Tag: faces

  • Hampshire College faces closure risk if it can’t refinance debt, audit says

    Hampshire College faces closure risk if it can’t refinance debt, audit says

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Hampshire College faces persistent operating pressures and potential closure risk if it can’t refinance its debt, according to the private Massachusetts institution’s latest audit. 
    • Hampshire breached the terms on a group of bonds last June, which could trigger a default, according to the college’s latest audit. Moreover, the college has been negotiating with a bondholder wishing to exercise an option on a separate bond group that would force Hampshire to pay the securities immediately.
    • Lenders have extended a refinancing deadline until September as the college looks to “demonstrate the successful implementation of its strategic plan to potential investors,” said the audit for the year ending June 30.

    Dive Insight:

    Not long ago, Hampshire College was the poster child for a successful higher education turnaround, raising tens of millions of dollars in donations and adding hundreds of students to its student body after a close brush with closure in 2019. But as its fiscal 2025 audit shows, the institution is once again under heavy financial stress. 

    In addition to talks with bondholders, auditors cited recurring decreases in net assets and negative cash flow from the college’s operations. Given those woes, auditors once again added in the college’s financial statement “going concern” language, accounting terminology that signals an entity might not be financially able to continue operating beyond a year. Hampshire’s audits for fiscal years 2023 and 2024 included similar warnings. 

    Hampshire’s fiscal 2025 year ended in June with a 13.9% drop in total net assets, to $37.9 million, and an operating deficit of $3.7 million. 

    The college’s total debt stood at $24.9 million at the end of the fiscal year. More than $20 million of that moved from long-term debt to short term after Hampshire breached bond covenants in 2025 and years prior.

    Since 2022, one of the college’s bondholders has been trying to exercise a put option, which gives the holder the ability to sell back the bond to the issuer at a given price. As of late November, Hampshire hadn’t come up with a way to refund or refinance the bonds. “Both lenders have extended the tender dates to September 2026,” according to the audit.

    According to the institution’s audit, “The College has stated that its ability to continue as a going concern is contingent on securing financing for these bonds.” Along with refinancing, however, officials are also exploring ways to boost enrollment, reduce expenses and potentially sell real estate.

    The college has faced the threat of closure before. In fall 2019, Hampshire opted to admit only a partial incoming class as it navigated deep financial distress. 

    By June 2020, the college had racked up a total operating deficit of $7.1 million, more than double from the year before. But a curriculum revamp and fundraising blitz helped bring the college back from the brink of closure.

    Yet pressures remained. The college has continued to operate in the red while trying to chip away at its deficit. In 2024, the college cut 9% of its staff after lower-than-expected enrollment and as it continued working toward a balanced budget.  

    “We’re still growing, enrollment is still increasing,” then-President Edward Wingenbach told Higher Ed Dive at the time. “This is really more about ensuring that we can continue to be successful as the parameters of that growth change.” 

    Wingenbach left the college last January, as the college touted steep long-term rises in both applications and enrollment, which reached 844 by fall 2024 — up nearly 70% from two years earlier. Jennifer Chrisler, previously Hampshire’s chief advancement officer, replaced him as permanent president in October after stepping in as interim. 

    Hampshire’s enrollment ambitions hit another major speed bump last fall, when its new student enrollment of roughly 150 students missed the college’s goals — by half, MassLive.com reported last week.

    Source link

  • Pell Grant program faces up to $11B annual budget shortfall

    Pell Grant program faces up to $11B annual budget shortfall

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

    Dive Brief: 

    • The Pell Grant program faces a 10-year shortfall of up to $97 billion, with the recent expansion to include short-term workforce programs adding to existing structural funding problems, according to a Friday analysis from the nonprofit Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. 
    • The massive spending package Republicans passed this summer, called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, gave the Pell Grant program $10.5 billion in one-time funding to avoid a looming budget shortfall. However, this will only delay the shortfall, according to analysts.
    • CRFB expects the Pell Grant program’s costs to exceed its funding by $6 billion to $11 billion each year over the next decade. “The underlying structural gap between costs and appropriations remains unaddressed, and in fact was made worse under OBBBA,” the analysts said.

