Tag: day

  • Charles Negy was fired over a tweet — now he’s having his day in court

    Charles Negy was fired over a tweet — now he’s having his day in court

    In the summer of 2020, two issues dominated the headlines: the COVID pandemic and the widespread unrest surrounding George Floyd, Black Lives Matter, and the “racial reckoning.” It was in this environment, with the country also at or near the apex of “cancel culture,” that the University of Central Florida tried to fire associate professor of psychology Charles Negy for his tweets about race and society. Negy fought back and sued.

    Five years later, his lawsuit continues — and last week, it brought good news not just for Professor Negy but for everyone who cares about free speech on campus.

    Last week, Judge Carlos E. Mendoza of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida ruled that Negy’s lawsuit could proceed against four of the five administrators he sued. Importantly, the court denied claims of qualified immunity, a doctrine that says public officials aren’t liable for unconstitutional activity unless they knew or should have known their actions were unconstitutional. By denying qualified immunity to UCF’s administrators, Judge Mendoza formally recognized what was obvious from the very beginning: UCF knew or should have known that what it was doing violated the First Amendment, but they went ahead and did it anyway.

    (As a note, Negy is represented by Samantha Harris, a former FIRE colleague, which is how I learned about his case a few years ago.)

    Negy was fired for his speech, then re-instated by an arbitrator

    In the summer of 2020, Negy posted a series of tweets (since deleted) commenting on race and society. (For example, on June 3, 2020, he tweeted: “Black privilege is real: Besides affirm. action, special scholarships and other set asides, being shielded from legitimate criticism is a privilege.”)

    After some students complained to the school about Negy’s tweets, UCF responded by soliciting further complaints about him. That led to the opening of an investigation into Negy’s classroom speech as well. Seven months later, what began as an investigation of tweets led to 300 interviews; which led to a (get ready for this) 244-page report. As I wrote at the time, the report made absolute hash of academic freedom with what struck me as nonsensical lines drawn between speech it believed to be protected and unprotected: 

    According to the UCF investigation, it is protected speech to say that girl scouts preserve their virginity (p. 25), but not that women are attracted to men with money (p. 26). It is protected speech to say that Jesus was schizophrenic (p. 36), but unprotected to say that Jesus did not come into the world to die for everyone’s sins (p. 36). It’s protected to say that Islam is cruel and not a religion of peace (p. 107) but not that it is a toxic mythology (p. 35).

    Based on the report, in January 2021, UCF administrators decided to fire Negy without providing a normally required six-month notice period — allegedly because he was a “safety risk.” (Caution: Dangerous Tweets!) Unsurprisingly, in May of 2022, an arbitrator ordered him re-instated, citing a lack of due process. And as I pointed out then: 

    UCF’s case against Negy was never likely to survive first-contact with a neutral decision-maker. When an investigation of tweets includes incidents from 2005 — the year before Twitter was founded — either the investigator is lying about their purpose or confused about the linear nature of time.

    In 2023, Negy sued the institution and five individuals who had been involved in the UCF decision. Some of Negy’s claims were dismissed last year; the recent ruling was on motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims. 

    Why claims only went forward against four out of five defendants

    Last week’s ruling involved two causes of action. The first is a First Amendment retaliation claim against five individual defendants. First Amendment retaliation is basically just what it sounds like: a government employee retaliating against an individual for his or her protected speech. In Negy’s case, his claim is that certain UCF employees didn’t like his tweets, and decided to fire him for those tweets — with everything in-between, including the investigation and report, motivated by the desire to punish him for using his First Amendment rights on the Internet.

    The second cause of action is against one particular UCF employee — the employee who was in charge of writing the report — alleging a direct First Amendment violation. Again, that’s just what it sounds like: a government official censoring Negy’s protected expression. Negy argued UCF’s report claimed that several instances of Negy’s in-classroom speech amounted to discriminatory harassment, when his speech was actually protected by the First Amendment as an exercise of academic freedom. In other words, Negy claimed that the UCF employee violated his First Amendment rights by telling decision-makers that Negy’s speech wasn’t protected. 

    To understand the judge’s ruling, it’ll be helpful to be able to refer to the defendants by something more than pronouns. Let’s meet them!

    The first three were joint decision-makers about what to do with the investigation results. They are: 

    • Alexander Cartwright, the president of UCF.
      • FUN FACT: While this case was pending, Cartwright received a 20% pay raise, giving him a base salary of $900,000 and potential total compensation of $1.275 million.
      • QUOTE: As quoted in the opinion, Cartwright responded to demands that Negy be immediately fired with: “Sometimes we have to go through a process, as frustrating as … that process is to me.” When asked, Cartwright could not recall what was frustrating about the process.
    • Michael Johnson, UCF’s provost and executive vice president for academic affairs.
      • FUN FACT: After 35 years at UCF, Johnson announced his retirement last month.
      • QUOTE:  Johnson publicly condemned Negy’s tweets the day the investigation started. At a 2022 arbitration hearing, Johnson said Negy was “dangerous” and that “[w]e didn’t see any way to put him safely in a classroom situation again.” Johnson was apparently so unconvincing that the arbitrator re-instated Negy anyway.
    • Tosha Dupras, who was at the time the interim dean of UCF’s College of Sciences. Dupras issued the notice of termination.
      • FUN FACT: Since 2022, this native of Canada has been dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Texas Tech.
      • QUOTE: When responding to an email calling for Negy’s removal from the classroom long before the investigation was complete, Dupras said: “I agree with the thoughts you have expressed in [y]our email.”  

