Tag: defense

  • For students with disabilities, the Office for Civil Rights is often the last line of defense

    For students with disabilities, the Office for Civil Rights is often the last line of defense

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

    Jennifer Coco is the interim executive director of The Center for Learner Equity.

    The path to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education will have a generational impact — eliminating the safeguards that have ensured all students have access to equitable, inclusive schools since the department’s founding in 1979.

    A headshot of a person. in the background is a bookcase

    Jennifer Coco

    Permission granted by Jennifer Coco

     

    Specifically, the recent threats to consolidate the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights within the U.S. Department of Justice are even more devastating for students at the intersection of race, poverty and disability. This move severs the civil rights lifelines that protect students who are farthest from privilege and opportunity.

    OCR, an office within the Education Department, was established to enforce federal civil rights laws in schools. Notably,OCR provides students with access to individual discrimination investigations and upholds their civil rights in schools when wrongdoing has occurred, such as in instances where they are excluded due a disability, or when required accommodations are not provided.

    And OCR investigations don’t just demand justice for individual students — they can also direct systemic changes in school policy and practice to ensure further injustice doesn’t happen again to any other student in that community.

    As an attorney and advocate for children with disabilities, I’ve spent nearly two decades working to ensure that schools are welcoming places for students and families. One of my first education law experiences was an internship at OCR. I learned from OCR’s experienced education legal experts who deeply understood civil rights law and protecting students’ rights.

    That experience directed the trajectory of my career and cemented my interest in becoming an education civil rights attorney. The regional office I interned at in Chicago 18 years ago no longer exists; its entire staff was fired by the current administration.

    Early in my career as an education civil rights attorney, I also experienced filing a complaint with the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, which led to sweeping districtwide reforms that dramatically improved language access and civil rights protections for multilingual learners and undocumented students. I am an ardent supporter of DOJ’s role in upholding civil rights; my concern about collapsing OCR within the DOJ isn’t out of objection to DOJ’s important role.

    What’s getting lost in the conversation is why Congress originally saw fit to have both the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and the Office for Civil Rights.

    Unlike DOJ, which investigates systemic violations and initiates federal litigation, OCR fields and investigates individual complaints — over 25,000 currently pending, to be exact. OCR is intended to have a strong regional presence, with field offices of attorneys able to investigate and handle a volume of cases in their respective regions. They have a detailed case processing manual with timelines and procedures; every complaint is entitled to a response.

    Indeed, most agencies have an Office for Civil Rights — from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the U.S. Department of Transportation. That’s because the agency-specific context and expertise help protect and uphold our civil rights across the many different functions of our government.

    It also belies 50 years of commonly accepted truth: that every facet of our government should be equipped to uphold our civil rights. The volume of demand, with tens of thousands of cases pending, illustrates that the Department of Justice is not resourced nor staffed to shoulder it all. Nor was that the intention.

    In addition to investigating discrimination complaints, the Education Department’s OCR is also tasked with collecting and reporting the Civil Rights Data Collection. It is the only nationwide comprehensive look at students’ experiences and access to opportunities, broken down by different identities, including disability.

    One in seven American public school students is identified as having a disability, according to the Center for Learner Equity’s recent analyses of the CRDC statistics. Such data helps schools and the public understand how students are accessing educational opportunities or experiencing barriers, based on their race, gender, disability or other criteria.

    Source link

  • In Defense of the Student-Run Magazine (opinion)

    In Defense of the Student-Run Magazine (opinion)

    Despite the economic realities of the outside world, the campus magazine survives. Or perhaps not, if other colleges and universities begin to interpret federal guidance like the University of Alabama.

    Students at my own institution, Syracuse University, put out a fashion magazine, a food magazine and a Black student life magazine last semester, among others. And that’s just one semester: Magazines come and go most years based on student interests and appetites. (I do not miss a particularly provocative, though well-designed, sex magazine.) These student-run publications are a chance for young people to develop critical thinking, writing and editorial skills as they skewer icons and interrogate their world. They are also empowering. For these digital natives, there’s something especially meaningful about committing your name and your ideas to print for all the world to see. Student media helps young people make sense of a confusing present and uncertain future.

    Students at the University of Alabama shared in this tradition until Dec. 1, when campus officials effectively eliminated two magazines. Nineteen Fifty-Six was founded in 2020 and named for the year the first Black student, Autherine Lucy Foster, enrolled at Alabama. The magazine’s website notes that it is a “student-run magazine focused on Black culture, Black excellence, and Black student experiences at The University of Alabama.” Alice magazine launched in 2015 as “a fashion and wellness magazine that serves the students of the University of Alabama.” Like most professional consumer fashion or wellness publications, women are the primary audience.

    Though Alabama’s administration cited federal anti-DEI guidance as the impetus for its decision, The Crimson White, Alabama’s student newspaper, reported that neither magazine “barred participation based on personal characteristics like race and gender identity” and that both publications had “hired staff who were not part of their target audiences.” The same is true in industry; some of the most talented editors I’ve worked with were not the target audience of the publications they led.

