Tag: ban

  • LAWSUIT: LGBTQ student group sues to overturn Texas A&M’s unconstitutional drag ban

    LAWSUIT: LGBTQ student group sues to overturn Texas A&M’s unconstitutional drag ban

    HOUSTON, Texas, March 5, 2025 — The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of an LGBTQ+ student organization to block a new policy from the Texas A&M University System that bans drag performances on its 11 public campuses — a clear violation of the First Amendment.

    FIRE is asking a court in the Southern District of Texas to halt Texas A&M officials from enforcing the drag ban, abruptly adopted on Friday afternoon. The lawsuit is on behalf of the Queer Empowerment Council, a coalition of student organizations at Texas A&M University-College Station and the organizers of the fifth annual “Draggieland” event that was scheduled to be held on campus on March 27. 

    “We refuse to let Texas A&M dictate which voices belong on campus,” said the Queer Empowerment Council. “Drag is self-expression, drag is discovery, drag is empowerment, and no amount of censorship will silence us.”

    Texas A&M students first held “Draggieland” (a portmanteau of “Drag” and “Aggieland,” a nickname for Texas A&M) at the campus theatre complex in 2020, and the event has been held on campus annually ever since. But last Friday, the Board of Regents suddenly voted to ban drag events entirely across all 11 Texas A&M campuses. 

    “The board finds that it is inconsistent with the system’s mission and core values of its universities, including the value of respect for others, to allow special event venues of the universities to be used for drag shows,” the board’s resolution reads. The regents also claimed that drag performances are “offensive” and “likely to create or contribute to a hostile environment for women.”

    “Public universities can’t shut down student expression simply because the administration doesn’t like the ‘ideology’ or finds the expression ‘demeaning,’” said FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh. “That’s true not only of drag performances, but also religion, COVID, race, politics, and countless other topics where campus officials are too often eager to silence dissent.”

    The regents’ attempts to justify the drag ban as anything other than illegal viewpoint discrimination are feeble. The board admits they want to ban drag on campus because they find it “demeans women,” “promotes gender ideology,” or runs contrary to their “values”—- but the First Amendment squarely protects speech that offends and even angers others. And in all cases, it prevents campus officials from silencing speech because they disagree with the “ideology.” As a taxpayer-funded university system, Texas A&M campuses cannot treat some student events differently simply because they dislike the view being expressed. 

    “Even putting on an on-campus production of Shakespeare or Mrs. Doubtfire, or taking part in powderpuff, could be banned at A&M if some hostile administrator thinks they ‘promote gender ideology,’” said FIRE senior attorney JT Morris. “But if the First Amendment means anything, it’s that the government can’t silence ideologies they don’t like — real or perceived.”

    Title IX’s prohibition on creating a “hostile environment” also does not give public universities the ability to run around the First Amendment. FIRE has long seen efforts to suppress speech on the basis that it might contribute to a “hostile environment” because someone finds it offensive, but if speech can be suppressed because someone believes it is offensive, no speech is safe. The First Amendment does not permit public universities to suppress speech because someone thinks it is inappropriate.

    In order to fit the definition of harassment the Supreme Court has established, speech must be “objectively offensive” AND “severe” AND “pervasive.” A once-a-year drag show in an enclosed theatre that requires a ticket to enter doesn’t even come close to satisfying those strict conditions.

    “If other students dislike or disagree with Draggieland, the solution is simple: don’t go,” said FIRE attorney Jeff Zeman. “Or they could organize a protest, as students opposing drag have in the past. The First Amendment protects drag and the ability to criticize drag — and it forbids the government silencing the side it disagrees with.”

    Finally, the regents’ motion notes that “there are alternative locations for such events off-campus.” But that violates the First Amendment, too. The government cannot censor speech in places the First Amendment protects it, just because a speaker might express themselves elsewhere. “Draggieland” highlights why that principle is so vital: if a student group can’t reach their campus community with their message, then their message can’t fulfill its purpose.

    In the face of unconstitutional censorship, Draggieland organizers have remained unbowed. They have announced to supporters that they will hold an on-campus “Day of Drag” protest on Thursday and that they are committed to holding the event even if forced off-campus.

    “We are committed to ensuring that our voices are heard, and that Draggieland will go on, no matter the obstacles we face,” the Queer Empowerment Council announced.