    Two others had different roles, but were not directly the decision-makers:

    • Nancy Fitzpatrick Myers, then the director of UCF’s Office of Institutional Equity. Myers ran the investigation.
      • FUN FACT: Since 2024, attorney Myers has been director of Yale’s University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct.
      • QUOTE: From the opinion: “Although Myers stated that OIE performed an independent credibility assessment for the witness statements, she noted that the results were not written down and that it ‘was something [she] was assessing as [she] went through the record.’”
    • S. Kent Butler, who at the time was UCF’s interim chief Equity, Inclusion and Diversity officer, and is now a professor of counselor education. Butler, Cartwright, and Johnson put out the initial statement soliciting complaints about Negy.
      • FUN FACT: Butler did crisis management work in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
      • QUOTE: Less than 24 hours after the start of the investigation, an incoming freshman asked Butler what would happen to Negy. Butler responded: “The wheels are in motion … [B]elieve that by the time you get on the campus as a freshman, it will have been dealt with.” 

    A brief summary of their roles in Negy’s firing, at least as described in the court’s opinion (I wasn’t there, after all): 

    • Cartwright, Johnson, and Butler issued UCF’s initial statement about Negy, which invited people to submit complaints about him.
    • Myers wrote and submitted the 244-page report to Negy’s supervisor (not a party to this action), who then recommended Negy’s termination.
    • Cartwright, Johnson, and Dupras made the decision to terminate Negy. 

    The court granted Butler’s motion for summary judgment, deciding that Butler wasn’t at any point in the process a decision-maker. If Butler wasn’t part of the process to decide to terminate Negy, the court reasoned, then he wasn’t in a position to retaliate. I’m not sure I agree; I think putting out a press release inviting people to submit complaints could certainly create a chilling effect on speech, and therefore constitute an act of retaliation. 

    The court seems to view the termination as the only form of retaliation in question, but that isn’t how the complaint was written, which lists the statement as a form of retaliation. Sure, termination is worse, but I think that anything that would chill a person of reasonable fortitude from speaking out is potentially a form of retaliation. Having a government official multiple levels of supervision above you put out a call for complaints specifically about you would be a disincentive for most people, I’d think. But what do I know? “I’m just a caveman… your world frightens and confuses me.” 

    The court also granted Myers’ summary judgment motion on the second claim for direct censorship, ruling that the right to academic freedom over in-class speech has not been clearly established in the Eleventh Circuit. Negy had precedent from other circuits, but not this circuit, to show that in-classroom speech was entitled to some level of academic freedom. The court here is indeed bound by bad circuit precedent. The Supreme Court needs to fix this doctrine at some point. 

    Nevertheless, let’s move on… 

    The court rejects the qualified immunity defense for the retaliation claims

    The remaining defendants argued they were entitled to qualified immunity, specifically arguing that Negy could not show he was terminated for his tweets. After all, in a vacuum, at no point did any of them say, “You, sir, have the wrong opinions on the Internet, and therefore you must fly from us. Begone!” Instead, there was a long investigation that found lots of things they didn’t like about what he said in the classroom. So their argument, in a nutshell, was that there’s no causality here. Where’s the smoking gun? 

    Negy’s response was that there was no observable “smoking gun” because the entire process was a smokescreen, and the decision to terminate him was effectively made by the time they announced the investigation. (Duh.) Because this was a motion for summary judgment made by the defendants, Negy only had to show the possibility that he could prove it at trial, and so he provided evidence that suggested the decision-makers had a preordained outcome in mind.

    Scroll back and read the quotes in the mini-bios above. The court found that a reasonable jury could determine, given this and more evidence like it, that the investigation was a pretense. 

    There’s a second way the defendants could have gotten qualified immunity: by showing they’d have made the decision to fire Negy even if he hadn’t tweeted those statements, on the basis of the things reflected in the report. But the argument that they would’ve fired Negy for his classroom speech alone faced an awfully big hurdle: their 15 years of deciding not to do that. It wasn’t like Negy woke up one morning in 2020 after a lifetime of milquetoast platitudes and chose rhetorical violence. 

    From following this case, it seems to me that Negy’s entire career has been what I’d describe as punk rock pedagogy: he didn’t care if you loved it or hated it, as long as you remembered the show. There is an argument that the pursuit of truth is enhanced by that kind of teaching — a darned good one given how many of us have experienced it at one time or another. All of our interactions are balances between our honest opinions and what we can say within the bounds of society. There is only one human being I genuinely believe was so intrinsically good that his unfiltered views were socially acceptable to everyone, and Fred Rogers isn’t with us anymore. The rest of us are wearing masks at least some of the time, and letting those masks slip to study our real thoughts is something we might want to allow in a psychology classroom. 

    The court also noted that the purpose of qualified immunity was to avoid liability for unsophisticated decision-makers or decisions that had to be made on-the-spot, where the decision-maker wasn’t in a position to know what they did was unlawful. (The paradigmatic example is that of a police officer who has to make a split-second decision.) The court rejected that rationale: “Defendants had ample time to make reasoned, thoughtful decisions regarding how they wished to proceed with the investigation. Moreover, they had the benefit of making those decisions with counsel.” At some point, while writing their 244-page report, perhaps one of them might have considered the law? (FIRE has pushed this argument before.)

    You stop that censorship right meow

    The excessively logical among you might well be asking: If (diversity officer) Butler’s motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim was granted because he wasn’t a decision-maker, and (investigator) Myers also wasn’t a decision-maker, why wasn’t Myers able to get summary judgment on the retaliation claim, too? 

