Tag: Bans

  • Book bans draw libraries into damaging culture wars that undermine their purpose

    Book bans draw libraries into damaging culture wars that undermine their purpose

    For the last four years, school and public libraries have been drawn into a culture war that seeks to censor, limit and discredit diverse perspectives.

    Yet time and time again, as librarians have been encouraged or even directed to remove books that include LGBTQ+, Black, Latino and Indigenous characters or themes or history from their collections, they have said no.

    When librarians said no, policy changes were submitted and laws were proposed — all in the name of controlling the library collection.

    Some librarians lost their jobs. Some had their lives threatened. Legislators proposed bills that attempt to remove librarians’ legal protections, strive to prevent them from participating in their national professional associations, seek to limit some materials to “adults only” areas in public libraries and threaten the way library work has been done for decades.

    Here’s why this is wrong. For generations, libraries have been hubs of information and expertise in their communities. Librarians and library workers aid in workforce development, support seniors, provide resources for veterans, aid literacy efforts, buttress homeschool families —among many other community-enriching services. Your public library, the library in your school and at your college, even those in hospitals and law firms, are centers of knowledge. Restrictions such as book bans impede their efforts to provide information.

    Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education. 

    Professional librarians study the First Amendment and understand what it means to protect the right to read. We provide opportunities for feedback from our users so that they have a voice in decision-making. We follow a code of ethics and guidelines to make the best selections for our communities.

    It is illegal for a library to purchase pornographic or obscene material; we follow the law established by the Supreme Court (Miller v. California, 1973). That decision has three prongs to determine if material meets the qualifications for obscenity. If the material meets all three, it is considered obscene and does not have First Amendment protection.

    But our procedures have been co-opted, abused and flagrantly ignored by a small and vocal minority attempting to control what type of information can be accessed by all citizens. Their argument, that books are not banned if they are available for purchase, is false.

    When a book or resource is removed from a collection based on a discriminatory point of view, that is a book ban.

    Librarians follow a careful process of criteria to ensure that our personal biases do not intervene in our professional work. Librarians have always been paying attention. In 1939, a group of visionary librarians crafted the Library Bill of Rights to counter “growing intolerance, suppression of free speech and censorship affecting the rights of minorities and individuals.” In 1953, librarians once again came together and created the Freedom to Read Statement, in response to McCarthyism.

    You may see a similar censorship trend today — but with the advent of the internet and social media, the speed at which censorship is occurring is unparalleled.

    Much of the battle has focused on fears that schoolchildren might discover books depicting families with two dads or two moms, or that high school level books are available at elementary schools. (Spoiler alert: they are not.)

    Related: The magic pebble and a lazy bull: The book ban movement has a long timeline

    The strategy of this censorship is similar in many localities: One person comes to the podium at a county or school board meeting and reads a passage out of context. The selection of the passage is deliberate — it is meant to sound salacious. Clips of this reading are then shared and re-shared, with comments that are meant to frighten people.

    After misinformation has been unleashed, it’s a real challenge to control its spread. Is some subject matter that is taught in schools difficult? Yes, that is why it is taught as a whole, and not in passages out of context, because context is everything in education.

    Librarians are trained professionals. Librarians have been entrusted with tax dollars and know how to be excellent stewards of them. They know what meets the criteria for obscenity and what doesn’t. They have a commitment to provide something for everyone in their collections. The old adage “a good library has something in it to offend everyone” is still true.

    Thankfully, there are people across the country using their voices to fight back against censorship. The new documentary “Banned Together,” for example, shows the real-world impact of book banning and curriculum censorship in public schools. The film follows three students and their adult allies as they fight to reinstate 97 books pulled from school libraries.

    Ultimately, an attempt to control information is an attempt to control people. It’s an attempt to control access, and for one group of people to pass a value judgment on others for simply living their lives.

    Libraries focus on the free expression of ideas and access to those ideas. All the people in our communities have a right to read, to learn something new no matter what their age.

    Lisa R. Varga is the associate executive director, public policy and advocacy, at the American Library Association.

    Contact the opinion editor at opinion@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about book bans was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • UC System Freezes Hiring, Bans Diversity Statement Mandates

    UC System Freezes Hiring, Bans Diversity Statement Mandates

    The University of California System’s president announced a systemwide hiring freeze and other “cost-saving measures, such as delaying maintenance and reducing business travel where possible.”

    “Because every UC location is different, these plans will vary,” president Michael V. Drake said in a Wednesday letter to the campuses of one of the country’s largest higher education systems. He said “every action that impacts our University and our workforce will only be taken after serious and deliberative consideration.”

    Drake pointed to a “substantial cut” to the system in the California state budget atop the Trump administration’s disruptive national reduction in support for postsecondary education. He said the administration’s executive orders and proposed policies “threaten funding for lifesaving research, patient care and education support.”

