Tag: DEI

  • Punishing Parents for Chronic Absenteeism – The 74

    Punishing Parents for Chronic Absenteeism – The 74


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

    School (in)Security is our biweekly briefing on the latest school safety news, vetted by Mark Keierleber. Subscribe here.

    As educators nationwide grapple with stubbornly high levels of student absences since the pandemic drove schools into disarray five years ago, Oklahoma prosecutor Erik Johnson says he has the solution. 

    Throw parents in jail.

    This week, I offer a look at chronic absenteeism’s persistence long after COVID shuttered classrooms, plunged families into poverty and led to the deaths of more than 1 million Americans. Lawmakers nationwide have proposed dozens of bills this year designed to curtail student absences — with radically different approaches.

    While a proposal in Hawaii would reward kids’ good attendance with ice cream, new laws in Indiana, West Virginia and Iowa impose fines and jail time for parents who can’t compel their children to attend class regularly. In Oklahoma, where Johnson has ushered in a new era of truancy crackdowns, state lawmakers say parents — not principals and teachers — should be held accountable for students’ repeat absences.

    “We prosecute everything from murders to rape to financial crimes, but in my view, the ones that cause the most societal harm is when people do harm to children, either child neglect, child physical abuse, child sexual abuse, domestic violence in homes, and then you can add truancy to the list,” Johnson told me this week. 

    “It’s not as bad, in my opinion, as beating a child, but it’s on the spectrum because you’re not putting that child in a position to be successful,” continued Johnson, who has dubbed 2025 the “Year of the Child.”

    In the news

    Books are not a crime — yet: Under proposed Texas legislation, teachers could soon face jail sentences for teaching classic literary works with sexual content, including The Catcher in the Rye and (unironically?) Brave New World. | Mother Jones

    Mass layoffs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services this week could have devastating consequences for the health and well-being of low-income children. | The Associated Press

    Ten days or else: The Education Department demanded Thursday that states certify in writing within the next 10 days that K-12 schools are complying with its interpretation of civil rights laws, namely eliminating any diversity, equity and inclusion programs, or else risk losing their federal funding. | The New York Times

    A Texas teen was kneed in the face by a school cop: Now, with steep cuts to the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, her case is one of thousands that have been left to languish. | The 74

    Students’ right to privacy versus parents’ right to know: The Trump administration has opened an investigation into a California law designed to protect transgender students from being outed to their parents, alleging violations of the federal student privacy law. | The New York Times

    • A similar investigation has been opened against officials in Maine, where the feds claim district policies to protect students’ privacy come at the expense of parents’ right to information. | Maine Morning Star
    • “Parents are the most natural protectors of their children,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement after a similar federal investigation was launched against Virginia educators. “Yet many states and school districts have enacted policies that imply students need protection from their parents.” | Virginia Mercury
    • A little context: In a recent survey, more than 92% of parents said they were supportive of their child’s transgender identity. | Human Rights Campaign
    Sign-up for the School (in)Security newsletter.

    Get the most critical news and information about students’ rights, safety and well-being delivered straight to your inbox.

    The Student Press Law Center joined a coalition of free speech and journalism organizations in denouncing the recent ICE detention of Tufts University international student Rumeysa Ozturk over opinions she expressed in an op-ed in the student newspaper. 

    • “Such a basis for her detention would represent a blatant disregard for the principles of free speech and free press within the First Amendment,” the groups wrote in their letter. | Student Press Law Center
    • The Turkish doctoral candidate is one of several students who’ve been rounded up by immigration officials in recent weeks based on pro-Palestinian comments. | The New York Times

    Florida lawmakers have a plan to fill the jobs of undocumented workers who are deported: Put kids on the overnight shift. | The Guardian

    Minority report: Following bipartisan opposition, Georgia lawmakers have given up on efforts to create a statewide student-tracking database designed to identify youth who could commit future acts of violence. | WABE

    A majority of school district programs focused on protecting student data are led by administrators with little training in privacy issues, a new report finds. | StateScoop

    Washington students’ sensitive data was exposed. The culprit? A student surveillance tool. | The Seattle Times

    ICYMI @The74

    Emotional Support

    Annie, who lives with The 74 social media guru Christian Skotte, is the cutest regular at Brooklyn’s Prospect Park. You won’t convince me otherwise. 


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

    Source link

  • Researchers sue NIH over mass cuts to DEI grants

    Researchers sue NIH over mass cuts to DEI grants

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Researchers, unions and others sued the National Institutes of Health on Wednesday over the agency’s purge of diversity, equity and inclusion-related research activity that has resulted in lost grant funding and career opportunities. 
    • Plaintiffs, including dozens of academic scientists, alleged that the agency’s leaders, starting in February, “upended NIH’s enviable track record of rigor and excellence, launching a reckless and illegal purge to stamp out NIH-funded research that addresses topics and populations that they disfavor.”
    • They are asking a federal court to block NIH from enforcing its anti-DEI directives both in the short term and permanently and to restore grants to researchers that the agency has cut under the Trump administration. 