    It has to do with something called the “cat’s paw” theory. The name comes from the fable of the monkey and the cat. The short, not-very-artistic version is this: A clever monkey talks a cat into reaching into a fire and pulling chestnuts out of it, promising to share them. Instead, the monkey eats the chestnuts as they come out, and all the cat gets is a burned paw. (Is it just me, or are monkeys in fables always mischievous? Where’s the decent monkey in mythology? Just once, give me the monkey who shares the chestnuts and and even brings some milk. Just once, 17th century French authors, subvert my expectations.) 

    Under the cat’s paw theory, a state actor can be liable for retaliation if they make intentionally biased recommendations to the decision-maker (who then does not independently investigate) in order to reach the desired outcome. Was this a biased investigation? My feelings on the topic are summed up in a 2021 story: 

    The entire process of preparing this report was motivated by complaints about Negy’s tweets. Nobody interviews 300 people over seven months about incidents covering 15 years unless they’re desperate to find something, anything, to use against their target. UCF’s lack of sincerity in their investigation of Negy’s tweets — which, technically, was what they were investigating, based on the spurious allegation that Negy’s offensive tweets were required reading in his classes — is reflected in their decision to investigate allegations as far back as 2005, the year before Twitter was founded.

    I’ll paws here to make clear that I don’t purr-sonally know either Negy or the Defendants. Still, based on the timeline, the purr-ported need for the investigation, and its fur-midible scope, I’m feline like Negy was purr-secuted. The meow-nifestly unfair termination, I feel, is inseparable from the hiss-tory behind the report’s creation. (Okay, I’ll stop. Sorry, I was just kitten around.)

    Institutions need to avoid overreacting to outrage 

    For Negy and the defendants (which is not the name of a punk rock band, yet), the next step is to decide if they can work this out themselves or they need a trial to look deeper into whether UCF’s decision to fire him was effectively made when the investigation started. But there’s a larger principle here that other institutions need to learn before they learn it the embarrassing way UCF has.

    Maybe, just maybe, people saying things that merely offend you isn’t that serious. Maybe having someone in your community of nearly 70,000 students and over 13,000 faculty and staff members who says things that simply offend people is not actually a sign of a dire crisis. Maybe the students who demand that level of ideological conformity are not the ones you should be trying to attract. Because maybe, if you cultivate a level of automatic groupthink that rejects the possibility of dissenting views, you will come to discover that, eventually, your administration has a dissenting view. 

    What if, instead of reacting to every declaration of witchcraft by tightening the buckles on your hats, you tried explaining that lots of things might be offensive, and if you don’t like Negy, you might have luck with one of the thousands of other professors? What if, instead of modeling the kind of purge your ideological opponents might adopt one day if, I don’t know, they were politically powerful at some point, you modeled the idea that we can cooperate across deeply-held but incompatible beliefs? 

    I don’t know much about politics, but… It would certainly be cheaper, wouldn’t it? 

    FIRE will continue to follow Negy’s case and keep you updated. 

    Source link

  • Student-created book reviews inspire a global reading culture

    Student-created book reviews inspire a global reading culture

    Key points:

    When students become literacy influencers, reading transforms from a classroom task into a global conversation.

    When teens take the mic

    Recent studies show that reading for pleasure among teens is at an all-time low. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), only 14 percent of U.S. students read for fun almost every day–down from 31 percent in 1984. In the UK, the National Literacy Trust reports that just 28 percent of children aged 8 to 18 said they enjoyed reading in their free time in 2023.

    With reading engagement in crisis, one group of teens decided to flip the narrative–by turning on their cameras. What began as a simple classroom project to encourage reading evolved into a movement that amplified student voices, built confidence, and connected learners across cultures.

    Rather than writing traditional essays or book reports, my students were invited to create short video book reviews of their favorite titles–books they genuinely loved, connected with, and wanted others to discover. The goal? To promote reading in the classroom and beyond. The result? A library of student-led recommendations that brought books–and readers–to life.

    Project overview: Reading, recording, and reaching the world

    As an ESL teacher, I’ve always looked for ways to make literacy feel meaningful and empowering, especially for students navigating a new language and culture. This video review project began with a simple idea: Let students choose a book they love, and instead of writing about it, speak about it. The assignment? Create a short, personal, and authentic video to recommend the book to classmates–and potentially, to viewers around the world.

    Students were given creative freedom to shape their presentations. Some used editing apps like Filmora9 or Canva, while others recorded in one take on a smartphone. I offered a basic outline–include the book’s title and author, explain why you loved it, and share who you’d recommend it to–but left room for personal flair.

    What surprised me most was how seriously students took the project. They weren’t just completing an assignment–they were crafting their voices, practicing communication skills, and taking pride in their ability to share something they loved in a second language.

    Student spotlights: Book reviews with heart, voice, and vision

    Each student’s video became more than a book recommendation–it was an expression of identity, creativity, and confidence. With a camera as their platform, they explored their favorite books and communicated their insights in authentic, impactful ways.

    Mariam ElZeftawy: The Fault in Our Stars by John Green
    Watch Miriam’s Video Review

    Mariam led the way with a polished and emotionally resonant video review of John Green’s The Fault in Our Stars. Using Filmora9, she edited her video to flow smoothly while keeping the focus on her heartfelt reflections. Mariam spoke with sincerity about the novel’s themes: love, illness, and the fragility of life. She communicated them in a way that was both thoughtful and relatable. Her work demonstrated not only strong literacy skills but also digital fluency and a growing sense of self-expression.

    Dana: Dear Tia by Maria Zaki
    Watch Dana’s Video Review

    In one of the most touching video reviews, Dana, a student who openly admits she’s not an avid reader, chose to spotlight “Dear Tia,” written by Maria Zaki, her best friend’s sister. The personal connection to the author didn’t just make her feel seen; it made the book feel more real, more urgent, and worth talking about. Dana’s honest reflection and warm delivery highlight how personal ties to literature can spark unexpected enthusiasm.

