Tag: Education

  • Maine Parents, Educators Describe Trauma from Restraint and Seclusion – The 74

    Maine Parents, Educators Describe Trauma from Restraint and Seclusion – The 74


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

    Krystal Emerson never imagined her son would spend his days at school being forcibly moved against his will by school staff and shut in an empty room.

    But during the 2023-24 school year at Ellsworth Elementary-Middle School, that’s what happened — at least 18 times, according to Emerson and school district incident reports reviewed by the Maine Morning Star. Staff members put the 7-year-old boy in holds, forced him into empty rooms and did not let him out until he calmed down or his parents picked him up.

    “It broke him, and it broke me,” Emerson said.

    The trauma became so severe that her son, now a third grader, no longer attends school in person, she said.

    What happened to Emerson’s son is not an isolated case. Across Maine, schools use restraint and seclusion on students more than 10,000 times each year, according to Maine Department of Education data — with some districts resorting to the emergency tactics regularly while others have changed policies and taken other steps so that such interventions are only used as a last resort.

    ​In recent years, Maine as a whole has made an effort to reduce restraint and seclusion in schools, particularly for students with disabilities, with the U.S. Department of Education citing staff and student injuries and the resulting trauma for students as the reasons to curtail their use. The department has also condemned and discouraged these practices for years under multiple presidential administrations. Rare cases have resulted in serious injuries to students and even death.

    A 2021 state law limits restraint and seclusion to emergencies. But as Maine educators report more challenging student behavior in the years since pandemic school closures, there have been calls to allow school staff to restrain and seclude children more often. A newly proposed bill would broaden the circumstances under which school staff could restrain or seclude students, igniting debate among educators, parents and lawmakers about how to manage student behavior without inflicting harm.

    The Maine Education Association and the Maine School Management Association, representing teachers and administrators statewide, both support the proposal, citing increased reports of disruptive and violent student behavior — something educators nationwide have also reported in recent years.

    The Gardiner-area school system, Maine School Administrative District (MSAD) 11, has led the push for that proposal. Victoria Duguay, principal of River View Community School in Gardiner, and MSAD 11 Superintendent Patricia Hopkins shared stories with lawmakers of students who hit and spit at adults, scream in hallways, throw chairs and destroy other students’ schoolwork.

    Under the 2021 state law, school staff can only restrain students (immobilize them and move them against their will) or seclude them (isolate them in a room that they can’t leave) if their behavior “poses an imminent danger of serious physical injury” — requiring medical intervention beyond first aid, according to the Maine Department of Education regulations that govern restraint and seclusion.

    “Staff are being hit, they’re being bit, but it doesn’t meet the threshold of serious imminent danger, because a 5-year-old isn’t going to [cause] an injury that requires medical care,” Hopkins said during an April 23 public hearing.

    This extreme behavior, when it happens in a public place at school, traumatizes other students who witness it, Duguay said. The school sometimes has to close off access to common spaces — the gym or cafeteria — if a student acts out in a hallway through which students would need to pass.

    Under the legislation MSAD 11 is supporting, staff would be able to move students against their will to a seclusion room or another quiet space without it counting as a restraint, which districts have to record, document, and report to the state.

    But some educators who have pursued alternative training don’t agree that loosening restraint and seclusion requirements is the answer.

    “The consequences of passing this bill will only inflict more trauma on students,” said Audrey Bartholomew, associate professor and coordinator of special education programs at the University of New England, who trains special education teachers. “Additionally, the behavior will keep happening, because restraint and seclusion is not an appropriate response to challenging behavior, and it will in no way help students remediate their behavior. These should not be referred to as strategies, treatments or solutions.”

    Inside the three-hour restraint and seclusion of a 7-year-old

    In October 2023, Emerson’s son started a behavior plan to help with concentration and self-regulation. The plan, which Emerson shared with the Maine Morning Star, highlighted the mother’s concerns about her son’s anger, dysregulation, anxiety and ADHD, and noted Emerson’s finding that occupational therapy had helped her son better regulate.

    One week after the plan was put into place, the boy arrived at Ellsworth Elementary-Middle School already agitated, hit another student with a Pete the Cat stuffed animal and tried to leave the classroom, setting off a series of escalating interventions in which staff physically restrained him, relocated him against his will, and ultimately placed him in a small room where he stayed until his father arrived, according to incident reports shared with the Maine Morning Star.

    The reports, which staff or administrators are required to write, offer an inside look at the behavior leading up to the restraint, how the situation escalated as staff restrained and secluded the boy, and how it continued for three hours, ending when Seth Emerson picked his son up from a seclusion room.

    When the second grader initially tried to leave his classroom, two educators cornered the boy in a hallway nook, according to the report written by the school’s assistant principal. When he tried to push past them, they placed a mat between themselves and the child to block him from hitting them, and initiated the first of several physical holds. Each time he was released, he briefly calmed down but didn’t follow directions to sit still or stay in a designated spot, prompting a cycle: he would attempt to flee, staff would block him, the boy would resist, and staff would restrain him again, the report says.

    About an hour in, while hiding in a locker, he asked to go home. A staff member moved him to a classroom, where he hid under a desk, retrieved rocks from his backpack, and threw them at staff, the report said. While the report described the projectiles as rocks, Emerson said her son had pebbles in his backpack.

    Two hours in, staff called his parents. Even after he calmed down, they placed him in a seclusion room — referred to as a “quiet room” in the report — where they continued telling him to sit in a specific spot. When his father arrived, the boy walked out on his own, calm and cooperative.

    Incidents like that continued for several more months for reasons that Emerson said did not warrant these measures: After he pulled books off shelves, punched a door, or refused to accompany staff to a quiet room, staff would put him in a physical hold or placed him in a room alone, according to a complaint Emerson filed with the district.

    “I never condoned any of the behavior, whether he was throwing a book or whether he was yelling or running out of the classroom,” she said. “But he was not getting any education whatsoever last year. He was literally just going to school and being restrained and secluded.”

    Frequent seclusions push an educator to quit

    It’s not only students and their families who feel the trauma from restraints and seclusion. The educators who are told to put their hands on children feel it, too, several current and former teachers and education technicians told the Maine Morning Star.

    Ashley Rose took a job as an ed tech at SeDoMoCha Elementary School in Dover-Foxcroft in August while working toward a degree in special education. But after months of witnessing staff placing students in empty rooms as they screamed and cried to be let out, she changed course.

