Tag: defense

  • 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

  • Court Temporarily Blocks Ban on Bargaining by Defense Department Teachers Unions – The 74

    Court Temporarily Blocks Ban on Bargaining by Defense Department Teachers Unions – The 74


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

    A district court judge has temporarily blocked a Trump administration ban on collective bargaining by two teachers unions in Department of Defense schools.

    Judge Paul Friedman issued a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed this spring by the Federal Education Association and Antilles Consolidated Education Association, which represent more than 5,500 teachers, librarians and counselors in the 161 schools under the Department of Defense Education Activity. The agency educates 67,000 children on military bases worldwide.

    The union sued the Trump administration over a March executive order that stripped collective bargaining rights from two-thirds of federal service workers. The order impacted the Departments of Justice, Defense, Veteran Affairs, Treasury, and Health and Human Services, as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Environmental Protection Agency.

    The Federal Education Association has been negotiating teachers contracts with the Department of Defense since 1970, while the Antilles Consolidated Education Association has bargained on behalf of Puerto Rico educators since 1976, according to the lawsuit. The current collective bargaining agreements for both unions were approved in 2023 and are set to expire in summer 2028.

    But since the order was issued, the lawsuit says, the Department of Defense Education Activity has discontinued negotiations, stopped participation in grievance proceedings and prohibited union representation during educator disciplinary meetings. Members are also no longer allowed to conduct union work during the school day. Requests from educators to access a union sick leave bank with 13,000 donated hours have also been ignored, according to the suit.

    “These actions, taken together, essentially terminate the respective collective bargaining agreements and thus cause irreparable harm,” Friedman said in his decision.

    A 1978 federal statute allows collective bargaining in the civil service sector. The suit argued that while presidents have the authority to exclude an agency if its primary function involves intelligence, investigation or national security work, “Many, if not most, of the agencies and agency subdivisions swept up in the executive order’s dragnet do little to no national security work, much less do they have a primary function [of] intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative [work].”

    The agency declined to comment on ongoing legal proceedings. In a reply to the unions’ lawsuit, Trump administration attorneys said the executive order was within the law and that reversing it would be costly.

    “Rather than maintaining the status quo, it would force [the Department of Defense] to undo actions it has already taken to implement the executive order, causing significant disruption and resource expenditures,” the lawyers wrote.

    In April, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized a few exemptions for agencies related to the Air Force and Army, but not the teachers unions — despite a push from 45 lawmakers to exclude the school system.

    “Ensuring that DoDEA educators and personnel retain collective bargaining protections will ensure that DoDEA can continue to recruit and retain the best staff in support of its mission,” the congressional members wrote in a letter. “Collective bargaining safeguards the public interest, and its history in DoDEA has demonstrated better outcomes for mission readiness, and stronger connections between military-connected families and those who serve them.”

    An appeal from the Trump administration is pending. A similar lawsuit from six unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees, resulted in an injunction, but a federal appeals court reversed it in August.


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

    Source link

  • American Financial Solutions and Borrower Defense to Repayment

    American Financial Solutions and Borrower Defense to Repayment

    [Editor’s Note: The Higher Education Inquirer has submitted a Freedom of Information Request F-2025-02034 for any Federal Trade Commission consumer complaints against American Financial Solutions. We expect student loan relief scams to grow over the next few years as federal government oversight is reduced.]

    American Financial Solutions (AFS) positions itself in social media as a lifeline for student loan borrowers, offering help with programs like Borrower Defense to Repayment (BDR), PSLF, closed-school discharge, teacher loan forgiveness, and income-driven repayment. They advertise a “95 percent success rate,” more than $25 million in loans discharged, and over 10,000 clients helped. AFS promotes a three-step approach: a free consultation, documentation collection, and federal application submission—with implied guarantees of approval. They even suggest that discharges can occur in as little as 12 to 36 months.

    Behind this polished marketing is a disturbing reality. When contacted directly, AFS quoted a $1,500 fee to file a Borrower Defense claim. The Department of Education provides this service for free, which makes the fee an unnecessary financial burden on people already struggling with debt. Worse still, AFS representatives falsely claimed that approval would be “guaranteed” because the borrower’s school was named in the Sweet v. Cardona settlement. That is not how the Sweet settlement worked, and no private company can guarantee outcomes in federal relief programs.

    AFS also collects a troubling amount of data from borrowers. According to its own disclosures, the company asks for names, contact information, educational histories, student loan details, financial information, and documentation of borrowers’ school experiences. It also stores communications and any additional information provided. Beyond that, the company automatically harvests website usage data, including IP addresses, device and operating system information, pages visited, time spent on the site, referring websites, and even search terms. This means that vulnerable borrowers are not only charged excessive fees but also exposed to unnecessary risks regarding their personal and financial data.