    Farah Badawi: Utopia by Ahmed Khaled Towfik
    Watch Farah’s Video Review

    Farah’s confident presentation introduced her classmates to Utopia, a dystopian novel by Egyptian author Ahmed Khaled Towfik. Through her review, she brought attention to Arabic literature, offering a perspective that is often underrepresented in classrooms. Farah’s choice reflected pride in her cultural identity, and her delivery was clear, persuasive, and engaging. Her video became more than a review–it was a form of cultural storytelling that invited her peers to expand their literary horizons.

    Rita Tamer: Frostblood
    Watch Rita’s Video Review

    Rita’s review of Frostblood, a fantasy novel by Elly Blake, stood out for its passionate tone and concise storytelling. She broke down the plot with clarity, highlighting the emotional journey of the protagonist while reflecting on themes like power, resilience, and identity. Rita’s straightforward approach and evident enthusiasm created a strong peer-to-peer connection, showing how even a simple, sincere review can spark curiosity and excitement about reading.

    Literacy skills in action

    Behind each of these videos lies a powerful range of literacy development. Students weren’t just reviewing books–they were analyzing themes, synthesizing ideas, making connections, and articulating their thoughts for an audience. By preparing for their recordings, students learned how to organize their ideas, revise their messages for clarity, and reflect on what made a story impactful to them personally.

    Speaking to a camera also encouraged students to practice intonation, pacing, and expression–key skills in both oral language development and public speaking. In multilingual classrooms, these skills are often overlooked in favor of silent writing tasks. But in this project, English Learners were front and center, using their voices–literally and figuratively–to take ownership of language in a way that felt authentic and empowering.

    Moreover, the integration of video tools meant students had to think critically about how they presented information visually. From editing with apps like Filmora9 to choosing appropriate backgrounds, they were not just absorbing content, they were producing and publishing it, embracing their role as creators in a digital world.

    Tips for teachers: Bringing book reviews to life

    This project was simple to implement and required little more than student creativity and access to a recording device. Here are a few tips for educators who want to try something similar:

    • Let students choose their own books: Engagement skyrockets when they care about what they’re reading.
    • Keep the structure flexible: A short outline helps, but students thrive when given room to speak naturally.
    • Offer tech tools as optional, not mandatory: Some students enjoyed using Filmora9 or Canva, while others used the camera app on their phone.
    • Focus on voice and message, not perfection: Encourage students to focus on authenticity over polish.
    • Create a classroom premiere day: Let students watch each other’s videos and celebrate their peers’ voices.

    Literacy is personal, public, and powerful

    This project proved what every educator already knows: When students are given the opportunity to express themselves in meaningful ways, they rise to the occasion. Through book reviews, my students weren’t just practicing reading comprehension, they were becoming speakers, storytellers, editors, and advocates for literacy.

    They reminded me and will continue to remind others that when young people talk about books in their own voices, with their personal stories woven into the narrative, something beautiful happens: Reading becomes contagious.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Day 100! Abridging the First Amendment: Zick releases major resource report on Trump’s executive orders — First Amendment News 468 

    Day 100! Abridging the First Amendment: Zick releases major resource report on Trump’s executive orders — First Amendment News 468 

    “Under my watch, the partisan weaponization of the Department of Justice will end. America must have one tier of justice for all.” — Pamela Bondi (confirmation hearing for U.S. attorney general, Jan. 15, 2025)

    “After years and years of illegal and unconstitutional federal efforts to restrict free expression, I will also sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America.” — Donald J. Trump (Jan. 20, 2025, inaugural address)

    “Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.” — Donald J. Trump (Jan. 20, 2025, executive order)

    So many lies, so many orders, so much suppression. The “flood” of free expression abridgments continues to be dizzying and depressing. 

    Unprecedented! That is the word for this new form of silencing that is spreading like a deadly cancer.

    The rules of the past cease to be honored. Retribution has replaced righteousness. Fear triumphs over courage. A one-party-led Congress has abdicated its authority. Judicial review is derided. And our system of justice as constituted is unable to adequately address the wrongs perpetuated by an authoritarian figure aided by his confederates. A blitzkrieg takeover of the federal government seeks to vest unchecked power in the Executive while normalizing suppression on the vile pretense of advancing free speech and equality — a page right out of Orwell’s “1984.”

    In some respects, we are witnessing what constitutes a threat perhaps as great as the Sedition Act of 1798, the Civil War actions taken by Lincoln, and the World War I, Cold War, and Vietnam War abridgments of free speech. Nonetheless, the number and frequency of such abridgments make it difficult to comprehend the cumulative gravity of this threat to our First Amendment freedoms.

    Within the Trump administration’s first 100 days, the government has ushered in a new era of direct and indirect suppression of speech. Meanwhile, cases are being litigated, individuals and institutions are being silenced, books banned, “settlements” coerced, scientific research squelched, history erased, while lower court rulings struggle to be relevant. And all of this, in its many forms, has occurred in the absence of any near-final resolution by the Supreme Court, as if that too might be slighted someday soon.

    We are beyond any “there are evils on both sides” mentality, much as we were beyond it in 1798. Recall that while John Adams, the lawyer, championed free speech in his writings, he later backed the Alien and Sedition Acts as “the Federalist” president. 

    Calling out tyranny is not partisan; it is American! And yet, many are relatively detached, silent, and clueless.