    In March, Rose switched her major, deciding she no longer wanted to become a teacher. On April 28, she resigned, writing to Superintendent Stacy Shorey that she had repeatedly raised concerns with supervisors about the school’s frequent use of seclusion, the lack of staff training on student behavior, and the absence of alternatives — without seeing meaningful change.

    SeDoMoCha Elementary School has “quiet rooms” located within special education classrooms — which Rose described as 10-by-6-foot rooms with no windows. Some have benches and one light, while others are entirely empty, she said. All the doors have windows in them so staff can monitor students.

    In her 10 years of working in special education, she has never seen such frequent use of quiet rooms, Rose said.

    In December, Rose found herself participating in her first seclusion. The student she was working with wasn’t physically aggressive, just loud, and Rose’s plan had been to escort her into the special education classroom — not the quiet room — to help her calm down.

    The student went with her voluntarily but was crying, she said. When they got to the classroom, another staff member who had worked at the school longer said it was part of that student’s behavior plan to go to the quiet room.

    “That wasn’t my plan,” Rose said. “That room scares me just looking at it as an adult.”

    As the student became more agitated, Rose said her own anxiety rose. If the student didn’t calm down, the other employee told Rose she had to shut the door. Rose complied, and then her colleague told her to hold the door shut with her foot to keep the student inside, she said.

    Inside the room, the student began having what appeared to be an anxiety attack and threatened to break the window. She calmed down after about 20 minutes, and Rose let her out. Rose said she was not directed to file an incident report, nor was she told if someone else in the district did, despite the requirement in state law that districts document every seclusion.

    Over the holiday break that followed, Rose said she had trouble sleeping. “All I can think about is the student I put in that room,” she said. “School should be their safe place, and these students were not feeling safe.”

    Shorey, the superintendent, said staff members are required to report every incident, but she did not know about the particular incident Rose described. Special Education Director Sue Terrill said it’s possible that a staff member other than Rose wrote a report, but the district was unable to locate any documentation of that event.

    The district trains employees in safety care — crisis management and prevention practices — Terrill said. It is open to other trainings, too, she said, including one that Rose brought to Terrill’s attention in February offered by the Maine nonprofit Lives in the Balance, which other districts have used to dramatically reduce their reliance on restraint and seclusion.

    Quiet rooms present a gray area

    Rose said she saw staff members keep students in seclusion rooms even when they were calm, using those same rooms for a variety of reasons beyond seclusion, which is banned or strictly regulated in at least seven states, according to the MOST Policy Initiative, a Missouri nonprofit. Maine came close to banning the rooms in 2021, but the final version of the law was amended to allow their use in emergencies.

    Rose said she saw staff place students in quiet rooms to calm down after acting out, and then not allow them to exit for 20 minutes after they calmed down. If the seclusion happened at the end of the school day, sometimes the student would be expected to return to the quiet room the next day, she said.

    Terrill recalled Rose raising this as an issue but denied keeping students in the rooms after they calmed down and no longer met the legal threshold for confinement.

    But the district does use these rooms as timeout spaces, either by student choice or by staff direction, Terrill confirmed. Often, Terrill said, staff members are positioned outside the rooms, as they would be in a seclusion incident, but the student is typically free to leave the room, which is not the case in a seclusion.

    Sometimes, the door is open, or a student can choose to shut the door with a staff member standing outside, she said.

    “It can be the same room used if the student was in seclusion,” she said. “But if they’re taking a break because of something that happened, and that’s being used as a break space, the student might continue to work in there until they’re ready to go back to the classroom.”

    Like RSU 68 in Dover-Foxcroft, districts across Maine also use seclusion rooms as quiet spaces, according to Ben Jones, a former Disability Rights Maine attorney who now works for Lives in the Balance.

    “I think it’s actually more the rare case that the school is like, ‘We’re going to build this room and we’re going to call it the seclusion room, and it’s going to be used just for seclusion,’” he said.

    If a student has voluntarily shut themselves in the seclusion room with a staff member outside and is free to go at any time, it would not count as seclusion under Maine law, he said. But if staff members ask students to stay in there to complete their work, as Rose described, whether it would count as a seclusion that districts are required to report to the state is “open to interpretation,” Jones said.

    “The overall thing is, the kid is not learning, not in the classroom, in something that could easily turn into seclusion,” he said. “It’s inappropriate at best and potentially illegal if it’s an unrecorded seclusion.”

    When are students and staff in “imminent danger”?

    Education technicians like Rose — aides who often work with students one-on-one or in small groups — are often the ones handling student outbursts or potential violence, said Greg Kavanaugh, who spent 13 years working as an ed tech and special education teacher in Biddeford, Portland, and Yarmouth.

    Ed techs are among the lowest-paid professionals in education, and often the least trained — including on behavior management techniques.

    “They’re having to make good decisions about when to restrain, when to seclude, and their judgment is going to be really hard because they’re so stressed, overwhelmed, underpaid,” Kavanaugh said. “That just leads to more mistakes, more lapses in judgment.”

    In his experience, Kavanaugh said, restraint and seclusion were consistently treated as last-resort measures — used only in extreme situations.

    Staff received training on managing student behavior, they debriefed after restraints and seclusions, and they held regular conversations with parents, he said, which disability rights advocates recommend as best practices.

    But working in a functional life skills program with students with moderate to severe disabilities, Kavanaugh said, deciding whether to restrain or seclude a child was never easy despite clear protocols in place. Even when a student threw a laptop across the room or hit him, he had to determine whether the behavior posed an imminent danger of serious injury that would require medical intervention beyond first aid — the standard in Maine law — and only intervene physically if it did. He also had to keep calm if students hit him, he said, because that still did not meet the legal standard.

    Every time he did restrain or seclude a child, it stayed with him long after. He said he often questioned whether it had been the right call, thought about how families would respond, and considered the lasting effects the practice might have on the student — and on himself.

    “Anytime there was a hold, a restraint or a seclusion, you’re taking that home, and you’re thinking about that kid when you’re at home, trying to move on with your day,” he said. “I’m a pretty strong-willed person, but there are plenty of times I would quietly be in tears, or going home and having an extra glass of wine, because I’m just not processing it well in the aftermath.”

    Other students in the classroom witnessing these incidents are also traumatized, Kavanaugh said.

    “You see the terror on their classmates’ faces, and you feel bad for the kid in a certain way because this is going to hurt their relationships,” he said.

