Tag: Election

  • Sector ambivalent after Labor’s landslide election victory

    Sector ambivalent after Labor’s landslide election victory

    • Anthony Albanese has secured a second term for the ruling Labor party, beating out the Coalition to win Australia’s federal election.
    • His win has attracted mixed views from key stakeholders, with some welcoming Albanese’s return and others warning that the sector may have no more trump cards to play.
    • It follows pledges from both Labor and the Coalition to increase the price of student visas.

    The Labor party stormed its way to victory after a battle against the Peter Dutton-led Coalition, with both sides making controversial election promises to vastly increase student visa fee fees as immigration continues to dominate political discourse in Australia.

    The international education sector is still catching its breath as it takes in the result after months of hostile rhetoric from both parties – with each having promised crushing de facto caps on overseas students as tensions rise over Australia’s housing crisis and growing anger about mass immigration.

    But early reactions from sector leaders indicate mixed feelings over Albanese’s second term.

    Chief executive officer of the International Education Association of Australia (IEAA) Phil Honeywood said the result was “hopefully the best outcome” for the sector. He pointed out that the Labor government “has at least proactively proactively consulted” with stakeholders before announcing major policy changes – no matter how unwelcome they are.

    Now that Labor has been returned with a large majority, the hope is that it will be electorally confident enough to not target international students as the cause of the rent crisis
    Phil Honeywood, IEAA

    In contrast, he noted, the Coalition did not speak to any key stakeholders before unveiling its “draconian policy framework for our sector” – hardline proposals including a cap on new international student arrivals at a scant 240,000 per year and steep visa fee hikes.

    “Now that Labor has been returned with a large majority, the hope is that it will be electorally confident enough to not target international students as the cause of the rent crisis,” he remarked.

    On the other hand, Lexis English managing director Ian Pratt predicted that Labor’s election win would “give little comfort to an under-siege international education sector”.

    “An emboldened education minister Jason Clare is likely to take advantage of a newly compliant Senate to re-introduce the deeply flawed ESOS Amendment Bill – the  ‘capping legislation’ rejected in the previous term,” he said. 

    And he warned that with Labour expected to increase its majority, “industry peak bodies will have few levers to pull”. 

    “Initial focus will be on promoting small, sensible reforms, and likely to involve a push for a lower-fee ‘short-term’ student visa, catering for ELICOS and study abroad enrolments that do not generally contribute to net overseas migration figures,” he predicted.

    “There is also likely to be a push for a more transparent visa assessment process and a sensible approach to capping. Whether the returning government will feel any need to engage more positively with the sector remains to be seen.”

    The Labor party has repeatedly made attacks on the international education sector in recent months, first moving to cap new international student numbers to 270,000 under the thwarted ESOS Bill and then proposing a new Ministerial Direction tying individual caps to specific institutions after the Coalition blocked ESOS in a dramatic Senate battle.

    The party drew criticism from the sector last week after it made a last-minute pledge to increase student visa fees to AUD$2,000, up from the current AUD$1,600, drawing ire from some stakeholders for making the promise after early voting had already commenced.

    This is a developing story. Please check back for updates over the coming days…

    Source link

  • $100m Coalition election promise to fund 200 regional medical students matches Labor – Campus Review

    $100m Coalition election promise to fund 200 regional medical students matches Labor – Campus Review

    Regional and rural Australia’s doctor shortage is being targeted as an election issue by the Coalition, which is promising to fund an extra 200 students to train as general practitioners to work in the bush.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • U Rochester Ph.D. Students Strike for a Non-NLRB Election

    U Rochester Ph.D. Students Strike for a Non-NLRB Election

    University of Rochester Ph.D. student workers began striking this week to pressure the institution to agree to what they call a “fair union election.” And for the process to be fair, they say, it can’t be handled by the Trump-era National Labor Relations Board.

    “We don’t see any kind of path through the NLRB at present,” said George Elkind, a Ph.D. student on the proposed UR Graduate Labor Union’s organizing committee.

    The strike began Monday and continued Tuesday. Elkind said it’s unclear how many of the more than 1,400 students who would likely be represented by the union are withholding their labor. The walkout is another example of labor agitation continuing into the Trump era.

    Roughly a year ago, university officials and the union organizers began discussing plans for a private election, which both parties were amenable to. If they had reached an agreement, the NLRB—which usually handles unionization votes at private nonprofit institutions such as UR—wouldn’t have been involved.

    However, in February, after Donald Trump retook the presidency and fired a Democratic NLRB member and the agency’s general counsel, a university lawyer told student organizers that UR no longer wanted a private election, according to a document union members provided Inside Higher Ed. Instead, the lawyer wrote that they could pursue an election with the Trump-era NLRB.

    Scott Phillipson, president of SEIU 200United, a multi-university union that’s helping to organize the students, said UR officials “simply do not want these employees to have a union. That is what is going on here.”

    Phillipson said university officials were being disingenuous in suggesting the students use the NLRB.

    “They know it’s not an option,” he said. “But it’s a better public messaging, frankly, than ‘Just go away.’”