    Trump’s “flood the zone” tactics have taxed the American mind to such an extent that few can barely, if at all, remember yesterday’s free speech abridgments let alone those of last week or last month. The result: who remembers all of the trees leveled not to mention any big picture of the forest devastated in the process? What to do?

    Enter “First Amendment Watch” and the Zick Resource Report 

    Thanks to Professor Stephen Solomon and Susanna Granieri over at First Amendment Watch (FAW), there is a meaningful way to begin to get a conceptual hold on what has occurred within the first 100 days of the Trump administration and its attacks on free speech.

    Happily, FAW today released what is surely the most important First Amendment resource documenting the numerous First Amendment abridgments committed by the Trump administration within its first 100 days. This invaluable resource was prepared by Professor Timothy Zick. 

    Professor Timothy Zick

    Though the full resource repository is available over at FAW, its table of contents is reproduced below:

    Introduction by Timothy Zick

    I. First Amendment-Related Executive Orders and Memoranda 

    A. Freedom of Speech and Censorship
    B. Foreign Terrorism and National Security
    C. Law Firms
    D. Retribution Against Former Government Officials
    E. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
    F. Gender and Gender Identity
    G. K-12 Education
    H. Museums, Libraries, and Public Broadcasting
    I. Political Donations
    J. University Accreditors 

    II. First Amendment-Related Litigation

    A. Lawsuits Challenging Executive Orders, Guidance, and Policies

    1. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
    2. Immigration 
    3. Educational Funding
    4. Law Firms
    5. Gender and Gender Identity
    6. Data and Scientific Inquiry
    7. Libraries and Museums
    8. Public Broadcasting

    B. Retaliatory Dismissal and Other Employment Lawsuits
    C. Lawsuits Filed by Media and Journalists
    D. Defamation and Other Civil Lawsuits Filed By Donald Trump

    III. Commentary and Analysis

    A. Actions Against the Press and Journalists
    B. Defamation and Other Civil Lawsuits
    C. Broadcast Media
    D. Social Media
    E. Education 

    1. DEI Programming and Initiatives
    2. Antisemitism Investigations and Demands
    3. Academic Freedom
    4. K-12 Curriculum

    F. Immigration Enforcement 

    1. International Students
    2. Foreign Scholars
    3. Immigration Activism

    G. Public Employees
    H. Private Sector

    1. Law Firms
    2. Individual Critics and Enemies

    I. Transparency, Data, and Information

    1. Data, Information, and Scientific Research
    2. Museums and Libraries
    3. Public Broadcasting
    4. Misinformation and Disinformation
    5. “DOGE” and Transparency

    J. Grants and Funding
    K. Protests and Demonstrations

    1. Campus Protests
    2. Public Protests

    L. Governmental Orthodoxy

    1. Race and DEI
    2. Gender and Gender Identity
    3. History and Patriotism

    M. Retribution and Chilling Speech
    N. Investigations
    O. The Bigger Picture
    P. Tracking All Trump 2.0 Lawsuit

    Related

    Coming Next Week

    The next installment of Professor Timothy Zick’s ongoing posts is titled
    “Executive Orders and Official Orthodoxies.”

    Justice Department to go after reporters’ records in government leak cases

    Senate Judiciary Committee considers the nomination of Pamela Bondi for Attorney General

    Senate Judiciary Committee considers the nomination of Pamela Bondi for Attorney General on Jan. 15, 2025. (Maxim Elramsisy / Shutterstock.com)

    The Justice Department is cracking down on leaks of information to the news media, with Attorney General Pam Bondi saying prosecutors will once again have authority to use subpoenas, court orders and search warrants to hunt for government officials who make “unauthorized disclosures” to journalists.

    New regulations announced by Bondi in a memo to the staff obtained by The Associated Press on Friday rescind a Biden administration policy that protected journalists from having their phone records secretly seized during leak investigations — a practice long decried by news organizations and press freedom groups.

    The new regulations assert that news organizations must respond to subpoenas “when authorized at the appropriate level of the Department of Justice” and also allow for prosecutors to use court orders and search warrants to “compel production of information and testimony by and relating to the news media.”

    The memo says members of the press are “presumptively entitled to advance notice of such investigative activities,” and subpoenas are to be “narrowly drawn.” Warrants must also include “protocols designed to limit the scope of intrusion into potentially protected materials or newsgathering activities,” the memo states.

    Former FCC Chairs attack FCC’s attack on First Amendment principles

    Mobile phone with seal of US agency Federal Communications Commission FCC on screen in front of web page

    (T. Schneider / Shutterstock.com)

    As former chairmen of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — one appointed by a Democrat, the other by a Republican — we have seen firsthand how the agency operates when it is guided by its mission to uphold the public interest. But in just over two months, President Donald Trump and his handpicked FCC Chair Brendan Carr have upended 90 years of precedent and congressional mandates to transform the agency into a blatantly partisan tool. Instead of acting as an independent regulator, the agency is being weaponized for political retribution under the guise of protecting the First Amendment.

    Their actions fall into two categories. First, the president used executive orders (EOs) to strip the agency of its independence, making it subservient to the White House. Second, the chairman has exploited the commission’s powers to undermine the very First Amendment rights it is supposed to uphold.

    Mchangama on the ‘New McCarthyism’

    Jacob Mchangama in 2024

    Jacob Mchangama

    Despite being Danish, I’ve always found America’s civil-libertarian free speech tradition more appealing than the Old World’s model, with its vague terms and conditions. For much of my career, I’ve been evangelizing a First Amendment approach to free speech to skeptical Europeans and doubtful Americans, who are often tempted by laws banning “hate speech,” “extremism,” and “disinformation.” That appreciation for the First Amendment is something I share with many foreigners — Germans, Iranians, Russians — who now call America home.