    But talking to parents afterward would always make him feel better, Kavanaugh said, because parents of students with disabilities are often dealing with similar behavior challenges at home.

    District response to a parental complaint

    Emerson, the parent in Ellsworth, complained to the school board, Superintendent Amy Boles, and the Maine Department of Education in August 2024, alleging that staff members had not met the legal threshold for using restraint and seclusion so often on her son.

    Boles wrote back in October, saying in cases where Emerson’s son was hitting, scratching, and kicking staff, “it is my conclusion that active behavior like this toward another person does create an ‘imminent danger’ that the other person could be sufficiently injured that he or she may need more than ‘routine first aid.’”

    “The incident may not in fact have caused an injury requiring that level of care, but a reasonable and prudent person could reasonably conclude that this could occur,” Boles wrote in her letter, reviewed by Maine Morning Star.

    But the investigation the district launched in response to Emerson’s complaint found that staff had improperly restrained and secluded her son in at least five of the 18 incidents to which his mother objected. Some incident reports were also vaguely written, Boles wrote, which was the case for the three-hour incident in October 2023 — making it difficult to determine whether restraints and seclusion were warranted.

    Nonetheless, Boles concluded in her letter to Emerson that all staff need training on the proper use of restraint and seclusion, and she agreed the district should rely on the practice less often.

    Boles declined to comment on the investigation or specific incidents, but said district staff have undergone an initial training with Lives in the Balance, and followup trainings are planned.

    “Behavior is an issue across the board. I mean, it’s skyrocketing everywhere. It’s not just Ellsworth,” she said. “But we’re working really hard to try to be preventative before it gets to that extreme state, trying to teach staff day-to-day strategies to prevent the behavior before it escalates.”

    Emerson said her son is still visibly shaken every time he passes by the school, or even when someone mentions the word “school” around him.

    On April 23, she testified at a public hearing, telling Maine lawmakers restraint and seclusion in public schools must stop. The day before, her son had said he was still afraid to go to school in person.

    “His world has become so small since these events, he rarely leaves our home,” she said. “Everyone continues about their day, and yet I’m left to pick up the pieces.”

    Maine Morning Star is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maine Morning Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Lauren McCauley for questions: [email protected].


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

    Source link

  • Preliminary Injunction Halts Dismantling of the Department of Education (Todd Wolfson, AAUP)

    Preliminary Injunction Halts Dismantling of the Department of Education (Todd Wolfson, AAUP)

    We got great news yesterday: In a suit we brought with Democracy Forward, the AFT, and other allies in the labor movement, a district court in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction halting the Trump administration’s unlawful effort to dismantle the Department of Education. 

    The massive reduction in force proposed by the administration would decimate crucial services the department provides to families across the country, severely limit access to education, and eviscerate funding for HBCUs and tribal colleges.

    We can’t do this work without your support. Will you become a member or make a donation to the AAUP Foundation today?

    Here’s some background on the case. In March, after having repeatedly expressed a desire to eliminate the Department of Education, the Trump administration announced a reduction in force that would cut its staff in half. Recognizing that the department was created by an act of Congress and was mandated to carry out a number of statutorily required programs, the administration claimed that it was not trying to eliminate the department but rather was seeking to improve “efficiency” and “accountability.”

    The court definitively rejected this claim, saying that the “defendants’ true intention is to effectively dismantle the Department without an authorizing statute. . . . A department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all. This court cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the Department’s employees are continuously fired and units are transferred out until the Department becomes a shell of itself.”

    The court also highlighted the impact of the cuts on students, educational institutions, and unions. For example, the court found that “higher education is also likely to become more expensive for students” as the staffing cuts “will put federal funding for Pell grants, work-study programs and subsidized loans at risk, reducing the pool of students able to attend college and posing an existential threat to many state university systems such as those intended to serve first generation college students.”

    The court found that the administration had violated two clauses of the US Constitution, and that its actions were beyond its authority as well as arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, the court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the department to reinstate staff and resume operations disrupted by the cuts.

    Perhaps because of skepticism about the administration’s willingness to follow directives of the judiciary, the court specifically required that the administration provide notice of this order of preliminary injunction within twenty-four hours to all its officers, and that it “file a status report with this Court within 72 hours of the entry of this Order, describing all steps the Agency Defendants have taken to comply with this Order, and every week thereafter until the Department is restored to the status quo prior to January 20, 2025.”

    What’s next: It is almost certain that the administration will appeal this decision and will likely seek to have the preliminary injunction stayed by the court of appeals while the case is pending.

    Trump’s agenda is a clear path to setting America back in quality and fairness in education. The AAUP will continue to stand up against these attacks and fight for a higher education system that serves all Americans. We can’t do it without you.

    Please join us as a member or make a donation today!

    In solidarity,
    Todd Wolfson, AAUP President
    Veena Dubal, AAUP General Counsel

    Source link

  • Harvard Sues to Protect International Enrollment

    Harvard Sues to Protect International Enrollment

    International students make up more than one-quarter of Harvard’s student body.

    APCortizasJr/iStock Unreleased/Getty Images

    Less than a day after having its ability to host international students revoked by the federal government, Harvard University successfully sued the Trump administration to block the move. A judge granted a temporary restraining order late Friday morning.

    Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced Thursday afternoon that the Trump administration had stripped Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification in a letter that vaguely accused Harvard of a “failure to adhere to the law.” 

    However, the letter did not name any specific violations of the law by Harvard.

    On Friday morning, Harvard threw a legal counterpunch, filing a lawsuit challenging the revocation of SEVP certification and seeking a temporary restraining order to halt the action, which could cost Harvard to suddenly lose more than 6,000 students if they are unable to enroll. (International enrollment typically makes up about a quarter of Harvard’s head count.) Beyond blocking new enrollments, the revocation would require current international students to transfer. 

    Harvard president Alan Garber blasted the SEVP revocation as “unlawful and unwarranted” and said it was a punitive effort by the Trump administration in response to Harvard’s rejection of demands to reform governance, admissions, hiring processes and more following allegations of antisemitism and harassment that stemmed from pro-Palestinian protests last year. (Harvard filed a separate lawsuit pushing back on those demands last month, prompting the Trump administration to retaliate by freezing $2.7 billion in grants and contracts, or about a third of its federal research funding.)

    “It imperils the futures of thousands of students and scholars across Harvard and serves as a warning to countless others at colleges and universities throughout the country who have come to America to pursue their education and fulfill their dreams,” Garber wrote in a message to campus.

