Tag: billion

  • Harvard Faculty, AAUP Challenge Trump Administration’s $8.7 Billion Funding Threat

    Harvard Faculty, AAUP Challenge Trump Administration’s $8.7 Billion Funding Threat

    In what legal experts are calling a landmark case for academic freedom, Harvard faculty and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging unconstitutional attempts to control campus speech and governance through threatened funding cuts.

    The legal action, filed Friday, seeks to block the administration from withholding $8.7 billion in federal funding for Harvard University and its affiliated hospitals after demands that the university implement specific policy changes and restructure its operations.

    According to court documents, the administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism issued a demand letter on April 3 outlining “immediate next steps” Harvard must take to maintain its “financial relationship with the United States government.” These demands reportedly extend far beyond addressing antisemitism, including new speech restrictions, elimination of all diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, and mandatory cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security.

    “The First Amendment does not permit government officials to use the power of their office to silence critics and suppress speech they don’t like,” said Andrew Manuel Crespo, Morris Wasserstein Professor of Law at Harvard and general counsel of the AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter. “Harvard faculty have the constitutional right to speak, teach, and conduct research without fearing that the government will retaliate against their viewpoints by canceling grants.”

    The lawsuit comes after the task force chair announced on Fox News in March that “the academic system in this country has been hijacked by the left, has been hijacked by the Marxists,” and threatened to “bankrupt these universities” by removing federal funding.

    Harvard professors involved in the lawsuit claim the administration’s threats have already begun to impact academic freedom on campus.

    “The research and teaching of Harvard faculty have already been chilled by the Trump administration’s attempt to coerce the university into changing its curriculum and governing structure,” said Dr. Kirsten Weld, professor of History and president of the AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter. “If Trump can threaten to withhold billions of dollars from our colleagues unless we stop teaching about diversity and inclusion, he can make the same threat to try and stop us from teaching about science, his critics, or anything else.”

    The plaintiffs have requested an immediate temporary restraining order to prevent any funding cuts while the case proceeds.

    The AAUP warns that allowing such governmental intrusion at Harvard could set a dangerous precedent for institutions nationwide.

    “Our students and faculty members across the nation are terrified,” said Veena Dubal, AAUP General Counsel. “If the administration’s lawless and unconstitutional attempts to control speech and governance at Harvard are allowed to proceed, then any one of our institutions could be next.”

    Dr. Todd Wolfson, president of the AAUP, characterized the administration’s actions as “an attack on democracy and economic mobility” with harms that “will be so irreparable that they will last generations.”

    At the heart of the case is whether the federal government can legally condition billions in funding on compliance with policy demands that appear to target specific viewpoints and academic content.

    Nikolas Bowie, Louis D. Brandeis Professor of Law at Harvard and secretary-treasurer of the AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter, argues there is no legal basis for the administration’s actions.

    “No law in this country permits President Trump to suspend billions of dollars from universities like Penn, Princeton, or Harvard simply because he doesn’t like their policies on transgender athletes, their research on climate change, or the constitutionally protected speech of their students and faculty.”

    Legal experts note that the case could potentially reach the United States Supreme Court, given its significant First Amendment and separation of powers implications.

    Source link

  • More than 200,000 former Walden University students owe more than $9 Billion

    More than 200,000 former Walden University students owe more than $9 Billion

    The Higher Education Inquirer has recently received a Freedom of Information (FOIA) response regarding student loan debt held by former Liberty University students.  The FOIA was 25-01941-F.  

    Source link

  • More than 290,000 Liberty University student loan debtors owe more than $8 Billion

    More than 290,000 Liberty University student loan debtors owe more than $8 Billion

    The Higher Education Inquirer has recently received a Freedom of Information (FOIA) response regarding student loan debt held by former Liberty University students.  The FOIA was 25-01939-F.  

    Source link

  • 265,000 DeVry student loan debtors owe $5.2 Billion

    265,000 DeVry student loan debtors owe $5.2 Billion

    The Higher Education Inquirer has recently received a Freedom of Information (FOIA) response regarding student loan debt held by former DeVry University students.  The FOIA was 25-01942-F.  

    Source link

  • £11 billion of “Supplements” used for loans

    £11 billion of “Supplements” used for loans

    Given the relative absence of higher education from yesterday’s Autumn Statement, I turned my attention to the Department for Education’s 2019/20 annual accounts, which were published earlier this month.