    [ . . . ]

    It’s now clear that the government is targeting noncitizens for ideas and speech protected by the First Amendment. The most worrying example (so far) is a Turkish student at Tufts University, apparently targeted for co-authoring a student op-ed calling for, among other things, Tufts to divest from companies with ties to Israel. One report estimates that nearly 300 students from universities across the country have had their visas revoked so far.

    Instead of correcting this overreach, the government has doubled down. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services recently announced that it would begin screening the social media posts of aliens “whose posts indicate support for antisemitic terrorism, antisemitic terrorist organizations, or other antisemitic activity.” Shortly after, the X account of USCIS posted about a “robust social media vetting program” and warned: “EVERYONE should be on notice. If you’re a guest in our country — act like it.” And four days later, White House homeland security adviser Stephen Miller promised to deport “anyone who preaches hate for America.” What that means is anybody’s guess — and seems to depend entirely on subjective assessments.

    [ . . . ]

    Had America been known for deporting, rather than welcoming, dissent, I would never have made it my home. That might not have been much of a loss. But consider this: 35 percent of U.S.-affiliated academic Nobel laureates are immigrants, and nearly half of all American unicorn startups have founders born outside the country. How many of these brilliant minds would have chosen the United States if they risked exile for crossing the speech red lines of the moment?

    As a European who owes my freedom in life thus far to the America that fought Nazism and defeated communism, I feel a responsibility to speak out when this country strays from its founding ideals. I came to America for its freedom, not just to enjoy it, but to defend it — even if that puts me at risk.

    Related

    New scholarly article on commencement speaker provocateurs

    This Article explores an untheorized area of First Amendment doctrine: students’ graduation speeches at public universities or private universities that embrace free speech principles, either by state statute, state constitutional law, or internal policy. Responding to recent graduation speech controversies, it develops a two-tier theory that reconciles a multiplicity of values, including students’ expressive interests, universities’ institutional interests in curating commencement ceremonies and preventing reputational damage, and the interests of captive audiences in avoiding speech they deem offensive or profane. 

    The Article challenges the prevailing view that university students’ graduation speeches implicate individual First Amendment rights. It develops a site-specific understanding of the ritualistic sociology of the university commencement speech, which the Article argues is firmly within the managerial purview of the university. But it also argues that heavy-handed administrative regulation of student graduation speeches has the potential to undermine the academic freedom of students and professors.

    Reflecting on the history of the university commencement speech in the American intellectual tradition, it urges university administrators to exercise their authority to regulate speeches through transparent standards, a longitudinal view, and collaborative negotiation with student speakers.

    It concludes by discussing the conceptual dangers of turning the First Amendment into a metonym for every instance of speech abridgment within a managerial sphere.

    ‘So to Speak’ podcast: Rabban and Chemerinsky on academic freedom


    Our guests today signed onto a statement by a group of 18 law professors who opposed the Trump administration’s funding threats at Columbia on free speech and academic freedom grounds.

    Since then, Northwestern, Cornell, Princeton, Harvard, and nearly 60 other colleges and universities are under investigation with their funding hanging in the balance, allegedly for violations of civil rights law.

    To help us understand the funding threats, Harvard’s recent lawsuit against the federal government, and where universities go from here are:

    • David Rabban — distinguished teaching professor at The University of Texas at Austin School of Law
    • Erwin Chemerinsky — distinguished professor of law and dean at UC Berkeley Law.

    More in the news

    2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases

    Cases decided

    • Villarreal v. Alaniz (Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
    • Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
    • TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (9-0: The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)

    Review granted

    Pending petitions

    Petitions denied

    Emergency Applications

    • Yost v. Ohio Attorney General (Kavanaugh, J., “IT IS ORDERED that the March 14, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, case No. 2:24-cv-1401, is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Wednesday, April 16, 2025, by 5 p.m. (EDT).”)

    Free speech related

    • Mahmoud v. Taylor (argued April 22 / free exercise case: issue: Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.)
    • Thompson v. United States (decided: 3-21-25/ 9-0 w special concurrences by Alito and Jackson) (interpretation of 18 U. S. C. §1014 re “false statements”)

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 467: “Thankfully: Larry David mocks Bill Maher”

    This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.

    Source link

  • April 17, 2025 National Day of Action for Higher Ed (Higher Ed Labor United)

    April 17, 2025 National Day of Action for Higher Ed (Higher Ed Labor United)

    On April 17, HELU is partnering with the Coalition for Action in Higher Education (CAHE) for the National Day of Action for Higher Education. There are more than 175 events planned in 44 states for April 17. We urge you to join us however you can, either in-person or online.

    As campus workers, students, and community members, we have a
    unique power and responsibility to exercise our collective voice in this
    moment of turmoil. It is our labor and our ideas which sustain higher
    education, and higher education sustains our economy and communities.

    The April 17 National Day of Action for Higher Education asserts our voice and our power, in a myriad of ways that reflect the diversity of our colleges and universities. 

    Learn more and find an action near you. 
     

    Source link

  • How to Participate in April 17 Day of Action for Higher Education

    How to Participate in April 17 Day of Action for Higher Education

    Higher Education Inquirer readers are encouraged to participate in Day of Action for Higher Education on Thursday, April 17.  For more information, visit the Day of Action page at the the Coalition for Action in Higher Education website. The website also includes resources. The coalition includes the Debt Collective, AAUP, and Higher Education Labor United.