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • Senate Advances Bill to Ban Corporal Punishment on Disabled Oklahoma Students – The 74

    Senate Advances Bill to Ban Corporal Punishment on Disabled Oklahoma Students – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    OKLAHOMA CITY – A bill that would ban schools from using corporal punishment on students with disabilities passed the Senate on Tuesday despite concerns it removes local control and could go against parental wishes.

    The state Department of Education has already prohibited the practice, but Senate Bill 364 seeks to codify into state law a ban against deliberately causing pain by using physical discipline on students with federally protected disabilities.

    “I have never, ever, ever met a parent of a disabled child call for the beating of their child to make them better,” said Sen. Dave Rader, R-Tulsa, the author.

    Rader said some of the protected disabilities include deafness, emotional disturbance, intellectual disability, visual impairment or an orthopedic injury.

    It defines corporal punishment as the deliberate infliction of pain by hitting, paddling, spanking, slapping, or any other physical force used as a means of discipline.

    Rader said corporal punishment could not be used by a school even if a parent agreed to it.

    “Perhaps the parent of the child, in most cases, knows best what that child is going to respond to and how the child is going to perform his or her duties in the classroom,” said Sen. Warren Hamilton, R-McCurtain, who voted against the bill.

    A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1977 allows corporal punishment usage in schools, but leaves it to states to set their own rules.

    Traditionally, Oklahoma lawmakers have left those decisions to local districts, but the state Department of Education quietly barred the practice on children with disabilities starting in the 2020-21 school year. A 2017 law also prohibits the practice on children with the most “significant cognitive disabilities.”

    During the 2017-18 school year, over 20% of  corporal punishments in Oklahoma schools were administered on disabled children, according to federal statistics.

    Other forms of discipline are available, Rader said. The bill does not prohibit parents from using corporal punishment, Rader said.

    Previous efforts to ban the practice have proven controversial. A similar effort last year cleared the state Senate, but died in the House.

    Sen. Shane Jett, R-Shawnee, said Tuesday that banning the practice in schools amounts to “a top down socialist aligned ideological, unilateral divorce between parents’ ability to collaborate with their local schools to establish a disciplined regimen.”

    He also said it “is a violation of scripture,” and cited Proverbs 22:15 which he said says “folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.”

    “There are going to be times when we walk through the valley of the shadow of death, we won’t have to fear evil because your rod and your staff comfort me,” Rader responded.

    Sen. Dusty Deevers, R-Elgin, said there could be negative consequences to removing a partnership between parents and local administrators and forcing the removal of a historically necessary and important disciplinary tool for order.

    “This is not a blanket ban,” Rader said.

    The vote was 31-16.

    The measure moves to the House for possible consideration.

    Oklahoma Voice is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oklahoma Voice maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janelle Stecklein for questions: [email protected].


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Trump’s transgender sports ban challenged in expanded New Hampshire lawsuit

    Trump’s transgender sports ban challenged in expanded New Hampshire lawsuit

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Two transgender high school athletes are challenging in federal court President Donald Trump’s Feb. 5 executive order banning transgender girls and women from participating in sports aligned with their gender identity.
    • Originally filed against a New Hampshire state law that bars transgender girls in grades 5-12 from playing school sports, the lawsuit filed by Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle, is expanding to include Trump and the federal departments of justice and education among the defendants.
    • Tirrell and Turmelle, represented by GLAD Law and the ACLU of New Hampshire, allege Trump’s executive order is discriminatory and violates their federal equal protection guarantees under the 14th Amendment and their rights under Title IX. 

    Dive Insight:

    Henry Klementowicz, deputy legal director at ACLU of NH, said in a Wednesday statement that every child in the state deserves “a right to equal opportunities at school.”

    “We’re expanding our lawsuit to challenge President Trump’s executive orders because, like the state law, it excludes, singles out, and discriminates against transgender students and insinuates that they are not deserving of the same educational opportunities as all other students,” Klementowicz said. 

    The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire previously ordered in September that the two students could play sports on teams corresponding with their gender identities while Tirrell and Turmelle v. Edelblut advanced. 

    Trump’s “No Men in Women’s Sports” executive order, which is now being targeted by the lawsuit, calls for a recission of all federal funds from educational programs that allow transgender girls and women to participate in girls’ sports. The order also directs the U.S. secretary of education to zero in on Title IX enforcement against K-12 schools and colleges where girls and women are required “to compete with or against or to appear unclothed before males.”