    An NLRB spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed Tuesday that the agency’s “regional offices are functioning as normal” and can run elections. But any appeals of election results would go to the actual board for which the agency is named. And since Trump ousted the Democratic board member, Gwynne Wilcox, and has left previous vacancies unfilled, the panel now doesn’t have the minimum required number of members to make decisions.

    If Trump eventually does appoint his own members to the board, allowing it to operate again, some union supporters worry the NLRB might use a grad student unionization case such as Rochester’s to overturn the 2016 Columbia University case precedent establishing that private nonprofit university grad workers can unionize through the NLRB.

    Student workers could continue to unionize at public universities in the states that allow such action, but those at private institutions would be left with no other path than to seek voluntary recognition from their universities.

    Elkind said UR officials know that the NLRB “is defunct—and would be hostile if it weren’t.” He said they want grad workers to go to the NLRB and risk a ruling decertifying grad unions at private universities nationwide. He called this “an extreme anti-labor position.”

    ‘Unprecedented Times’

    In an email, William A. Herbert, executive director of the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions, said the strike “to compel the university to agree to a non-NLRB election is a sign of these unprecedented times.

    “There is a growing distrust and frustration among unions and their members with NLRB procedures and remedies, both of which are also under constitutional attacks by employers like SpaceX, Amazon, and the University of Southern California,” said Herbert, whose center is at Hunter College. “The firing of NLRB Board member Gwynne Wilcox and the reported removal of sensitive labor data from the NLRB by Department of Government Efficiency [DOGE] staff has further undermined confidence in the agency.”

    The university, which didn’t provide an interview Tuesday, hasn’t said it abandoned the move toward a private election because it thinks grad workers would lose in front of the Trump-era NLRB. UR has cited other reasons, including a December court decision involving Vanderbilt University grad workers’ attempt to unionize.

    NLRB policy required Vanderbilt to reveal names, job classifications and other information about student workers whom the union might represent. But more than 100 students objected to sharing that, and Vanderbilt sued the NLRB and one of its regional directors, arguing that requiring students to turn over the information would violate their privacy under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

    A judge in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee ruled that Vanderbilt was likely right and granted a preliminary injunction blocking the NLRB requirements. A UR lawyer wrote that this made the university concerned about being “seen as facilitating the dissemination of potentially protected student data to a third party” if it went forward with the private election.

    But the lawyer went beyond the Vanderbilt case, saying that not requiring a prospective union to go through the NLRB would be a “significant deviation from the university’s typical practice.” He also noted the recent “sweeping and still unclear changes in the federal government’s support for the university’s missions,” adding that the Trump administration’s upheaval “includes a likely reduction in federal funding.”

    In an emailed statement Tuesday, a university spokesperson said “contingency plans are in place to ensure minimal disruption to our academic mission— including teaching and research activities—during a strike. In the event of prolonged strike activity, University officials are confident that the academic enterprise will continue as normal without interruption.”

    The spokesperson said “we are steadfast in the belief that entering into a private election agreement at this time is not in the best interests of the University community.”

    Source link

  • Trade War Squeezes Science Out of Canadian Election Campaign

    Trade War Squeezes Science Out of Canadian Election Campaign

    Mark Carney’s whirlwind start as Canadian prime minister has seen his party surge in the polls against the backdrop of Donald Trump’s threats but has provided little time to flesh out the newcomer’s policies on higher education and science.

    When Justin Trudeau announced his resignation in January, the Liberal Party was trailing the Conservatives by more than 20 percentage points and was only narrowly ahead of the New Democratic Party.

    But since Trump started a trade war with what he has belittled as his “51st state,” the Liberals have rebounded remarkably in the polls and are now favorites to retain power in the snap election on April 28.

    Although the federal government is the primary player when it comes to investments in research and innovation in Canada, higher education has seldom been a major issue in national elections, said Glen Jones, professor of higher education at the University of Toronto.

    “Not surprisingly, the entire election is focusing on the trade war that has been initiated by President Trump,” he said.

    “The Carney platform, at least to date, has largely been about providing support and stability to individuals and industries that will be directly impacted by tariffs.”

    Carney has been focusing primarily on positioning himself as the leader best able to respond to the new, evolving relationship with the U.S.—a strategy that seems to be working, added Jones.

    Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s echoes of Trump—and his promises to “defund wokeism and fight antisemitism” in universities—have been a disaster for his party since the start of the year, particularly when contrasted with Carney’s “elbows up” mantra.

    Sarah Laframboise, executive director of Evidence for Democracy, a science policy nonprofit organization, said Carney’s background—as a former United Nations special envoy for climate action—suggests that he will remain committed to his views on climate policy, and that his pro-economic growth platform could translate into targeting investments in research, innovation and artificial intelligence.

    “We will also likely see an increased focus on defense-related research, particularly around Arctic security and collaborative defense technologies. However, it remains unclear if this will extend to basic research,” said Laframboise.

    “Additionally, his restrictive stance on international student admissions could have significant consequences for Canada’s higher education sector.”

    It remained to be seen what impact accusations of plagiarism aimed at Carney dating from his time at the University of Oxford will have on the race.

    Carney, who has never previously held elected office, earned a master’s degree and a doctorate in the U.K. before later going on to become governor of the Bank of England from 2013 to 2020.