    “The Chancellors and I are preparing for significant financial challenges ahead,” Drake wrote.

    Whenever hiring does resume, UC universities and their components will no longer be able to require that applicants submit diversity statements. Janet Reilly, chair of the UC Board of Regents, said in a separate statement Wednesday that the board directed the system to eliminate such mandates.

    “While the University has no systemwide policies requiring the submission of diversity statements as part of employment applications, some programs and departments have used this practice,” Reilly said.

    Paulette Granberry Russell, president and chief executive officer of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, told Inside Higher Ed that, “while I think diversity statements added value on the front end of a search,” it’s far more important to have a structured approach to faculty hiring. She said this approach should eliminate biases and consideration of “non–job-related criteria,” such as accents or lack of eye contact, from the process.

    Diversity statements, she said, are “not the defining factor in whether or not somebody’s going to be successful” if they earn the position.

    Source link

  • Colleges Flag Words Like “Women” to Comply With DEI Bans

    Colleges Flag Words Like “Women” to Comply With DEI Bans

    “Biases.” “Racism.” “Gender.” “Women.”

    Those are just some of the terms colleges and universities are searching for in their databases to ensure compliance with federal DEI bans and similar directives from states and university systems.

    Robin Goodman, distinguished research professor of English at Florida State University and president of the university’s chapter of United Faculty of Florida, said her institution is using a list of keywords to review webpages for DEI language in response to federal and state directives. While not all those terms were scrubbed, the list, which has circulated among faculty, disturbed her.

    “From my point of view, those words are now dangerous words” that exacerbate a “culture of fear” on campus, she said.

    She’s also mystified by which terms did and didn’t make it onto her university’s list, noting that the word “woman” is flagged, but not “man” or “sex.”

    Campuses using keyword lists isn’t entirely new. Some state laws have pressured colleges to avoid using certain terms in the past, said Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education. But for most campuses, this is a “new space,” as some institutions scramble to comply with federal anti-DEI orders, like the Office for Civil Rights’ Dear Colleague letter, and try to mirror the ways grant-making federal agencies, like the National Science Foundation, have responded.

    Colleges and universities are using the same tactics as many federal agencies parsing their grant projects and webpages to comply with federal anti-DEI directives. The National Science Foundation, which temporarily shut down grant reviews, searched for terms like “female” and “male-dominated” in its research grants. The Centers for Disease Control used a list of roughly 20 terms to guide choices about removing DEI-related language from its website. And the Defense Department reportedly flagged tens of thousands of images and web posts for removal because of alleged connections to DEI, including references to service members with the last name Gay and an image of the Enola Gay aircraft, which dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima during World War II.

    Campus administrators taking this approach argue that, when tasked with reviewing massive numbers of webpages and programs, keywords make it easier to arrive at a smaller, more manageable pool to review. Faculty members, on the other hand, are baffled and outraged by the strategy. Some sympathize with campus leaders’ plight but argue it’s alarming to watch universities treat terms like “female” as red flags.

    Fansmith doesn’t believe such lists are an ideal strategy.

    Flagged word lists are “a very, very, very blunt tool” for “trying to understand academic content or the merits of research grants or projects,” he said.

    ‘Not a Perfect Approach’

    University leaders recognize that devising keyword lists puts campuses on edge, but some argue it’s the most efficient way to respond to an onslaught of anti-DEI directives.

    East Carolina University’s interim provost, Chris Buddo, explained at a recent Faculty Senate meeting that the Office of University Counsel crafted a list of terms over several months, initially used to review the university’s web presence to comply with the University of North Carolina system’s Equality Policy, which pared back DEI. (The North Carolina General Assembly also demanded an inventory of DEI trainings from the system in 2023, offering up a list of concepts and terms to guide the audit, including “accessibility,” “bias,” “racism” and “social justice.”)

    Then, in February, a UNC system attorney issued a memo prohibiting campuses from mandating courses focused on DEI, referencing Trump’s January anti-DEI executive order. University officials again used a keywords list to search through the course catalog and ensure no general education or major requirements were focused on DEI.

    Faculty at the meeting guffawed at some of the words flagged, including “cultural.”

    “I know it’s been controversial, and I understand it is not a perfect approach,” Buddo told faculty. “But given the significant amount of content we are being asked to review, we started by using this blunt tool—and I recognize it is a blunt tool.”

    He stressed that none of the words on the list are “inherently problematic.”

    But “the list was developed as a way to cast the widest possible net, to make sure we could be aware of all the places that we might be viewed as being noncompliant,” he said.

    Anne Ticknor, chair of the faculty and a professor in the College of Education at East Carolina University, said her institution has no choice but to comply with the system’s directives, though she tried to ensure that faculty had a say in any changes to course requirements.