    The day after Trump issued that executive order, the U.S. Department of Education opened Title IX investigations into a middle and high school athletics association in Massachusetts, as well as two universities, on the basis that they allowed transgender girls and women to play on teams aligned with their gender identity. 

    Trump’s order further directs the U.S. Department of Justice to abide by the nationwide vacatur from a recent court order by a federal judge who struck down the Biden administration’s Title IX rule in January. The Biden-era Title IX rule was the first time protections were codified for LGBTQI+ students and employees at federally funded schools under the anti-sex discrimination law. 

    After that January court decision, the Education Department said it would enforce the Title IX regulations finalized in 2020 during the first Trump administration.

    Source link

  • Ohio Senate passes bill to ban DEI and faculty strikes at public colleges

    Ohio Senate passes bill to ban DEI and faculty strikes at public colleges

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

    The Ohio Senate on Wednesday passed a far-reaching higher education bill that would ban the state’s public institutions from having diversity, equity and inclusion offices or taking positions on “controversial” topics.

    The bill, known as SB 1, would also establish post-tenure reviews, ban strikes by full-time faculty, and require colleges to publish a syllabus with the instructor’s professional qualifications and contact information for every class.

    Colleges that fail to comply could lose or see reduced state funding.

    The state Senate advanced the legislation in a 21-11 vote largely along party lines — all nine Democrats opposed it, as did two Republicans. The vote came just a day after hundreds of critics spoke out against the proposal during an hourslong hearing Tuesday.

    The second life of SB 83

    Ohio is one of several conservative-controlled states looking to more tightly control their public colleges. But SB 1 is notable for how much it would overhaul the state’s public higher education, including aspects that have traditionally been left to college leaders’ discretion.  

    For example, colleges would be unable to make institutional statements on any topic the bill deems politically controversial, such as “climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion.”

    The bill would create a mandatory U.S. history college course with prescribed readings, like the U.S. Constitution and at least five essays from the Federalist Papers.

    The state Senate advanced a similar 2023 bill, SB 83, from the same lawmaker,  Republican state Sen. Jerry Cirino. Even though Republicans controlled both chambers of the Legislature and the governor’s mansion in Ohio, the legislation never made it to a vote in the House.

    But times have changed. Matt Huffman, the previous Senate president and a strong supporter of the bill, is now the speaker of the House. Gov. Mike DeWine told local news outlets he was likely to sign the bill, pending a final review, should it make it to his desk.

    SB 1 also goes further than its predecessor. The new bill would ban DEI offices and scholarships altogether, while the previous version only sought to prohibit mandatory DEI trainings and offered exemptions. And SB 1 includes a ban on full-time faculty strikes — a provision that was removed from SB 83 in an effort to assuage labor unions and win House approval.

    Faculty reactions

    Faculty groups and free speech advocates have opposed SB 1 just as they did SB 83. They argue it would chill free speech, hurt recruitment and retention of both students and faculty, and interfere with academic freedom.

    The bill calls for colleges to “ensure the fullest degree of intellectual diversity” on campus and cultivate divergent and varied perspectives on public policy issues, including during classroom discussion.

    “Nothing in this section prohibits faculty or students from classroom instruction, discussion, or debate, so long as faculty members allow students to express intellectual diversity,” the bill says.

    The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio lambasted the “intellectual diversity” requirements in a statement Tuesday.

    “At best, this language is the micromanaging of individual courses and instructors by the General Assembly,” said Gary Daniels, the group’s chief lobbyist. At worst, he said, it will require all sides of every issue to be evenly presented by instructors, “ignoring their First Amendment right to academic freedom.”

    Cirino sought to cut off some of those criticisms when he reintroduced the bill as the first measure of Ohio’s new legislative session, which started Jan. 6. 

    Source link

  • Trump Signs Executive Order to Ban Transgender Student-Athletes from Participation in Women’s Sports

    Trump Signs Executive Order to Ban Transgender Student-Athletes from Participation in Women’s Sports

    by CUPA-HR | February 11, 2025

    On February 5, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.” The order aims to bar transgender women and girls from participating in women’s sports by directing agencies to withdraw federal funding from schools that refuse to comply with the order.