    In their 2021 book, Curating Culture: How Twentieth-Century Magazines Influenced America (Bloomsbury), editors and scholars Sharon Bloyd-Peshkin and Charles Whitaker observe that magazines provide “information, inspiration, empathy, and advocacy for readers with specific interests, identities, goals, and concerns.” In a 2007 article, magazine scholar David Abrahamson explains that magazines “have a special role in their readers’ lives, constructing a community or affinity group in which the readers feel they are members.” Magazines, by intention and design, are exclusive and niche. That’s why audiences love them. Today, media across all platforms follow the magazine’s lead. What is a “For You” feed if not an enticing unspooling of curated content?

    At Alabama, university officials were quick to point out that they were merely cutting financial support for the magazines, not attacking free speech, as students at public institutions are protected by the First Amendment. (Never mind that the Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that public universities may charge an activity fee to fund a program that facilitates speech if the program is viewpoint neutral, meaning that funds are disbursed in way that does not privilege one perspective over another.)

    Alabama has cited Attorney General Pam Bondi’s nonbinding 2025 guidance for recipients of federal funding, suggesting that because the two magazines primarily target certain groups, they are “unlawful proxies” for discrimination. Student press advocates are unconvinced by this rationale—one called it “nonsense”—but perhaps Alabama’s leaders did not want to find out whether the modest funding used to support a magazine read by women (among others) and another read by Black people (among others) would be considered unlawful “resource allocation” or “proxy discrimination.” Or maybe eliminating funding for one magazine coded as female gave adequate cover to cut a magazine explicitly targeted at another group. That Alice magazine didn’t even identify itself as a “women’s magazine” is enough to demonstrate that whom and what content is for is no longer defined by editors or the free market, but the specter of Trump’s Department of Justice.

    The chilling effect ripples. Universities that fear retribution from the Trump administration may be wary not only of student-run magazines, but any publication produced with public funds, including scholarly journals. So watch out, Southern Historian. You may be next.

    Aileen Gallagher is a journalism professor at Syracuse University’s S. I. Newhouse School of Public Communications and a former magazine editor.

    Source link

  • Public Trust Requires Both Reform and Defense

    Public Trust Requires Both Reform and Defense

    To the editor:

    We are grateful to Inside Higher Ed editor in chief Sara Custer in her recent column “Higher Ed Faces Competing Visions for Its Future” (Dec. 18, 2025) for mentioning Advancing Public Trust in Higher Education, the initiative we co-direct at the American Association of Colleges and Universities. We write to expand upon Custer’s review of the emerging responses to the trust problem and to clarify what our initiative is advocating and doing to invigorate public trust.

    Higher ed cannot restore public trust in colleges and universities unless the sector reckons in a clear-eyed fashion with the causes of the current crisis. Simply put, the fundamental problem is that when the sector or its individual institutions draw public criticism, we are unable either to make quick changes in response, to explain compellingly why we should not do so, or to redirect public attention effectively toward the overall value and purpose of our work. Under increased scrutiny from the public and government alike, that paralysis is a recipe for a disastrous decline in public trust.

    Solving this crisis will require a multipronged approach that balances internal reform—although not along the lines of the administration’s ill-fated Compact—with better communication and collective defense strategies. Higher education must become better and nimbler at making changes that already have wide support but are held back by parochial interests; better at relentlessly prioritizing engagement with local communities; and better at offering a meaningful welcome to all students, including those with conservative views and others who feel alienated from our institutions. We also need to be better at mounting a vigorous and coordinated sectorwide defense when we are in the right, and at communicating our value and purpose clearly and effectively so that the public can put things into context when we inevitably make mistakes.

    Our view is that internal reform, improved communication, and better defense are inseparable parts of a whole; higher education will not regain public trust, or reestablish productive partnerships with the government and our communities, unless we pursue all three goals simultaneously. Our vision is of a sector that is agile, responsive, invitational, humble and trusted to generate new knowledge and transform students’ lives. If colleges and universities act smartly and collectively, we believe that vision is within reach.

    We look forward to sharing more specifics about our approach with Inside Higher Ed’s readers over the coming months.

    Jeremy C. Young is Senior Advisor for Strategic Initiatives, and Kathryn Enke is Vice President for Leadership and Strategy, at the American Association of Colleges and Universities

    Source link

  • Federal judge denies request for 18-month delay in landmark borrower defense settlement

    Federal judge denies request for 18-month delay in landmark borrower defense settlement

    Dive Brief: 

    • A federal judge on Thursday denied the U.S. Department of Education’s request for an 18-month extension to decide borrower defense claim decisions due by the end of January, according to lawyers representing the borrowers. 
    • The affected borrowers belong to the last of three groups covered under a landmark 2022 settlement with the Education Department to resolve a class-action lawsuit that accused the agency of stonewalling borrower defense applications. Under that agreement, the borrowers were set to receive automatic relief if the agency didn’t decide their cases by Jan. 28. 
    • U.S. District Judge William Alsup declined to provide any extension on claims filed by borrowers who attended one of 151 institutions that the Education Department previously said had strong indications of engaging in “substantial misconduct.” For other borrowers, Alsup extended the deadline for the Education Department to resolve their cases to April 15. 