    “People were fearful that their academic freedom was being infringed upon, since faculty traditionally oversee curriculum, and that includes course titles, syllabus information, course descriptions, content—all of that is typically a faculty’s domain,” she said.

    East Carolina officials told Inside Higher Ed in a statement that most courses flagged using the list were “false positives,” meaning that upon review, they weren’t required or didn’t relate to DEI.

    Florida State University also emphasized in a statement to Inside Higher Ed that just because the university is using a list of key terms to review webpages and communications doesn’t mean those words or pages are necessarily being removed.

    “For example, contrary to media reports, the words ‘woman’ and ‘women’ are easily found throughout the FSU website and have not been removed, nor are they being removed,” the statement read. “Florida State University, like all universities, routinely reviews its messaging to ensure information is up to date and compliant.”

    Florida State president Richard McCullough recognized in a March 4 message to faculty and staff that they may have “feelings of uncertainty and concern.”

    “While we are confident that our institution currently complies with the law, it is important that our messaging reflects new interpretations and priorities,” he told employees.

    Some campus leaders said they crafted flagged-terms lists out of panic.

    Officials at High Point University, a private institution in North Carolina, for example, told Inside Higher Ed in a statement that they created a keyword list in a moment of heightened worry last month after the U.S. Department of Education canceled three grants that supported graduate education programs, totaling $17.8 million. The Feb. 14 Dear Colleague letter, which gave institutions two weeks to rid themselves of race-conscious programming, exacerbated their concerns about losing federal funding for other programs.

    According to The News & Observer, the university circulated a list of 49 terms, including “equality” and “gender,” and called for an audit of course descriptions and syllabi, student handbooks and webpages.

    But officials quickly rescinded the move.

    “Facing a 14-day deadline, we acted quickly based on our care and concern for students and faculty,” the statement from High Point read, “but clearly we overcorrected.”

    Provost Daniel Erb sent an apology to academic leaders on March 2, saying he consulted with legal counsel and “there are no terms or words that you are required to change.”

    “While many institutions were working towards removing certain terms and words from websites … our legal counsel has helped clarify that our priority should be on ensuring all our program qualifications and requirements do not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs, etc.,” Erb wrote. “Therefore, the concern about the language that is used is no longer a focus.”

    ACE generally doesn’t recommend universities undertake such language reviews in response to the Office for Civil Rights’ anti-DEI directive, Fansmith said. He believes campuses’ usual processes for reviewing university communications and curricula should suffice.

    “The administration has a view of what compliance with civil rights laws means,” which “I don’t think we necessarily believe the law itself supports,” he said.

    The Ripple Effects

    While harried administrators say the flagged terms are just a guidance tool, faculty members find the reviews burdensome and say they have a chilling effect in the classroom.

    Margaret Bauer, professor of English, distinguished professor of arts and sciences and Rives Chair of Southern Literature at East Carolina University, said her department has a Multicultural and Transnational Literatures concentration. She hasn’t done a count, but she expects the word “cultural”—one of the words on the list—comes up in every course description in that concentration. She feels for her colleagues who’ve had to justify courses or explain why they’re false positives. (Bauer is also in the Faculty Senate but stressed that she’s speaking on her own behalf.)

    “We’re already all overtaxed with so much bureaucracy,” she said. “Just to add something that’s so ridiculous—it’s really frustrating … We should have been grading or planning class, things that are productive. This was not productive.”

    Bauer believes administrators are well intentioned and “want to protect us.”

    But “I want them instead to push back … and say, ‘Curriculum is under faculty. And we don’t teach discrimination. We teach the history of it. We’re not doing anything wrong … These words are things our university believes in,’” she said.

    Knowing the word list is out there makes concepts feel taboo in the classroom, she said.

    “When I’m teaching Southern literature, I’m going to end up talking about the history of oppression, the history of discrimination … I can’t not talk about it,” she said, but she finds herself feeling “more self-conscious” about it. She worries faculty members without tenure might fear for their jobs if they “teach honestly.”

    Goodman, of Florida State University, said she also can’t avoid the topics on her university’s flagged-term list.

    “I’m a feminist theorist. I’ve written a lot of books, and they all have ‘feminism’ in the title,” she said. “So, I can’t backtrack it now. It’s all out there in the public.”

    The flagged-words list—especially combined with recent Florida state laws allowing students to record professors in class and requiring professors to undergo post-tenure review—creates an environment where “faculty feel like they are being gagged in class, and they’re fearful,” she added.

    Fansmith isn’t surprised faculty are worried.

    Professors are used to “really complicated, detailed and multi-faceted levels of curriculum construction,” he said. “These are professionals who have spent their lives understanding those nuances, those details and why they matter,” so they’re concerned to see coursework in particular “reduced seemingly to a simplistic list of terms.”