    Dive Insight:

    The complaint counts at least 678 research projects that have been terminated by NIH, some of them potentially by the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency rather than NIH staff. 

    The recently cut grants amount to over $2.4 billion, the lawsuit noted. Of that, $1.3 billion was already spent on projects “stopped midstream that is now wasted,” and $1.1 billion has been revoked.

    Plaintiffs argue that grant terminations “cut across diverse topics that NIH is statutorily required to research,” many of which involve life-threatening diseases. Specifically, they argue that NIH’s actions violate the Administrative Procedures Act and constitutional limits on executive branch authority, and are unconstitutionally vague. 

    In the lawsuit, filed in U.S. district court in Massachusetts, plaintiffs detailed how their lives, careers and potentially life-saving research have been thrown into turmoil by the NIH’s attack on DEI under President Donald Trump.

    Among them is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of New Mexico’s medical school who studies alcohol’s impact on Alzheimer’s risk. The researcher, the first in her family to graduate college, sought a grant created to help promising researchers from underrepresented backgrounds transition to tenure-track faculty positions. 

    According to the lawsuit, the researcher “satisfies the eligibility criteria for the program and invested months into assembling her application,” but NIH refused to consider it “solely because the program is designed to help diversify the profession.”

    Another plaintiff, a Ph.D. candidate at a private California university, had received a high score on a research funding application for a dissertation proposal that would have studied suicide prevention among LGBTQ+ youth experiencing homelessness. 

    But the candidate learned that new restrictions on LGBTQ-related research meant the NIH would not likely fund the project. The turn of events will harm the researcher’s “ability to progress through their PhD program,” the complaint said. 

    Others include a University of Michigan social work professor whose research focuses on sexual violence in minority communities. The NIH has cut at least six grants supporting her research because the agency said it “no longer effectuates agency priorities,” according to the complaint. 

    Setting the various cuts in motion was internal NIH guidance, most of it revealed by the news media and cited in the complaint, that directed agency staff to terminate and deny DEI-related grant proposals. One memo instructed NIH officials to “completely excise all DEI activities.”

    Staff guidance included research topics for grant terminations. One document forbade three research activity topics: China, DEI and transgender issues. A later document, the complaint alleges, effectively banned research grants around vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19.

    NIH did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.

    The scale of impact by both DEI cuts and other funding chaos at NIH is broad, cutting across much of the higher ed world. The United Auto Workers, one of the plaintiffs, counts tens of thousands of members who depend on NIH grants for their work and training, according to the lawsuit. It also noted 18,000 full-time graduate students who received their primary federal funding support through NIH in 2022.

    Source link

  • Ohio and Kentucky Ban DEI, Reduce Tenure Protections

    Ohio and Kentucky Ban DEI, Reduce Tenure Protections

    Republican-controlled legislatures in two bordering states, Ohio and Kentucky, have now passed laws requiring post-tenure review policies at public universities and banning diversity, equity and inclusion offices, along with other DEI activities.

    Many faculty and some Democratic leaders say the new laws threaten academic freedom and undermine tenure. In Ohio, lawmakers passed the sweeping higher education legislation, which has been in the works for a few years, over protests from faculty and students. The Ohio Student Association, for instance, said the bill would kill higher education in the state. Meanwhile, in Kentucky, Republican lawmakers rushed legislation through the process in order to successfully override their Democratic governor’s veto and put their higher education changes into law.

    Ohio and Kentucky join Arkansas, Utah and Wyoming this year as states where Republicans have passed laws targeting DEI and/or promoting alternative “intellectual diversity.” Even if the Trump administration’s ongoing nationwide attacks on DEI founder, these laws lock in restrictions on DEI in these states, preventing institutions from reversing course on diversity program rollbacks.

    Much of the new laws in Ohio and Kentucky echo the DEI bans that the other states have enacted, but Ohio’s legislation goes further than Kentucky’s, allowing immediate “for cause post-tenure reviews,” banning strikes for a large group of faculty and much more.

    Ohio governor Mike DeWine, a Republican, signed into law Friday a version of higher education legislation that’s been debated for the last two years but had failed to pass despite Republican majorities in the capitol. Senate Bill 1, the evolution of the failed legislation, combined numerous postsecondary changes that GOP legislators have sought to enact in other states.

    Among many other things, the new law bans full-time faculty from striking. It prohibits DEI offices, DEI in job descriptions and DEI in scholarships, without defining what DEI is. It requires institutions to “demonstrate intellectual diversity” in a range of areas, including course approval, general education requirements, common reading programs and faculty annual reviews. It also requires four-year institutions to publicly post online the syllabi for undergraduate courses, including the names of the instructors and “any required or recommended readings.” Community colleges must post more general syllabi.

    SB 1 also mandates a version of institutional neutrality, requiring colleges and universities to declare they “will not endorse or oppose, as an institution, any controversial belief or policy, except on matters that directly impact the institution’s funding or mission of discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge.” The “controversial” beliefs and policies that institutions are required to stay silent on include any that are “the subject of political controversy, including issues such as climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion.” (Ohio colleges and universities do retain the right to endorse Congress when it goes to war.)