    He added, “We will do everything in our power to support our students and scholars.”

    Harvard’s lawsuit echoed Garber’s points in an even sharper tone, accusing the federal government of blatantly violating the First Amendment and Harvard’s due process rights.

    “With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body, international students who contribute significantly to the University and its mission,” lawyers representing Harvard argued in Friday’s early-morning legal filing.

    Harvard’s lawsuit named DHS, Noem and other officials within the department as defendants, as well as the U.S. Departments of Justice and State and agency leaders.

    Assistant DHS secretary Tricia McLaughlin fired back at Harvard in a response to Inside Higher Ed.

    “This lawsuit seeks to kneecap the President’s constitutionally vested powers under Article II. It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. The Trump administration is committed to restoring common sense to our student visa system; no lawsuit, this or any other, is going to change that. We have the law, the facts, and common sense on our side,” she wrote.

    Another Legal Setback

    A judge swiftly agreed with Harvard’s argument, signing off on the temporary restraining order to prevent revocation of the university’s SEVP certification within hours of the lawsuit being filed.

    In a brief opinion, a district court judge in Massachusetts wrote in response to Harvard’s legal filing that the temporary restraining order was “justified to preserve the status quo.” The judge blocked DHS from stripping SEVP certification, at least temporarily, and granted a hearing. 

    A date for the hearing was not specified in court documents.

    The temporary restraining order is one of multiple legal setbacks the Trump administration has faced recently as it has sought to pull student visas over minor infractions (and for constitutionally protected speech), cap federal research funding reimbursement rates, and slash staff at the Department of Education and other agencies. Many of those efforts face ongoing challenges.

    On Thursday, for example, a federal judge barred the Trump administration from firing thousands of Department of Education employees as part of a sweeping reduction of force.

    The federal government has already appealed that decision.

    ‘Do This Everywhere’

    The Trump administration’s latest action against Harvard prompted broad condemnation from academics and free speech groups, who argued that the federal government did not follow legal processes for stripping SEVP certification and had ignored the university’s due process rights.

    “The administration has clearly targeted Harvard in recent months. In doing so, it has violated not only Harvard’s First Amendment rights, but also the rights of the university’s students and faculty,” the free speech group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression wrote in a Friday social media post. “We commend Harvard for standing up for itself. Free speech and academic freedom are essential to higher education. They are values worth fighting for.”

    Despite widespread concerns from academics and lawyers that stripping Harvard’s SEVP certification is not legal, multiple Republican officials have endorsed Noem’s actions.

    Rep. Randy Fine, a Republican who represents Florida and a member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, cheered on the move in a Friday appearance on FOX Business. Fine, a two-time Harvard graduate, said the Trump administration should “do this everywhere” amid concerns about antisemitic behavior and harassment on college campuses.

    Fine also took a dim view of international students exercising their First Amendment rights.

    “We should not be bringing people into America to get an education who hate us. They should be coming here to get an education, and frankly they should keep their mouths shut beyond that. I don’t go into someone else’s house and complain about it when I’m there,” Fine said.

    Source link

  • Harvard Wins Injunction to Protect International Enrollment

    Harvard Wins Injunction to Protect International Enrollment

    International students make up more than one-quarter of Harvard’s student body.

    APCortizasJr/iStock Unreleased/Getty Images

    Less than a day after having its ability to host international students revoked by the federal government, Harvard University successfully sued the Trump administration to block the move. A judge granted a temporary restraining order late Friday morning.

    Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced Thursday afternoon that the Trump administration had stripped Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification in a letter that vaguely accused Harvard of a “failure to adhere to the law.” 

    However, the letter did not name any specific violations of the law by Harvard.

    On Friday morning, Harvard threw a legal counterpunch, filing a lawsuit challenging the revocation of SEVP certification and seeking a temporary restraining order to halt the action, which could cost Harvard to suddenly lose more than 6,000 students if they are unable to enroll. (International enrollment typically makes up about a quarter of Harvard’s head count.) Beyond blocking new enrollments, the revocation would require current international students to transfer. 

    Harvard president Alan Garber blasted the SEVP revocation as “unlawful and unwarranted” and said it was a punitive effort by the Trump administration in response to Harvard’s rejection of demands to reform governance, admissions, hiring processes and more following allegations of antisemitism and harassment that stemmed from pro-Palestinian protests last year. (Harvard filed a separate lawsuit pushing back on those demands last month, prompting the Trump administration to retaliate by freezing $2.7 billion in grants and contracts, or about a third of its federal research funding.)

    “It imperils the futures of thousands of students and scholars across Harvard and serves as a warning to countless others at colleges and universities throughout the country who have come to America to pursue their education and fulfill their dreams,” Garber wrote in a message to campus.

    He added, “We will do everything in our power to support our students and scholars.”

    Harvard’s lawsuit echoed Garber’s points in an even sharper tone, accusing the federal government of blatantly violating the First Amendment and Harvard’s due process rights.

    “With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body, international students who contribute significantly to the University and its mission,” lawyers representing Harvard argued in Friday’s early-morning legal filing.

    Harvard’s lawsuit named DHS, Noem and other officials within the department as defendants, as well as the U.S. Departments of Justice and State and agency leaders.

    Assistant DHS secretary Tricia McLaughlin fired back at Harvard in a response to Inside Higher Ed.

    “This lawsuit seeks to kneecap the President’s constitutionally vested powers under Article II. It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. The Trump administration is committed to restoring common sense to our student visa system; no lawsuit, this or any other, is going to change that. We have the law, the facts, and common sense on our side,” she wrote.

    Another Legal Setback

    A judge swiftly agreed with Harvard’s argument, signing off on the temporary restraining order to prevent revocation of the university’s SEVP certification within hours of the lawsuit being filed.

    In a brief opinion, a district court judge in Massachusetts wrote in response to Harvard’s legal filing that the temporary restraining order was “justified to preserve the status quo.” The judge blocked DHS from stripping SEVP certification, at least temporarily, and granted a hearing. 

    A date for the hearing was not specified in court documents.

    The temporary restraining order is one of multiple legal setbacks the Trump administration has faced recently as it has sought to pull student visas over minor infractions (and for constitutionally protected speech), cap federal research funding reimbursement rates, and slash staff at the Department of Education and other agencies. Many of those efforts face ongoing challenges.