    Dive Insight: 

    The Sweet v. McMahon lawsuit, originally filed in 2019 during the first Trump administration, accused the Education Department of improperly delaying decisions on borrower defense to repayment claims. The program provides debt relief to borrowers who were defrauded by their colleges. 

    Three years later, under the Biden administration, the Education Department struck a settlement that promised either timely decisions or automatic relief to three separate groups of borrowers. 

    The agency said it would automatically clear debts for the first group, roughly 200,000 borrowers who attended one of 151 colleges listed by the Education Department. In court documents, the Education Department said that “attendance at one of these schools justifies presumptive relief” because the institutions had strong signs of misconduct. 

    The second group is composed of borrowers who didn’t attend one of those colleges. The Education Department promised to make decisions for them by certain dates depending on when those borrowers applied for relief — or automatic relief if it didn’t meet those deadlines. 

    The majority of those borrowers have had their claims approved, with only a small share still pending, according to a court filing earlier this month. 

    The last group is composed of those who filed borrower defense applications after the Education Department had already struck the settlement but before it received final approval. That group is composed of roughly 207,000 people who filed over 251,000 claims following the settlement’s announcement. 

    Alsup denied granting any extension to the Education Department for borrowers in that group who attended the agency’s list of 151 colleges. Around 80% of borrower defense applications filed by the last group involve one of those institutions, according to the Project on Predatory Student Lending, a legal nonprofit representing the borrowers. The remainder will face a roughly 2 and ½ month delay. 

    “The Court sent a clear message today: borrowers deserve fair, timely decisions, not years of uncertainty,” Eileen Connor, president and executive director of PPSL, said in a statement Thursday. “This is a critical victory for people who have waited far too long for justice and relief, but this case isn’t over.” 

    The Education Department is still “evaluating the impact of the order,” Ellen Keast, the agency’s press secretary for higher education, said in a Friday email. 

    “We remain committed to doing the right thing for students, families, and taxpayers,” Keast said.

    The Education Department asked for the delay in early November, projecting that it still would not have reached decisions on roughly 193,000 borrower defense applications from the final group by the Jan. 28 deadline. The agency argued it didn’t have the resources it needed to adjudicate the group’s claims and had seen “staffing dwindle at the time when resources for postclass adjudication are most needed.”

    The Education Department has cut roughly half of its staff under President Donald Trump, who signed an executive order in March for the agency to close by the “maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.”

    The final group in the settlement has a total outstanding loan balance of $11.8 billion, according to the agency’s court filing. The Education Department said it had issued decisions on roughly 54,000 borrower defense applications for the group by October, and it had denied roughly half of them.

    Source link

  • In Defense of Berkeley Instructor Peyrin Kao

    In Defense of Berkeley Instructor Peyrin Kao

    Peyrin Kao, a University of California, Berkeley, computer science lecturer, was suspended from teaching for a semester after UC Berkeley decreed that Kao’s criticism of Israel had violated campus bans on “political advocacy” in class. There are two significant problems with this action: Kao didn’t engage in advocacy in his class, and Berkeley’s rules don’t restrict political advocacy.

    The suspension of Kao reflects two alarming possibilities: Either Kao is being targeted for his criticism of Israel and there is selective persecution of faculty for leftist political beliefs, or Kao’s suspension shows a new, broader ban on all political speech in the classroom.

    The fact that this repression is happening at UC Berkeley—a top university in a blue state legendary for the Free Speech Movement and liberal politics—indicates how widespread censorship is across the country today.

    As Kao noted, “The university loves to talk about how they are ‘the free speech university,’ ‘the home of the free speech movement’ … but when it comes to Palestine: ‘Sorry, we’re drawing the line, your free speech does not apply.’”

    In October, UC Berkeley executive vice chancellor and provost Benjamin Hermalin wrote a letter determining that Kao was guilty of violating Regents Policy 2301 in two incidents.

    In 2023, Kao, after dismissing class, spoke for four minutes about ethics and technology, and expressed criticism of the Israeli government. In 2024, Kao informed students that he was on a hunger strike (without explaining why).

    It’s shocking that such trivial examples of advocacy could ever justify such a severe punishment. In the first case, Hermalin makes a ridiculous argument that what happens after a class is over is in fact part of the class.