    He believes word lists are an acceptable, albeit not ideal, tool to use if they’re part of an internal review process “done with the care and attention that universities generally do with matters of curricular review and with respect for academic freedom.”

    But “when it’s being mandated from the outside, by the federal government or a state and it’s getting into really perilous ideas of academic freedom and what can be taught, that’s when we start to really worry about what these lists mean and what they represent,” he said.

    Source link

  • A picture is worth a thousand words — unless a college district bans it

    A picture is worth a thousand words — unless a college district bans it

    As Chief Dan George of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation aptly noted, “What you do not know, you will fear. What one fears, one destroys.” Unfortunately, the Los Rios Community College District of greater Sacramento, California, has an overly restrictive policy that risks making this a grim reality.

    In an effort to respect Native American remains, the district enacted a broad “moratorium” — essentially a complete ban — on faculty and students displaying “images and reproductions of Native American human remains.” Even if well-intentioned, this policy creates some predictably absurd results that severely limit educational opportunities and make professors think twice before signing up to teach Native American history.

    Sure, professors could dryly describe the objects in question rather than show their students images and replicas. But that approach is about as effective — and as likely to capture students’ attention — as merely describing the roundness of a globe or the wryness of Mona Lisa’s smile.

    Take, for instance, the near-complete skeleton of a teenage girl who researchers named Naia, and who died while cave diving for water about 13,000 years ago. Naia’s skeleton has much to teach students, but thanks to the district’s ban, educators are now prohibited from using similar images of incredible archeological finds.

    The First Amendment — which binds public colleges and districts like Los Rios — forbids such broad, content-based restraints on teachers instructing their students. 

    Courts have repeatedly held that the First Amendment protects faculty expression that is “related to scholarship or teaching” or “germane to the classroom subject matter,” including showing photographs that are relevant to the course material. Even more fundamentally, the First Amendment protects the display and communication of photos, videos, and recordings, provided there is no issue with intellectual property rights. But in LRCCD’s blatant overreach, the district doesn’t even try to make an argument about copyright protections.

    What is left is an unconstitutional policy that drastically dulls the learning process. Sure, professors could dryly describe the objects in question rather than show their students images and replicas. But that approach is about as effective — and as likely to capture students’ attention — as merely describing the roundness of a globe or the wryness of Mona Lisa’s smile. Visuals are a vital learning aid, and a blanket ban on educational images is a disaster for academic freedom and student learning.

    While it’s tempting to justify a ban as showing respect for Native American tribes, shunning these images is a funny way to show respect. Universities can best show respect by teaching about Native American cultural heritage using images and replicas. In any case, the government’s desire to show respect to a minority group doesn’t allow it to ban speech about that group.

    Nor can the district justify the policy by appealing to the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act or its California counterpart, which deal with the identification and repatriation of Native American remains or cultural items — not images or replicas. To its credit, Los Rios admits as much, even if it confusingly claims that the moratorium is “part of the District’s compliance” with NAGPRA. 

    Fortunately, there have been calls for reform. After we wrote to the district about this issue in August and yet again in October, the district Academic Senate released the draft of a new policy that leaves replicas and images out of any bureaucratic review process. FIRE attorney Daniel Ortner helped along this process by testifying in favor of the draft before the DAS. 

    But there’s a major roadblock holding up this promising new policy: FIRE was recently informed by Cosumnes River College Academic Senate President Jacob Velasquez that the district won’t change its existing policy until it gets the go-ahead from the district’s tribal partners. In other words, the ban on images and replicas is here to stay unless the district and its partners change their minds. 

    FIRE recently wrote to the district a third time, calling for an end to this speech-stifling policy. Until it listens, it’s lights out for free speech and academic freedom at the Los Rios Community College District.

    Source link

  • SFFA president on affirmative action ban’s growing impact

    SFFA president on affirmative action ban’s growing impact

    Edward Blum isn’t quite a household name. But at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., he’s a minor celebrity.

    The conservative think tank has played host to an array of high-profile politicos, pundits, journalists and businesspeople over the years: Bill Gates, Mike Pence, Jordan Peterson, the Dalai Lama. Blum, who took affirmative action to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 and won, spoke at the institute earlier this month about his decades of legal activism.

    It was something of a homecoming for the president of Students for Fair Admissions, who lives in Florida but has been a visiting fellow at AEI since 2005. It was also, in many ways, a victory lap.

    Since the court ruled in his favor in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and the University of North Carolina, Blum’s vision of what he calls a “colorblind covenant in public policy” has been ascendant, and in the new Trump administration, Blum’s zealous opposition to race-conscious programs has become a domineering force driving education policy.

    Over the weekend, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights issued a letter outlining an expansive interpretation of the SFFA ruling and its plans to enforce a ban on all race-conscious programming in higher ed; colleges that don’t comply in 14 days could lose their federal funding. During her confirmation hearing Thursday, Education Secretary nominee Linda McMahon said ending “race-based programming” would be a priority if she were confirmed.