    While AFS presents itself as a nonprofit credit counseling agency with A+ BBB accreditation, consumer complaints suggest a lack of transparency and responsiveness. One unresolved 2024 complaint alleged billing issues, with the consumer insisting they were not liable for a debt and had no contract, while the company failed to respond. Independent review platforms show a mix of praise and criticism, with some clients reporting successful debt management experiences, but others raising questions about hidden costs, communication problems, and misleading claims.

    The bigger problem is that AFS fits a well-documented pattern of predatory practices in the student loan relief industry. Over the past decade, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) have repeatedly shut down companies that charged for free government services, misrepresented their powers, and lied about forgiveness guarantees. In one case, the CFPB shut down Student Aid Institute, only to see its operator resurface under a new name and steal more than $240,000 from borrowers. In another, Monster Loans and its associates were sued for defrauding over 23,000 borrowers. The FTC has also acted against multiple operations that bilked millions of dollars from borrowers by pretending to be affiliated with the Department of Education. Even Navient, a major loan servicer, agreed in 2024 to pay $120 million after deceiving borrowers about repayment options.

    The risks to borrowers are increasing as federal oversight weakens. In 2025, reports revealed that the CFPB planned to scale back enforcement of student loan cases, leaving state regulators—who often lack resources—to fill the gap. Critics warned this would create “open season” for scammers. Against that backdrop, companies like AFS are free to charge high fees, collect sensitive data, and make deceptive promises while vulnerable borrowers remain unprotected.

    American Financial Solutions is not a solution. It is part of the problem, a business model that profits by charging people for free services, misrepresenting the law, and exposing them to new risks. Unless stronger oversight and enforcement are restored, borrowers will continue to be victimized first by predatory schools and then by predatory “relief” companies cashing in on their desperation.

    Sources

    American Financial Solutions marketing claims. amerifisolutions.com

    AFS data collection disclosure (website policy provided by user)

    Better Business Bureau profile. bbb.org

    BBB consumer complaint (2024). bbb.org

    Trustpilot reviews. trustpilot.com

    ConsumerAffairs reviews. consumeraffairs.com

    BestCompany review. bestcompany.com

    CuraDebt expert analysis. curadebt.com

    Federal Trade Commission. “American Financial Benefits Center Refunds.” ftc.gov

    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “CFPB Seeks Ban Against Operator of Student Loan Debt Relief Scam Reboot.” consumerfinance.gov

    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “CFPB Takes Action Against Operators of an Unlawful Student Loan Debt Relief Scheme.” consumerfinance.gov

    Federal Trade Commission. “FTC Acts to Stop Scheme that Bilked Millions out of Student Loan Borrowers.” ftc.gov, December 2024

    Federal Trade Commission. “Student Loan Debt Relief Scam Operators Agree to be Permanently Banned.” ftc.gov, May 2025

    Time Magazine. “Navient Settlement: Student Loan Borrowers to Receive Payments.” time.com, 2024

    The Guardian. “Brad Lander: CFPB Cuts Create Open Season for Fraudsters.” theguardian.com, May 2025

    Source link

  • In Defense of Jonathan Brown

    In Defense of Jonathan Brown

    Jonathan Brown, the Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization at Georgetown University, was suspended from his job and is being investigated for posting on X after the US bombing of Iran, “I hope Iran does some symbolic strike on a base, then everyone stops.” Brown’s expressed desire for peace was twisted by conservatives into some kind of anti-American call for violence.

    Rep. Randy Fine, a Florida Republican, noted that the interim president of Georgetown would soon be testifying before Congress and wrote about Brown, “This demon had better be gone by then. We have a Muslim problem in America.” Fine was Gov. Ron DeSantis’s choice to be president of Florida Atlantic University before the board rejected him. But his literal demonization of speech has a powerful impact.

    Georgetown quickly obeyed the commands of anti-Muslim bigots such as Fine. Georgetown interim president Robert M. Groves testified to Congress on July 15, “Within minutes of our learning of that tweet, the dean contacted Professor Brown, the tweet was removed, we issued a statement condemning the tweet, Professor Brown is no longer chair of his department and he’s on leave, and we’re beginning a process of reviewing the case.”

    Groves responded “yes” when asked by Rep. Virginia Foxx, a North Carolina Republican, “You are now investigating and disciplining him?”