    Marc Johnson, professor of biology at Toronto’s Mississauga campus, said Trudeau made important investments in science funding during the last federal budget, but it was only a “partial investment that stanched the bleeding” from previous mistakes.

    “The investment fell short of reinvigorating funding for science, tech and the innovation sector,” he said.

    “If the Carney Liberals are elected to power, I think we can expect the previous government’s investment to stay … but will they double down on that investment?”

    Having examined Carney’s website—which mentions artificial intelligence 11 times, innovation once and science not at all—Johnson said the prime minister’s priorities in future funding seemed fairly clear.

    With either Carney or Poilievre in charge, he said the next government will have an “amazing opportunity” to invest in science, technology and innovation.

    “Given the USA’s deep cuts to science funding, Canada has the opportunity to leap forward as a global leader in strategic areas, but only if we increase our investment in science, training, technology and mobilization of the innovations that come from these activities.”

    Source link

  • Universities Australia wishlist for next election

    Universities Australia wishlist for next election

    Universities Australia CEO Luke Sheehy. Picture: Supplied



    By: Erin Morley

    in Funding, Policy & Reform, Politics, Top Stories


    February 17, 2025

    The peak body representing universities, Universities Australia (UA), has said the federal government should offer more money and less bureaucracy to the higher education sector ahead of the election due by April.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Colleges were quiet after the Nov. election. Students don’t mind

    Colleges were quiet after the Nov. election. Students don’t mind

    Colleges can be hot spots for debate, inquiry and disagreement, particularly on political topics. Sometimes institutional leaders weigh in on the debate, issuing public statements or sharing resources internally among students, staff and faculty.

    This past fall, following the 2024 presidential election, college administrators were notably silent. A November Student Voice survey found a majority (63 percent) of student respondents (n=1,031) said their college did not do or say anything after the election, and only 17 percent released a statement to students about the election.

    A more recent survey from Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found this aligns with students’ preferences for institutional response.

    Over half (54 percent) of respondents (n=1,034) to a December Student Voice survey said colleges and universities should not make statements about political events, such as the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. One-quarter of students said they weren’t sure if institutions should make statements, and fewer than a quarter of learners said colleges should publish a statement.

    Across demographics—including institution size and classification, student race, political identification, income level or age—the greatest share of students indicated that colleges shouldn’t make statements. The only group that differed was nonbinary students (n=32), of whom 47 percent said they weren’t sure and 30 percent said no.

    Experts weigh in on the value of institutional neutrality and how college leaders can demonstrate care for learners without sharing statements.

    What’s the sitch: In the past, college administrators have issued statements, either personally or on behalf of the institution, to demonstrate care and concern for students who are impacted by world events, says Heterodox Academy president John Tomasi.

    “There’s also an element, a little more cynically, of trying to get ahead of certain political issues so they [administrators] couldn’t be criticized for having said nothing or not caring,” Tomasi says.

    Students Say

    Even with a majority of colleges and universities not speaking out after the 2024 election, some students think colleges are still being supportive.

    The November Student Voice survey found 35 percent of respondents believed their institution was offering the right amount of support to students after the election results, but 31 percent weren’t sure.

    The events of Oct. 7, 2023, proved complicated for statement-issuing presidents, with almost half of institutions that published statements releasing an additional response after the campus community or others pushed back. Initial statements, according to one analysis, often lacked caring elements, such as the impact to students or health and well-being of university community members in the region.

    A growing number of colleges and universities are choosing to opt out of public political conversations at the executive level, instead selecting to be institutionally neutral. Heterodox Academy, which tracks colleges’ commitments to neutrality, saw numbers rise from a dozen in 2023 to over 100 in 2024.

    Some students are experiencing political fatigue in general, says Vanderbilt University chancellor Daniel Diermeier, particularly relating to the war in Gaza. “This dynamic of ‘which side are you on, and if you’re not with me, you’re against me’ was troubling to many students and was exhausting and had a detrimental impact on the culture of learning, exploration and discussion.”

    Vanderbilt University has held a position of neutrality for many years, part of a free expression policy, which it defines as a “commitment to refrain from taking public positions on controversial issues unless the issue is materially related to the core mission and functioning of the university.”

    College students aren’t the only group that want fewer organizations to talk politics; a November survey by Morning Consult found two-thirds of Americans believe companies should stay out of politics entirely after the 2024 presidential election and 59 percent want companies to comment neutrally on the results.

    However, an earlier survey by Morning Consult found, across Americans, 56 percent believe higher education institutions are at least somewhat responsible for speaking out on political, societal or cultural issues, compared to 31 percent of respondents who say colleges and universities are not too or not at all responsible.

    Allowing students to speak: Proponents of institutional neutrality say the practice allows discourse to flourish on campus. Taking a position can create a chilling effect, in which people are afraid to speak out in opposition to the prevailing point of view, Diermeier says.

    Recent polls have shown today’s college students are hesitant to share their political opinions, often electing to self-censor due to fears of negative repercussions. Since 2015, this concern has grown, with 33 percent of respondents sharing that they feel uncomfortable discussing their political views on campus, compared to 13 percent a decade ago.