    Blum, who spoke with Inside Higher Ed before the OCR letter was published, believes that affirmative action has long been unpopular—winning the public relations battle, he said, was “the easiest part of my job.” Still, he said the political, legal and cultural backlash against affirmative action and DEI over the past few years was affirming. In Trump’s Washington, Blum, who fought the courts unsuccessfully for decades, feels like an insider at last.

    “It’s gratifying for those of us who have labored in this movement to see that now, rather than these policies being whispered about as unfair and illegal, there’s a full-throated cry against them,” he said.

    The Trump administration’s adoption of Blum’s views on race in higher ed has also prompted another wave of backlash from Blum’s many critics, who say his work is undoing decades of progress toward racial equality and integration.

    During his AEI session, Blum was asked about his own views on racial diversity on college campuses, constitutional law notwithstanding. He rejected the premise outright.

    “The question implies that someone’s skin color is going to tell me something very fundamental about who they are as an individual. I don’t believe that’s the case,” Blum said. “Your skin color, the shape of your eyes, the texture of your hair tells me nothing about who you are. For some people, being on a campus with racial diversity is important … There are others that don’t seem to care about that.”

    From Outsider to Agenda Setter

    Blum has railed against race-conscious admissions for two decades. A former businessman in Houston, Blum, who has no law degree, founded the legal defense fund Project on Fair Representation in the mid-2000s. He challenged Texas’s reinstatement of race-based admissions in the second Fisher v. the University of Texas case; the case went to the Supreme Court but was ultimately defeated in 2016 when justices ruled that the university’s admission practices were constitutional.

    Now, he’s not alone. A corps of public interest law groups has sprung up to litigate the SFFA decision in higher ed at prestigious law firms, on Wall Street and beyond. This month, a brand-new public interest legal group filed a lawsuit against the University of California system accusing it of secretly using racial preferences in admissions, citing increases in Black and Hispanic enrollment at its most selective colleges.

    Blum said SFFA isn’t passing the buck and is committed to challenging universities on their compliance with the law, but a groundswell of efforts has lightened his load.

    “The SFFA decision has energized the public interest law apparatus,” Blum said. He predicted that under Trump, the Education Department will also play a bigger role in investigating institutions for their compliance with the affirmative action ban. That forecast appears to be coming true with Friday’s Dear Colleague letter, though the agency still has to enforce the directive, a complicated prospect considering its broad scope.

    Edward Blum (left) at the American Enterprise Institute on Feb. 5, with moderator Frederick Hess.

    Blum supports the intensifying attacks on DEI and said that with more state laws forbidding spending on diversity and equity programs, there’s room for legal work to ensure colleges aren’t spending on “DEI by another name.”

    But despite the high-profile political implications of his work, he doesn’t see himself as a political actor. In the late 1990s, he ran a failed congressional campaign in Houston, but the thought of running for office now evokes “overwhelming negative emotions.” And he’s careful to draw a line between his legal advocacy work and the anti-DEI crusades of conservative lawmakers.

    “There is a 20-foot wall between the political people in the movement and the public interest groups,” he said.

    ‘A Forever Endeavor’

    Blum is not finished suing colleges over affirmative action, or at least those he believes could be flouting the law. He’s particularly interested in selective colleges that reported similar or higher rates of Black and Hispanic enrollment this year, such as Yale, Duke and Princeton—a sure sign, he believes, that they’ve been “cheating.” SFFA has a “vibrant role to play,” he added, in holding them to account.

    “So many of us are befuddled and concerned that in the first admissions cycle post-SFFA, schools that said getting rid of affirmative action would cause their minority admissions to plummet didn’t see that happen,” he said.

    When asked if recent expansions to financial aid offerings at these universities could account for the change, Blum was circumspect. He’s not opposed to economically progressive admissions initiatives; he calls Rick Kahlenberg, a liberal proponent of “class-based affirmative action,” a like-minded friend. But he said the onus was on colleges to prove that’s the source of their continued racial diversity. He also said that geographic diversity initiatives would be unconstitutional if they only applied to “Harlem and the South Side of Chicago, and not also rural Missouri and northern Maine.”

    Since the Supreme Court ruling, experts, college administrators and lawyers have debated whether the SFFA decision applies to race-conscious scholarships, internships and precollege programs as well as admissions. In the months after the ruling, attorneys general in Ohio and Missouri issued orders saying it did, and some colleges have begun to revise racial eligibility requirements on scholarships. At the same time, scholars and lawyers said implementing changes to nonadmissions programs amounted to overreach from state lawmakers and institutions alike.

    Blum doesn’t actually believe the decision itself extends to those programs. He does think they’re illegal—there just hasn’t been a successful case challenging them yet.