    The EO claims that, in recent years, educational institutions and athletic associations have allowed men to compete in women’s sports, which the Trump administration believes denies women and girls equal opportunity to participate in competitive sports, thus violating Title IX. As a result, the EO sets policy to “rescind all funds from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities” and to “oppose male competitive participation in women’s sports more broadly.”

    With respect to the specific actions ordered, the EO directs the secretary of education to ensure compliance with the court order to vacate the Biden administration’s Title IX rule and to take other actions to ensure that the 2024 regulations do not have effect. It also directs the secretary to take action to “protect all-female athletic opportunities” by setting forth regulations and policy guidance that clearly specifies and clarifies “that women’s sports are reserved for women.”

    Notably, the EO further directs all federal agencies to review grants to educational programs and to rescind funding to programs that fail to comply with policy set forth in the EO. Institutions with grant programs deemed to be noncompliant with this order could, therefore, risk losing federal funding for that program.

    The EO also seeks quick enforcement by federal agencies. The EO orders the Department of Education to prioritize Title IX enforcement actions against educational institutions and athletic associations that “deny female students an equal opportunity to participate in sports and athletic events.” The Department of Justice is also tasked with providing resources to relevant agencies to ensure “expeditious enforcement” of the policy set forth in the EO.

    Finally, the EO directs the assistant to the president for domestic policy to convene both major athletic organizations and state attorneys general to promote policies consistent with Title IX and identify best practices in enforcing equal opportunities for women to participate in sports.

    On February 6, the NCAA updated its policy regarding transgender student-athlete participation in response to the EO. According to the NCAA, the new policy limits competition in women’s sports to student-athletes assigned female at birth, but it allows student-athletes assigned male at birth to practice with women’s teams and receive benefits while practicing with them. For men’s sports, student-athletes may participate in practice and competition regardless of their sex assigned at birth or their gender identity, assuming all other eligibility requirements are met.

    Institutions should review their policies and practices in light of the EO and the NCAA’s policy change. CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for Title IX updates and keep members apprised of new enforcement under the Trump administration.



    Source link

  • Legacy Admissions Hit Historic Low as More States Ban Practice at U.S. Colleges

    Legacy Admissions Hit Historic Low as More States Ban Practice at U.S. Colleges

    Legacy preferences in college admissions have plummeted to their lowest recorded level, with just 24% of four-year colleges still considering family alumni status in admissions decisions, according to a comprehensive new report from Education Reform Now. The dramatic decline signals a potential end to a controversial practice that critics have long condemned as perpetuating inequality in higher education.

    The report, authored by James Murphy, director of Career Pathways and Postsecondary Policy, found that 420 institutions continue to provide admissions advantages to children of alumni, marking a sharp decline from previous years. The practice has seen particularly steep drops since 2015, when nearly half of all four-year colleges considered legacy status. Between 2022 and 2023 alone, 92 colleges abandoned legacy preferences, representing an 18% decrease that coincided with the Supreme Court’s landmark decision to ban race-conscious admissions.

    This decline stems from both voluntary institutional decisions and new state legislation. In 2024, California, Illinois, Maryland and Virginia joined Colorado in restricting legacy admissions through state laws. The report indicates that 86% of colleges that ended legacy consideration did so voluntarily, while 14% were required by state legislation. Several more states are expected to introduce similar legislation in 2025.

    Legacy preferences remain most entrenched at selective private institutions, particularly in the Northeast. More than half of colleges that admit 25% or fewer applicants still provide advantages to alumni children. The practice is now rare at public institutions, with just 11% still considering legacy status. In 24 states, no public colleges provide legacy preferences at all. New York stands out as having the highest concentration of colleges maintaining legacy admissions, with one in seven U.S. institutions still using the practice located in the Empire State.

    The report challenges several common defenses of legacy admissions, including arguments that they help build campus community or are necessary for fundraising. It cites evidence that 76% of colleges successfully foster campus communities without legacy preferences, and questions whether wealthy institutions with multi-billion dollar endowments truly need to “trade admissions advantages for money.”

    The analysis also addresses claims that ending legacy admissions could hurt diversity, particularly following the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling. The report argues that legacy preferences disproportionately benefit white and wealthy applicants, citing research showing that Asian American applicants face significantly lower odds of admission compared to white applicants with similar qualifications at selective institutions. According to one study, Asian American applicants had 28% lower odds of attending elite schools than white applicants with similar academic and extracurricular qualifications.