    Part of this hesitancy among students could be an overstepping on behalf of administrators that affirms the institution’s perspective on issues one way or another.

    “I hear from students that they want to be the ones making the statements themselves … and if a president makes a statement first, that kind of cuts off the conversation,” says Tomasi, who is a faculty member at Brown University.

    A majority of campus community members want to pursue learning and research, Diermeier says, and “the politicization that has taken hold on many university campuses … that is not what most students and faculty want.”

    Institutional neutrality allows a university to step back and empower students to be political agents, Tomasi says. “The students should be platformed, the professors should be platformed, but the university itself should be a neutral framework for students to do all those things.”

    Neutral, not silent: One distinction Tomasi and Diermeier make about institutional neutrality is that the commitment is not one of silence, but rather selective vocalization to affirm the university’s mission.

    “Neutrality can’t just be the neutrality of convenience,” Tomasi says. “It should be a neutrality of a principle that’ll endure beyond the particular conflict that’s dividing the campus, because it celebrates and stands for and flows from that high ideal of university life as a community of imperfect learners that does value intellectual pluralism.”

    Another area in which universities are obligated to speak up is if the issue challenges the core mission of an institution. Examples of this could include a travel ban against immigration from certain countries, a tax on endowments, a ban on divisive topics or scrutiny of admissions practices.

    “On issues that are core to the academic mission, we’re going to be vocal, we’re going to be engaged and we’re going to be advocates,” Diermeier says, and establishing what is involved in the core mission is key to each institution. “Inside the core doesn’t mean it’s not controversial—it just means it’s inside the core.”

    So what? For colleges and university leaders considering how to move forward, Diermeier and Tomasi offer some advice.

    • Start with the mission in mind. When working with learners, practitioners should strive to advance the mission of seeking knowledge and providing a transformative education, Diermeier says. For faculty in particular, it’s important to give students “room to breathe” and to be exposed to both sides of an argument, because there’s power in understanding another position, even if it’s not shared.
    • Create space for discourse. “It’s expected that the groups that are organized and vocal, they’re more in the conversation and claiming more of the space,” Diermeier says. “It’s our responsibility as leaders of universities to make sure that we are not being unduly influenced by that.” Students should be given the opportunity to engage in free speech, whether that’s protesting or counterprotesting, but that cannot dictate administrative decisions. Vanderbilt student organizations hosted debates and spaces for constructive dialogue prior to the election, which were well attended and respectful.
    • Lean into the discomfort. Advancing free speech and scholarship can be complicated and feel “unnatural,” Tomasi says, because humans prefer to find like-minded people and others who agree with their views, “but there’s something pretty elevated about it that’s attractive, too,” to students. Colleges and universities should consider how promoting discourse can help students feel they belong.
    • Provide targeted outreach. For some issues, such as natural disasters, colleges and universities can provide direct support and messaging to impacted students. “It’s just so much more effective and it can be targeted, and then the messages are also more authentic,” Diermeier says.

    Not yet a subscriber to our Student Success newsletter? Sign up for free here and you’ll receive practical tips and ideas for supporting students every weekday.

    Source link

  • FIRE to defend veteran pollster J. Ann Selzer in Trump lawsuit over outlier election poll

    FIRE to defend veteran pollster J. Ann Selzer in Trump lawsuit over outlier election poll

    DES MOINES, Iowa, Jan. 7, 2025 — The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression announced today it will defend veteran Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer pro bono against a lawsuit from President-elect Donald Trump that threatens Americans’ First Amendment right to speak on core political issues.

    “Punishing someone for their political prediction is about as unconstitutional as it gets,” said FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere. “This is America. No one should be afraid to predict the outcome of an election. Whether it’s from a pollster, or you, or me, such political expression is fully and unequivocally protected by the First Amendment.”

    EXPLAINER: FIGHTING TRUMP’S LAWSUIT IS FIRST AMENDMENT 101

    Trump’s lawsuit stems from a poll Selzer published before the 2024 presidential election that predicted Vice President Kamala Harris leading by three points in Iowa. The lawsuit, brought under Iowa’s Consumer Fraud Act, is meritless and violates long-standing constitutional principles.

    The claim distorts the purpose of consumer fraud laws, which target sellers who make false statements to get you to buy merchandise. 

    “Consumer fraud laws are about the scam artist who rolls back the odometer on a used car, not a newspaper pollster or TV meteorologist who misses a forecast,” said FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick.

    Trump’s suit seeks damages and a court order barring the newspaper from publishing any future “deceptive polls” that might “poison the electorate.” But Selzer and The Des Moines Register were completely transparent about how the poll was conducted. Selzer and the newspaper released the demographic breakdowns showing the results of the telephone survey and the weighting system. Selzer also released an analysis of how her methods might have contributed to missing the mark. 

    “I’ve spent my career researching what the people of Iowa are thinking about politics and leading issues of the day,” Selzer said. “My final poll of the 2024 general election missed the mark. The response to a mismatch between my final poll and the decisions Iowa voters made should be thoughtful analysis and introspection. I should be devoting my time to that and not to a vengeful lawsuit from someone with enormous power and assets.”

