight of
    the U.S. Department of Justice, including its Civil Rights Division,
    the FBI, the Biden-Harris White House, and the Intelligence Community
    for civil rights and liberties abuses. He also worked as primary counsel
    on the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited
    Government’s investigation into the suppression of free speech and
    antisemitic harassment on college and university campuses    , resulting in
    the House passing the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. Previously, he
    served as Senior Litigation Counsel with the America First Policy
    Institute     under former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Of Counsel
    with the Fairness Center, and had his own civil rights and criminal
    defense law practice in New York City for over a decade. Upon graduating
    from the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, he
    clerked for Chief Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., U.S. District Court
    for the Northern District of New York. Mr. Trainor is admitted to
    practice law in the state of New York, the U.S. District Court for the
    Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the U.S. Supreme Court. 

    Madi Biedermann – Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Communications and Outreach 

    Madi
    Biedermann is an experienced education policy and communications
    professional with experience spanning both federal and state government
    and policy advocacy organizations. She most recently worked as the Chief
    Operating Officer at P2 Public Affairs. Prior to that, she served as an
    Assistant Secretary of Education for Governor Glenn Youngkin and worked
    as a Special Assistant and Presidential Management Fellow at the Office
    of Management and Budget in the first Trump Administration.     Madi
    received her bachelor’s degree and master of public administration from
    the University of Southern California. 

    Candice Jackson – Deputy General Counsel 

    Candice
    Jackson returns to the U.S. Department of Education to serve as Deputy
    General Counsel. Candice served in the first Trump Administration as
    Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, and Deputy General Counsel,
    from 2017-2021. For the last few years, Candice has practiced law in
    Washington State and California and consulted with groups and
    individuals challenging the harmful effects of the concept of “gender
    identity” in laws and policies in schools, employment, and public
    accommodations.     Candice is mom to girl-boy twins Madelyn and Zachary,
    age 11. 

    Joshua Kleinfeld – Deputy General Counsel 

    Joshua
    Kleinfeld is the Allison & Dorothy Rouse Professor of Law and
    Director of the Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative
    State at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law. He writes and
    teaches about constitutional law, criminal law, and statutory
    interpretation, focusing in all fields on whether democratic ideals are
    realized in governmental practice. As a scholar and public intellectual,
    he has published work in the Harvard, Stanford, and University of
    Chicago Law Reviews, among other venues. As a practicing lawyer, he has
    clerked on the D.C. Circuit, Fourth Circuit, and Supreme Court of
    Israel, represented major corporations accused of billion-dollar
    wrongdoing, and, on a pro bono basis, represented children accused of
    homicide. As an academic, he was a tenured full professor at
    Northwestern Law School before lateraling to Scalia Law School. He holds
    a J.D. in law from Yale Law School, a Ph.D. in philosophy from the
    Goethe University of Frankfurt, and a B.A. in philosophy from Yale
    College. 

    Hannah Ruth Earl – Director, Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

    Hannah
    Ruth Earl is the former executive director of America’s Future, where
    she cultivated communities of freedom-minded young professionals and
    local leaders. She previously co-produced award-winning feature films as
    director of talent and creative development at the Moving Picture
    Institute. A native of Tennessee, she holds a master of arts in religion
    from Yale Divinity School.

    AFPI Reform Priorities

    AFPI’s higher education priorities are to:

     Related links:

    America First Policy Institute Team

    America First Policy Initiatives

    Source link

  • Post-Levelling Up: A New Agenda for Regional Inequality in Higher Education

    Post-Levelling Up: A New Agenda for Regional Inequality in Higher Education

    ***It’s not too late to register for HEPI’s events this week: ‘Earning and learning: What’s the reality for today’s students?‘ webinar with Advance HE at 10am, Tuesday 14 January and ‘Who Pays? Exploring Fairer Funding Models for Higher Education‘ Symposium at Birkbeck, Thursday 16 January 10am to 5pm.***

    By Professor Graeme Atherton, Director of the National Education Opportunities Network (NEON) and the Vice-Principal of Ruskin College, Oxford.

    In the post-levelling up era, the debate about regional inequality and what it constitutes continues. Insofar as higher education progression is concerned, regional differences were a constant theme of widening access work well before levelling up. On an annual basis, we have seen progress in the percentage of younger learners from low-participation neighbourhoods progressing to higher education.

    However, the situation regarding those progressing to higher education from free school meal (FSM) backgrounds is more complex. Our new report, ‘Access to Higher Education and Regional Inequality: who is missing out? ’, released today, is our second in-depth analysis of the Department for Education’s annual data set on progression to higher education by those from FSM and non-FSM backgrounds in England.

    When these data were published last October, the media focused on the fact that, for the first time since the data were first produced in 2005-06, the percentage of learners from FSM backgrounds progressing to higher education by age 19 fell year on year, from 29.2% in 2021-22 to 29% in 2022-23. But as Figure 1 shows, while the rate has dropped, the number of FSM learners has increased between 2021-22 and 2022-23 by 2,754 (from 19,443 to 22,197). This is the biggest annual increase since 2005-06. The national rate was dragged down by a significant increase in the number of FSM-eligible learners. While more FSM learners are going to higher education, the number of non-FSM learners has increased even more, meaning the national gap has widened.