    On Thursday, for example, a federal judge barred the Trump administration from firing thousands of Department of Education employees as part of a sweeping reduction of force.

    The federal government has already appealed that decision.

    ‘Do This Everywhere’

    The Trump administration’s latest action against Harvard prompted broad condemnation from academics and free speech groups, who argued that the federal government did not follow legal processes for stripping SEVP certification and had ignored the university’s due process rights.

    “The administration has clearly targeted Harvard in recent months. In doing so, it has violated not only Harvard’s First Amendment rights, but also the rights of the university’s students and faculty,” the free speech group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression wrote in a Friday social media post. “We commend Harvard for standing up for itself. Free speech and academic freedom are essential to higher education. They are values worth fighting for.”

    Despite widespread concerns from academics and lawyers that stripping Harvard’s SEVP certification is not legal, multiple Republican officials have endorsed Noem’s actions.

    Rep. Randy Fine, a Republican who represents Florida and a member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, cheered on the move in a Friday appearance on FOX Business. Fine, a two-time Harvard graduate, said the Trump administration should “do this everywhere” amid concerns about antisemitic behavior and harassment on college campuses.

    Fine also took a dim view of international students exercising their First Amendment rights.

    “We should not be bringing people into America to get an education who hate us. They should be coming here to get an education, and frankly they should keep their mouths shut beyond that. I don’t go into someone else’s house and complain about it when I’m there,” Fine said.

    Source link

  • Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Executive Order to Close Education Department

    Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Executive Order to Close Education Department

    A federal judge in Massachusetts has issued a preliminary injunction halting President Donald Trump’s executive order to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, dealing a significant blow to the administration’s efforts to eliminate the federal agency.

    District Court Judge Myong J. Joun on last Thursday blocked Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon from carrying out the executive order and ordered the administration to reinstate approximately 1,300 Education Department employees who were terminated in March as part of a sweeping reduction-in-force.

    The ruling comes in response to consolidated lawsuits filed by a coalition of 20 states, the District of Columbia, educator unions, and school districts challenging the administration’s moves to shrink and eventually close the department.

    When Trump took office in January, the Education Department employed 4,133 workers. The reduction-in-force announced March 11 terminated more than 1,300 positions, while nearly 600 additional employees chose to resign or retire, leaving roughly 2,180 remaining staff—approximately half the department’s original size.

    In his ruling, Judge Joun wrote that “a department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all,” adding that the court “cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the Department’s employees are continuously fired and units are transferred out until the Department becomes a shell of itself.”

    The judge also prohibited Trump from transferring management of the federal student loan portfolio and special needs programs to other federal agencies, as the president had pledged to do from the Oval Office.

    Judge Joun determined that the Trump administration likely violated the separation of powers by taking actions that conflicted with congressional mandates. He noted the administration had failed to demonstrate that the staff reductions actually improved efficiency, writing that “the record is replete with evidence of the opposite.”

    The plaintiffs argued that the department could no longer fulfill critical duties, including managing the $1.6 trillion federal student loan portfolio serving roughly 43 million borrowers and ensuring colleges comply with federal funding requirements.

    The American Association of University Professors (AAUP), which joined the legal challenge alongside other educator groups, praised the ruling as a crucial victory for higher education access.

    “The AAUP is thrilled that District Judge Joun has blocked Trump’s illegal attempt to gut the Department of Education and lay off half of its workforce,” said AAUP President Dr. Todd Wolfson. “Eliminating the ED would hurt everyday Americans, severely limit access to education, eviscerate funding for HBCUs and TCUs while benefiting partisan politicians and private corporations looking to extract profit from our nation’s higher education system.”

    American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten called the decision “a first step to reverse this war on knowledge and the undermining of broad-based opportunity.”

    The Education Department’s deputy assistant secretary for communications, Madi Biedermann, criticized the ruling in a statement, calling Judge Joun a “far-left Judge” who “dramatically overstepped his authority” and vowed to “immediately challenge this on an emergency basis.”

    The case, Somerville Public Schools v. Trump, represents the consolidation of two separate lawsuits filed in March. Democracy Forward is representing the coalition of plaintiffs, which includes the AAUP, Somerville Public School Committee, Easthampton School District, Massachusetts AFT, AFSCME Council 93, and the Service Employees International Union.

    The ruling temporarily halts one of the Trump administration’s most ambitious efforts to reshape federal education policy, though the legal battle is expected to continue as the administration pursues its appeal.

    Source link

  • Empowering neurodiverse learners with AI-driven solutions

    Empowering neurodiverse learners with AI-driven solutions

    Key points:

    A traditional classroom is like a symphony, where every student is handed the same sheet music and expected to play in perfect unison. But neurodiverse learners are not able to hear the same rhythm–or even the same notes. For them, learning can feel like trying to play an instrument that was never built for them. This is where AI-powered educational tools step in, not as a replacement for the teacher, but as a skilled accompanist, tuning into each learner’s individual tempo and helping them find their own melody.

    At its best, education should recognize and support the unique ways students absorb, process, and respond to information. For neurodiverse students–those with ADHD, dyslexia, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and other learning differences–this need is especially acute. Traditional approaches often fail to take care of their varied needs, leading to frustration, disengagement, and lost potential. But with advances in AI, we have the opportunity to reshape learning environments into inclusive spaces where all students can thrive.

    Crafting personalized learning paths

    AI’s strength lies in pattern recognition and personalization at scale. In education, this means AI can adapt content and delivery in real time based on how a student is interacting with a lesson. For neurodiverse learners who may need more repetition, multi-sensory engagement, or pacing adjustments, this adaptability is a game changer.

    For example, a child with ADHD may benefit from shorter, interactive modules that reward progress quickly, while a learner with dyslexia might receive visual and audio cues alongside text to reinforce comprehension. AI can dynamically adjust these elements based on observed learning patterns, making the experience feel intuitive rather than corrective.

    This level of personalization is difficult to achieve in traditional classrooms, where one teacher may be responsible for 20 or more students with diverse needs. AI doesn’t replace that teacher; it augments their ability to reach each student more effectively.

    Recent research supports this approach–a 2025 systematic review published in the EPRA International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research found that AI-powered adaptive learning systems significantly enhance accessibility and social-emotional development for students with conditions like autism, ADHD, and dyslexia.

