A Queensland university and controversial speakers involved in an ‘anti-racism’ symposium earlier this year have been cleared of any misconduct, an independent review has found.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Membership Login
Tag: cleared
-
QUT ‘anti-racism’ debate speakers cleared – Campus Review
Justice John Middleton completed the independent review. Picture: Aaron Francis
-
The reconciliation bill cleared the House. Here’s how it would change higher ed.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.House Republicans on Thursday narrowly passed a massive tax and spending bill that, if signed into law, would add new financial pressures on U.S. colleges and students while extending the tax cuts instituted in 2017.
Backed by President Donald Trump and dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” the proposal includes provisions for dramatically increasing the endowment tax, a risk-sharing policy that would put colleges on the hook for unpaid student loans, and changes to the federal student aid program that critics say would reduce access to higher education.
It also includes work requirements to the Medicaid health insurance program, changes to which could impact university hospitals and leave many college students without health insurance.
The bill is headed to the Senate after it passed the House by one vote, with every Democrat and two Republicans voting against it. Three other Republicans either abstained or did not participate in the vote.
The Senate, held by Republicans with a 53-person majority, is widely expected to add changes to the bill.
Since lawmakers passed the legislation as part of the reconciliation process — a rule allowing the Senate to approve spending-related policies with a simple majority — Republicans can avoid a filibuster that would take 60 votes to break.
In a Wednesday letter to House leaders, American Council on Education President Ted Mitchell wrote that the higher ed policy changes would have “a historic and negative impact on the ability of current and future students to access postsecondary education, as well as on colleges and universities striving to carry out their vital educational and research missions.”
Here is a look at some of the major higher ed provisions:
Endowment tax
Today, the richest private colleges — the few dozen with at least 500 students and at least $500,000 endowment assets per student — pay an endowment excise tax set at 1.4%.
Wednesday’s bill would implement a graduated rate structure, with levels starting at 1.4%, and rising to 7%, 14% and 21% depending on endowment assets per student. Under that tiered system, the wealthiest college would be taxed the same as the current corporate income rate.
When House Republicans advanced the endowment tax proposal earlier this month, they decried “woke, elite universities that operate more like major corporations.”
The lowest tax bracket targets colleges whose endowments are valued between $500,000 and $749,999 per student.
Endowment taxes would rise to 21% for the nation’s wealthiest private colleges
Excise tax tiers for private colleges based on endowment funds per student
Industry experts and insiders worry the tax could hurt colleges’ long-term missions and diminish the resources they rely on to recruit lower-income students.
In a statement Thursday, Kara Freeman, president and CEO of the National Association of College and University Business Officers, pointed to research by her organization and Commonfund finding that nearly half of endowment spending went toward student aid in fiscal 2024.
“This scholarship tax takes funds away from students and makes it less possible for colleges to support them,” Freeman said.
Colleges spend the largest share of endowment funds on student financial aid
Endowment spending distribution by function in fiscal 2024
Financial aid changes
The bill eliminates federal subsidized loans for undergraduates and Direct Plus loans for graduate students beginning on July 1, 2026.
It also limits Parent Plus Loans, capping how much parents can borrow and only allowing them to take out loans if their dependent student has already taken out the maximum in unsubsidized loans.
The bill sets an overall lifetime student loan limit of $200,000 for any single borrower across all federal loan types.
Additionally, it raises the course hours for the full-time student designation needed to receive the maximum Pell Grant from 24 to 30 per academic year, and it changes the formula for Pell eligibility.
ACE’s Mitchell called the proposed changes to Pell Grants “crippling,” saying some 700,000 students could lose eligibility under the bill.
Regarding changes to federal student funding writ large, Mitchell described them as “deep cuts and damaging changes to important federal student aid programs” that would limit access to education.
The bill also cuts several student loan repayment programs, consolidating a “litany” of repayment plans into two, according to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
The Republican-led committee last month described the higher education policy proposals as “strengthening accountability for students and taxpayers, streamlining student loan options, and simplifying student loan repayment.”
Risk-sharing
Along with tax hikes on some college endowments, the vast majority of colleges would make payments to the federal government based on a formula centered on the unpaid student loan balances of former students.
The risk-sharing policy is intended to increase college accountability on student costs and outcomes.
“Institutions that continue to saddle their students with debt eventually face increasing penalties and risk loss of access to federal student aid,” the House education committee said about the proposal previously.