    Looking at these data in detail also reveals considerable variation in progression across regions and areas. A report has already been published in 2025 predicting a gap in graduates between London and other regions of up to 40% by 2035. There is a near-20-percentage point gap in the progression of FSM learners between London and the next region – a gap that has increased over the last 10 years.

    So strong is London’s performance that it masks some of the challenges across England. At the local authority level, as shown in Figure 2, nearly 70% of areas are below the national average FSM progression rate of 29% and a quarter are at less than 20%.

    chart visualization

    However, while some of these areas may still be below the national average, over the past 10 years these areas have made the most progress. Understanding more about why they have improved while others with ostensibly similar characteristics have not would be a valuable exercise. In contrast, London, while remaining far ahead of anywhere else, has somewhat plateaued.

    As argued above, focusing on geographical differences in higher education participation between different areas of England is not new. This year sees the 21st anniversary of the Aimhigher programme, the first national, locally-focused collaborative outreach initiative for widening access. A string of similar programmes followed, most recently the Uni Connect initiative. Despite the continual chopping and changing of these programmes, they have been effective in contributing to the increases in progression to higher education from low-participation neighbourhoods referred to above, as this is what they have been told to focus on. While FSM as a measure has its well-documented limitations, it is the least worst option when compared to a neighbourhood measure which does not take into account the backgrounds of individual learners. It is now time for a new, rejuvenated collaborative outreach programme that focuses on inequalities in higher education participation as measured by the FSM progression data.

    The Office for Students recently announced its support for a new collaborative outreach programme and this is welcome. But any new programme, as well as focusing on the progression of FSM learners, must be sufficiently resourced. This could potentially happen through, at least in part, higher education providers pooling their efforts across a given area at pre-16 and being effectively co-ordinated at the national level, which has not been the case in previous iterations of such programmes. It must also be a part of the government’s forthcoming post-16 education strategy and any shifts to a broader more collaborative, ‘tertiary’ approach with regional dimensions.

    Finally, it is already becoming apparent that Labour, while right to jettison levelling up, is lacking a replacement policy agenda to address regional inequality. Levelling up, while a damp squib in terms of impact, voiced what many in the country feel about their lives, where they live and what inequality means to them. It didn’t though include inequalities in access to higher education. This can and must change.

    Source link

  • Biden Administration Releases Final Regulatory Agenda of Their Term

    Biden Administration Releases Final Regulatory Agenda of Their Term

    by CUPA-HR | January 7, 2025

    On December 13, the Biden administration issued their Fall 2024 Regulatory Agenda, which provides insights on regulatory and deregulatory activity under development across more than 60 federal departments, agencies and commissions. The Fall 2024 Regulatory Agenda is the second agenda published this year, following the Spring 2024 Regulatory Agenda released in July.

    Given the upcoming change in administration, the Fall 2024 Regulatory Agenda is the last that will be released by the Biden administration. The Trump administration will seek to change many regulatory priorities after taking office, meaning that regulations intended to be released after the Biden administration leaves office will change or be withdrawn altogether. As such, the regulations and target dates highlighted below are not final and subject to change once the Trump administration takes office.

    Department of Labor

    Heat Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings

    The Biden administration’s regulatory agenda reminds interested stakeholders of the Department of Labor (DOL) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)’s notice of proposed rulemaking on heat injury and illness prevention measures for both indoor and outdoor work settings. The comment period is open through January 14, 2025.

    If finalized, the rule would impact all workplace settings under OSHA’s jurisdiction where employees are exposed to heat indexes that equal or exceed 80 degrees, regardless of whether the work is performed in an indoor or outdoor setting. All covered employers would need to circulate heat injury and illness prevention plans (HIIPPs), implement measures for providing breaks and water to employees exposed to high heat, and train employees on heat-related risks and illness prevention, among other provisions.

    Given the comment period’s closing date, the incoming Trump administration will be tasked with next steps for the heat rule upon taking office. Trump nominated Lori Chavez-DeRemer to serve as DOL secretary, where she will oversee future actions taken with respect to heat injury and illness regulations. While she has not publicly weighed in on the current proposal, she co-led a report during her time in Congress that recommended the creation of a federal heat standard for nonimmigrant agricultural workers. She is also from Oregon, which has already implemented its own state heat illness prevention standard. As such, she may be responsive to moving forward with a heat injury and illness rule if confirmed as DOL secretary, though what those regulations may include remains to be seen.

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

    Recordkeeping Requirements for PWFA Charge-Related Records

    The regulatory agenda includes a reminder that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a notice of proposed rulemaking to extend existing recordkeeping requirements under EEO law to include charges under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The NPRM was published on November 21, 2024, and the comment period runs through January 21, 2025.

    The PWFA was signed into law in December 2022, and the EEOC subsequently finalized implementing regulations for the PWFA in April 2024. The lengthy regulations provide guidance to employers and workers on people covered under the law and regulations, the types of limitations and medical conditions covered, and how to request reasonable accommodations.