    The report suggests that Congress could potentially impose additional endowment taxes on universities that maintain legacy preferences while offering reduced penalties to institutions that increase enrollment of Pell Grant recipients, community college transfers, and veterans. This approach would create financial incentives for institutions to abandon the practice.

    “The shame of belonging to this group of colleges that think children of alumni have somehow earned an extra advantage in admissions is likely to push more colleges to drop the practice,” Murphy writes. “This is not a club that most colleges belong to or will want to belong to.”

    The report also criticizes the Common Application for potentially enabling legacy admissions by requiring all applicants to identify where their parents earned bachelor’s degrees, even though this information is irrelevant for more than three-quarters of colleges. The report suggests that removing this question would be a significant step toward making college admissions more equitable.

    “Ultimately, the reason to eliminate legacy preferences is not to achieve some other goal,” the report concludes. “The reason to get rid of them is that they are profoundly unfair and make a mockery of merit. Legacy preferences award some of the most advantaged students an additional advantage in the college admissions process on the basis of ancestry alone.”

    Source link

  • Idaho legislators accuse Boise State of flouting DEI ban

    Idaho legislators accuse Boise State of flouting DEI ban

    Lawmakers in Idaho accused Boise State University officials of skirting a statewide ban on diversity, equity and inclusion during a House education committee meeting Tuesday, according to reporting from Idaho Education News. 

    Republican legislators questioned Boise State president Marlene Tromp about a sociology certificate program in DEI advertised on the university’s website as well as its Institute for Advancing American Values, the latter of which is described as encouraging “respectful dialogue” about “the issues and values that have shaped America and Americans from all walks of life.”

    One representative remarked that the institute “sounds like a continuation of DEI under different labels.”

    Tromp said the university had “absolutely not moved something under another name” but added that she’d have to investigate the certificate program more closely. 

    In December, the Idaho State Board of Education passed a resolution prohibiting “central offices, policies, procedures, or initiatives … dedicated to DEI ideology” at public higher ed institutions. Boise State shuttered two of its student equity centers a week before the vote.

    Source link

  • What would a TikTok ban mean for higher ed?

    What would a TikTok ban mean for higher ed?

    Less than two weeks into President Donald Trump’s second term, he’s already testing the limits of executive power.

    As one of his first actions in office, he wielded that power to resume Americans’ access to TikTok—the popular Chinese-owned short-form video app 47 percent of college students use on a daily basis—after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a law banning it.

    Last April, Congress banned companies from distributing, maintaining or updating a “foreign adversary controlled application,” specifically those “operated, directly or indirectly” by TikTok or its parent company, ByteDance Ltd. As a result, TikTok went dark for about 12 hours two days before Trump, who had previously supported the idea of a TikTok ban, took office. Almost immediately after his inauguration, he issued an executive order halting enforcement of the ban for 75 days, while the administration determines “the appropriate course forward in an orderly way that protects national security while avoiding an abrupt shutdown” of TikTok.

    Some experts say Trump’s order falls into murky legal territory, and TikTok’s fate in the U.S. remains unclear. But banning a social media app that 170 million Americans use as a tool for self-expression and self-promotion would have numerous implications for both college students and their institutions. A 2022 study found two-thirds of teenagers were using TikTok to consume a wide range of information, including news, tutorials, entertainment and advertisements, making it a vital recruiting tool for colleges.

    “TikTok represents a pivotal transition point between what was the social media–driven higher ed of the last 15 years and now the artificial intelligence–powered, immersive digital future that’s going to define the next decade,” said J. Israel Balderas, an assistant professor of journalism at Elon University and a lawyer specializing in First Amendment cases. “TikTok isn’t just a social media platform somehow caught in this geopolitical battle. It represents a transition point in digital history.”

    Last week, Inside Higher Ed asked Balderas five questions about what a TikTok ban would mean for students, faculty and institutions. The interview has been edited for concision and clarity.

    1. What are the implications of a TikTok ban for the culture of higher education?

    TikTok has become a dominant space for student expression, activism and social engagement. For professors, it also has become a place of research and AI literacy. Losing the platform means that student organizers would lose a mobilization tool. TikTok has played a critical role, not just in campus activism—from political movements to social justice campaigns—but it has also been a way for others to communicate and play a role in the marketplace of ideas.