    Dive Insight:  

    Before Republicans passed their spending package, the Pell Grant program was expected to deplete its reserves by the 2025 fiscal year. With the $10.5 billion infusion, lawmakers staved off that crisis — but only by about two years, according to CRFB’s analysis. 

    That’s in part because the legislative package also expands Pell Grant funding to programs as short as eight weeks, starting in July 2026. CRFB pointed to Congressional Budget Office data estimating that the expansion, known as Workforce Pell, will add about $2 billion to the program’s costs over the next decade. 

    But authors of Friday’s analysis expect this number to be much higher —  $6 billion or more — depending on how many students apply for Workforce Pell, how states and institutions carry out the program, and how the U.S. Department of Education interprets and enforces the accountability measures established by Congress. 

    “History suggests that when new eligibility is created, enrollment often exceeds initial projections,” analysts said, citing a 2020 report on proposals at the time for short-term Pell from New America, a left-leaning think tank.

    In 2008, lawmakers expanded Pell Grants to be available year-round. At the time, the CBO estimated the program would cost $2.6 billion over the next five years. But in 2011, a U.S. Education Department official testified before Congress that the program expansion was costing 10 times higher annually than expected. 

    Similarly, in 2005, Congress lifted restrictions on federal student aid flowing to fully online colleges. While the Education Department expected the change to cost $697 million over 10 years, online-only colleges received “billions in federal aid dollars” in the 2018-19 award year alone, New America found. 

    In Friday’s analysis, researchers estimated the Pell Grant program would face a $61 billion 10-year shortfall if lawmakers keep its appropriations adjusted for inflation and maintain the maximum award of $7,395. If lawmakers keep both appropriations and the maximum award flat, that shortfall would reach $88 billion. 

    Moreover, the shortfall would hit $97 billion if lawmakers raise Pell Grant funding and the maximum award in line with inflation and Workforce Pell enrollment outpaces expectations, the researchers estimated. 

    The Education Department is meeting this week with selected students, employers, college officials and other stakeholders in a process known as negotiated rulemaking to work out regulations for implementing the new program. Under the 2025 statute, short-term programs must have a 70% job placement rate and a 70% graduation rate to be eligible for Pell Grants. 

    In a draft of regulatory language released last week, the Education Department proposed that, for the first couple years of the program, job placements would count regardless of what fields students enter. However, after the 2027-28 award year, programs would have to show that at least 70% of their students land jobs specifically in fields for which they were being trained.

    Source link

  • Higher education faces ‘deteriorating’ 2026 outlook, Fitch says

    Higher education faces ‘deteriorating’ 2026 outlook, Fitch says

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Fitch Ratings on Thursday issued a “deteriorating” outlook for the higher education sector in 2026, continuing the gloomy prediction the agency issued for 2025.
    • Analysts based their forecast on a shrinking prospective student base, “rising uncertainty related to state and federal support, continued expense escalation and shifting economic conditions.” 
    • With its report, Fitch joins Moody’s Ratings and S&P Global Ratings in predicting a grim year for higher ed — Moody’s for the sector overall and S&P for nonprofit colleges specifically.

    Dive Insight:

    Fitch’s report details a dour year for higher ed, but one that affects colleges unequally.

    The shifting federal landscape, for example, will have “a wide but uneven impact on the sector,” the report said, citing possible changes to research funding and the Republicans’ massive spending bill that passed this summer. The analysts specifically pointed to new federal lending limits for graduate programs, set to take effect in July, which could limit colleges’ pricing power.

    Fitch also expects international enrollment to falter. Preliminary surveys about fall 2025 enrollment have found colleges reporting a drop in international students, especially those enrolled in graduate programs.

    International enrollment can be a financial boon to colleges, especially those heavily dependent on tuition revenue, as these students often pay full sticker price.

    But under President Donald Trump, the federal government has repeatedly attacked foreign students, from expanding the vetting process to revoking their visas by the thousands. It has also moved to tighten international student visa programs.