    The law further requires all institutions to establish post-tenure review policies—which could lead to firing tenured faculty. The legislation bans unions from using their collective bargaining rights to negotiate over these policies. And SB 1 allows certain administrators to launch “an immediate and for cause post-tenure review at any time for a faculty member who has a documented and sustained record of significant underperformance” outside their regular annual performance evaluations.

    “This bill eliminates tenure,” said Sara Kilpatrick, executive director of the Ohio Conference of the American Association of University Professors. “If certain administrators can call for post-tenure review at any time and fire a faculty member without due process, that is not real tenure, that is tenure in name only.”

    Pointing to a provision for an appeals process, Republican state senator Jerry Cirino, who filed SB 1, said, “They’re lying about that” and “once again, the AAUP is misrepresenting the facts.”

    He added that the bill is “very pro–higher education.”

    “I’m not going to fall for these false narratives that the left is trying to put out there mischaracterizing this bill,” Cirino said.

    The Ohio governor’s office didn’t respond to Inside Higher Ed’s requests for comment Monday about why DeWine signed this bill into law.

    In Kentucky, the Democratic governor didn’t go along with the legislature, vetoing an anti-DEI bill. But Republicans overrode Gov. Andy Beshear.

    Bucking Beshear

    Kentucky’s House Bill 4 bans what that legislation defines as DEI offices, employees and training in public colleges and universities, as well as the use of affirmative action in hiring and in deciding scholarships and vendor selection. It also affects curricula by barring institutions from requiring courses whose “primary purpose is to indoctrinate participants with a discriminatory concept.”

    The new law generally defines a “discriminatory concept” as one that “justifies or promotes differential treatment or benefits” for people based on “religion, race, sex, color or national origin.” It broadly characterizes DEI as promoting a discriminatory concept. And it defines “indoctrinate” as imbuing or attempting to “imbue another individual with an opinion, point of view or principle without consideration of any alternative.”

    Additionally, under the new law, the Council on Postsecondary Education, which oversees Kentucky’s public colleges and universities, can’t approve new degrees or certificates that require courses or trainings primarily intended to “indoctrinate” with discriminatory concepts. And it encourages the council to eliminate current academic programs that contain such requirements.

    Beshear vetoed House Bill 4 on March 19 and defended diversity programs, adding that the legislation attempts to “control how universities and colleges meet the needs of their students and prepare them for their future.”

    “Acting like racism and discrimination no longer exist or that hundreds of years of inequality have been somehow overcome and there is a level playing field is disingenuous,” Beshear added. “History may look at this time and this bill as part of the anti–civil rights or pro-discrimination movement. Kentucky should not be a part of that movement.”

    On Thursday, the Kentucky House voted 79 to 19 to override this veto, and the Senate voted 32 to 6.

    Beshear also vetoed another bill, House Bill 424, which required institutions to evaluate president and faculty “productivity” at least once every four years using a board-approved process. Presidents or faculty who fail performance and productivity metrics could lose their jobs, under the bill. Beshear wrote in his veto message that the legislation “threatens academic freedom.”

    “In a time of increased federal encroachment into the public education, this bill will limit employment protections of our postsecondary institution teachers” and the state’s “ability to hire the best people,” he wrote. Lawmakers overrode him with an 80-to-20 House vote and a 29-to-9 Senate vote.

    Amy Reid, Freedom to Learn senior manager at PEN America, a free speech and academic freedom advocacy group, said in an email that the new Ohio and Kentucky laws “are not only significant blows to public higher education, but also reflect a galling disregard for the voters, educators and students in these states.”

    “Ohioans were massively organized in their opposition to SB 1, with hundreds of citizens coming to the capital to testify against the bill,” Reid said. “The legislature ignored them and so did Governor DeWine.” She said there was also “strong opposition across Kentucky” to the new laws there.

    But Tom Young, chairman of the Ohio House Workforce and Higher Education Committee, said he had heard support for the legislation from students and faculty who were concerned about speaking up. He said DEI had become “a tool for dividing people,” and most opposition to SB 1 that he heard regarded its anti-strike and post-tenure review provisions.

    “I don’t believe that any of these professors are concerned about the classroom,” Young said of faculty upset about the new law.

    Source link

  • University of Michigan scraps multimillion dollar DEI investment

    University of Michigan scraps multimillion dollar DEI investment

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

       Dive Brief:

    • The University of Michigan has scrapped its multimillion dollar university-wide strategic plan to promote diversity, equity and inclusion amid increasing pressure from the Trump administration on the sector. 
    • With the move, the public flagship shuttered two equity-focused offices — its Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and Office for Health Equity and Inclusion — and ended all DEI programming and spending, according to the Thursday announcement. 
    • The student services provided by the DEI office will be housed under different unnamed departments. And employees who led DEI efforts will “refocus their full effort on their core responsibilities,” university leadership said. They did not say if the restructuring would result in layoffs.