    Selzer’s Iowa polls have long enjoyed “gold standard” status among pollsters. She correctly predicted Trump’s win in Iowa in 2016 and 2020 using the same methodology in her 2024 poll.

    COURTESY PHOTOS OF J. ANN SELZER FOR MEDIA USE

    “Donald Trump is abusing the legal system to punish speech he dislikes,” said FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh. “If you have to pay lawyers and spend time in court to defend your free speech, then you don’t have free speech.”

    America already rejected its experiment with making the government the arbiter of truth. President John Adams used the Sedition Act of 1798 to imprison political rivals for “false” political statements. Trump’s lawsuit is just a new spin on the same theory long rejected under the First Amendment.

    The lawsuit fits the very definition of a “SLAPP” suit — a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Such tactical claims are filed purely for the purpose of harassing and imposing punishing litigation costs on perceived opponents, not because they have any merit or stand any chance of success. In other words, the lawsuit is the punishment. As Trump once colorfully put it after losing a lawsuit: “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.”

    By providing pro bono support, FIRE is helping to remove the punishment-by-process incentive of SLAPP suits — just as we’ve done when a wealthy Idaho landowner sued over criticism of his planned airstrip, when a Pennsylvania lawmaker sued a graduate student for “racketeering,” and when an education center threatened to sue a small, autistic-led, nonprofit organization for criticizing the center’s use of electric shocks.

    “Pollsters don’t always get it right,” said Fitzpatrick. “When the Chicago Tribune published its famously incorrect ‘Dewey Defeats Truman’ headline, it was because the polls were off. Truman didn’t sue the newspaper. He laughed — his victory was enough. That’s how you handle missed predictions in a free society.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE defends free speech for all Americans, regardless of political ideology. We’ll defend your rights whether you’re a student barred from wearing a “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirt, a professor censored under Florida’s STOP WOKE Act, or a mother arrested for criticizing your city’s mayor. If it’s protected, we’ll defend it. No throat-clearing, no apologies.

    CONTACT:

    Daniel Burnett, Senior Director of Communications, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

    Source link

  • 2024 Election Results and Analysis of Future Policy Impacts

    2024 Election Results and Analysis of Future Policy Impacts

    by CUPA-HR | November 14, 2024

    The results of the 2024 election are in: Donald Trump will serve as the 47th president of the United States, while both the Senate and House of Representatives will be controlled by Republicans. With the Republican trifecta in the White House and Congress, Republicans can focus on passing their policy priorities through legislation in Congress and regulatory action at the federal agencies. CUPA-HR’s government relations team provides the following analysis to offer insight into possible leadership, policies and regulations we expect starting in January 2025.

    Federal Agencies and Congressional Committees

    Department of Labor

    The Department of Labor (DOL), overseen by the secretary of labor, directs policy and regulations for employers, workers, and retirees in the U.S. Throughout the election season, news organizations have speculated President-elect Trump’s potential picks for the secretary position, though who will be nominated will be unknown until Trump announces it. According to Politico, two possible candidates are Patrick Pizzella and Bryan Slater. Under the first Trump administration, Pizzella served as deputy secretary of labor and acting secretary of labor between former secretaries Alex Acosta and Eugene Scalia. Slater, who currently serves as Virginia’s secretary of labor, had also previously served as assistant secretary at DOL under the previous Trump administration.

    In addition to the secretary of labor, Trump will pick people to head the subagencies at DOL, including the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and Wage and Hour Division, among others. These agencies draft and implement regulations governing retirement and health benefits plans, workplace safety and health, and minimum wage and overtime pay requirements. Leaders of the DOL subagencies are typically selected later in the Cabinet-appointment process.

    National Labor Relations Board

    The party control of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) depends on actions taken by the Senate during the lame-duck session between the election and President-elect Trump’s inauguration. Current chair of the NLRB Lauren McFerran’s term is set to expire in December 2024, but she has been renominated to serve on the board for another five years by President Biden. Senate Democrats, who are likely to push for her confirmation now that the Senate and White House will be Republican-controlled in 2025, will need to vote to confirm her position, only needing a simple majority. If confirmed, NLRB would be under Democratic control until at least August 2026, more than a year and a half into the Trump administration, leaving President Trump unable to obtain a Republican majority on the board — and thereby control the policy at the NLRB — for nearly half of his second term.

    Despite possibly not having control of the NLRB, President Trump may choose to fire the NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo (Democrat), whose term is not set to expire until July 2025. In 2021, President Biden terminated then-General Counsel Peter Robb (Republican) within hours of his inauguration, despite Robb’s term not ending until November of that same year. This was the first time any sitting president had fired a sitting general counsel at an independent agency for policy differences. Federal courts upheld Robb’s termination, so President Trump is highly likely to terminate Abruzzo immediately upon taking office. As a reminder, Abruzzo issued several memos stating her position regarding employment status for student-athletes, severance agreements, and disclosure obligations under the National Labor Relations Act and Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, all of which would likely be rescinded by Trump’s NLRB general counsel appointee.