     

     

     

    Source link

  • Why Do We Celebrate International Women’s Day? (NDTV)

    Why Do We Celebrate International Women’s Day? (NDTV)

     

     

    It’s March 8, a day designated to celebrate women and to honour their existence and their contribution in this world. So today, let us take a moment to appreciate all the ladies in our lives. This day is the fruit of the labour of thousands of women who fought for equal rights, spoke up against mistreatment and demanded equal footing with men. While the struggle is centuries old, the idea of women’s day first emerged at the turn of the 20th century. NDTV’s Arzoo Tanwar tells you more.

    Source link

  • International Women’s Day: Black Women Shaping the Future of Academia

    International Women’s Day: Black Women Shaping the Future of Academia

    • Professor Lisa-Dionne Morris is Professor of Public & Industry Understanding of Capability Driven Design in the School of Mechanical Engineering, and the Engagement Champion for the EPSRC EDI Hub+, at the University of Leeds.

    Women in higher education and industry leadership, especially in Engineering and STEM, have reshaped academia and industry through groundbreaking contributions. Over the past two centuries, they have advanced knowledge, dismantled systemic barriers, and set new standards in innovation and leadership. Yet Black women remain significantly underrepresented, highlighting the urgent need for institutional change.

    After all, when we lack diversity, we limit our ability to evolve and tackle the challenges of a rapidly changing world.

    Despite the progress made, the numbers remain stark. In the UK, women constitute 48% of overall academic staff, yet only 30% hold professorial roles. At present, among these, only 80+ Black women hold professorial positions across all disciplines. In the US, Black women account for just 2% of science and engineering roles. These figures underscore the persistent barriers that hinder progression into leadership roles in academia and industry.

    These disparities highlight the urgent need for fundamental change to ensure equitable access to opportunities and resources.

    The 200-year journey of Black women in academia has been shaped by structural barriers but also by resilience and advocacy. Initiatives like the Black Female Academics’ Network and the national EDI Hub+, led by the University of Leeds, have played pivotal roles in championing change and providing visibility and support for Black women in academia and higher education leadership. But the reality is that real change comes not just from support networks but from institutions and governance bodies truly committed to transformation through policy implementation and its incorporation into operational management.

    Black women have broken barriers in education, research, and industry, driving policy changes and fostering inclusivity. They have led pioneering research, challenged outdated structures, and risen to leadership in historically non-diverse sectors. In Engineering and STEM, figures like Dr. Aprille Ericsson, the first Black woman to earn a PhD in Mechanical Engineering from Howard University, have held key roles at NASA. Yewande Akinola, a Nigerian-born engineer, has advanced sustainable water systems while advocating for diversity. In the UK, Professor Esther Akinlabi has made significant contributions to academic leadership, engineering, research, and advocacy.

    These Black women, and countless others, have played critical roles, and yet their paths have not been easy. They have faced barriers, from being underestimated in their abilities to encountering biases that make progression in academia and industry far harder than it should be. It is important to highlight their successes but equally crucial to recognise the dramatic shifts needed to create a more inclusive landscape.

    As the first Black female professor in the School of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Leeds, I have witnessed firsthand the impact of underrepresentation on individuals and institutions. Without diverse voices in leadership, we lose perspectives that drive innovation and meaningful change. True equity and inclusion require representation at the highest levels, where policies and practices are shaped.

    Mentorship and networking are vital for career progression, yet many Black women in academia and industry lack mentors with shared experiences. Institutions must formalise support systems rather than relying on individual efforts. A cultural shift is needed, one where diversity is not just discussed but reinforced through real structural changes that create lasting opportunities.

    Breaking barriers is not just about individuals but about how institutions respond. Are they fostering environments where Black women can thrive? Are they tackling unconscious bias in hiring and promotions? Are they offering real support for retention and advancement beyond just celebrating ‘firsts’? It’s time to move from symbolic gestures to tangible change that empowers the next generation in academia and industry.

    The legacy of Black women in academia and industry extends beyond their achievements to the opportunities they create for future generations. Recognising and amplifying their voices is essential. Their contributions must be seamlessly woven into the broader narrative of advancement and innovation in women’s higher education and industry leadership.

    Much work remains. Representation is not enough; true progress requires dismantling barriers to access and opportunity. Black women in academia and industry, especially in Engineering and STEM, must be empowered, supported, and able to lead without the constant need to justify their place.

    The goal should be that, in the future, their contributions are not exceptional but expected, and their presence in leadership roles is not a rarity but the norm.

    Source link

  • Equal Pay Day Data: On Average, Women in Higher Ed Are Paid 82 Cents on the Dollar

    Equal Pay Day Data: On Average, Women in Higher Ed Are Paid 82 Cents on the Dollar

    by Christy Williams | March 5, 2025

    Since 1996, the National Committee on Pay Equity has acknowledged Equal Pay Day to bring awareness to the gap between men’s and women’s wages. This year, Equal Pay Day is March 25 — symbolizing how far into the year women must work to be paid what men were paid in the previous year.

    To help higher ed leaders understand, communicate and address gender pay equity in higher education, CUPA-HR has analyzed its annual workforce data to establish Higher Education Equal Pay Days for 2025. Tailored to the higher ed workforce, these dates observe the gender pay gap by marking how long into 2025 women in higher ed must work to make what White men in higher ed earned the previous year.

    Higher Education Equal Pay Day falls on March 8, 2025, for women overall, which means that women employees in higher education worked for more than two months into this year to gain parity with their White male colleagues. Women in the higher ed workforce are paid on average just 82 cents for every dollar a White man employed in higher ed makes.

    Highlighting some positive momentum during this Women’s History Month, some groups of women are closer to gaining pay equity. Asian American women in higher ed worked only a few days into this year to achieve parity on January 4 — an encouraging jump from January 14 in 2024.