    Dive Insight:

    In Thursday’s announcement, President Santa Ono and other university leaders cited President Donald Trump’s flurry of executive orders attacking DEI efforts and the U.S. Department of Education’s resulting Dear Colleague letter.

    Many universities across the country have already caved under the Trump administration’s pressure. But the University of Michigan’s compliance represents a significant victory for the White House.

    In fall 2023, the public flagship launched its DEI 2.0 Strategic Plan, a five-year blueprint even longer in the making.

    “The university’s DEI efforts are a perpetual work in progress, and we are committed to this ongoing journey and one where we never reach our destination,” the plan’s webpage said. It describes the plan as a “campuswide effort engaging all levels of the university”

    In total, the university spent some $250 million dollars on diversity efforts, according to Regent Jordan Acker.

    But Acker and other critics have argued that the investment did not result in the desired outcome. 

    “The population of minority students at UM has grown little — and much of the resources we’ve devoted to these efforts has gone into administrative overhead, not outreach to students,” he said in a Thursday statement on social media.

    Before the launch of the university’s first DEI strategic plan, it faced a years-long struggle boosting Black enrollment, to the dissatisfaction of students and administration alike.

    In 2023, 14.1% of Michigan residents were Black, according to federal data. That fall, just 4.6% of the university’s students were Black.

    Acker described the elimination of the university’s DEI efforts as a means of focusing resources on programs of “real impact,” such as the university’s Go Blue Guarantee, which offers free and reduced tuition to qualifying Michigan residents.

    In its announcement this week, the university spotlighted Go Blue and its Wolverine Pathways program — which works with K-12 students in under-resourced communities — when touting its student successes.

    Among undergraduates, first-generation students have increased 46% and Pell Grant recipients by about 32% since 2016, university leaders said Thursday, attributing the growth to those two programs.

    The University of Michigan also said Thursday it will expand another student success program designed for undergraduates who are former foster care youths or are “navigating their educational journey without the support of their parents or guardians.”

    Because those initiatives do not explicitly mention diversity or race, they are set to survive the university’s purge of programs.

    Not all will be so lucky.

    Among its many DEI programs, the University of Michigan oversees the National Center for Institutional Diversity, the Diversity Scholars Network, and a public safety task force dedicated to addressing structural racism in policing.

    The university’s general counsel will be conducting an “expedited review” of all institutional policies, programs and practices to ensure compliance with the Trump administrations’ orders, according to Thursday’s announcement.

    Additionally, all departments are expected to ensure their webpages are in compliance and “reflect the status of current programmatic directions” at the university.

    “These decisions have not been made lightly,” Ono said Thursday. “We recognize the changes are significant and will be challenging for many of us, especially those whose lives and careers have been enriched by and dedicated to programs that are now pivoting.”

    Additionally, the university’s Alumni Association this month ended LEAD Scholars, a 16-year-old merit scholarship for admitted students who exemplify “leadership, excellence, achievement, and diversity.” The group cited the same federal pressures as university leaders.

    In an email Thursday, the head of the university’s faculty senate called the move to dismantle DEI infrastructure an “assault on the democratic values of public education and attacks on marginalized students, staff, and faculty.”

    Senate Chair Rebekah Modrak lambasted the Trump Administration as using “the power of the government to engineer a sweeping culture change towards white supremacy.”

    “Unfortunately, University of Michigan leaders seem determined to comply and to collaborate in our own destruction,” she said. “There are legal recourses that the university and university associations can and must take.”

    The faculty senate held a closed emergency meeting Friday for university employees and students to discuss next steps.

    This isn’t the first move against DEI the university has taken.

    In December, the University of Michigan eliminated the use of diversity statements from the hiring, promotion or tenure processes. A faculty working group recommended the change, but it also advised the university to ask instructors to incorporate information about their DEI efforts into their teaching, research and service statements.

    Michigan’s administration did not enact the second recommendation at the time, and such actions are now banned following Thursday’s announcement.

    Sarah Hubbard, a regent on the University of Michigan’s board and a consistent opponent of DEI efforts, praised the cancellations.

    “Ending DEI programs will also allow us to better expand diversity of thought and free speech on our campus. The end of litmus test hiring and curtailment of speech stops now,” Hubbard said in a Thursday social media post.   

    Source link

  • No Safe State: Former DEI Employee Says to Look for the Red Flags

    No Safe State: Former DEI Employee Says to Look for the Red Flags

    Dr. Nicole DelMastro-Jeffery, former executive director for the DEI and Belonging office and Title IX coordinator at Richland Community College.On January 21, one day after his inauguration, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order he called “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” instructing federal agencies to end diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices and programs.

    The very next day, Dr. Nicole DelMastro-Jeffery, executive director for the DEI and Belonging office and Title IX coordinator at Richland Community College in Decatur, Illinois, was let go from her non-federal position.

    In a sense, DelMastro-Jeffery’s story is familiar. State legislatures across the country have introduced and passed laws curbing DEI at educational institutions, even before Trump issued his order. Since then, a growing number of DEI offices have either shuttered or reorganized, and DEI-focused employees have been dismissed or had their roles changed.