    “This fragile pipeline will become another area of increasing competition for fewer students and may further erode any meaningful student fee revenue growth prospects for 2026 and beyond,” the report said.

    The number of high school graduates is expected to peak this year after years of growth, according to the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. In the coming years, the number of traditional-age college students is expected to drop, leaving colleges fighting for fewer attendees.

    Overall enrollment in the sector has recovered from the pandemic, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. 

    But those gains have been largely concentrated at two-year institutions, according to Fitch. The report noted that these institutions offer increasingly popular certificate programs and dual enrollment, which allows students to take college courses while in high school. However, those options may not ultimately lead to more transfer students at four-year colleges, it said.

    Amid these factors, colleges will face “strained revenue growth prospects,” according to Fitch Senior Director Emily Wadhwani.

    “A vulnerable international student pipeline, a shrinking domestic student base and rising scrutiny on the value proposition of a higher education degree are likely to erode any meaningful student fee revenue growth prospects in the coming year,” Wadhwani said in the report.

    The number of colleges merging or closing is expected to “continue at an elevated pace” in 2026, Fitch analysts said.

    Source link

  • Advanced Teaching Roles Program Shows Improved Test Scores, but Faces Funding Concerns – The 74

    Advanced Teaching Roles Program Shows Improved Test Scores, but Faces Funding Concerns – The 74


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

    North Carolina’s Advanced Teaching Roles program, which allows highly effective teachers to receive salary supplements for teaching additional students or supporting other teachers, is having positive effects on math and science test scores, according to an evaluation presented by NC State University’s Friday Institute for Educational Innovation at the State Board of Education meeting last week.

    Since 2016, the ATR initiative has allowed districts to create new career pathways and provide salary supplements for highly effective teachers — or Advanced Teachers — who mentor and support other educators while still teaching part of the day. Their roles include Adult Leadership teachers, who lead small teams and receive at least $10,000 supplements, and Classroom Excellence teachers, who take on larger student loads and receive a minimum of $3,000 supplements. 

    Those in adult leadership roles teach for at least 30% of the day, lead a team of 3-8 classroom teachers, and share responsibility for the performance of all those teachers’ students. Classroom excellence teachers are responsible for at least 20% more students than before they enter the role.

    “Our ATR program was designed to allow highly effective classroom educators to reach more students and to support the professional growth of educators,” said Dr. Callie Edwards, the program’s lead evaluator, at the State Board of Education meeting last Wednesday. “ATR aims to improve the quality of classroom instruction, the recruitment and retention of teachers, as well as ultimately impact student academic achievement.”

    In the 2024-25 school year, 26 districts operated ATR programs across 400 schools — 56% of which were elementary schools — employing 1,494 Advanced Teachers who supported nearly 4,000 classroom teachers statewide, according to the evaluation. Edwards said that 88% of Adult Leadership teachers received at least $10,000, and 85% of Classroom Excellence teachers received $3,000 or more.

    Statistical analysis of the 2023-24 school year’s data found that students in ATR schools outperformed their peers in non-ATR schools in math and science, showing statistically significant learning gains. 

    “Across the various programs I’ve evaluated, these are positive results — especially in math and science — where the impact of ATR is equivalent to about a month of extra learning for students,” said Dr. Lam Pham, the leading quantitative evaluator. “The results in ELA are positive but not statistically significant, which has been consistent for the last three years,” Pham said, referring to English Language Arts.

    These effects on math and science grow over time, according to the evaluation. Math scores improved throughout schools’ first six years of ATR implementation — though they are no longer significant by the seventh year of implementation, according to the presentation. For science scores, statistically significant gains began in the fifth year after schools began implementing ATR.

    Additionally, math teachers in ATR schools reported higher EVAAS growth scores than their peers in comparable schools.

    Teachers in ATR schools also reported feeling like they have more time to do their work compared to teachers in non-ATR schools.

    This year’s report featured data on teachers supported by ATR teachers for the first time. The evaluation found no positive effects on test scores for students taught by supported teachers compared to students taught by teachers who are not in the program. The researchers also found no effect on turnover levels for teachers supported by Advanced Teachers. However, the report says additional years of data will be necessary to verify if those effects appear over time.  