    He writes, “Nothing in Regents Policy 2301 can be read to indicate it doesn’t apply when a course goes into ‘overtime.’” While it’s true that the rules about behavior during classes apply when instructors extend a class beyond the normal time (“overtime”), those limits end when the class is over. The Provost even quotes Kao’s words: “It is 2pm so class is officially over.” Once Kao says that, there is no overtime. There is only after-class time, and that time is not regulated by the Policy 2301 for course content. Of course, Kao’s brief comments on ethics in technology should be fully protected during a computer science class, but the fact that they happened outside of class means they cannot be regulated by these rules about classroom speech.

    The second alleged violation is even more ridiculous. Kao is accused of breaking the rules by uttering 20 words: “I’m currently undergoing a starvation diet for a cause that I believe in. If that sounds interesting, there’s a link.”

    The provost concluded, “I find Mr. Kao to have misused the classroom for the purpose of political advocacy, an action that constitutes a violation of Regents Policy 2301.”

    No, he didn’t, and no, it isn’t. Telling students that you’re on a starvation diet isn’t “political advocacy”; if Kao was ill or dieting for health reasons, he would be fully entitled to warn students of this fact in case it affected him, and nothing about these words is “political advocacy.” The same logic applies to a medical condition induced for political reasons.

    But the provost is also wrong on a much deeper level: There is no prohibition on “political advocacy” in Policy 2301. The word “advocacy” never appears in Policy 2301. Yet the provost proceeds to wonder “whether the instructor’s intent is to advocate” and frequently quotes his interviews rather than focusing on what he said in class and what Policy 2301 says. Political advocacy in the classroom is fundamentally protected by academic freedom.

    Astonishingly, the provost even asked, “To what extent is a hunger strike an in-class advocacy activity precluded by Regents Policy 2301?” In what bizarro world could a hunger strike ever be deemed “in-class advocacy”? Refusing to eat during class is not “advocacy” at all. The suggestion that Regents Policy 2301 could be interpreted to require teachers to eat outside the classroom is insane.

    The provost noted, “His actions are no different from those of an instructor who repeatedly wore a t-shirt when teaching that had on it a very visible political symbol or a picture of a political candidate.” Wait, does the provost actually think that professors are banned from wearing T-shirts with symbols on them? Will a professor with a peace symbol T-shirt be hauled before the provost for dress code violations? Wait until the provost finds out that some professors wear crosses while teaching—I’m sure that will be quickly prohibited by any fair-minded ban on advocacy.

    Perhaps UC Berkeley professors need to start wearing T-shirts with the First Amendment on them to remind the provost why we must not allow political commissars to dictate what teachers wear, say or think.

    Zach Greenberg of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression argued, “If you’re going on tangents during class or expressing a political advocacy to students during class as a professor, you’re on company time.” But the whole concept of academic freedom is a rejection of “company time.” Academic freedom in the classroom means that the instructor, not the company, decides what is taught. The classroom is “professional time” where instructors must meet professional standards. But professional standards allow for wide leeway to go on tangents, discuss broader issues and even chat with students about nonprofessional topics. If there is a professor who has never uttered any words in any class unrelated to the course topic, I would love to meet that weirdo.

    If a professor is wasting half of every class on a tangent unrelated to the course, then that professor should be disciplined. But the reason for the discipline must be politically neutral and disconnected from any viewpoint discrimination. A professor who expresses political views in class is no different from a professor who expresses views about the football team or a professor who discusses the weather (in a class unrelated to it). All of them are engaging in speech not germane to the class.

    But no one can seriously argue that a four-minute statement after class about ethics in technology or a 20-word comment about being on a hunger strike could possibly describe an instructor who is failing to teach the content of the class by going on constant tangents.

    The fact that Kao’s words were repeatedly described as “political” is not evidence of Kao’s guilt, but proof of the administration’s guilt. By targeting Kao purely for his political speech, and applying standards that would never be used for similar noncontroversial speech, the Berkeley administration is confessing to its violation of the First Amendment and standards of academic freedom that protect faculty from retaliation for their views.

    Policy 2301 is a terrible policy, enacted in 1970 by the regents to suppress free speech, and it violates standards of academic freedom and the First Amendment by targeting “political indoctrination” (rather than all “indoctrination”) and therefore engages in viewpoint discrimination against disfavored political views.

    But even Policy 2301 does not allow the kind of repression demanded by the provost, which is why he doesn’t quote any of its specific provisions in claiming Kao’s alleged violation of it.

    The provost repeatedly accuses Kao of being “at odds with the spirit of Regents Policy 2301” but fails to quote anything in the policy he actually violated. Suspensions cannot be justified by “spirits”; they can only be legitimate if there is a clear violation of the rule.

    The provost’s report is so grossly incompetent—fabricating clauses about “advocacy” that don’t exist in a policy he apparently hasn’t read—that it shows how arbitrary this act of political retaliation was.