    Georgetown’s statement declared, “We are appalled that a faculty member would call for a ‘symbolic strike’ on a military base in a social media post.” But why would this appall anyone? Faculty members routinely support actions that actually kill innocent people—tens of thousands of people, in the case of professors who support Israel’s attack on Gaza, millions of people in the case of professors who supported the fight against the Nazis in World War II. And that’s all perfectly legitimate. So a professor calling for an action against a military target that doesn’t kill anybody should be the most trivial statement in the world.

    There is a good reason why universities shouldn’t take positions on foreign policy—because institutional opinions are often dumb, especially when formulated “within minutes” rather than after serious thought. Georgetown is making the worst kind of violation of institutional neutrality—not merely expressing a dumb opinion, not just denouncing a professor for disagreeing with that dumb opinion, but actually suspending a professor for diverging from Georgetown’s very dumb official opinion on foreign policy.

    Often, defenders of academic freedom have to stand for this principle even when addressing terrible people who say terrible things. But the assault on academic freedom in America has become so awful that even perfectly reasonable comments are now grounds for automatic suspension. Brown’s position on the Iran attacks is very similar to that of Donald Trump, who posted praise for Iran after it did precisely what Brown had urged: “I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured.” Unlike Trump, Brown never thanked Iran for attacking a U.S. base. So how could any university even consider punishing a professor for taking a foreign policy stand more moderate than Trump?

    Georgetown’s shocking attacks on academic freedom have garnered little attention or criticism. The Georgetown Hoya reported in a headline, “Groves Appears to Assuage Republicans, Defend Free Speech in Congressional Hearing.”

    The newspaper’s fawning treatment of Groves as a defender of free speech apparently was based on Groves testifying, “We police carefully the behavior of our faculty in the classroom and their research activities,” and adding, “They are free, as all residents of the United States, to have speech in the public domain.” It’s horrifying to have any university president openly confess that they “police carefully” professors’ teaching and research. But for Groves to claim that faculty have free speech “in the public domain” when he proudly suspended Brown for his comments must be some kind of sick joke.

    Another Hoya headline about the controversy declared, “University Review of GU Professor for Controversial Posts Prompts Criticism, Praise.” While the campus Students for Justice in Palestine and the Council on American-Islamic Relations correctly defended Brown, the Anti-Defamation League declared, “We commend Georgetown University for taking swift action following Jonathan Brown’s dangerous remarks about a ‘symbolic strike’ on a U.S. military base.”

    There is nothing “dangerous” about Brown’s remarks calling for an end to war, or any other foreign policy opinions. The only danger here is the threat to academic freedom.

    When Georgetown suspended lecturer Ilya Shapiro in 2022 for his offensive comments on Twitter, I argued that “Shapiro should not be punished before he receives a hearing and fair evaluation” and added, “A suspension, even with pay, is a form of punishment. In fact, it’s a very harsh penalty when most forms of campus misconduct receive a reprimand or a requirement for education or changes in behavior.”

    I called upon all colleges to ban the use of suspensions without due process. Since then, suspensions have become an epidemic of repression on college campuses. An army of advocates once argued in defense of Shapiro’s free speech. Unfortunately, none of Shapiro’s outspoken supporters have spoken out with similar outrage about the even worse treatment of Brown by Georgetown’s censors.

    Georgetown’s administrators must immediately rescind Brown’s ridiculous suspension, restore his position as department chair, end this unjustified investigation of his opinions, apologize for their incompetence at failing to meet their basic responsibilities to protect academic freedom and enact new policies to end the practice of using arbitrary suspensions without due process as a political weapon.

    John K. Wilson was a 2019–20 fellow with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement and is the author of eight books, including Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies (Routledge, 2008), and his forthcoming book The Attack on Academia. He can be reached at [email protected], or letters to the editor can be sent to [email protected].

    Source link

  • The University of Kentucky suspended a professor for criticizing Israel. Now, FIRE’s Faculty Legal Defense Fund is stepping up to defend him.

    The University of Kentucky suspended a professor for criticizing Israel. Now, FIRE’s Faculty Legal Defense Fund is stepping up to defend him.

    LEXINGTON, K.Y., Aug. 7, 2025 — A University of Kentucky professor suspended for criticizing Israel’s conduct in the Gaza war now has legal representation thanks to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

    Ramsi Woodcock had established a steady career as a law professor at UK, where he has taught for seven years. He earned tenure in 2022 and was promoted to full professor on July 1.

    Less than two weeks later, the vice provost of the university informed the professor that the university received unspecified complaints about Woodcock’s criticisms of Israel outside the classroom on his personal website and at conferences. 

    The university failed to respond to Woodcock’s requests for copies of the complaints. On July 18, university officials removed Woodcock from teaching and banned him from campus. The university also sent a message to its campus condemning Woodcock’s views as “repugnant” and publicly announcing an investigation. 