    What’s most concerning to me is the potential chilling effect on student expression. Students will start to question whether other digital spaces will face similar crackdowns. For example, if TikTok can be banned under the guise of national security, what will happen to other foreign-owned or politically sensitive platforms? Will they be next?

    Universities would also lose a primary storytelling platform. You have campus life blogs; you have student-run media accounts. TikTok allows institutions and students to shape their narrative in a way that no other platform currently allows.

    2. Do you think there’s justification for a TikTok ban?

    It depends on how you weigh national security risks versus free speech rights. The Chinese government could potentially use TikTok’s recommendation engine to shape political discourse, suppress content or even promote certain narratives. But we’ve been here before with that. We were here in 1919 with Schenck v. United States and Abrams v. United States that questioned influence from socialists and communists. What we discovered is that the marketplace of ideas theory works and the truth rises.

    While the national security argument is valid, why is TikTok being singled out when U.S.-based platforms with equally invasive data practices, like Meta, Google and X, remain untouched? The First Amendment doesn’t protect the companies from regulation, but it does protect Americans’ right to access information.

    Headshot of man with dark hair in a blue suit

    J. Israel Balderas is a journalism professor at Elon University and a First Amendment lawyer.

    3. Could such a ban really be enforced? What might college students do to get around it?

    Banning a social media app in a free society is incredibly difficult.

    Big tech being so powerful and so close to power in Washington also creates a very gray legal area, because Apple and Google control access to mobile apps. If they refuse to reinstate TikTok, then enforcement becomes a de facto reality even without the government directly blocking access. But what we saw earlier this month, with Trump’s intervention to reinstate TikTok, shows that enforcement can be overridden by executive power. So, it’s unclear how consistently a ban could be applied, but enforcement of a ban is far more complicated than either the courts or Congress can anticipate.

    College students are digital natives, and they adapt to these things by bypassing restrictions. They can use VPNs [virtual private networks], which are already widely used in countries with restricted internet laws, like China. Students could also download it from unofficial sources, instead of the traditional app stores. They can also use alternative apps, like the other, increasingly popular Chinese-owned app, RedNote.

    Somebody will find an emerging app, especially now in the world of AI, where AI is open source. You can take the backbone of TikTok, and with AI and proper coding you can create the same kind of environment as TikTok. So how many more clones out there would that be, right?

    4. How would a TikTok ban shape colleges’ digital literacy efforts in the age of AI?

    A TikTok ban would be a blow to digital literacy and AI education. This is the moment when we need to be talking about AI education and what it means for the workforce, students and us as faculty members, who are teaching that it’s not just about facts and knowledge. It’s about teaching students how to ask the right questions and how to connect the dots.

    TikTok opens the door to asking students what it is the algorithm knows about you, if that’s an ethical thing and if they want it. It’s not about shaming students for their choices. It’s about teaching them to think critically about what they’re doing and then letting them decide what it means for their lives and relationships.

    If the government can decide what content is good or bad for the population, we’d have to rethink what it means to have AI literacy in the curriculum.

    5. TikTok is caught in a geopolitical crossfire. Is there a teachable moment in all of this?

    The fact that we are having these conversations is the best part of this entire fiasco. Because students are questioning if the government can really do these things. What about the future? What about AI? Will the government be able to say that it’s not suppressing speech, but just suppressing the person who’s writing these codes or the person who’s putting these algorithms into the marketplace? Students are at least trying to figure out what is the role the government will play going forward when it comes to ideas that are not popular.

    If they’re being more critical about those things, then as a professor, I’ve done my job.

    Source link

  • Florida Phone Ban in School Gets Mostly Positive Feedback from Administrators – The 74

    Florida Phone Ban in School Gets Mostly Positive Feedback from Administrators – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    School administrators provided mostly positive feedback to lawmakers curious about implementation of a 2023 law prohibiting students from using their phones.

    School officials provided the House Student Academic Success subcommittee feedback last week on HB 379, a 2023 law that prohibits phone use during instructional time, prohibits access to certain websites on school networks, and requires instruction to students to responsibly use social media.