    Equipping educators with real-time insights

    One of the most significant benefits of AI tools for neurodiverse learners is the data they generate–not just for students, but for educators. These systems can provide real-time dashboards indicating which students are struggling, where they’re excelling, and how their engagement levels fluctuate over time. For a teacher managing multiple neurodiverse learners, these insights are crucial. Rather than relying on periodic assessments or observations, educators can intervene early, adjusting lesson plans, offering additional resources, or simply recognizing when a student needs a break.

    Imagine a teacher noticing that a student with ASD consistently disengages during word problems but thrives in visual storytelling tasks. AI can surface these patterns quickly and suggest alternatives that align with the student’s strengths, enabling faster, more informed decisions that support learning continuity.

    Success stories from the classroom

    Across the U.S., school districts are beginning to see the tangible benefits of AI-powered tools for neurodiverse learners. For instance, Humble Independent School District in Texas adopted an AI-driven tool called Ucnlearn to manage its expanding dyslexia intervention programs. The platform streamlines progress monitoring and generates detailed reports using AI, helping interventionists provide timely, personalized support to students. Since its rollout, educators have been able to handle growing caseloads more efficiently, with improved tracking of student outcomes.

    Meanwhile, Houston Independent School District partnered with an AI company to develop reading passages tailored to individual student levels and classroom goals. These passages are algorithmically aligned to Texas curriculum standards, offering engaging and relevant reading material to students, including those with dyslexia and other learning differences, at just the right level of challenge.

    The future of neurodiverse education

    The promise of AI in education goes beyond improved test scores or sleek digital interfaces, it’s about advancing equity. True inclusion means providing every student with tools that align with how they best learn. This could be gamified lessons that minimize cognitive overload, voice-assisted content to reduce reading anxiety, or real-time emotional feedback to help manage frustration. Looking ahead, AI-driven platforms could even support early identification of undiagnosed learning differences by detecting subtle patterns in student interactions, offering a new frontier for timely and personalized intervention.

    Still, AI is not a silver bullet. Its impact depends on thoughtful integration into curricula, alignment with proven pedagogical goals, and ongoing evaluation of its effectiveness. To be truly inclusive, these tools must be co-designed with input from both neurodiverse learners and the educators who work with them. The score is not yet finished; we are still composing. Technology’s real legacy in education will not be in algorithms or interfaces, but in the meaningful opportunities it creates for every student to thrive.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : HEI Investigation: Campus.edu

    Higher Education Inquirer : HEI Investigation: Campus.edu

    In a sector under constant strain, Campus.edu is being heralded by some as the future of community college—and by others as a slick repackaging of the troubled for-profit college model. What many don’t realize is that before it became Campus.edu, the company was known as MTI College, a private, for-profit trade school based in Sacramento, California.

    Campus.edu rebranded in 2020 under tech entrepreneur Tade Oyerinde, is backed by nearly $100 million in venture capital. Campus now markets itself as a tech-powered alternative to traditional community colleges—and a lifeline for students underserved by conventional higher ed.

    The rebranding, however, raises red flags. While Campus.edu pitches a student-first mission with attractive promises—zero-cost tuition, free laptops, elite educators—the model has echoes of the troubled for-profit sector, with privatization, outsourcing, and digital-first delivery taking precedence over public accountability and academic governance.

    The Promises: What Campus.edu Offers

    Campus.edu markets itself with a clean, six-step path to success. The pitch is aspirational, accessible, and designed to appeal to working-class students, first-generation college-goers, and those shut out of elite institutions. Here’s what the company promises:

    1. Straightforward Application – A simple application process, followed by matching with an admissions advisor who helps identify a student’s purpose and educational fit.

    2. Tech for Those Who Need It – A free laptop and Wi-Fi access for students who lack them, ensuring digital inclusion.

    3. Personal Success Coach – Each student is assigned a personal success coach, offering free tutoring, career advising, and 24/7 access to wellness services.

    4. Elite Educators – Courses are taught live via Zoom by faculty who also teach at top universities like Stanford and Columbia.

    5. Enduring Support – Whether transferring to a four-year college or entering the workforce, Campus promises help with building skills and networks.

    6. More Learning, Less Debt – For Pell Grant-eligible students, Campus markets its programs as costing nothing out-of-pocket, with some students completing degrees debt-free.

    It’s a compelling narrative—combining social mobility, digital access, and educational prestige into a neat online package.

    Behind the Curtain: MTI College and the For-Profit Legacy

    Campus.edu did not rise out of nowhere. It emerged from the bones of MTI College, a long-running, accredited for-profit vocational school. MTI offered hands-on training in legal, IT, cosmetology, and health fields—typical offerings in the for-profit world. The purchase and transformation of MTI into Campus.edu allowed Oyerinde to retain accreditation, avoiding the long and uncertain process of seeking approval for a brand-new college.

    This kind of maneuver—buying a for-profit and relaunching it under a new brand—is not new. We’ve seen similar strategies with Kaplan (now Purdue Global), Ashford (now the University of Arizona Global Campus), and Grand Canyon University. What makes Campus.edu unique is the degree to which it blends Silicon Valley aesthetics with the structural DNA of a for-profit college.

    Missing Data, Big Promises

    Campus.edu boasts high engagement and satisfaction, but as of now, no independent data on student completion, debt outcomes, or long-term career impact is publicly available. The company remains in its early stages, with aggressive growth goals and millions in investor backing—but little regulatory scrutiny.

    With investors like Sam Altman (OpenAI), Jason Citron (Discord), and Bloomberg Beta, the pressure to scale is intense. But scale can come at the expense of quality, especially when students are promised the moon.

    Marketing Meets Memory

    Campus.edu is savvy. Its marketing strikes all the right notes: digital equity, economic mobility, mental health, and student empowerment. It presents itself as the antidote to everything wrong with higher education.

    But as its past as MTI College shows, branding can obscure history. And as for-profit operators adapt to a new digital age, it’s essential to distinguish innovation from opportunism. Without transparency, regulation, and democratic oversight, models like Campus.edu could replicate the same old exploitation—with better user interfaces.

    The stakes are high. For students already at the margins, a false promise can be more damaging than no promise at all.

    Source link

  • Longtime Professor Offers Administrators Advice (opinion)

    Longtime Professor Offers Administrators Advice (opinion)

    I read articles constantly in various journals, including this one, on how to be successful in various administrative roles—department chair, dean, provost, president, etc. Most of these are addressed to institutions not at all like mine, and many of the pieces are facile.