    According to the regulatory agenda, the new notice of proposed rulemaking sets out recordkeeping requirements for institutions of higher education relating to PWFA charges. The regulations do not require the creation of any records, but they do require that all covered entities (including higher ed institutions) maintain all employment and personnel records they make or keep in the regular course of business for a period of one year and all records relevant to a PWFA charge. These requirements are identical to the recordkeeping requirements related to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) charges.

    Federal Acquisition Regulation

    Pay Equity and Transparency in Federal Contracting

    In January 2025, the Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and NASA anticipate releasing a final rule to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation on pay equity and transparency in federal contracting.

    The joint agencies published a pay equity and transparency notice of proposed rulemaking  in January 2024, in which the agencies propose to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation to implement a government-wide policy that would:

    1. prohibit contractors and subcontractors from seeking and considering job applicants’ previous compensation when making employment decisions about personnel working on or in connection with a government contract (“salary history ban”), and
    2. require these contractors and subcontractors to disclose the compensation to be offered on job announcements (“compensation disclosure” or “pay transparency”).

    Although the agencies are targeting January 2025 for release, the final rule has not yet been sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review prior to publication. All regulations are required to be reviewed by OIRA before they are published for the public, and review typically lasts 30-60 days after the regulation is received. Given the short time left, it appears unlikely that the rule will be published before the end of the Biden administration’s term. It is unknown if the Trump administration will move forward with this rule or seek to withdraw it.

    Department of Homeland Security

    Modernizing H-1B Requirements and Oversight and Providing Flexibility in the F-1 Program

    The Fall 2024 Regulatory Agenda shows that the Department of Homeland Security aimed for a December 2024 release of additional regulations to modernize the H-1B program. DHS met this timeline, publishing a final rule on December 18.

    The final rule included several noteworthy provisions that addressed concerns raised by CUPA-HR in comments responding to the October 2023 proposed rule, including a modification of the definition and criteria for H-1B specialty occupations.

    The rule also codifies DHS’s current policy to give deference to prior determinations when adjudicating petitions involving the same party and facts (known as the “deference policy”), eliminates the itinerary requirement in the Form I-129, expands the H-1B cap exemptions for nonprofit and governmental research organizations, enhances cap-gap protections for F-1 students transitioning to H-1B status, and strengthens the USCIS site-visit program.

    The final rule takes effect on January 17, 2025, just days before the next presidential inauguration. While it is unclear if the incoming Trump administration will seek to modify or roll back the rule, the codification of key provisions, such as the deference policy, makes them more difficult to rescind without formal rulemaking.

    Department of Education

    Discrimination Based on Shared Ancestry or Ethnicity

    Keeping with the date set in the Spring 2024 Regulatory Agenda, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) originally targeted December 2024 for the release of a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and OCR’s enforcement responsibilities for cases involving discrimination based on shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics. OCR is issuing this in response to a 2019 Trump executive order and a 2021 Biden executive order.

    The proposed rulemaking has become a higher priority for OCR, given the recent political activity on campus related to the Israel-Hamas war and related scrutiny from Congressional Republicans of higher education’s response to protests on campus. OCR explains the need for this rulemaking by stating that they have “received complaints of harassment and assaults directed at Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and other students based on their shared ancestry or ethnicity.”

    OCR missed the December target date, and the rule has not yet been sent to OIRA for review prior to publication. Given the short amount of time the Biden administration has before the end of its term, it seems unlikely that this rule will be published before the Trump administration takes office. It is unknown if and how the Trump administration would move forward with regulations on the same issue, though they may seek to publish a proposal given the first Trump administration’s 2019 executive order on combatting antisemitism.

    Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance: Sex-Related Eligibility Criteria for Male and Female Athletic Teams

    In the Fall 2024 Regulatory Agenda, OCR kept its rule to finalize Title IX requirements related to transgender students’ participation in athletic programs to its “long-term actions” list, but the Biden administration subsequently withdrew it on December 20, 2024, halting all efforts to finalize the rule.

    As a reminder, the April 2023 proposed rule recommended language that would prohibit schools receiving federal funding from adopting or applying a one-size-fits-all ban on transgender student participation on teams consistent with their gender identity.

    The Trump administration is likely to reverse the Biden administration’s Title IX regulations that expand protections to individuals facing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Trump and Republicans also spoke of bans on transgender women’s participation in women’s sports during the 2024 election campaign. As such, the Trump administration could choose to issue a separate Title IX rule regarding transgender students’ participation in athletic programs, though it remains to be seen if they will do so.

    Looking Ahead

    As mentioned above, the target dates and regulations themselves are likely to change once the Trump administration takes office. The public will not have insight into the anticipated regulatory and deregulatory activity under the Trump administration until the Spring 2025 Regulatory Agenda is released, which will likely be sometime in late spring or early summer 2025. CUPA-HR will continue to keep members apprised of all relevant regulatory activity as it develops throughout the year.



    Source link