    “It’s gone very very well in many of our classrooms, especially I would say it goes really well in our classrooms with struggling learners. The teachers have seen the benefit of that increased interaction with each other, the increased focus,” said Toni Zetzsche, principal of River Ridge High School in Pasco County.

    The law, introduced by Rep. Brad Yeager, a Republican representing part of Pasco County,  received unanimous support before serving as a sort of model legislation across the nation.

    “The first step of this process: remove phones from the classroom, focus on learning, take the distraction out. Number two was, social media, without just yanking it from them, try to educate them on the dangers. Try to help to learn and understand how social media works for them and against them,” Yeager said during the subcommittee meeting.

    An EducationWeek analysis shows Florida was the first state to ban or restrict phones when the law passed, with several other states following suit in 2024.

    Florida schools have discretion as to how they enforce the law, with some prohibiting cellphones from the beginning until the end of the day, while others allow students to use their phones during down times like lunch and between classes.

    Some teachers have taken it upon themselves to purchase hanging shoe organizers for students to bank their phones in during class, Yeager said.

    Since the law took effect in the middle of 2023, Zetzsche said, students in higher level college preparatory classes have partially struggled because of the self-regulating nature of the courses and the expectation that teachers give them more freedom.

    But for younger and lower-performing students, the law has been effective, according to Zetzsche and research Yeager used to gain support for the bill.

    “In some of our ninth and tenth grade classrooms, where the kids need a little more support, those teachers are definitely seeing the benefit,” Zetzsche said.

    Orange County Schools Superintendent Maria Vazquez said schools have combatted student complaints about not having their phones by filling down time, like lunch periods, with games or club activities.

    Zetzsche said she has seen herself and others use the phoneless time as an opportunity to get to know more students.

    “I know I’ve spoken with teachers, elementary teachers, middle school teachers, and high school teachers that have said, ‘I’ve had to teach students to reconnect and get involved or talk to people.’ They are doing a better job of focusing on that replacement behavior now, I think. I think we all are,” Zetzsche said.

    “I think, as a high school principal now, when I see a student sitting in the cafeteria and they’re on their cellphone watching a movie, I immediately want to strike up a conversation and say, ‘Hey, are you on the weightlifting team? Do you play a sport?’” Zetzsche said.

    Bell to bell

    Orange County schools decided not to allow phones all day, while Pasco County chose to keep phones away from students during instructional time, the extent the law requires.

    “It was surprisingly, and shockingly, pretty easy to implement,” Marc Wasko, principal at Timber Creek High School in Orange County, told the subcommittee.

    Rep. Fiona McFarland, a Republican representing part of Sarasota County and the chair of the subcommittee, encouraged further planning to better enforce the law.

    “I will tell you, because not everything we do up here is perfect, there are some schools that I’ve heard of where, even if the teacher has a bag, kids are bringing a dummy phone, like mom’s old iPhone, and flipping that into the pouch where they’ve got their device in their pocket or if you’ve got long hair, maybe you can hide earbuds,” McFarland said.

    “I mean, this is the reality of being policymakers, folks,” McFarland continued. “We make a law, we can make the greatest law in the world, which is meaningless if it’s not executed and enforced properly. We could pass a law tomorrow to end world hunger and global peace, but it means nothing if it’s not operationalized well and planned for well.”

    Yeager told the committee he does not plan to seek to ban phones outside of instructional time, although other lawmakers could push for further phone prohibitions.

    Department of Education obligation

    The law requires the Department of Education to make instructional material available on the effects of social media, required for students to learn under the law.

    “Finding the time to be able to embed that into the curriculum is really difficult. We are struggling with instructional minutes as it is, when we have things like hurricanes impact learnings,” Zetzsche said.

    “We are struggling to get through the content, so it would be nice to have something from the Department of Education that is premade that we can share with students, but maybe through elective courses or some guidance on how they would expect high schools, how they would feed that information to students.”

    Administrators said parental pushback has been limited, and Zetzsche added that parents have sought advice from schools about how to detach their kids from their phones.

    “When we struggle with the student who’s attached to their cellphone, the parents want to put things in place.
They just don’t know what to do,” Zetzsche said, calling for the department to provide additional information to parents.

    Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Michael Moline for questions: [email protected].