    I am a senior faculty member bordering 50 years at a small private university of fewer than 900 undergrads and fewer than 500 graduate enrollments. I have held most leadership roles, won just about all the available honors and have had offers from other institutions as dean and vice president, among other roles. I have declined them all because I am at heart a classroom teacher and my dedication to my institution is inviolate.

    In my long tenure, I have seen many senior administrators come and go, and I have kept notes on the bad ones. Some left significant damage not easily repaired. Reflecting on a recently departed senior administrator inspired me to articulate some advice and a few rules for success or failure at institutions such as mine.

    1. Know the institution that you come to serve. This requires far more than a general overview; it necessitates a deep dive into the culture and nature of the place. Do not invoke the platitude “from my experience at other places, I have concluded …” Very large universities may reflect somewhat similar characteristics, but even that is questionable. However, institutions such as mine differ distinctively in their culture, including history, experiences, individuals and makeup. Learn all that you can about this before arriving, and once on campus devote the necessary time to knowing the individuals who are key players, especially those who through long service have shaped the character of the place.
      New administrators often privilege new members of the community, who, like them, are novices, in hopes that they will be more amenable to reshaping the environment. However, it is those with long history who are embedded in the culture and who have deep connections with many important constituencies, including peers, the Board of Trustees and alumni. A new administrator may believe that they have a mandate to change the culture. But traditions are the lifeblood of small institutions, and they don’t die readily. Supposed mandates can dissipate quickly. First gain trust before venturing into this potential minefield.
    2. If the institution is in such despair that immediate drastic action is imperative, ask yourself honestly if you can handle the responsibility of the challenge. Success may be ephemeral, and even if you achieve short-term goals, you may burn bridges that can continue to haunt you. My institution has not experienced existential travail, but some leaders during my tenure have exploited unease and trepidation, taking advantage of fears about salary stagnation, job reductions, benefits suspensions or even, in extreme cases, mentioning other college closings to promote their agendas. Academia today is precarious, and honesty is necessary, but fear is a poor leadership strategy.
    1. Put the institution above yourself. When you lose the trust of the community, it is merely a matter of time. No action is more damning for an administrator than résumé-building for the next position. Every action must be in the interests of the institution rather than one’s own benefit. Over 50 years, I have witnessed several leaders whose actions were so patently self-serving that I wished only that they would move away—whether up or down, I didn’t care. This is a character flaw. What one may consider as career enhancement can come at the expense and livelihood of my peers and colleagues.
      In my early days as an ambitious potential climber, my president counseled me, to privilege my personal career as I pursued the next step might be successful or not. But to privilege my institution with all my energy, talent and commitment would lead to a more fulfilling life. I didn’t appreciate the admonishment at the time, but I came to internalize it. I won’t impose this mindset on others, and personally I would be a wealthier man if I had acted differently, but it has provided a personal career satisfaction that far exceeds any material or ego considerations. My mantra is to “devote heart and soul to the institution to the day of departure, and even beyond.”
    1. Be honest, transparent, ethical and kind. Administrators often have to make hard decisions that drastically affect individual lives. You must act, but do so with integrity, empathy and kindness. Take responsibility for the decisions that you make; do not blame others or the situation for actions that you administer. Eschew pronouncements (which I have heard more than once) that “these actions are for better positioning the institution for long-term success.” That may be true, but tone-deaf remarks do not offer solace to individuals losing their careers for the institution’s “future well-being,” nor do they generally resonate well for institutional morale.
    2. Faculty and staff morale is fragile, particularly at small institutions such as mine. Compromising it is hazardous. Keep steadfast: Sincerity and trust should be your guiding principles. If people trust you, they will bear considerable pain. If they do not trust you, then you will fail no matter what your motives.

    The responsibility of leadership in the contemporary environment is a daunting undertaking. It demands skill, fortitude, courage, principles and character. From my long years of observations, many who carry significant titles do not demonstrate the requisite capabilities. One hopes that the few best practices expressed above may point toward some standards.

    Joe P. Dunn is the Charles A. Dana Professor and chair of the Department of History and Philosophy at Converse University.

    Source link

  • What AI Can’t Read: Ambiguities and Silences (opinion)

    What AI Can’t Read: Ambiguities and Silences (opinion)

    A year ago, I saw artificial intelligence as a shortcut to avoid deep thinking. Now, I use it to teach thinking itself.

    Like many educators, I initially viewed artificial intelligence as a threat—an easy escape from rigorous analysis. But banning AI outright became a losing battle. This semester, I took a different approach: I brought it into my classroom, not as a crutch, but as an object of study. The results surprised me.

    For the first time this spring, my students are not just using AI—they are reflecting on it. AI is not simply a tool; it is a mirror, exposing biases, revealing gaps in knowledge and reshaping students’ interpretive instincts. In the same way a river carves its course through stone—not by force, but by persistence—this deliberate engagement with AI has begun to alter how students approach analysis, nuance and complexity.

    Rather than rendering students passive consumers of information, AI—when engaged critically—becomes a tool for sharpening analytical skills. Instead of simply producing answers, it provokes new questions. It exposes biases, forces students to reconsider assumptions and ultimately strengthens their ability to think deeply.

    Yet too often, universities are focused on controlling AI rather than understanding it. Policies around AI in higher education often default to detection and enforcement, treating the technology as a problem to be contained. But this framing misses the point. The question in 2025 is not whether to use AI, but how to use it in ways that deepen, rather than dilute, learning.

    AI as a Tool for Deep Engagement

    This semester I’ve asked students to use AI in my seminar on Holocaust survivor testimony. At first glance, using AI to analyze these deeply human narratives seems contradictory—almost irreverent. Survivor testimony resists coherence. It is shaped by silences, contradictions and emotional truths that defy categorization. How can an AI trained on probabilities and patterns engage with stories shaped by trauma, loss and the fragility of memory?

    And yet, that is precisely why I have made AI a central component of the course—not as a shortcut to comprehension, but as a challenge to it. Each week, my students use AI to transcribe, summarize and identify patterns in testimonies. But rather than treating AI’s responses as authoritative, they interrogate them. They see how AI stumbles over inconsistencies, how it misreads hesitation as omission, how it resists the fragmentation that defines survivor accounts. And in observing that resistance, something unexpected happens: students develop a deeper awareness of what it means to listen, to interpret, to bear witness.