    But Illinois has no anti-DEI laws established, despite some competing bills introduced on the House and Senate floor. On February 7, State Sen. Andrew S. Chesney introduced SB2288, calling for the abolishment of DEI programs in departments of the state government. Conversely, on January 29, State Rep. Sonya M. Harper filed HR0077, a bill to affirm DEI programs in local, state, federal, educational and other institutions.

    According to DelMastro-Jeffery, in early 2024 when the Biden-Harris administration issued a new Dear Colleague letter which expanded Title IX for the further protection of women and transgender individuals, Richland moved toward implementing those changes. However, by December 2024, she said that Richland “quickly rolled back to the 2020 legislation.”

    “Ultimately,” she said, “Going back to 2020 legislative measures decreased protections, not only for transgender community members but women as well.”

    For DelMastro-Jeffery, the institutional waffling between Title IX regulations was a red flag, one that should be heeded by other DEI professionals and institutions working to preserve their DEI programs.

    “We have rarely considered the legal ramifications of separate laws and how their implementation and adjustments may in fact serve as awareness flags of next moves, like that of chess match players,” she said. “It is my belief that this federal injunction or swift rollback of expanded 2024 Title IX protections should have served as an immediate wakeup call to our DEI community.”

    DelMastro-Jeffery arrived at Richland fresh off an internship with the Biden-Harris administration. She said she was thrilled at the chance to apply all she had learned to a rural college environment. Her dismissal, she said, “felt like a triple backlash to both my former public service work, status as a woman of color in higher education, and DEI executive leader.”

    Paulette Granberry Russell, CEO and president of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE), said the attacks on DEI, including Trump’s order, have continued to demonize it, stripping all meaning from the acronym. She intentionally uses the words “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” instead of DEI.

    Paulette Granberry Russell, CEO and president of NADOHE.Paulette Granberry Russell, CEO and president of NADOHE.Granberry Russell said she is “disappointed by the failure of institutions that over-complied to the threats to diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, rather than taking a stand to say these efforts are not divisive.”

    The misinformation disseminated through anti-DEI laws and orders have produced significant misunderstanding in the public sphere, “that somehow efforts associated with advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion is unlawful. That is not the case,” said Granberry Russell.

    “We’re seeing what I often refer to as a ‘chilling effect,’ where institutions are preemptively scaling back diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts due to political pressure or fear of litigation,” said Granberry Russell.

    NADOHE is the lead plaintiff in a federal lawsuit filed by Democracy Forward, a national legal organization of litigators, policy makers, regulators and public educators working to advance democracy. The suit was filed against the Trump Administration in early February calling Trump’s attack on DEI unconstitutional.

    Granberry Russell acknowledged that, since the legislation and executive order, many DEI officers and employees have lost their roles. But she does not know how many, as there is no national database tracking these changes.

    DelMastro-Jeffery said “this experience has illuminated, for me, the intersection between gender, leadership values, and the importance of pressing on.”

    She continued, “Amid the growing dismissal of DEI programming, now diluted to words on a website, we would be negligent to forget the value of diversity and how the world, including systems of education, thrives on it.”

    Richland leadership did not respond to requests for comment. Their website still hosts a page for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Belonging and Accessibility, which affirms these as a “core institutional value.”

    Source link

  • University of Michigan Axes DEI

    University of Michigan Axes DEI

    The University of Michigan announced Thursday that it will essentially eliminate all diversity, equity and inclusion efforts on its campus. That includes shuttering two diversity offices, the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and the Office for Health Equity and Inclusion, and ending its DEI 2.0 Strategic Plan.

    The changes come in response to federal anti-DEI actions, including executive orders and the Feb. 14 Dear Colleague letter, which declared all race-based programs in higher education illegal. Michigan’s decision was made in consultation with “various stakeholders regarding our DEI programs,” according to the announcement.

    The university said it plans to increase investments in student-facing programs, including financial aid, a scholarship program for former foster children and student success resources.

    The university has long been a champion of DEI efforts, funneling nearly $240 million into such programs over the past nine years, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, though some have critiqued the efforts for appearing to have little impact despite the big price tag.

    Source link

  • Columbia University, Mahmoud Khalil, DEI, law firms, and more

    Columbia University, Mahmoud Khalil, DEI, law firms, and more

    We explore how censorship is impacting institutions —
    from universities to law firms to the Maine House of
    Representatives.

    Timestamps:

    00:00 Intro

    01:40 Federal government cuts Columbia’s funding

    16:57 Updates on the Mahmoud Khalil case

    27:01 Ed Martin’s Georgetown letter

    34:59 Trump targeting law firms

    55:01 Maine House censure of Rep. Laurel Libby

    01:03:37 Outro

    Guests:

    – Will
    Creeley    , FIRE’s legal director

    – Conor
    Fitzpatrick    , FIRE’s supervising senior attorney

    – Lindsie
    Rank    , FIRE’s director of campus rights advocacy

    Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and
    get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and
    more. If you became a FIRE Member
    through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to
    Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email
    sotospeak@thefire.org.