    Writing that the punishment was “up to you,” the provost gave his subordinates an implicit order to suspend Kao with only one other option: “I would have no objection if you wished to impose a more severe disciplinary action than the one I proposed.” Obviously, he would object to anything less than a suspension, and the resulting suspension is not surprising to anyone. It is highly unprofessional for a top administrator to personally intervene in a discipline case in order to manipulate the outcome and decree what punishment must be given.

    The repressive administrative overreaction at Berkeley is precisely why we must give enormous freedom to instructors to do things that we think are wrong. Unless you protect the right of faculty to say dumb and inappropriate things in their classes, people driven mad by the possession of administrative power will seek to fire professors for what they say and do outside of class.

    We should want professors who feel free to express their values and their ideas openly, even when it offends some people. We should reject a world where every professor must fear saying a disapproved word in a classroom where every utterance is monitored for wrongthink.

    I don’t agree with Kao’s goals of campus divestment from Israel. I don’t agree with Kao’s tactics of engaging in a hunger strike. And I don’t agree with Kao’s methods of discussing his views in or after his classes.

    But Kao did not violate any university rules, and it is fundamentally unjust to suspend him for purely political reasons. People are free to criticize him for his ideas, but not to censor him or punish him for expressing them.

    UC Berkeley administrators have violated Kao’s academic freedom and the First Amendment in their shameful punishment of him for his free speech, and they deserve condemnation not only for this unjust act against Kao but also for the much larger chilling effect this repression will cause across the University of California.

    Source link

  • Free speech advocates rally to support FIRE’s defense of First Amendment protections for drag shows

    Free speech advocates rally to support FIRE’s defense of First Amendment protections for drag shows

    Drag shows are inherently expressive and protected under the First Amendment. That’s what a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held back in August, reversing a district court’s decision that had upheld West Texas A&M University’s campus-wide drag show ban. 

    Yet several weeks later, the Fifth Circuit elected to vacate the panel’s decision and rehear the case en banc, meaning the full Court will consider whether the First Amendment permits government officials to ban a drag show because they disagree with the show’s message. As FIRE fights to preserve the panel’s decision upholding the right of public university students to engage in expressive conduct, a broad coalition of free speech advocates has rallied to file “friend of the court” briefs in support.

    Here’s what happened: West Texas A&M University maintains Legacy Hall as an open forum for students and the public to interact and engage in expression. FIRE’s client in this case is Spectrum WT, a long-recognized student organization that seeks to provide support for and promote acceptance of the LGBTQ+ student body. To that end, Spectrum WT hosts a wide range of campus events, both social and educational, to raise awareness of issues important to LGBTQ+ students and foster a strong sense of community and acceptance.

    The Constitution prohibits University officials from censoring student expression on campus because they happen to disagree with its underlying message.

    Several years ago, Spectrum WT began planning a charity drag performance to be held at Legacy Hall. Proceeds from the event would benefit the Trevor Project, an organization dedicated to suicide prevention in the LGBTQ+ community. 

    But eleven days before the performance’s scheduled date, the university’s President, Walter Wendler, canceled the event. In a lengthy public statement, Wendler announced that “West Texas A&M will not host a drag show on campus,” even while conceding that drag performance is “artistic expression” and that “the law of the land” requires him to let the show go on. According to Wendler, he opposes drag’s underlying “ideology,” believing it “demeans” women and that there is “no such thing” as a “harmless drag show.”

    West Texas A&M President cancels student charity drag show for second time

    West Texas A&M President Wendler enforced his unconstitutional prior restraint by canceling a student-organized charity drag show for the second time.


    Read More

    That’s when FIRE stepped in. Our country’s universities are bastions of free expression, exploration, and self-discovery. They are uniquely places where young adults may have their opinions tested and viewpoints expanded. And the Constitution prohibits university officials from censoring student expression on campus because they happen to disagree with its underlying message. 

    That was what the Fifth Circuit panel held when it heard this case on appeal. Yet several weeks later, the court decided to vacate the panel’s decision and consider the case a second time. So the fight to preserve First Amendment protections for students’ artistic performance, regardless of whether university officials agree with the message, continues.

    Last week, a bipartisan coalition of university professors, prominent legal scholars, and no fewer than thirteen organizations filed five amicus briefs in support of Spectrum WT:

    • The ACLU of Texas and Equality Texas highlight the district court’s doctrinal errors in upholding Wendler’s blanket drag ban, including the court’s failure to recognize the message, history, and context of drag performance and its reliance on a standard for protected expression the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected. As the ACLU of Texas and Equality Texas explain: “The district court’s narrowing of the First Amendment’s protective scope sets an alarming precedent, which, if left uncorrected, could extend beyond the drag performance at issue in this case.”
    • The First Amendment Lawyers Association argues that the lower court’s decision violates the “bedrock First Amendment principle” that government officials may not censor speech merely because they dislike the message. They emphasize how this violation is even more egregious in the university setting, “where speech rights are particularly important.” As FALA describes, Wendler “suppressed protected speech, impoverished public discourse, and denied students and the broader community the right to engage, critique, and learn in a free marketplace of ideas.”
    • The National Coalition Against Censorship, Dramatists Guild of America, Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, Fashion Law Institute, Authors Guild, Woodhull Freedom Foundation, Freedom to Read Foundation, American Booksellers Association, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State emphasize the evidence establishing that Wendler’s blanket prohibition was inherently a viewpoint-based prior restraint that finds no support in First Amendment law. They argue that Wendler’s prohibition is, in fact, “a ‘classic’ example of a prior restraint” that is “unmoored from any objective standards” constraining his censorship authority. As they explain, such prior restraints are unconstitutional as reflected in the “text, history, and tradition of the First Amendment.”
    • The CATO Institute and renowned legal scholars Eugene Volokh and Dale Carpenter describe the applicable legal doctrine to explain why it ultimately does not matter whether Legacy Hall is classified as a limited public forum or nonpublic forum: because Wendler’s viewpoint discrimination is impermissible everywhere. They argue that drag performance is clearly protected expression under the First Amendment and that Wendler violated that protection by censoring drag performance because he disagrees with its message.
    • A coalition of eight professors specializing in LGBTQ+ studies delve into the history of drag performance as artistic expression. They describe how drag has long existed as a medium to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community and defy gender norms and stereotypes. They argue that its message is unmistakable among the general public, and that Wendler’s sole motivation in censoring this artistic expression was his personal disagreement with that message.

    Source link

  • Education Department seeks delay in landmark borrower defense settlement

    Education Department seeks delay in landmark borrower defense settlement

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

    Dive Brief: 

    • The U.S. Department of Education is asking a federal judge for an 18-month extension to decide borrower defense claims from students who were promised decisions by January — or automatic relief if their cases aren’t resolved by then. 
    • The nearly 200,000 borrowers still awaiting decisions are covered by a landmark 2022 settlement that promised automatic debt relief or timely decisions based on when borrowers filed claims and what institutions they attended.
    • The Project on Predatory Student Lending, a nonprofit legal firm representing the borrowers, urged the judge overseeing the case to reject the Education Department’s request for an extension. “It is time for the Department to hold to its commitments and move this Settlement to its final phase,” the group said in a Nov. 21 court filing. 

    Dive Insight: 

    The settlement in the Sweet v. McMahon case stems from a class-action lawsuit filed during the first Trump administration that accused the Education Department of stonewalling decisions on applications for borrower defense to repayment, a federal program that provides debt relief to students defrauded by their colleges. 

    The settlement divided borrowers into three groups. 

    It granted automatic relief to the first group, which was composed of roughly 200,000 borrowers who attended one of the 151 colleges listed by the department. The list was dominated by for-profit institutions, including both large chains that had shuttered and still-operating colleges. 

    The second group was promised timely decisions, or automatic relief if the Education Department didn’t meet certain deadlines. The agency told the court earlier this year it had resolved many of those cases, and will provide another update in December. 

    And the last group — which is now facing a potential delay — is composed of the 207,000 people who filed over 251,000 borrower defense claims after the settlement had been struck but before it received final court approval. 

    The Biden administration’s Education Department promised to make timely decisions on their cases — or else provide automatic relief to them by Jan. 28 of next year. Now, the department under President Donald Trump is requesting to move that deadline back to July 2027. 

    In a Nov. 6 court filing, the agency said it lacked the resources to quickly issue decisions on such a large pool of applications. 

    “The Department has not received the resources that are needed to adjudicate post-class applications — Congress repeatedly ignored requests for funding to increase staffing to the levels the Department deemed necessary to fully implement the settlement,” the agency said, adding that its Federal Student Aid office “has instead seen staffing dwindle at the time when resources for postclass adjudication are most needed.”

    Trump signed an order to close the Education Department to the “maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law” and has asked Congress to reduce its funding.  

    The Education Department has cut its staff roughly in half under Trump and moved to outsource its programs to other federal agencies without first seeking congressional approval — a move some say could be a violation of the law. 

    The department said it is now adjudicating about 1,500 borrower defense applications each month for the final settlement group. As of Oct. 31, it had issued decisions on almost 54,000 of the final group’s applications. 

    It projected that roughly 193,000 borrower defense applications covered by the settlement would still lack decisions by the January deadline. Those borrowers’ outstanding loan balances total $11.8 billion, the Education Department said in court documents. It also said about half of the group’s borrower defense claims have so far been denied. 

    In a statement Wednesday, Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent the Trump administration is requesting more time so taxpayers aren’t “burdened with discharges for ineligible borrowers.”

    “Although the Department has complied with the Court’s deadlines in good faith, the upcoming January deadline is unreasonable,” Kent said. “Without adequate time to review each outstanding borrower defense case, taxpayers could be forced to shoulder $6 billion in windfall discharges for ineligible borrowers, based on the Department’s current adjudication patterns.” 