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

    Unless a commissioner leaves their post before their term expires, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will maintain a Democrat majority (currently 3-1, with one Republican seat vacant) until July 2026. Despite this, President-elect Trump is likely to appoint Commissioner Andrea Lucas to serve as chair of the EEOC. Lucas and the EEOC would be limited in their ability to adopt new policies or reverse actions taken by the Democrat-controlled commission prior to July 2026. At that time, we expect the Republican-controlled EEOC to issue revised guidance that narrows the scope of the agency’s interpretation of Title VII protections in light of Bostock v. Clayton County and the legality of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in employment practices, possibly extending legal principles established under the Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard case.

    Similar to the NLRB, we expect that President-elect Trump will replace the current EEOC General Counsel Karla Gilbride (Democrat). In her role, Gilbride has litigated on behalf of the EEOC in federal court, but the position typically does not provide policy recommendations to the full commission like the NLRB general counsel does.

    Department of Education

    The Department of Education (ED) oversees and implements policy and regulations governing federal assistance to education. With respect to higher education, ED governs issues like federal financial aid, Title IX compliance, and other laws aimed at promoting student success. Under the incoming Trump administration, Politico has speculated that there are a few possible contenders who could ultimately lead the agency.

    One possible candidate for ED’s secretary is Betsy DeVos, who served as secretary of education during Trump’s first term. During DeVos’ first term as ED secretary, she led the agency to implement the 2020 Title IX regulations that are still currently in place in 26 states and hundreds of schools around the country, pending legal challenges to the Biden administration’s rule. However, DeVos resigned from her position as secretary of education after the January 6, 2021, riots at the U.S. Capitol, which may lead the incoming Trump administration to search for new candidates. Despite her resignation, DeVos has indicated that she is open to discussions about potentially serving in the role again.

    As we also discuss below, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) will be stepping down from her role as chair of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, where she most recently led an investigation into antisemitism on campus in higher education. This, along with her previous experience serving as an English instructor and president of a community college, may set her up for a bid for the secretary position.

    Some additional names that have been discussed by Politico are Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters, and Moms for Liberty founder Tiffany Justice.

    House Education and the Workforce Committee

    Republicans held control of the House in the 2024 election, but there will still be some shakeup in leadership for the Education and Workforce Committee. Chair of the committee Virginia Foxx will be stepping down from her role, leaving open the Republican leader position of the Committee. The two front-runners to chair the committee are Reps. Tim Walberg (R-MI) and Burgess Owens (R-UT), both currently serving on the committee. Notably, Walberg has served on the committee for 16 years, and Owens currently serves as the chair of the Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee. For Democrats, current ranking member of the committee Bobby Scott (D-VA) is expected to maintain his position as leader of the Committee Democrats.

    Walberg and Owens have both publicized their policy priorities. Walberg has stated that, under his leadership, the committee would focus on legislation to make college more affordable, boost apprenticeships, implement a short-term Pell grant for workforce training programs, and reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Owens hopes to steer the committee with a more education-centric focus, stating that top priorities for him are school choice and oversight into how ED uses its funding.

    Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee

    Republicans in the Senate gained control during the 2024 election, flipping the previously Democrat-controlled chamber. As a result, Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) will likely rise to the role of chair on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) will shift into the ranking member position after serving as the chair of the full committee in the 118th Congress. Before his political career, Cassidy was a physician, meaning he could pivot the committee to focus more on health policy. Despite this, Cassidy has also advocated for the HELP committee to advance a Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act reauthorization bill, and he has advocated for the committee to focus on other education issues as well.

    Policy Implications of the Election

    FLSA Overtime

    As you already know, the Biden administration is in the process of implementing their FLSA overtime regulations. The final rule took a two-phased approach to increasing the minimum salary threshold. The first increase raised the salary threshold to $43,888 per year and took effect on July 1, 2024. The second increase would raise the salary threshold to $58,656 per year and is set to take effect on January 1, 2025. The regulations are currently being challenged in a federal district court in Texas, where a preliminary injunction to block the rule from taking effect has been placed only for public employers in the state of Texas. It remains to be seen how the federal judge will rule on the lawsuits, though a hearing for the cases was held on November 8 and a ruling is imminent.

    As the Trump administration will not take office until after the January 1 threshold, the regulation will take effect, pending further appeals, if the final rule is upheld in federal court. If the rule is struck down, we expect the Trump administration will let the court’s decision remain and make no further effort to appeal the decision. If the Trump administration decides to increase the minimum salary threshold during this upcoming term, they will likely use the methodology from the 2019 rule to increase the threshold.

    Title IX

    Similar to the overtime final rule, the Biden administration issued Title IX regulations in 2024 that are also facing legal challenges. The Biden administration’s Title IX rule took effect on August 1, 2024, but several lawsuits challenging the rule have resulted in preliminary injunctions blocking ED from enforcing it in 26 states and hundreds of other schools in states that did not challenge the final rule.

    The Biden administration’s regulations replaced the previous Trump administration’s 2020 Title IX regulations. If the regulations are upheld in federal court, we expect that the incoming secretary of education will repeal the Biden administration’s regulations in favor of keeping the 2020 regulations in effect across the country.