    Show notes:

    – “DOJ,
    HHS, ED, and GSA announce initial cancelation of grants and
    contracts to Columbia University worth $400 million    ” U.S.
    Department of Justice (2025)

    –
    HHS, ED, and GSA follow up letter to Columbia    . U.S.
    Department of Health & Human Services, U.S. Department of
    Education, U.S. Government Services Administration (2025)

    – “Columbia
    yields to Trump in battle over federal funding    ” The Wall
    Street Journal (2025)

    – “Advancing
    our work to combat discrimination, harassment, and antisemitism at
    Columbia    ” Columbia University (2025)

    – “Columbia
    caves to feds — and sets a dangerous precedent    ” FIRE
    (2025)

    – “ED,
    HHS, and GSA Respond to Columbia University’s Actions to Comply
    with Joint Task Force Pre-Conditions    ” U.S. Department of
    Education (2025)

    – “FIRE
    demands answers from Trump admin officials on arrest of Mahmoud
    Khalil    ” FIRE (2025)

    – “Brief
    of Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary
    Injunction – Khalil v. Joyce    ” FIRE (2025)

    – “We will be
    revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in
    America so they can be deported.    ” Secretary of State Marco
    Rubio via X (2025)

    – “‘ICE proudly
    apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a radical foreign
    Pro-Hamas student on the campus of @Columbia University. This is
    the first arrest of many to come.    ‘ President Donald J.
    Trump” The White House via X (2025)

    – “WATCH: White
    House downplays stock market declines as ‘a snapshot’    ” PBS
    NewsHour (2025)

    – “Secretary
    Rubio’s remarks to the press    ” U.S. Department of State
    (2025)

    – “Mahmoud
    Khalil. Notice to appear.    ” Habeeb Habeeb via X (2025)

    – “Alien
    and Sedition Acts    ” National Archives (1798)

    –
    Ed Martin’s letter to Georgetown Law Dean William Treanor    .
    (2025)

    –
    Dean Treanor’s response to Ed Martin.     (2025)

    – “Trump,
    Perkins Coie and John Adams    ” The Wall Street Journal
    (2025)

    – “Suspension
    of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government
    Contracts    ” The White House (2025)

    – “Addressing
    Risks from Perkins Coie LLP    ” The White House (2025)

    – “Addressing
    risks from Paul Weiss    ” The White House (2025)

    – “Lawyers
    who anger the Feds face new penalties by decree    ” The CATO
    Institute (2025)

    – “Today,
    President Donald J. Trump agreed to withdraw his March 14, 2025
    Executive Order regarding the Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
    Garrison LLP law firm (‘Paul, Weiss’), which has entered into the
    following agreement with the President…    ” President Trump
    via TruthSocial (2025)

    – “Head
    of Paul, Weiss says firm would not have survived without deal with
    Trump    ” The New York Times (2025)

    – “House
    resolution relating to the censure of Representative Laurel D.
    Libby of Auburn by the Maine House of Representatives    ”
    Maine House of Representatives (2025)

    – “Maine’s
    censure of lawmaker for post about trans student-athlete is an
    attack on free speech    ” FIRE (2025)

    – “Maine
    State Rep. Laurel Libby disagreed with biological males competing
    in women’s sports, and now, the Maine State House is censuring
    her.    ” Sen. Kennedy via X (2025)

    – “The
    open society and its enemies    ” Karl Popper (1945)

    – “Cyber
    rights: Defending free speech in the digital age    ” Mike
    Godwin (1995)

    Source link

  • Banning DEI Is Catastrophic for U.S. Science (opinion)

    Banning DEI Is Catastrophic for U.S. Science (opinion)

    Our scientific enterprise in the United States is the envy of the world. Top scientists from around the globe want to come to work here, specifically because of the environment that we have fostered over decades to support scientific innovation and intellectual freedom. Federal investment in research is one of the primary foundations upon which this extraordinarily successful system has been constructed.

    It is not simply the dollar amount of federal funding that makes this system so successful. It is also about how we allocate and distribute the funds. Long before “DEI” was common parlance, we made robust efforts to distribute funds broadly. For example, instead of concentrating funding only in the top research institutions, as many other countries do, we created programs such as EPSCoR (1979) to direct funding to support research and development throughout the entire country, including rural areas. This was done in recognition that excellence in research can be found anywhere that and colleges and universities serving rural and impoverished communities deserve to benefit from and contribute to the economic and scientific engine that the federal government can provide.

    The National Science Foundation also implemented Broader Impacts in its grant review process (originating in the 1960s and formalized in 1997). The goal of the NSF review criteria for broader impacts was to ensure that every federally funded project would have some benefit for society. These broader impacts could take a wide variety of forms, including but not limited to new tools and innovations, as well as efforts to grow the STEM workforce by supporting those historically and economically excluded from becoming scientists.