    In response to the Education Department’s request, lawyers for the borrowers slammed the department’s request. 

    “Less than 12 weeks before the deadline, the Department reveals that not only is it behind schedule to meet that deadline, it never had a prayer of meeting the deadline,” they said. “Out of more than 251,000 Post-Class applications, it has adjudicated fewer than 54,000 — barely one-fifth.”

    Source link

  • Mike Gavin Resigns to Lead DEI Defense Coalition

    Mike Gavin Resigns to Lead DEI Defense Coalition

    Mike Gavin, the founder of Education for All, a grassroots group of community college administrators fighting legislative attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion, will step down as president of Delta College in January. He has been in the post since 2021. 

    Gavin informed the Delta College Board of Trustees last week that he would resign to lead a national coalition focused on defending equity in higher ed. 

    “My whole career has been focused on equity and how higher ed is situated in the democratic experiment, so when I was asked to do the next thing, I felt compelled to do it,” Gavin told Inside Higher Ed. 

    “I was not looking for a job. Delta has been amazing. The faculty and staff are some of the most insightful and student-centered I’ve ever seen,” he said. 

    More information about the coalition, including its priorities and funding model, will be released soon, he added. 

    Since the early days of the second Trump administration, Gavin has been a leading voice in defending DEI work in higher ed, especially at community colleges. Participation in Education for All surged at the beginning of the year as college leaders sought advice on protecting programs and navigating compliance with Trump administration mandates. 

    “My scholarship rests on the great thinkers of our past, from Benjamin Franklin to James Baldwin. It is also grounded in the belief that our country depends on a higher education sector that must be free from partisan interference, in order to democratize higher education for all,” Gavin wrote in a letter to the Delta College community.  

    Delta College trustees said they will begin the process of appointing Gavin’s successor in the coming weeks. 

    Source link

  • In Defense of Distasteful Faculty Speech (opinion)

    In Defense of Distasteful Faculty Speech (opinion)

    Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10.

    Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images

    The assassination of Charlie Kirk was a tragedy that struck at the heart of American democracy. As the faculty adviser for Turning Point USA at Georgia College & State University, I took on that role despite significant ideological disagreements with the organization Kirk founded because I believe so fervently in the value of political discourse—even when that discourse makes us uncomfortable.

    Kirk and I disagreed on virtually every policy issue. His rhetoric often struck me as divisive, and his positions frequently ran counter to my own deeply held beliefs. Nevertheless, I advised the campus chapter of his organization because I passionately believe that universities must be places where competing ideas can clash, where students can hear from voices across the political spectrum and where the marketplace of ideas remains vibrant and open.

    The wave of faculty terminations sweeping across American institutions in response to Kirk’s death represents a dangerous moment for academic freedom and constitutional principles. Educators across the nation have been fired or suspended for social media posts that ranged from celebrating Kirk’s death to making pointed observations about the irony of his rhetoric regarding gun violence being an acceptable price to pay to maintain the Second Amendment. While these comments were often distasteful and insensitive, the rush to punish people for them reveals a troubling disregard for the First Amendment protections that should shield government employees—particularly university faculty—from exactly this kind of viewpoint-based retaliation.

    I’m not defending the wisdom or sensitivity of the statements made about Kirk by those being fired. In point of fact, I believe that most if not all were ill-timed, crude, callous and deeply hurtful to those mourning Kirk’s death. But constitutional principles protect speech that offends, disturbs and challenges our sensibilities.

    For example, in 1987, the Supreme Court decided Rankin v. McPherson in response to a government employee being fired after expressing hope that a potential future assassin would succeed in killing President Reagan. Even though this despicable comment was said in the immediate aftermath of an assassination attempt against the president, the court nevertheless held that it was protected speech. If such an extreme statement merits protection, surely the same is true for similar statements about Kirk in the wake of his assassination.

    The irony here is particularly acute. Conservative activists and politicians who claim to champion free speech principles are now leading coordinated campaigns to silence critics through organized pressure and doxing efforts. Meanwhile, university administrators—those who should be the staunchest defenders of academic freedom—are capitulating to political pressure rather than standing up for constitutional principles. The result is a chilling effect that extends far beyond these specific cases, sending a clear message to faculty everywhere that certain political viewpoints will no longer be tolerated.

    For public university professors like me, this represents an especially troubling erosion of academic freedom. The Supreme Court has long recognized that universities occupy a special place in our constitutional framework as centers of free inquiry and debate. The Pickering balancing test that governs government employee speech also typically weighs heavily in favor of faculty members discussing matters of public policy, precisely because such discourse is central to the university’s educational mission.

    We’re witnessing universities abandon their constitutional obligations to appease a political pressure campaign, one often led by Republican members of government. Universities and school districts are making hasty decisions based on social media pressure rather than carefully considering their legal duties and educational responsibilities. This institutional cowardice not only violates the constitutional rights of individual employees but also undermines the very principles that make American higher education a global leader in research and innovation.