    Immigration

    There are several policies and regulations that CUPA-HR has been tracking on the immigration front that face uncertain futures under the incoming Trump administration. During the first term, the Trump administration placed a proposed rule on the regulatory agenda aiming to restrict the Optional Practical Training  program, which allows international students who graduate from U.S. institutions to work in their degree-related field for at least 12 months after graduating. The Trump administration also finalized a couple of final rules that would have increased wage obligations for H-1B visas and narrowed eligibility for H-1B visas to positions that qualified as “specialty occupations.” These rules were struck down in court, so while Trump is unlikely to implement the same rules, we could see similar attempts to increase H-1B wage obligations and narrow the H-1B program.

    Additionally, the incoming Trump administration will likely look to reverse policies implemented by the Department of Homeland Security under the Biden administration, including dropping any appeal of the recent court ruling against the “Keeping Families Together” program for undocumented spouses and children of U.S. citizens, as well as rescinding the guidance to streamline the H-1B visa waiver process for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients. Similarly, if the Biden administration does not finalize the H-1B modernization rule before the end of his term, a new Trump administration may seek to implement a more restrictive version, reshaping the rule to reflect its own priorities rather than those outlined in the Biden administration’s October 2023 proposal.

    Legislative Priorities

    With Republicans controlling both the House and the Senate, legislative priorities should be mostly aligned between the two chambers and the White House. However, their ability to pass legislation will still depend on bipartisan support, as Republicans hold a narrow majority in the House and do not have a large enough majority in the Senate to bypass the 60-vote filibuster. Despite these challenges, we expect Republicans to focus on issues like paid leave, workforce development, and affordable college and workforce training.

    Though paid leave is a priority for both parties, Republicans and Democrats have previously not agreed on the best approach to establish it through federal legislation. In his first term, Trump and other Republicans backed paid leave legislation that allowed parents to collect a portion of their future child tax credits early to use for leave and receive smaller credits in the following years. This proposal ran counter to the Democrat-supported Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act, which would establish a payroll tax to fund a paid family and medical leave program that can be used to pay workers who are new parents or who are caring for their own health issues or those of their family. Republicans and Democrats will need to find a compromise if they are to pass any paid leave legislation in the upcoming Congress, as they will need 60 votes in the Senate to bypass a filibuster.

    Despite their differences on paid leave, Republicans and Democrats have made bipartisan efforts to pass legislation to improve workforce development and create a short-term Pell grant. During this Congress, both the House and Senate have worked to pass legislation to reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which serves as the nation’s primary federal workforce development legislation designed to help Americans receive training and support to obtain skills necessary for high-quality jobs and careers. Additionally, there has been bipartisan support to pass legislation that would expand the Pell grant program to cover short-term workforce development and training programs that are outside the traditional higher education path. Again, Republicans and Democrats will need to find consensus on these issues in order to bypass the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster, but bipartisan issues like workforce development and short-term Pell grants appear to have a possible path to becoming law.

    CUPA-HR is hosting a 2024 election analysis webinar on November 21 at 12 PM ET. Registration is free for CUPA-HR members. Additional updates will be provided through future blogs and Washington Insider alerts.



    Source link

  • 5 Ways to Advocate for Your Students During The U.S. Election

    5 Ways to Advocate for Your Students During The U.S. Election

    Election Day in the U.S. is just around the corner. On top of carrying multiple academic and employment responsibilities, some students will also be voting for the first time. Others, such as those from marginalized or historically underrepresented populations, may be overwhelmed with what the election results could mean for them. In the lead up to Election Day, a healthy dose of empathy will be essential in ensuring students have a chance to fulfill their civic duty—and the opportunity to consider its consequences.

    Being flexible with due dates, considering students’ wellbeing and ensuring learners are armed with the resources needed to vote are the most important things you can do as Election Day nears. Read on to learn how professors advocated for their students during the 2020 election—and how you can do the same.

    Consider making November 4 and 5 free of assignments (or even classes)

    Exams can cause some students a great deal of stress and anxiety. Lillian Horin, Biological and Biomedical Sciences PhD student at Harvard University, urges educators to keep BIPOC students in mind when scheduling high-stakes tests.

    Consider swapping your exams or problem sets (Psets) with a trip to the ballot box. Jacob Light, Economics PhD student at Stanford University, writes that this simple gesture may allow students to exercise their civic duty.

    Other students like Anna-Sophia Boguraev, Bioengineering PhD student at Harvard Medical School and MIT, say that TAs have the power to amplify student concerns and requests—none of which should be ignored.

    If your assignments can’t wait, build in flexibility and timeliness

    Self-paced learning can allow students to visit the polls and complete coursework at a time that works for them—so says Jesse Fox, Associate Professor of Communication at Ohio State University.

    Election Day can also be a good opportunity to let students catch their breath in your course. Give students a chance to study and review material that they haven’t had a chance to look over, suggests Scott Grunow, Instructor in English and Religious Studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

    Should your institutions provide little leeway in your assessment choices, at least incorporate real-time events into your discussions. Derek Bruff, Associate Director, Center for Teaching Excellence at the University of Virginia, notes that relating course content to the election can help students see the value of what they’re learning.