    “I haven’t really made myself clear on this, which is my fault, but the SFFA opinion didn’t change the law for those policies” in internships and scholarships, he said. “But those policies have always been, in my opinion, outside of the scope of our civil rights law and actionable in court.”

    He’s still looking for a case that could enshrine his view in the law—two weeks ago McDonald’s settled a lawsuit he filed against their Latino scholarship program, putting that one out of contention. But he said that for the most part, in the wake of the SFFA decision, colleges have proactively altered or ended those programs themselves.

    “Even if the ruling didn’t apply directly, it’s had this cascading effect,” he said.

    That effect, Blum said, has spread to cultural and corporate institutions as well as higher ed, contributing to a general chilling effect on what he views as unconstitutional racial preferences in American society. It’s a major turnaround, he acknowledged, from the ubiquity of DEI initiatives and racial reckoning just five years ago after the murder of George Floyd.

    While he’s relishing in the legal, political and cultural victory of his crusade, he’s not resting on his laurels.

    “There are no permanent victories in politics,” Blum said, loosely quoting Winston Churchill. “The same applies to legal advocacy. This is a forever endeavor.”

    Source link

  • This week in 5 numbers: Trump bans transgender students from women’s sports

    This week in 5 numbers: Trump bans transgender students from women’s sports

    From an executive order that requires colleges to ban transgender women from gender-aligning sports teams to a multi-billion shortfall in the Pell Grant program, here are the top-line figures from some of our biggest stories of the week.

    By the numbers

     

    100%

    The portion of federal funding to colleges, K-12 schools and other education programs could lose if they allow transgender girls and women to participate on sports teams aligning with their gender identity. The new policy stems from an executive order President Donald Trump signed Wednesday.

     

    42

    The number of pages in a lawsuit seeking to block Trump’s executive orders targeting diversity, equity and inclusion activities, including those in higher education. The complaint — filed by the American Association of University Professors and the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education — described Trump’s orders as overly vague, an overstep of presidential authority, and a threat to free speech.

     

    $2.7 billion

    The projected deficit of the federal Pell Grant program at the end of fiscal year 2025, according to a January report from the Congressional Budget Office. One nonprofit warned the shortfall could lead to program cuts in fiscal 2026 on par with those seen during the Great Recession.

     

    4.3%

    The rise in state funding for higher ed in fiscal 2025 before inflation, according to early data from the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association’s annual Grapevine report. In all, 41 states increased their higher funding or held it flat, while nine cut it back.

     

    3

    The number of military colleges under control of the U.S. Department of Defense. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the trio to nix all race-, ethnicity- or sex-based admissions goals and DEI efforts, and required them to teach that “America and its founding documents remain the most powerful force for good in human history.”

    Source link

  • TikTok Marketing in the Face of Potential Bans

    TikTok Marketing in the Face of Potential Bans

    If you’ve scrolled TikTok recently, you might have noticed that some of your favorite creators have started bringing up their other handles, encouraging you to follow them on different platforms. With the ban possibly becoming effective as early as January 2025, this trend is becoming increasingly popular. From micro-influencers to brand giants, creators are taking decisive action, urging their audiences to follow them on alternative platforms as a failsafe. These creators aren’t just reacting—they are leading the pack by ensuring that their followers stay connected, no matter what challenges lie ahead.

    As the calendar inches closer to January, the time to rethink and implement your digital strategy is now.

    For marketers who have leveraged TikTok’s platform to amplify their brands and connect with consumers in unprecedented ways, the looming possibility of bans or restrictions raises pressing questions about the sustainability of their marketing strategies. As we navigate this pivotal moment in digital marketing history, it’s crucial for marketers to assess the implications of potential TikTok bans and explore alternative strategies to adapt to an evolving landscape. 

    Understanding the Current Landscape

    In April 2024, President Biden signed the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” requiring TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to find a buyer within nine months or face a nationwide ban in The United States. The legislation, if enacted, would result in TikTok losing all market share in the U.S., effectively removing the app from the country’s digital landscape and preventing millions of American users from accessing its content.

    The ban stems from rising concerns over national security and data privacy, given ByteDance’s origins in China. American policymakers and critics of TikTok contend that the Chinese government could gain access to sensitive data and influence Americans on geopolitical issues, both posing significant concerns for American users’ privacy and national security. U.S. Lawmakers have cited these concerns by drawing attention to potential laws that could “allow the Chinese government to secretly demand data from Chinese companies and citizens for intelligence-gathering operations.”  Additional concerns include the app’s ability to fuel misinformation through TikTok’s content recommendations.  This isn’t the first time these fears have been highlighted, as President Trump attempted to ban the video-sharing app back in 2020.