    The evaluation recommended that principals in ATR schools should foster collaboration and communicate strategically about the program with staff, beginning during Advanced Teachers’ hiring and onboarding.

    “It’s important to integrate ATR into those processes,” Edwards told the Board. “That means introducing Advanced Teachers to new staff and making collaboration, especially mentoring and coaching, a structured part of the day.”

    Edwards said these practices have been adopted in some schools, but principals reported needing more time and support to build collaboration opportunities into the school schedule.

    The report also urges district administrators to coordinate with Beginning Teacher (BT) programs, advertise ATR in recruitment materials, and improve their data collection practices. It also calls on state leaders to standardize the program to ensure consistency across participating districts.

    “Districts need standardized messaging, professional learning opportunities, and technical assistance to support implementation,” Edwards said. “The state can also create more opportunities for districts to share what’s working with one another and expand the evaluation beyond test scores to capture things like classroom engagement, social, emotional development, and feedback from teachers and principals.”

    The evaluators also said “there’s more to do” to expand the program in western North Carolina after Board members raised concerns about uneven participation across the state’s regions.

    2026-27 participants

    After the Friday Institute’s presentation, Board members heard a presentation on proposals for the next round of districts to join the ATR program from Dr. Thomas R. Tomberlin, senior director of educator preparation, licensure, and performance.

    Tomberlin said DPI received 15 proposals representing 22 districts. These proposals have been evaluated by seven independent evaluators, Tomberlin said. The Board had to choose the program’s next participants by Oct. 15 to comply with a legislative requirement. 

    The state can only allocate $911,349 for new implementation grants in 2026-27 — less than one-sixth of the funding required to fund all applications. That level of funding is “very low” compared to previous years, Tomberlin said. In the 2023-25 state budget, the General Assembly appropriated $10.9 million in recurring funds for these supplements in each year of the biennium.

    Tomberlin recommended that the Board approve the three highest-scoring proposals for the 2026-27 fiscal year, and fund these districts at 85% of their request. If the Board approves this recommendation, the state would still have $37,981 in planning funds left over for districts approved during the 2026 proposal cycle.

    Tomberlin said districts are already struggling to pay for the program’s salary supplements. The Friday Institute’s report showed that, despite the high median supplements, some districts are offering supplements as little as $1,000.

    “Some districts are not able to pay the full $10,000 because they have more ATR teachers than the funding that we can give them in terms of those allotments,” Tomberlin said. “And we had requested the General Assembly, I think, an additional $14 million to cover those supplements, and we didn’t get any.”

    The Senate’s budget proposal this session included funds to expand the ATR program over the biennium, while the House proposal did not. The General Assembly has not yet passed a comprehensive state budget, and its mini-budget did not include ATR program funding.

    Tomberlin said DPI would be in touch with the three districts to verify if they can proceed with the program despite limited funding.

    This article first appeared on EdNC and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


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

    Source link

  • Broward County Public Schools faces enrollment drops, possible closures

    Broward County Public Schools faces enrollment drops, possible closures

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Broward County Public Schools announced plans to “address” 34 of its 239 schools for possible closures or consolidations during a Tuesday board meeting. 
    • The pending plans come at a time when the large Florida district is reporting an enrollment decrease of 10,360 students, a count taken 10 days into the 2025-26 school year compared to the year prior. The district’s total enrollment, excluding charter schools, was 188,002 on Aug. 22.
    • The district also reported in July that 58 of its schools were below 70% capacity, including 39 elementary schools, 16 middle schools and 3 high schools.

    Dive Insight:

    As the sixth largest school district in the U.S., BCPS is not immune to a national trend of districts facing enrollment drops amid declining birthrates and growing school choice options.

    In a May survey of current and former BCPS parents conducted by Hanover Research, the data found that about half of respondents — 53% — said they enrolled their children in a nontraditional schooling option because they wanted higher quality instruction. A third of families also cited smaller class sizes and another third indicated the availability of more programs. The district surveyed 8,983 parents who either had a child enrolled, formerly enrolled, or partially enrolled in a BCPS school.