    Real-time political events and policy proposals can make for discipline-specific conversations. This also allows students to apply what they’ve learned in your class to the real world, as Andrea Gomez Cervantes, Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at Wake Forest University, proposes.

    Mobilize your students to show up at the polls

    Gen Z students are motivated to vote. In the 2018 midterm elections, the student turnout rate increased by 20 percent compared to the 2014 midterms.1 Ensure students are equipped with the resources to vote as soon as possible, writes Wendy Christensen, Sociology Professor at William Paterson University.

    Similarly, ask students about their voting plans. Consider working with your class to ensure they know where to go on November 5, suggests Margaret Boyle, Associate Professor of Romance Languages and Literatures at Bowdoin College.

    Ensure your voter registration information and resources appeal to all students, regardless of what political party they support. Meghan Novisky, Assistant Professor of Criminology at Cleveland State University, emphasizes the importance of using non-partisan guidelines.

    Some scholars like Sara Wheeler-Smith, Associate Professor of Management at Manhattan College, even plan to offer a grading incentive for visiting the polls.

    Incorporate guest lectures and learn from your colleagues

    Navigating election week with students in mind might be an unfamiliar undertaking. Consider leaning on faculty at your institution for support, writes Heather Mayer, Director of Educational Technology at Everett Community College.

    Some students may be undecided voters, while others may have missed the presidential debates. Incorporate forms of debate in your classroom—with the support of scholars from other institutions, as Yujin Jung, Political Sciences PhD student at the University of Missouri, plans to do.

    Keep in mind the importance of mental and physical health

    Check-ins with students have gained new meaning in the midst of an election. Andrea Kelley, Sociology Professor at the University of Michigan, tends to her students’ socioemotional needs before assigning readings and lectures.

    Election Day can come with a range of emotions for many students. Cate Denial, Distinguished Professor of American History, Chair of the History department, and Director of the Bright Institute at Knox College, removes the expectation for students to pay attention and participate in class.

    References

    1. Thomas, N. et al. (2018). Democracy Counts 2018: Increased Student and Institutional Engagement. Tufts University. https://idhe.tufts.edu/sites/default/files/DemocracyCounts2018.pdf

    Tagged as:



    Source link

  • NLRB Higher Education Union Election Data for 2023 – CUPA-HR

    NLRB Higher Education Union Election Data for 2023 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 5, 2024

    During calendar year 2023, union organizing continued to rise at institutions of higher education. Data from the National Labor Relations Board on union organizing show that 31.2% of all private-sector workers who successfully unionized in 2023 were employed by institutions of higher education. Public institutions also saw considerable union activity, though this is not reflected in NLRB data.*

    To provide an update regarding collective bargaining at private colleges and universities across the country, CUPA-HR’s government relations team has compiled the following NLRB data** from 2023 and early 2024 to summarize organizing activity.

    Organizing Efforts at Private Institutions in 2023

    • There were 132,303 workers in bargaining units that held elections in 2023. Of this total, 32,477 workers were from institutions of higher education.
    • There were 92,574 workers in total who joined certified bargaining units in the U.S. in 2023. Of this total, 28,859 workers were from institutions of higher education.

    Private Institution Union Drive Data in 2023

    • There were 55 union elections held at private institutions of higher education last year.
    • Of the 55 held, 48 union elections resulted in worker unionization. Again, this totaled 28,859 workers from private institutions of higher education.***
      • 20 elections included non-faculty, non-student workers with various positions.
      • 14 elections included graduate students with various positions (including two RA elections).
      • 13 elections included undergraduate students with various positions (including five RA elections).
      • Two elections included faculty.
      • Two elections included non-tenured faculty specifically.
      • Two elections included adjunct faculty.
      • Two elections included postdoctoral workers.
    • Three elections did not result in unionization. Four elections have been held at institutions, but they have not yet been closed. It is unclear why they are pending.

    Private Institution Election Data since January 1, 2024

    • So far this year, there have been eight union elections at institutions of higher education. Seven of the elections resulted in worker unionization, and one is still open for unknown reasons.
      • In the seven decided elections, 2,477 workers are included in the bargaining units.
      • In the one open case, 290 workers could be unionized.
    • Since January 1, 2024, there are seven pending petitions for unionization at institutions of higher education. In the seven pending petitions, 3,674 workers could be unionized depending on the result of the elections.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor this NLRB data and keep members apprised of future higher education union organizing trends.

    *The NLRB is a federal agency and only has jurisdiction over private employers, which includes private higher education institutions. Public institutions handle collective bargaining activity with their state and local labor relations agencies. CUPA-HR regularly tracks activity from the NLRB and is providing an overview of union activity at private institutions, but members at public institutions are encouraged to share union activity with the CUPA-HR government relations team as it occurs.

    **To compile the data, CUPA-HR searched for “Election Results” and “R Case Reports” that included the search terms “university,” “college,” and “school” during the calendar year 2023 and from January 1, 2024 to March 4, 2024.

    ***The grouped data below do not add up to 48 total elections because some units included multiple groups (i.e. undergraduate and graduate students, tenured and non-tenured faculty, etc.).

     



    Source link