    But the gender pay gap remains for most women, and particularly for women of color. Here’s the breakdown of the gender pay gap in the higher ed workforce, and the Higher Education Equal Pay Day for each group.* These dates remind us of the work we have ahead.

    • March 8 — Women in Higher Education Equal Pay Day. On average, women employees in higher education are paid 82 cents on the dollar.
    • January 4 — Asian Women in Higher Education Equal Pay Day. Asian women in higher ed are paid 99 cents on the dollar.
    • March 5 — White Women in Higher Education Equal Pay Day. White women in higher ed are paid 83 cents on the dollar.
    • March 29 — Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Women in Higher Education Equal Pay Day. Native of Hawaii or Pacific Islander women in higher ed are paid 76 cents on the dollar.
    • April 4 — Black Women in Higher Education Equal Pay Day. Black women in higher ed are paid 75 cents on the dollar.
    • April 11 — Hispanic/Latina Women in Higher Education Equal Pay Day. Hispanic/Latina women in higher ed are paid 73 cents on the dollar.
    • April 24 — Native American/Alaska Native Women in Higher Education Equal Pay Day. Native American/Alaska Native women are paid just 69 cents on the dollar.

    CUPA-HR research shows that pay disparities exist across employment sectors in higher ed — administrators, faculty, professionals and staff — even as the representation of women and people of color has steadily increased. But with voluntary turnover still not back to pre-pandemic levels, not addressing pay disparities could be costly.

    CUPA-HR Resources for Higher Education Equal Pay Days

    As we observe Women’s History Month and Higher Education Equal Pay Days for women, we’re reminded that the quest for equal pay is far from over. But data-driven analysis with the assistance of CUPA-HR research can support your work to create a more equitable future.

    CUPA-HR’s interactive graphics track the gender and racial composition of the higher ed workforce, based on data from CUPA-HR’s signature surveys. The following pay equity analyses control for position, indicating that any wage gaps present are not explained by the fact that women or people of color may have greater representation in lower-paying positions:

    *Data Source: 2024-25 CUPA-HR Administrators, Faculty, Professionals, and Staff in Higher Education Surveys. Drawn from 707,859 men and women for whom race/ethnicity was known.



    Source link

  • Beyond Syllabus Week: Creative Strategies to Engage Students from Day One – Faculty Focus

    Beyond Syllabus Week: Creative Strategies to Engage Students from Day One – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Philadelphia Schools Could Start Before Labor Day for the Next 2 Years – The 74

    Philadelphia Schools Could Start Before Labor Day for the Next 2 Years – The 74


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

    Philadelphia students could head back to classes before Labor Day for the next two years, according to proposed academic calendars the district released Tuesday.

    The pre-Labor Day start for the 2025-26 and 2026-27 calendars will allow for longer spring and winter recesses as well as additional cultural and religious holidays throughout the year, district officials said this week.

    Superintendent Tony Watlington also confirmed Tuesday that district schools and offices will be closed on Friday for the Philadelphia Eagles celebratory Super Bowl parade.

    “We look forward to celebrating the Eagles’ victory as a community, and we hope that our students, staff and families will do so safely and responsibly,” Watlington said in a statement.

    The question of whether to start before or after Labor Day has rankled families and district leaders in recent years, in part because many Philly schools do not have adequate air conditioning. That has forced some buildings to close or dismiss students early due to excessive heat in the first week back.

    This school year, the first day back landed before Labor Day, and 63 schools without air conditioning dismissed students early, during the first week of classes. However, school started after Labor Day in 2023-24, and heat closures still impacted students’ learning time that first week.

    Watlington said at his state of the schools address this year that over the past three school years, the number of schools without air conditioning has shrunk from 118 to 57 thanks in part to a donation from Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts.

    Shakeera Warthen-Canty, assistant superintendent of school operations and management at the district, said their academic calendar recommendations this year are built off of a survey and several in-person feedback sessions.

    The majority of parents and caregivers who responded preferred a post-Labor Day start, the survey found. But students, teachers, school staff, and community members reported they overwhelmingly preferred starting the school year before Labor Day.

    Some 16,400 parents, students, school staff, principals, and community members responded to the survey the district sent out last September, Warthen-Canty said.

    Respondents also said they wanted more frequent breaks for longer durations to accommodate family vacations, as well as time to rest, support mental health, and prevent staff burnout.

    State law says districts must have a minimum of 180 student days, or a minimum of 900 instructional hours for elementary school students and 990 hours for middle and high school students. The district’s collective bargaining agreement with the teachers union also requires 188 teacher work days, as well as a minimum of 28 professional development hours.

    The district officials’ calendar recommendations will go to the school board for a vote before they are enacted.

    If approved, winter recess would be seven days in 2025-26 and eight days in 2026-27, while spring break would be five days both years.

    In addition to the five state and national holidays (Memorial Day, Independence Day, Christmas, Thanksgiving, and New Year’s Day), Philadelphia school district school holidays in 2025-26 and 2026-27 would include:

    • Labor Day
    • Rosh Hashanah
    • Yom Kippur
    • Indigenous Peoples Day
    • Veterans Day
    • Martin Luther King Jr. Day
    • Presidents Day
    • Lunar New Year
    • Eid al-Fitr
    • Good Friday
    • Eid al-Adha
    • Juneteenth

    This school year, both Indigenous Peoples Day and Veterans Day were school days.

    As for how the new calendar may interact with Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker’s commitment to “extended-day, extended-year” school: Deputy Superintendent Jermaine Dawson said this week the district has ensured any expansion of that program will work “alongside our calendar of school days.”

    This story was originally published at Chalkbeat, a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.


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

    Source link