    Regarding student loans, we have been in something of a hiatus since 2018, when Theresa May announced an review of post-18 funding and commissioned the Augar panel, which reported last summer. Although there were suggestions that we might get a long overdue response to the latter yesterday, we will probably have to wait now until the Budget next March, when the government will hope to have a better sense of its spending commitments.

    That leaves student loan finance in limbo with the small, nominal budget allocation for loan write-offs shored up by large “Supplementary Estimates” provided by parliament each February.

    This is in spite of an apparent “target RAB” of 36% and a budgeting process hanging over from 2014, when the old department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) had responsibility for loans and was being “incentivised” to reduce the cost of the loan scheme. You can see both of these features still stipulated in the latest Consolidated Budgeting Guidance, but they represent zombie policy with little to no bearing on events.

    Why so? Well, DfE was given an extra £12billion plus back in February to supplement 2019/20’s budget for “non-cash RDEL” (mostly student loan “impairments”) of £4.7billion per year. (Student loans are “impaired” because the loans are worth less in estimated repayments than the cash advanced.) The supplement produces a total that is more than triple the original allocation.

    And… DfE managed to spend nearly £16billion of that last year. The accounts report an “underspend” of £1.1bn against that total.

    As can be seen from the table below, “Fair Value movement” for student loans amounted to a non-cash cost of over £14billion.

    £17.6billion of new loans were issued, a net increase of £15billion once repayments of over £2billion are considered, but the new impairments on post-2012 loans increased by £12.3billion; for “pre-2012” loans the stock remaining at year-end lost nearly £1.7bn when revalued.

    Although the nominal value (“face value”) of outstanding post-2012 loan balances is nearly £105billion, those loans are thought to be worth less than £50bn.

    The increases in impairments break down into a RAB charge and a stock charge.

    The RAB charge is the estimated impairment on new loans issued. That came to nearly £9billion, reflecting the latest understanding that only 47% of the £17billion+ of annual undergraduate loan outlay is now expected to be repaid in net present value terms. Ie, the RAB charge is 53%, well above the official target of 36%.

    The other £7billion was a write down on loans issued in previous years and is based on changes made to the model used to estimate loan repayments. Only £2.1billion of that downwards revaluation is attributable to Covid (the loans were revalued in July).

    The accounts make available a further breakdown of the modelling changes.

    The implications seem clear: HE is due a day of reckoning. From a financial perspective, the strongest measures would control outlay rather than boosting repayments. In cash terms, the former has immediate impact on finances, whereas the latter spreads the effect over decades and is politically difficult at this time.

    Tuition fees are to be frozen again in 2021/22 and we should expect this to continue. Announcements in FE suggest that the government would also like students to switch away from longer, more expensive HE courses. More radically, I would expect the government to be reviewing the Augar suggestions of tuition fee reductions and caps on places for certain courses (Recommendation 3.7).1  

    Back at the Conservative Party Conference, Rishi Sunak warned of “hard choices” to come and promised to “balance the books”:

    “Over the medium term getting our borrowing and debt back under control. We have a sacred responsibility to future generations to leave the public finances strong, and through careful management of our economy, this Conservative government will always balance the books. If instead we argue there is no limit on what we can spend, that we can simply borrow our way out of any hole, what is the point in us?”

    That final question invites some alternative answers, but the Spending Review’s focus on Further Education reinforces the idea that HE will be the required to balance the increased spending on the former.

    1 “We therefore invite the government to consider the case for encouraging the OfS to stipulate in exceptional circumstances a limit to the numbers an HEI could enrol on a specific course, or group of courses. It would be critical for the OfS to be transparent about the grounds and process for such an intervention and we can offer no more than a broad indication of what these circumstances might be. Where there is persistent evidence of poor value for students in terms of employment and earnings and for the public in terms of loan repayments, the OfS would have the regulatory  authority to place a limit, for a fixed period, on the numbers eligible for financial support who could be admitted to the course. The institution in question would remain free to recruit to all other courses without restriction. Such a cap system would clearly target the institutions that are offering poor value, rather than altering the entry criteria for individual students.”

    p. 102, Independent Panel Report to the Review of post-18 Education & Funding

    Source link