    In May 2024, TikTok responded to President Biden’s proposed ban with a lawsuit, arguing that the bill violates Americans’ First Amendment rights. If the bill succeeds, the ban will remove TikTok from all app stores, effectively hindering the ability for the platform to garner new downloads and provide updates to active users, which would render TikTok obsolete over time.

    The ban on TikTok could significantly impact the way marketers manage their advertising. Currently, U.S. ad businesses on TikTok are anticipated to see $10.42 billion in ad revenues in 2024. Furthermore, forecasts anticipate that TikTok will “make up 12% of US social network ad spend and 3.4% of US digital ad spend in 2024.” TikTok’s potential ban underscores the critical need for marketers to stay informed and adaptable, given the platform’s sizeable relevance in the U.S. ad market.

    Building a Multi-Platform Ecosystem

    In an era of rapid digital evolution, building a multi-platform ecosystem is no longer just a strategy—it’s a necessity. The volatility of social media platforms is no secret. Given recent challenges with platforms like Twitter, now X, we’re well aware of the vast changes in the realm of social media. The potential TikTok ban further underscores the risk of relying too heavily on a single platform. For marketers, this means a single-threaded approach to video marketing is a vulnerability they cannot afford.

    One of the most effective ways to mitigate such vulnerability is to diversify. At EducationDynamics, we have long recommended a diversified approach when it comes to marketing at any point in the funnel. This strategy involves distributing your marketing efforts across multiple stages to achieve optimal stability and reach.

    Our target audience consumes media across multiple channels and mediums, and always has. New vendors will always appear in the mix to test and integrate into full funnel marketing plans, but it is never recommended to place all your eggs in one basket. We need to reach our audience multiple times across multiple platforms to have effective reach and frequency.

    Lora Polich, Senior Director of Awareness Media

    Building a robust brand presence beyond TikTok is crucial, and investing in owned media channels such as websites and email newsletters is essential for gaining the most long-term value. An optimized website serves as the hub for your institution’s brand, providing credibility and important information about your institution’s unique offerings.

    Similarly, email newsletters play an instrumental role in the student journey by fostering engagement and creating lasting relationships with both prospective and current students. Through personalized and consistent email communications, you will be able to keep your student audiences connected, engaged, and informed on the latest updates and offerings your institution has.

    Lastly, it is essential to monitor ongoing regulatory developments and adapt your strategies accordingly. The looming TikTok ban, and ever-changing social media landscape illustrate that shifts can occur at any time. Staying informed about these changes is crucial for being able to pivot your strategy and remain compliant with the latest regulations. By equipping yourself with the most current information, you can ensure that your marketing efforts stay relevant and that you can continue to effectively reach your audience.

    Evaluating Alternative Platforms 

    As the social media environment continues to shift, understanding where your target audience is most engaged becomes increasingly important. In EducationDynamics’ 2024 Online College Student Report, we surveyed students to ascertain their media consumption habits and platform preferences.  

    According to the report, most online college students reported using Facebook (75%), TikTok (74%), and Instagram (72%) daily. However, a significant portion reported daily use of Snapchat (66%), Twitter (56%), Discord (48%) and LinkedIn (44%).  

    While Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram dominated daily usage, online college students reported LinkedIn (42%) as the most helpful and trustworthy platform when researching schools. Reddit (33%), Facebook (32%), Twitter (28%), and Instagram (25%) followed in terms of usefulness for this purpose. Only 19% found TikTok helpful for school research. 

    Given the potential ban on TikTok, the most viable options for delivering video content are LinkedIn for its trustworthiness and strong daily usage, Facebook and Instagram for broader reach and informal engagement, and Facebook and Instagram Reels for further boosting informal engagement and brand building opportunities.  

    Understanding which platforms are best suited for specific types of content and engagement can help you maximize their potential and mitigate potential losses from a TikTok ban. Prioritizing LinkedIn for research, strategically utilizing Facebook and Instagram, as well as exploring the latter platforms’ reels features for informal engagement opportunities offers a balanced approach to reaching and engaging online students in a changing social media landscape.  

    Expanding Reach through Multi-Platform Video Marketing  

    The 2024 Online College Student Report also found that nearly all online college students (98%) consume content from one or more streaming services. Seventy-five percent of online college students stream media daily on YouTube, making it the platform with the largest usage and largest opportunity for schools to build brand awareness and consideration. This highlights the importance of a diverse marketing strategy with a full funnel approach comprised of multiple platforms that deliver personalized messaging tailored to prospective students’ place withing their enrollment journeys.  