    Diversity, equity and inclusion funding is one of the mechanisms that we use to continue this legacy of equity in federal funding of scientific research. This approach has also helped reduce public mistrust of science and scientists—a mistrust attributable to science’s historical abuses—by ensuring that the benefits of scientific progress are shared widely and equitably and by making the work of scientists more transparent and accessible.

    Until fairly recently in history, science was primarily an activity for the wealthy. Training as a scientist requires many years of deferred salary, due to the extensive education and practical skill development needed to conduct independent research and start a laboratory. For those who make it through this training, research jobs can be scarce, and the salaries are not high, considering the highly specialized skills required and the high demands of the job. Many of the best and brightest minds have been excluded from the scientific process by this economic reality. Federal funding provides critical support for science workforce development, primarily through stipends and salaries for undergraduates, graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. These stipends ease (but do not erase) the economic burden of training as a scientist.

    When you hear “DEI in science,” this is largely what we are talking about. A vast portion of federal DEI funds in the sciences goes directly to support highly talented and accomplished trainees who have deferred their personal economic progress for the opportunity to contribute to science in the U.S. This wise national investment helps to ensure that our science workforce can recruit the most meritorious trainees, regardless of their economic backgrounds. Without these initiatives, our science workforce would be much smaller with a narrower set of perspectives. Our national investment in science training is not altruistic—it is the very reason why the U.S. is a global leader in science and technology. This leadership contributes to our nation’s safety and capacity to deal with the existential problems we now face.

    The framework of DEI recognizes that systemic economic and social injustices are present in our society, due to historical and contemporary realities such as slavery, Jim Crow, genocide of Native peoples, redlining, a broken immigration system, educational and health-care disparities, and discriminatory practices in housing and employment against nonwhite, disabled and LGBTQ+ communities. These disparities have resulted in a lack of intergenerational wealth and resources among many communities in the U.S., leading to unequal access to scientific training and careers.

    The claim, now made by our federal government, that a meritocracy can be achieved by ignoring these injustices is simply false and illogical. DEI is not only about diversity training and hiring practices. In the sciences, it is essential and existential to the goal of developing the most robust, talented and highly skilled science workforce in the world.

    With Executive Order 14151, issued by the Trump administration, this funding is under attack, undoing decades of progress that have fostered some of the most talented and brilliant minds of our time. Rigorous training programs are being canceled, graduate students are losing their funding and the training of an entire generation of scientists is being jeopardized. Science will lose an extraordinary amount of talent, necessary for our nation’s industrial and economic leadership, because of this executive order.

    Furthermore, this removal of funding is being enacted on the basis of identity, effectively endorsing a form of government-imposed segregation of science. Advancements in science are often determined by the demography of those doing the science, and a diversity of perspectives and research questions is necessary for scientific innovation. For example, sickle cell disease is chronically underfunded and underresearched, despite the severity of the disease, likely because it affects descendants of people from regions with high instances of malaria, including many African Americans. Indeed, some scientific breakthroughs and technologies may never materialize or be greatly delayed due to the exclusion of talented individuals on the basis of their identity. This is a fundamental threat to scientific progress and academic freedom.

    The federal banning of DEI programs is a slap in the face to every person who has struggled to become a scientist in the face of systemic injustices. These trainees, past and present, have missed out on economic opportunities, deferred building their families and made many personal sacrifices so that they can create innovative solutions to our nation’s most pressing scientific and technological challenges. The creation of these DEI programs came from the extraordinary efforts of thousands of people, many of whom have overcome injustices themselves, working tirelessly across many decades so that the most meritorious and talented individuals all have an opportunity to succeed as scientists.

    Referring to these efforts as “shameful discrimination,” as the Trump administration has now done, is a cruel attempt to destabilize the emotional well-being of everyone who has created and been supported by these essential programs. It is an example of blaming the victims of past and ongoing injustice for their plight in society, rather than working to dismantle the systems that perpetuate inequality and limit access to a fair and just future, where a true meritocracy in science becomes possible.

    We believe that the efforts to ban, diminish and misrepresent DEI and diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility programs should be immediately stopped and reversed to avoid the most serious negative impacts of these new policies. Removal of DEI programs will demoralize and disincentivize an entire generation of scientists in training. It will greatly reduce the scientific workforce and remove top talent from our training programs as funding mechanisms are dismantled.

    Our graduate students, undergraduates, postdoctoral fellows and other early-career scientists are those most greatly impacted by the removal of this support. This will severely jeopardize the status of the U.S. as a global leader in science, and the catastrophic impacts will be felt for decades. We stand by those most affected by the DEI ban, especially our trainees, and we demand an immediate reinstatement of DEI funding.

    We are speaking out using the speech and intellectual freedoms afforded to us by the U.S. academic system and the U.S. Constitution. We are calling on our institutions to stand with us in defense of DEI in science. Institutions and professional societies must reaffirm their own commitments to DEI. Some institutions have already made strong statements of reaffirmation of these values, but others have begun to remove their internal and external DEI initiatives pre-emptively. We understand the need for institutions to protect their employees and students from adverse consequences, but we argue that the consequences of dismantling diversity programs are much greater for our communities, as these steps usher in a new era of segregation in science and academia.