    The legal precedent here is clear, and many of these terminations will likely be reversed through costly litigation. Even so, the damage to academic freedom and democratic discourse has already been done. The message being sent is that political speech—even on matters of clear public concern—can be punished if it offends the right people with sufficient political power.

    This is precisely the moment when our institutions must demonstrate courage in defending constitutional principles. University presidents, school board members and other educational leaders must resist the pressure to sacrifice employees on the altar of political expedience. They must remember that their obligation is not to popular opinion or political movements, but to the Constitution and the principles of free inquiry that make education possible.

    The death of Charlie Kirk was a senseless tragedy that robbed America of a young voice in our political discourse. But if we allow that tragedy to justify the systematic erosion of free speech protections, we will have compounded the damage immeasurably. The best way to honor Kirk’s memory is not through ideological purges, but by recommitting ourselves to the principles of free expression and open debate that he claimed to champion.

    Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law at Georgia College & State University and the faculty adviser to the campus chapter of Turning Point USA.

    Source link

  • In defense of fiery words

    In defense of fiery words

    Consensus is growing around the idea that words beget violence. Consider some of the things America’s political leaders have said in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination last week at Utah Valley University:

    “This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism we’re seeing in our country today.” 

    “He actively fans the flames of division . . . regularly advocates violence for political retribution, and in more than one case, declares we are at war, not with a foreign adversary, but with each other.”

    “There are some deranged people in society, and when they see leaders using that kind of language so often now increasingly, it spurs them on to action.” 

    “They need to turn down the rhetoric.” 

    That is, in order, President Donald Trump, Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker on Trump’s response to political violence, Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, and Democratic Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton on Republican leaders.

    Throughout American history, especially during times of civil unrest, the government used the power of the state to criminalize what it perceived as advocacy of violence. For example, in 1927, the Supreme Court upheld Charlotte Whitney’s conviction for joining a socialist convention that advocated the overthrow of the government (Whitney v. California). 

    The Court reasoned that advocating violence could present “danger to the public peace and security,” and that the exercise of the state’s police powers therefore carries “great weight” in such instances. Similarly, Attorney General Pam Bondi recently suggested the federal government might bring “incitement” prosecutions of people who celebrate Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

    As the potential for  political violence increases, what prevents the government from taking us back to 1927? What prevents the authorities from taking advantage of our fears and criminalizing advocacy of violence or even fiery rhetoric?

    BRANDENBURG v. OHIO

    The Supreme Court held the government cannot punish incendiary speech unless the intent and likely outcome is to cause “imminent lawless action”.


    Read More

    Enter Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the landmark Supreme Court ruling on incitement. The state convicted a Ku Klux Klan leader for a speech saying, “it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken” against the government if it continued to “suppress the white, Caucasian race.” The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding the First Amendment protects advocacy of violence unless it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

    Even if one assumes Brandenburg’s words called for violence, for the Supreme Court, his advocacy was too amorphous and the possibility of violence too remote for his prosecution to stay within constitutional bounds. 

    Similarly, in Hess v. Indiana (1973), the Court reversed an anti-Vietnam War demonstrator’s conviction stemming from his promise to “take the fucking street later” in connection with his arrest at a protest. The Court held these words fell well below the high Brandenburg standard. Hess did not direct his words toward anyone in particular, nor did they suggest a threat of immediate violence. In establishing this high bar, the Court rejected Whitney’s formulation that advocacy of violence “at some indefinite future time” is punishable on grounds it might ultimately lead to violence. 

    The Court instead highlighted the difference between “mere abstract teaching of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force” and actual preparation for violent action. Thomas Jefferson once said that “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” Without the Brandenburg distinction, a speaker emulating Jefferson could face jail for recognizing a moral necessity for the resort to force. 

    Brandenburg’s brilliance is its recognition that political discourse is messy.

    Without this distinction, Democratic states could criminalize calling pro-abortion politicians “murderers” on grounds such speech incites violence against those politicians. Republican states could criminalize calling President Trump a “Nazi” on the same grounds. Giving the government the power to lump such heated rhetoric together with speech advocating immediate lawlessness would grant it a cudgel against any speech it saw as threatening its own power — with free and passionate discourse becoming the ultimate victim. Brandenburg therefore allows breathing room necessary for robust public debate.

    The Supreme Court made clear in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982) that “strong and effective rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause.” In other words, it should not be up to the government to decide when rhetoric has gone too far. Brandenburg’s brilliance is its recognition that political discourse is messy: tone and language are deliberate choices integral to a speaker’s message. 

    Political leaders and citizens have every right to call out rhetoric that they believe is damaging to our public discourse. Brandenburg — and countless other First Amendment precedents — recognize that these calls, rather than the power of the state, are the most effective antidote to speech we find dangerous or offensive.

    Source link