    The top two reasons parents said they unenrolled their children from BCPS was because they were dissatisfied with the district’s education quality (26%) and they were concerned about school safety (24%).  

    Among those who previously had a child enrolled or partially enrolled at BCPS, 20% said improved teacher quality through professional development would have made them more likely to stay. Some 18% also separately said better support for students with disabilities, improvements on handling school bullying, or strengthened safety and security measures would have encouraged them to keep their child in the district.

    To retain families, the district is being advised based on the parent survey results to:

    • Track school climate and culture outcomes for improvements.
    • Offer more college and career readiness support.
    • Provide more support to teachers to improve the district’s education quality.
    • Tackle school safety issues and work to reduce bullying and harassment.

    An August analysis by Bellwether, an education nonprofit, warns that more school closures and consolidation could be on the horizon in the coming months and years due to declining enrollment — ultimately leading to strained school budgets. Bellwether estimated that the total loss in revenue from declining enrollment at the nation’s largest 100 districts could total up to $5.2 billion based on 2023-24 school enrollment. 

    Other large school districts recently weighing a number of school closures and consolidations as a result of declining enrollment include Atlanta Public Schools, Austin Independent School District in Texas and St. Louis Public Schools.

    Source link

  • Haverford College faces Education Department investigation into antisemitism

    Haverford College faces Education Department investigation into antisemitism

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

     Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Education is investigating Haverford College in Pennsylvania over allegations the institution hasn’t done enough to respond to campus antisemitism.
    • The department cited unspecified “credible reporting” that senior leaders at the small liberal arts college told Jewish students who reported harassment that they should not expect to be safe, instead telling them to be brave.
    • Haverford is the latest college facing a federal investigation into antisemitism as the Trump administration seeks to exert increasing control over the higher education sector.

    Dive Insight:

    The Education Department’s investigation into Haverford focuses on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination based on race, color or national origin at institutions that receive federal funds.

    “Like many other institutions of higher education, Haverford College is alleged to have ignored anti-Semitic harassment on its campus, contravening federal civil rights law and its own anti-discrimination policies,” Craig Trainor, the department’s Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, said in a Wednesday statement.

    A spokesperson for Haverford confirmed Thursday that the college had received a copy of the complaint and is reviewing it.

    In May, Republican lawmakers called the leaders from three colleges, including Haverford, before the House education committee to discuss how they’ve responded to allegations of antisemitism on their campuses. Committee Chair Tim Walberg said he called Haverford to testify because relatively small colleges were “seeing shocking rises in anti-Jewish incidents and rhetoric” and “antisemitism has taken root at Haverford College.“

    Haverford President Wendy Raymond told legislators that the roughly 1,500-student college hadn’t “always succeeded in living up to our ideals” but that she remained “committed to addressing antisemitism and all issues that harm our community members.”

    Haverford’s handling of campus tensions since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and the ensuing Middle East conflict have received mixed responses from students.

    In 2024, a group of Jewish Haverford students, faculty, alumni and parents sued the college over allegations it failed to protect Jewish students and ensure students could participate in classes “without fear of harassment if they express beliefs about Israel that are anything less than eliminationist.” 

    Despite questions about the student lawsuit, Raymond declined to discuss individual reports of alleged antisemitism or disciplinary actions with lawmakers.

    The plaintiffs amended their lawsuit in January after U.S. District Judge Gerald McHugh dismissed the case, but he again granted Haverford’s request to dismiss the complaint in June. McHugh ruled that the students’ arguments failed to meet the threshold for a Title VI claim, including by failing to show that the college had “deliberate indifference” to antisemitism.

    “While Plaintiffs paint a picture of a stressful campus climate for Jewish students, many of the incidents pled fall within the protection of the First Amendment,” McHugh wrote in his decision. He also said the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a “concrete educational impact” resulting from the alleged incidents.