    We urge the public, our lawmakers and politicians to stand with us. We believe that DEI is foundational to science and an attack on DEI is an attack on the core of science itself in the United States.

    Joseph L. Graves Jr. is the MacKenzie Scott Endowed Professor of Biology and the director of the Genomic Research and Data Science Center for Computation and Cloud Computing at North Carolina A&T State University.

    Stacy C. Farina is an associate professor of biology at Howard University.

    Parvin Shahrestani is an associate professor of biological science at California State University, Fullerton.

    Vaughn S. Cooper is a professor of microbiology and molecular genetics at the University of Pittsburgh.

    Gilda A. Barabino is president and professor of biomedical and chemical engineering at Olin College of Engineering.

    Source link

  • DEI statements could function as ideological firewalls, new study finds

    DEI statements could function as ideological firewalls, new study finds

    Findings from my study — released as an issue brief by Manhattan Institute — provide the first available empirical evidence that DEI statements in faculty hiring and promotion could be used as political firewalls to enforce ideological conformity and screen out candidates who hold dissenting views.

    In the study, applicants who discussed having engaged in specific DEI-related efforts — such as building outreach programs targeting students and faculty of color or chairing a committee on race relations — received higher scores from faculty evaluators.

    All told, data from seven experimental studies involving 4,953 tenured/tenure-track university faculty together show that faculty exhibit a clear preference for DEI statements that discuss race/ethnicity and gender, while down-rating those that do not.

    Even if applicants began their statements by explicitly saying, “I have long been committed to equity, diversity, and inclusion,” and then detailed work on mentoring and outreach to students in rural communities — but not race-based or feminist efforts — they were far less likely to be recommended for further review.

    In fact, one of the studies found that only 45% of faculty who evaluated a viewpoint diversity DEI statement recommended advancing the candidate for further review, compared to 88% of faculty who recommended advancing the candidate who discussed race or gender-based efforts.

    FIRE has long argued that requiring DEI statements can too easily function as a political litmus test in hiring and promotion, forcing faculty to express prevailing ideological positions on DEI — or face the consequences. 

    Moreover, even among college and university faculty, opinions on DEI statements are mixed. In two different large national surveys, FIRE found that faculty were split on whether colleges should require DEI statements in job applications. 

    There are still many unexplored questions about DEI statements, and their future remains uncertain. That said, it remains to be seen whether DEI statements are being eliminated entirely by some institutions, or whether they are simply being rebranded. 

    But insofar as DEI statements function as a form of viewpoint discrimination disguised as an anti-discrimination initiative, colleges and universities should reconsider their continued use.

    FIRE has model legislation to prohibit the use of political litmus tests in faculty hiring, promotion, and tenure awards, and in student admissions at public institutions of higher education. 

    For more information about this work, please see the now available issue brief or the underlying academic pre-print.

    Source link

  • Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear vetoes bill to ban DEI at public colleges

    Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear vetoes bill to ban DEI at public colleges

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

    Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear on Thursday vetoed a bill aiming to ban the state’s public colleges from spending money on diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

    “We’ve worked hard to make our commonwealth a welcoming place,” the Democratic governor said in a social media post Thursday. “House Bill 4 takes us away from that. We should be embracing diversity, not banning it.”

    But Beshear’s veto will likely prove to be strictly symbolic, as the state’s Republican lawmakers hold a veto-proof supermajority. 

    State Rep. Josh Calloway, a co-sponsor of the bill, said Thursday that the Legislature plans to override Beshear’s veto next week and blasted the governor’s decision.

    “His veto of our bill to end DEI in colleges is nothing but political theater, and the people of Kentucky see right through it,” he posted on social media.

    The legislation — which offered exemptions for programs required by federal and state law — also seeks to bar colleges from requiring students to take classes that would “indoctrinate participants with a discriminatory concept,” which it defines as promoting “differential treatment or benefits conferred to individuals on the basis of religion, race, sex, color, or national origin.”

    And it would prohibit Kentucky’s higher education coordinating board from approving degree programs with such courses, as well as ban colleges from using diversity statements or requiring employees to undergo DEI training.

    The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky praised Beshear’s decision. 

    “Thank you, Governor, for recognizing that diversity makes us stronger, equity makes us fair, and inclusion is a Kentucky value,” the organization said on social media Thursday.

    Should the lawmakers enact the legislation, public colleges would have until the end of June to eliminate all DEI positions and offices.

    Kentucky colleges are facing attacks on DEI at the federal level as well.

    The University of Kentucky is one of more than 50 colleges facing investigations by the U.S. Department of Education over allegations that they offer programs with race-based restrictions.

    On Wednesday, university President Eli Capilouto said that his institution had minimal engagement with the The PhD Project, the organization at the center of the majority of the department’s probes. 

    Nevertheless, Capilouto said the University of Kentucky had formally cut ties with the group and will fully cooperate with the federal investigation. 

    The university previously eliminated its DEI center in August, citing looming state legislation.

    Source link