    AI’s sleek outputs conceal a deeper problem: It is not neutral. Its responses are shaped by the biases embedded in its training data, and by its relentless pursuit of coherence—even at the expense of accuracy. An algorithm will iron out inconsistencies in testimony, not because they are unimportant, but because it is designed to prioritize seamlessness over contradiction, clarity over ambiguity. But testimony is ambiguity. Memory thrives on contradiction. If left unchecked, AI’s tendency to smooth out rough edges risks erasing precisely what makes survivor narratives so powerful: their rawness, their hesitations, their refusal to conform to a clean, digestible version of history.

    For educators, the question is not just how to use AI but how to resist its seductions. How do we ensure that students scrutinize AI rather than accept its outputs at face value? How do we teach them to use AI as a lens rather than a crutch? The answer lies in making AI itself an object of inquiry—pushing students to examine its failures, to challenge its confident misreadings. AI does not replace critical thinking; it demands it.

    AI as Productive Friction

    If AI distorts, misinterprets and overreaches, why use it at all? The easy answer would be to reject it—to bar it from the classroom, to treat it as a contaminant rather than a tool. But that would be a mistake. AI is here to stay, and higher education has a choice: either leave students to navigate its limitations on their own or make those limitations part of their education.

    Rather than treating AI’s flaws as a reason for exclusion, I see them as opportunities. In my classroom, AI-generated responses are not definitive answers but objects of critique—imperfect, provisional and open to challenge. By engaging with AI critically, students learn not just from it, but about it. They see how AI struggles with ambiguity, how its summaries can be reductive, how its confidence often exceeds its accuracy. In doing so, they sharpen the very skills AI cannot replicate: skepticism, interpretation and the ability to challenge received knowledge.

    This approach aligns with Marc Watkins’s observation that “learning requires friction.” AI can be a force of productive friction in the classroom. Education is not about seamlessness; it is about struggle, revision and resistance.

    Teaching history—and especially the history of genocide and mass violence—often feels like standing on a threshold: one foot planted in the past, the other stepping into an uncertain future. In this space, AI does not replace the act of interpretation; it compels us to ask what it means to carry memory forward.

    Used thoughtfully, AI does not erode intellectual inquiry—it deepens it. If engaged wisely, it sharpens—rather than replaces—the very skills that make us human.

    Jan Burzlaff is a postdoctoral associate in the Jewish Studies program at Cornell University.

    Source link

  • What Ruth Simmons Taught Me About Standing for Something

    What Ruth Simmons Taught Me About Standing for Something

    Those who know me are well aware that I have a professional crush on Ruth Simmons. I have talked about how much I admire her career and the bold stances she has taken publicly and taken opportunities to ask others about how she has encouraged and mentored them. When presented with a chance to meet her, I quickly bought an airline ticket and counted down the days.

    For those who are unfamiliar with her career, she was the first Black president of an Ivy League institution; holds the title of president emerita of Smith College, Brown University and Prairie View A&M University; and as of this past weekend, has been awarded 41 honorary degrees.

    The last of these degrees was conferred by Southern Methodist University, which is where I earned my doctoral degree. Michael Harris, a professor at SMU, was the Faculty Senate president who nominated Simmons to receive the award. As a result, he was invited to the dinner given in her honor, and it was my great fortune his wife was unable to attend. He jokes that only one person references Simmons as often as I do, and he felt obligated to ask if I was interested in attending.

    Prior to the dinner, Simmons was the speaker at a campuswide symposium, where signed copies of her book, Up Home, were distributed to attendees. She spoke about her childhood and career, offering advice to all in attendance.

    Her final statement felt like a follow on to my last “Call to Action” piece, which encouraged everyone to fight on behalf of higher education:

    “It’s in those moments, even when you’re wrong or when people think you’re wrong, that you’re elevated. It’s in those moments that you stand for something and know what is beyond the pale, in the things that you see before you. And so if, like my mother, you see somebody being unfairly treated, how dare you be silent? How dare you if you see someone doing something that trespasses. What should we be doing as human beings? How dare we not say something?

    “So the question I get when I do my book events, from students and everyone else, is ‘What should I be doing in this moment?’ Everybody’s question is ‘What should I be doing now?’ I don’t have an answer for everybody, but I do know that at 80 years old, I get up every day ready to do something, and that’s what I always answer. ‘You’ve got to do something.’ It is not a moment to sit on the sidelines and be comfortable and say, ‘Oh, let everybody else worry about that.’ Shame on you if you draw that conclusion right now.”

    I couldn’t agree more.

    Like Ruth Simmons, I’ve received many questions from people who are unsure how or if they can fight, having read my recent piece. Some colleagues feel they can’t fight because they are in red states, or they worry they could put themselves or their institutions at risk through their actions. Others feel they lack the credibility or the authority to lead a fight. Still others worry they need to take on the fight on behalf of the whole industry and are already exhausted.

    Fighting on behalf of higher education isn’t a one-size-fits-all endeavor. I would encourage, as Simmons notes, that this can include addressing mistruths, defending those who are being treated unfairly and speaking out when the moment demands it. I believe that fighting for higher education means that we each defend the academy within our spheres of influence in big and small ways.

    For example, arm yourself with facts and be prepared to address misinformation you may hear about the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which was just approved by the House GOP and has been sent to the Senate. As passed by the House, it includes limiting Pell eligibility and eliminating subsidized student loans.

    Know what the impact of the House’s proposed endowment tax will be on the institutions that will be impacted. Be versed in how institutions are reeling from the elimination of research grants and how the bill will now further impact them. It is clear to me that these are the first cuts for institutions, but they won’t be the last. The goal is to have fiscal death by a thousand cuts. I would argue it is our responsibility to speak out—to fight— when we hear people discussing the federal budget and grant cuts and explain the impacts these cuts are having on student persistence, on campuses, on research, and on everyday people.

    Despite my choice of language and the traditional connotation associated with it, I don’t think of fighting as only a negative concept. Or, at the very least, I was raised in a Hispanic household where the duality of challenge and support was viewed as a given, rather than a negative. A colleague of mine said that he felt my language was solely confrontational. I suggested in response that fighting to me means asserting an alternative, which includes sharing expertise, data and information, and serving as a sense maker. I believe it covers addressing falsehoods and defending the truth. It is up to each of us if we view and live this only as a negative.

    It’s possible that Simmons’s advice feels aligned with my thinking because I want so dearly to be aligned with her, but the reality is that there’s something about a fighter that is always aligned with another fighter, and for that reason I hope you’ll see yourself in her words and in mine. Once again, I invite you to fight.

    Source link