    Other Jewish students defended Haverford in an op-ed in the college’s independent student newspaper, saying the college teaches them “to engage critically with different viewpoints.” The op-ed, published prior to Raymond’s testimony, also criticized the House education committee, alleging it was weaponizing antisemitism and calling the scheduled hearing “unmistakably an excuse to target the most vulnerable people on our campus.” 

    Source link

  • Duke Faces $108M Funding Freeze, Multiple Investigations

    Duke Faces $108M Funding Freeze, Multiple Investigations

    Federal officials are accusing Duke University’s law journal and medical school of racial discrimination.

    Duke University file photo

    The Departments of Education and Health and Human Services are investigating Duke University and the Duke Law Journal for allegedly violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination based on race and national origin, the agencies announced Monday.

    The New York Times reported Tuesday night that the Trump administration froze $108 million in federal grants and contracts at Duke’s medical school and health system.

    On Monday, ED and HHS sent a letter detailing their concerns about potentially discriminatory practices at Duke Health and threatening the medical school’s federal funding.

    “These practices allegedly include illegal and wrongful racial preferences and discriminatory activity in recruitment, student admissions, scholarships and financial aid, mentoring and enrichment programs, hiring, promotion, and more,” the letter states, though officials didn’t offer specifics.

    The departments want Duke to “review all policies and practices at Duke Health for the illegal use of race preferences, take immediate action to reform all of those that unlawfully take account of race or ethnicity to bestow benefits or advantages, and provide clear and verifiable assurances to the government that Duke’s new policies will be implemented faithfully going forward—including by making all necessary organizational, leadership, and personnel changes to ensure the necessary reforms will be durable.”

    Additionally, the agencies want Duke to convene a “Merit and Civil Rights Committee” that can negotiate with the federal government on behalf of university leaders and “avoid invasive federal engagement,” according to the letter. This request appears to be a new ask for the Trump administration as officials work to expand their scrutiny of higher education, based on what’s publicly known about investigations at other colleges.

    “We hope this arrangement will enable the parties to move quickly toward a mutually agreeable resolution of outstanding concerns and complaints,” officials wrote in the letter. “If the alleged offending policies, practices, and programs are found to exist and remain unrectified after six months, or if at any time the Merit and Civil Rights Committee and federal government reach an impasse, the federal government will commence enforcement proceedings as appropriate.”

    Duke has 10 days to respond to the request to form the committee.

    Meanwhile, the Duke Law Journal investigation, led by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, centers on allegations that the journal uses factors such as race or national origin to select editors. The department opened a similar investigation into the Harvard Law Review. 

    The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news outlet, reported last month that the Duke Law Journal prepared a special application packet for affinity groups that noted applicants could get a three- to five-point bump if they have “meaningfully advanced the interests of communities with diverse perspectives and experiences either at school or in their community.” 

    Source link

  • Col. Larry Wilkerson: Defeated Once, Israel Faces a Collapse It May Not Survive (Dialogue Works)

    Col. Larry Wilkerson: Defeated Once, Israel Faces a Collapse It May Not Survive (Dialogue Works)

    Dedicated to dialogue and peace, “Dialogue Works” is hosted by Nima Rostami Alkhorshid.

    At Dialogue works, we believe there’s nothing more unstoppable than when people come together. This group’s mission is to create a global community of diverse individuals who will support, challenge, and inspire one another by providing a platform for Dialogue. We encourage you to share your knowledge, ask questions, participate in discussions, and become an integral part of this little community. Together we can become a better community and provide our members with a much better experience.

    Source link

  • Free speech still reigns, but faces setbacks online

    Free speech still reigns, but faces setbacks online

    This essay was originally published by The Dallas Express on July 21, 2025.

    Don’t want to publish an opinion on your blog you disagree with? Too bad, the government forces you to publish it. Criticize the mayor? Go to jail  — and good luck trying to sue the mayor for violating your First Amendment rights. Want to access online content legal for adults without jeopardizing your privacy and reputation? Think again, your state legislature demands you reveal your identity first.