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Ban on trans women in women’s sports passes the House

    Ban on trans women in women’s sports passes the House

    Representative Greg Steube, a Florida Republican, speaks at a press conference following the passage of his Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act in the House of Representatives.

    Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images

    The House of Representatives voted 218 to 206 to pass a bill that would unilaterally ban trans women from competing in women’s sports Tuesday. The votes were nearly split along party lines, but two Democrats, Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez, both from Texas, voted for the bill.

    Sponsored by Representative Greg Steube, a Florida Republican, the legislation dubbed the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, is the latest attempt in Congress to keep trans women off women’s sports teams and builds on efforts in the states to restrict the participation of transgender students in sports that align with their gender identity. Last Congress, identical legislation from Steube passed the House but didn’t move forward in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

    Now, Republicans hold the majority in both the House and the Senate, making it far more likely that this iteration will be more successful. In nearly half of the country, trans women are banned from playing women’s sports at the K-12 or higher education level, but the legislation would take those bans nationwide.

    Passing the bill was a top priority for House Republican leadership, who included it on a list of 12 pieces of legislation to be considered first when the new session of Congress kicked off earlier this month. Its place of prominence seems to indicate that Republican leadership will prioritize rolling back or restricting the rights of transgender people, whom Republicans have often put at the center of a culture war.

    Republicans and President-elect Donald Trump have criticized the Biden administration’s effort to amend Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to prevent blanket bans that prohibit transgender students from participating in sports consistent with their gender identity. Last month, the Biden administration scrapped that proposal.

    Under the bill, institutions that receive federal funding would be prohibited from allowing “a person whose sex is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls.” It defines sex as being based on “a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth,” though it doesn’t expound upon how an institution would tell. The bill does not prevent trans men from playing on men’s teams.

    Anti-trans activists argue that allowing individuals assigned male at birth to play on women’s sports teams opens cis women athletes up to being injured by athletes who are more naturally powerful due to their physiques. There is sparse research on if this is true; however, the few studies that do exist haven’t backed up the idea that trans women retain significant advantage over athletes assigned female at birth.

    Supporters of the legislation—including some cis female athletes, like Riley Gaines, who have competed alongside and against trans athletes at the collegiate level—also argue that trans women take spots on women’s teams, going against Title IX’s promise of equal opportunity, and that it is uncomfortable for cisgender female athletes to share close quarters, like locker rooms, with individuals assigned male at birth.

    Representative Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Education and the Workforce Committee, echoed these sentiments in his argument on the House floor Tuesday.

    “Mr. Speaker, kicking girls off sports teams to make way for a biological male takes opportunities away from these girls,” he said. “This means fewer college scholarships and fewer opportunities for girls. It also makes them second-class citizens in their own sports and puts their safety at risk.”

    Some people who agree that trans women should not play on women’s teams say they broadly support transgender individuals but see it as unfair for them to take spots on women’s teams. But Steube took a different approach. When he announced the bill earlier this month, he quoted President-elect Donald Trump’s promise that “under the Trump administration, it will be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders—male and female.”

    Meanwhile, Democrats and LGBTQ+ advocates argue that trans women should have the opportunity to play sports—which have been shown to improve outcomes and mental health for youths across the board—on the team that matches their gender.

    “Transgender students—like all students—they deserve the same opportunity as their peers to learn teamwork, to find belonging and to grow into well-rounded adults through sports,” said Representative Suzanne Bonamici, an Oregon Democrat, on the House floor. “Childhood and adolescence are important times for growth and development, and sports help students form healthy habits and develop strong social and emotional skills. Sports provide meaningful opportunities for kids to feel confident in themselves and learn valuable life lessons about teamwork, leadership and communication. Teams provide a place for kids to make friends and build relationships.”

    Bonamici and other democrats dubbed the bill the “Child Predator Empowerment Act” and argued it wouldn’t make schools safer for students. In fact, she said that the vague language in the bill about what defines the male sex could lead to invasive examinations.

    “There is no way this so-called protection bill could be enforced without opening the door to harassment and privacy violations. It opens the door to inspection, not protection, of women and girls in sports,” she said. “Will students have to undergo exams to prove they’re a girl? We are already seeing examples of harassment and questioning of girls who may not conform to stereotypical feminine roles; will they be subject to demands for medical tests and private information? That’s intrusive, offensive and unacceptable, especially from a party of limited government.”

    Source link