    Specifically, the university took issue with a petition Woodcock circulated to other law professors across the country that called for military action against Israel because of its war in Gaza, as well as his arguments that Israel should cease to exist. 

    “This isn’t complicated,” said Graham Piro, FIRE’s Faculty Legal Defense Fund fellow. “Woodcock’s arguments about Israel are clearly protected speech on a matter of public concern, and as a faculty member at a public institution, he has the right to voice his ideas, regardless of whether others find them objectionable. And reprimanding a professor over one set of views opens the door to further restrictions on other opinions down the road.”

    With the help of the FLDF, Woodcock is being represented by Joe F. Childers of Joe F. Childers & Associates. Childers will work to lift Woodcock’s suspension so he can return to teaching in the classroom and continue speaking freely outside of it. 

    “Punishing me for my views on Israel sends a terrifying message to students and colleagues: voice the ‘wrong’ opinion on a sensitive subject and face consequences from the university,” Woodcock said. “It’s not only my career that’s at stake — it’s about whether the University of Kentucky will continue to exist as an institution that encourages and permits free thought and expression.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

    CONTACT:

    Karl de Vries, Director of Media Relations, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • In Defense of Gladwell and “Revenge of the Tipping Point”

    In Defense of Gladwell and “Revenge of the Tipping Point”

    Revenge of the Tipping Point: Overstories, Superspreaders, and the Rise of Social Engineering by Malcolm Gladwell

    Published in October 2024

    Praising a Malcolm Gladwell book may not be the No. 1 way to seem helplessly uncool with your academic colleagues, but it is close. Share with any random social scientist—my people—that you are reading Gladwell, and you are likely to hear a long lecture detailing the flaws and shortcomings of Gladwell’s writing.

    Ignore the skeptics. Reading a Gladwell book is like listening to a well-crafted song: You can enjoy the experience without agreeing with the lyrics.

    Gladwell’s most recent book is Revenge of the Tipping Point. As with all Gladwell books, the audiobook experience will be your best reading bet. Gladwell is a fantastic writer. His narration style is conversational, intimate and energizing. Revenge of the Tipping Point is an all-new book, taking as its starting place the 2000 Tipping Point publication that launched Gladwell into the nonfiction stratosphere. Like the original, Revenge of the Tipping Point seeks to uncover the hidden forces that drive social trends. The book uses stories and a mix of academic research and data to explain phenomena as diverse as the COVID epidemic, the spread of opiate addiction and the rapid cultural and legal embrace of gay marriage.

    For critics of Gladwell (likely a large proportion of Inside Higher Ed readers), Revenge of the Tipping Point will generate a familiar set of objections. We academics will complain that Gladwell cherry-picks data to support a narrative and fails to include information that may complicate the story. Gladwell’s approach is to structure his stories about social phenomena like a murder mystery, with Gladwell playing the role of Sherlock Holmes. Piecing together the clues, Gladwell reveals the guilty culprit (the policy or cultural phenomenon) responsible for the crime (the trend or social outcome in question). As academics, we know that various variables, forces, structures and random causes drive most social trends. Gladwell’s books are satisfying precisely because he is a master of filtering out complexity. You feel smarter after reading Gladwell, even if you aren’t.

    Knowing all this going into reading Gladwell, including Revenge of the Tipping Point, can help ensure that reading his books is enjoyable and productive. For those of us in higher education, Gladwell has a good deal to say about how universities (well, elite universities) work. I found his explanation as to why highly selective schools field a multitude of sports teams across every conceivable athletic endeavor—from squash to Nordic skiing to equestrian to rugby—reason enough to invest time in Gladwell’s latest book.

    We should not confuse Gladwell’s critiques of elite higher education with the ongoing attacks many universities are navigating from the executive branch. One hopes, however, that Gladwell might be rethinking his history of drawing stark moral absolutes when condemning elite institutions while largely ignoring societal positives and complexity. I suspect that the Ivy League is easier to attack when it is cast as Goliath, as opposed to the defender of academic freedom and bulwark against government overreach that recent events have so clearly revealed our universities to be.

    What are you reading?

    Source link

  • Trump’s Department of Education Continues to Drag Feet on Borrower Defense

    Trump’s Department of Education Continues to Drag Feet on Borrower Defense

    On June 26th, the US Department of Education was brought to the Ninth District Court (and Judge Alsup) to show how many the Borrower Defense to Repayment cases that have been resolved per court order.  While we wait for a transcript of the latest episode of Sweet v McMahon, what we can tell you is that the Trump government continues to drag its feet in paying back debtors who have been defrauded.  

    Source link