    That’s not the America I know. Nor is it one a robust First Amendment would ever allow. But those constitutional threats came up before the Supreme Court during its past two terms, thanks to state legislatures and government officials who would prefer to play thought police instead of obey the First Amendment’s commands.

    For the most part, the Supreme Court did as it has for decades: It upheld the First Amendment as a mighty check on government intrusion into our thoughts, on public debate, and in the search for truth. Still, a couple of the Court’s decisions this year broke from that trend, causing First Amendment defenders everywhere to raise their collective eyebrows.

    Americans’ pilgrimage to the online world has placed free speech on the internet at the forefront of the Court’s recent First Amendment decisions. And that includes a case involving our Lone Star State. Last July, in Moody v. Netchoice, the Supreme Court considered Texas and Florida laws that tried to dictate how social media companies decide what political and ideological content to allow, and how to present it.

    Before the Supreme Court sent the cases back to the appeals courts for another look, it made one thing clear: The First Amendment bars the government from telling social media platforms what they can and can’t publish, just as it bars the government from telling newspaper editors what they can or can’t print. As Justice Kagan remarked, “on the spectrum of dangers to free expression, there are few greater than allowing the government to change the speech of private actors in order to achieve its own conception of speech nirvana.”

    In another pair of rulings, the Supreme Court considered two instances of local officials blocking citizens from commenting on the officials’ social media pages about the government’s performance. Although the Court didn’t rule in favor of either party, it confirmed the First Amendment limits officials’ power to block Americans from commenting on social media pages an official uses to conduct government business.

    With these social media decisions, the Court underscored that core First Amendment principles apply just as strongly in the digital age, helping to secure free speech online from government overreach.

    On the other hand, this most recent Supreme Court term found the Court twice deferring to governmental regulations of online expression. First, in TikTok v. Garland, the Court held the federal government’s effective ban on the popular social media app TikTok does not violate the First Amendment, even as half the United States uses the platform to speak and to receive information. The Court largely yielded to the government’s asserted concerns over national security, despite, as many pointed out, Congress’s failure to provide enough evidence showing TikTok poses a national security threat. In fact, the administration’s continued unwillingness to enforce the ban punctuates how suspect Congress’s national security concerns were.

    And in another decision, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the Court upheld Texas’s law requiring adults to verify their age before accessing websites with sexually explicit material that is, while legal for adults, “obscene for minors.” Breaking from decades-old prior precedent that invalidated similar laws, the Court held the First Amendment doesn’t protect adults “accessing material obscene to minors” until they verify their age — even though that material enjoys full First Amendment protection.

    While the Court noted the accepted practice of ID checks for sexually explicit material in the physical world, it all but skirted the unique and serious privacy implications digital ID checks impose, in a time where Americans suffer harm from regular data breaches. Those privacy scares will chill many adults from seeking speech the First Amendment protects for their use.

    For all that, both the TikTok and Free Speech Coalition decisions are narrow ones. So on the whole, they should not undermine the broad protections for internet speech the Supreme Court has confirmed in prior terms. Still, any time the government censors speech on shaky evidence about national security concerns, or tries to burden adult access to protected speech in the name of childproofing the internet, it raises a First Amendment red flag that should concern us all.

    Outside of the digital world, the Supreme Court handed down several decisions over the last two terms vindicating the First Amendment as a vital check on overzealous government officials abusing their power to silence opinions they don’t like. For instance, in NRA v. Vullo, the Supreme Court held officials in New York violated the First Amendment when they coerced financial services and insurers and underwriters to sever ties with the National Rifle Association — all because the state disagreed with the NRA’s constitutionally protected advocacy. That’s hugely important for freedom of speech, affirming that the government can’t strong-arm third-parties into silencing Americans because of the views they express.

    Another decision centered on a San Antonio-area woman was a good step towards ensuring government critics have a robust remedy when officials wrongfully arrest them. In Gonzalez v. Trevino, the Supreme Court clarified that Sylvia Gonzalez, a long-time government critic, could sue the local officials who singled her out for arrest after she called for the city manager’s removal.