    At EducationDynamics, we encourage video production that can be used across platforms, in a variety of dimensions, and highlights what makes the university unique, such as student testimonials and graduation. By capturing this ‘evergreen’ video, we can quickly shift focus in social media platforms when challenges (or exciting changes like new apps) like this arise

    Caryn Tate, Senior Manager of Digital Marketing 

    The rise in alternative platforms for video marketing offers marketers a flexible approach by enabling the use of the same video content across multiple channels. This adaptability ensures that marketers can maximize their reach across multiple audiences by tailoring their content to the unique preferences of each platform. Additionally, marketers can now repurpose video files across platforms without worrying about intrusive cropping or coverage by platform-specific icons, titles, or captions. This ‘safe zone’ within a video guarantees visibility on all platforms, reducing the stress of potentially losing valuable messaging.  

    Consider These TikTok Alternatives for Your Video Marketing Needs: 

    • Instagram Reels  
    • Facebook Reels
    • YouTube Shorts
    • Reddit
    • LinkedIn

    If the TikTok ban goes completely undownloadable, schools need to take away how TikTok changed the social media playing field. It changed how brands entertain while delivering information. Schools can see what content was successful for the platform and how they can develop other content for different platforms. TikTok also showed how quickly audiences can adapt to social media platforms, meaning it is essential to stay up to date with all social media adaptations and changes.

    John Michael Szczepaniak, Senior Social Media Strategist

    The landscape of higher education marketing, like all sectors in the digital realm, is marked by constant evolution. As both consumers and marketers, we understand the importance of safeguarding our data and audiences across platforms. The potential fate of TikTok serves as a reminder that new platforms will inevitably emerge, challenging the status quo and reshaping how we engage with audiences. Just as marketers have navigated through shifts in platforms in recent years, adaptability and proactivity remain paramount. The resilience of marketers throughout history underscores the industry’s ability to weather such storms. While legal challenges to platforms like TikTok may present hurdles, they are just one of many bumps in the road, and with each challenge comes an opportunity for innovation and growth. 

    With the uncertainty around platforms like TikTok, now is the perfect time to adopt a multi-platform approach designed for the entire student journey. Our experts can help you build a resilient, full-funnel marketing strategy that drives enrollment, regardless of future shifts. Reach out today to start the conversation.  

    FAQs About the TikTok Ban

    This FAQ section will be regularly updated to reflect the latest developments regarding the TikTok Ban. Check back for new insights and answers to frequently asked questions.  

    How did we get here? 

    TikTok’s undeniable popularity surged during the pandemic, with lockdowns driving a significant increase in users.  During this time, the app saw a staggering 45% increase in monthly active users from July 2020 to July 2022. According to data from the 2024 Online College Students Report, 74% of online college students who use social media visit TikTok daily. With over 1 billion monthly active users, TikTok quickly became a major player in social media, known for its ability to spark viral trends and innovative marketing opportunities. However, its future is now uncertain due to growing regulatory and geopolitical challenges. As these issues continue to unfold, TikTok’s position in social media has become increasingly uncertain. 

    What is the current status of the TikTok ban? 

    While a complete US TikTok ban isn’t in effect yet, the situation is evolving rapidly. Several states have banned TikTok on government devices, and there’s ongoing discussion at the federal level about potential security risks and data privacy concerns. 

    4 steps marketers can take to safeguard their brand in light of the TikTok ban.

    How might a TikTok ban affect my marketing efforts? 

    TikTok ban could significantly disrupt your marketing efforts if you rely heavily on the platform to reach prospective students. Losing access to your TikTok audience and content could mean losing valuable brand awareness, engagement, and lead generation opportunities. 

    Are there any contingency plans I should have in place? 

    Absolutely. Don’t wait for a ban to happen before you act. Here’s what you should be doing: 

    • Diversify your social media presence: Focus on building a strong presence on other platforms like Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts, and even emerging platforms relevant to your target audience. 
    • Download and save your existing TikTok content: This way, you’ll have a library of assets you can potentially repurpose on other platforms if needed. 
    • Focus on building your owned channels: Prioritize growing your email list, website traffic, and content marketing efforts to reduce reliance on any single platform. 
    • Engage with your TikTok followers on other platforms: Encourage them to connect with you elsewhere to maintain that connection. 

    What are the potential alternatives to TikTok for marketing purposes? 

    • LinkedIn: Enables targeted outreach to prospective students during their decision-making process, capitalizing on the platform’s reputation for credible professional networking and industry insights. 
    • Facebook and Instagram: Offer powerful tools for amplifying brand awareness, cultivating vibrant online communities, and driving early-stage engagement through diverse content formats and a vast, active user base. 
    • YouTube Shorts: Provide access to YouTube’s massive audience, allowing institutions to connect with prospective students through engaging short-form video content while also leveraging the platform’s strength in longer-form video. 

    How can I stay updated on the latest developments regarding TikTok bans? 

    To stay updated, don’t hesitate to leverage your EDDY resources, as we are always here to help you with your marketing and enrollment journeys! In addition, we recommend following Social Media Today and HubSpot’s Blog as resources for staying aware of the latest industry updates.  

    Links to additional resources about the latest news about TikTok:

    Source link