But higher education experts and insiders worry a risk-sharing system could disincentivize colleges from accepting lower-income and historically marginalized students, who face more systemic challenges both in education and in the workforce.
While a portion of those payments might be offset by the bill’s new Promise grants for colleges that provide access to low- and middle-income students, analysis has found that many institutions will lose money overall.
ACE found that 91% of colleges serving primarily lower-income students would make significant payments to the government even after Promise grants are factored in, with a median net loss of $107,000.
“In terms of its implementation, it would be disastrous for institutions that are doing the job of bringing on students that come from communities that are already underrepresented,” Jordan Nellums, senior policy associate with The Century Foundation, a left-leaning think tank, said of the proposal in an interview this spring.
-
James Madison psychology professor cleared of wrongdoing after extensive probe into classroom comments
As anyone who has taken a psychology course likely knows, discussing parts of human psychology can inevitably lead to some uncomfortable places. Whether it’s discussing sensitive topics like the psychology of psychopathic violence, the ethics of human experimentation, or the sex-based roots of the concept of “hysteria,” psychology courses are often unavoidably provocative. That is especially so for doctoral courses.
For Gregg Henriques, a faculty member in James Madison University’s Clinical and School Psychology Doctoral program, these sorts of uncomfortable topics were a fundamental part of understanding the full range of human psychology. Henriques had taught in the program for more than 20 years, where he established his bona fides as a passionate, if colorful, professor.
That career longevity is part of the reason why Henriques was shocked to learn that a Title IX complaint had been filed against him by an anonymous student in April 2023. The complaint alleged that over the course of three classes and four months in early 2022, Henriques made two dozen harassing comments that created a hostile environment in his doctoral courses.
Among the objectionable comments were phrases like “emotions are like orgasms,” which was meant to analogize the experience of human emotion to the sexual response cycle, and “pinky dick” as a way of referring to inferiority complexes and overcompensation in a class on psychodynamic theory. Henriques also landed in hot water for acknowledging his own fundamental human desire to have sex during a lecture on Sigmund Freud.
Yes, Henriques often had a colorful way of describing psychological concepts. But he only used such phrases to convey concepts to his students in memorable ways. Faculty members enjoy wide protections regarding their pedagogical speech in the classroom because the First Amendment protects speech “related to scholarship or teaching.” That’s especially so when they approach difficult or controversial issues in the classroom, since even offensive speech that is “germane to the classroom subject matter” — including Henriques’s provocative descriptions of psychological concepts here — is protected.
We live in an age where heterodoxy is often called ‘harm’ and where every word out of a professor’s mouth is uttered beneath the brooding and Orwellian omnipresence of the Title IX Office.
Despite Henriques’ stellar reputation established over decades of teaching, James Madison plowed forward with the investigation. Henriques reached out to FIRE’s Faculty Legal Defense Fund, which provides faculty members at public universities with experienced First Amendment attorneys, free of charge. FLDF quickly set Henriques up with Justin Dillon, an accomplished attorney who helped Henriques navigate the investigatory process.
Over the course of nearly a year, JMU called Henriques into several meetings with investigators about the complaint. With the help of his FLDF attorney, Henriques was eventually cleared of all wrongdoing in January 2024, as the university determined that his comments were pedagogically relevant and did not constitute sexual harassment.
“I owe Justin and FIRE a tremendous debt of gratitude,” Henriques said. “As soon as he took the case, he homed in on the key issues, grasped the logic of why I taught the way I did and saw its value and legitimacy, and started to effectively game plan our approach. He was a tremendous help in navigating the system, understanding the procedures, and ensuring my rights were protected.”
“It’s hard to overstate the difference that I have seen the FLDF make in the lives of terrific professors like Gregg Henriques,” Dillon said. “We live in an age where heterodoxy is often called ‘harm’ and where every word out of a professor’s mouth is uttered beneath the brooding and Orwellian omnipresence of the Title IX Office. The FLDF helps keep the world safe for ideas, and I am so honored to be a part of it.”
With his pedagogical rights vindicated, Henriques is now back in the classroom, able to teach knowing that FLDF and FIRE have his back. But he is just one of the hundreds of scholars punished for their speech.
If you are a public university or college professor facing investigations or punishment for your speech, contact the Faculty Legal Defense Fund: Submit a case or call the 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533).