    And just this May, the Supreme Court halted the Maine Legislature’s denial of State Representative Laurel Libby’s right to vote just because the legislature’s political majority took offense to the lawmaker’s First Amendment-protected social media post about a transgender athlete participating in a high school event. Not only did the majority’s act infringe Rep. Libby’s First Amendment right to comment on public issues, it also deprived her constituents of the representation our republican form of government guarantees.

    At its core, the Court’s ruling in Libby v. Fecteau underscored a vital constitutional principle: Political majorities cannot censor and exclude others from the democratic process based on the views they express. That’s a first principle worth upholding, no matter where a speaker falls on the ideological spectrum.

    And we should all be glad the Supreme Court upheld that principle here, in a time where protecting the uniquely American freedoms to dissent and voice our opinions without fear of the government’s strong hand is as important as ever.

    Source link

  • George Mason University faces federal probe into hiring and promotion practices

    George Mason University faces federal probe into hiring and promotion practices

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

    The U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday opened an investigation into George Mason University to determine whether it discriminates against employees based on sex and race, including in promotion and tenure decisions.

    The news comes after the U.S. Department of Education opened two investigations into the public institution earlier this month over claims the university hasn’t done enough to respond to antisemitism and illegally uses race in employment decisions.

    The flurry of federal inquiries raises questions regarding the future of George Mason’s president, after pressure from the Justice Department pushed former University of Virginia President Jim Ryan to announce his abrupt resignation in June.

    3 probes in 3 weeks

    In a Thursday letter to George Mason, DOJ alleged that “race and sex have been motivating factors in faculty hiring decisions to achieve ‘diversity’ goals” under President Gregory Washington’s tenure. The agency cited Biden administration-era emails and statements from Washington in which he discussed a desire to support diversity and faculty of color and oppose racism on an institutional level.

    The DOJ’s letter opens an investigation into whether the university has violated Title VII, which bars employers from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. 

    “When employers screen out qualified candidates from the hiring process, they not only erode trust in our public institutions — they violate the law, and the Justice Department will investigate accordingly,” Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general of DOJ’s civil rights division, said in a statement.

    The agency said it has “not reached any conclusions” yet and called on the university to provide relevant information.

    George Mason did not immediately respond to a Friday request for comment on DOJ’s investigation.

    “Painted as discriminatory”

    On Wednesday, Washington strongly repudiated similar allegations from the Education Department. The agency is investigating the university’s faculty hiring practices over potential violations of Title VI, which bars federally funded institutions from discriminating based on race, color or national origin.

    “Our diversity efforts are designed to expand opportunity and build inclusive excellence — not to exclude or advantage any group unlawfully,” he said in a statement July 16.

    The university’s faculty performance evaluations do not “use race or anti-racism measures as determinants of institutional success,” Washington said, and George Mason’s promotion and tenure policies do not give preferential treatment based on protected characteristics.

    The university president said that all inclusivity work done by a task force at George Mason aligned with the One Virginia Plan, a state-level initiative promoting diversity and inclusion in the state government’s workforce.

    The plan, established during former Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam’s administration, is set to conclude at the end of 2025 and is unlikely to be extended by Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a vehement opponent of diversity and inclusion efforts.

    Washington, the first Black president to lead George Mason, also commented on “the “profound shift in how Title VI is being applied,” in what he called “a stark departure from the spirit in which civil rights law was written.”

    “Longstanding efforts to address inequality — such as mentoring programs, inclusive hiring practices, and support for historically underrepresented groups — are in many cases being reinterpreted as presumptively unlawful,” Washington said. “Broad terms like ‘illegal DEI’ are now used without definition, allowing virtually any initiative that touches on identity or inclusion to be painted as discriminatory.”

    The Education Department never publicly announced its first investigation into George Mason, which alleges that the university failed to respond “effectively to a pervasive hostile environment for Jewish students and faculty.” George Mason confirmed the investigation on July 3, though a conservative news outlet began publishing government documents about the case the day before.

    Washington predicted many of the obstacles George Mason has faced this month in an interview with ProPublica and The Chronicle of Higher Education. 

    Source link