Tag: Federal

Duke University offers buyouts and signals future layoffs as federal cuts hit
Dive Brief:
- Duke University is offering voluntary buyouts for employees and has frozen hiring as it braces for federal funding cuts, the institution said Wednesday.
- The North Carolina institution signaled that layoffs were likely in the coming months, but said it is “pursuing several employment actions now in hopes of reducing the scale of involuntary separations later this summer.”
- The moves are in response to federal cuts and policy shifts, which could translate into funding losses for Duke between $500 million and $750 million, university officials said during an internal webinar Wednesday, according to media reports.
Dive Insight:

Historically, much of Duke’s research enterprise has been devoted to work on behalf of the government. Federal grant support made up nearly three-quarters of the $1.5 billion in sponsored research funds that Duke received in fiscal 2024, much of it going toward health science.

The university, in its latest financial statement, described its medical school as “one of the largest biomedical research enterprises in the country.” And funding just from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services — which houses the National Institutes of Health — accounted for 58% of all of Duke’s sponsored research funding.

The National Science Foundation and U.S. Department of Energy also accounted for tens of millions of dollars in the university’s funding.

Since President Donald Trump retook office, those agencies and others have been cutting and delaying grant awards at a frantic pace, including moves to cap reimbursement for indirect research costs at NIH and the Energy Department. Both funding caps have been blocked in courts — at least for now — but the Trump administration is continuing to fight the legal cases against the policies.

Uncertainty over the funding will likely loom for some time to come.

For Duke, the NIH indirect cost cap would mean $194 million in lost funding each year, President Vincent Price and other leaders said in February.

“Much is at stake,” the officials said then. “Our nation’s world-leading research enterprise has been enabled by — and will only be sustained by — partnership and co-investment from both the government and higher education.”

They also signaled at the time that “careful planning and difficult decisions” could lie ahead.

Today, Duke is trying to cut $350 million from its budget, according to reports of the university’s presentation, as it grapples with funding gaps under the Trump administration.

As it trims down, Duke has paused capital spending on buildings, renovations and other projects that are “not fully funded or deemed essential,” the university said Wednesday.

It’s also reviewing universitywide programs — such as technology adoption, off-campus real estate and on-campus space consolidation — for potential cost-savings.

Employee benefits could also be on the chopping block.

“A study is also under way to assess how certain changes to the university’s benefits may generate savings while protecting the program’s strong competitive position,” Duke said.

However, Executive Vice President Daniel Ennis told employees Wednesday that the university still plans to give out merit raises and will not change its tuition grant program for children of employees.

Universities around the country have been scrambling in recent months to open breathing room in their budgets to cope with the uncertainty and disruption created by cuts and delays at federal agencies. Many have frozen hiring and budgets to maintain financial flexibility while others have laid off employees to cope with cuts.
Source link
May 1, 2025
Federal agency reportedly texts survey to professors asking if they’re Jewish or Israeli
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- Faculty members of Columbia University and Columbia-affiliated Barnard College received text messages from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asking them to complete a survey inquiring about whether they are Jewish or Israeli, multiple news outlets reported April 23.
- According to a screenshot of a message posted by CNN, EEOC said responses to the survey would be kept confidential “to the extent allowed by law.” The screenshot said EEOC was conducting an inquiry into Barnard College and that, should the agency find that the college violated laws enforced by EEOC, some of the information of respondents may be disclosed.
- In an email to HR Dive, EEOC declined to confirm that it had sent the messages. Columbia, in a separate email, declined to confirm that employees had received messages from EEOC.
Dive Insight:

Federal officials have scrutinized Columbia following a series of on-campus protests in 2024. In August of that year, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., and former chairwoman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, issued several subpoenas to Columbia leaders as part of an investigation into antisemitism at the university and whether the protests had created a hostile environment in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Last month, EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas issued a statement in which she pledged to hold universities and colleges accountable for workplace antisemitism. Lucas’ statement did not name any specific institutions, but it did cite “disruptive and violent protests in violation of campus policies” as an example of severe or pervasive antisemitic conduct that could violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

“Under the guise of promoting free speech, many universities have actually become a haven for antisemitic conduct, often in violation of the universities’ own time, place, and manner policies, as well as civil rights law,” Lucas said in the March 5 statement.

EEOC did not confirm whether messages sent to Columbia and Barnard faculty were part of an ongoing investigation into either institution. “Per federal law, we cannot comment on investigations, nor can we confirm or deny the existence of an investigation,” the agency said.

Similarly, Columbia declined to comment on a pending investigation, but a university official said Columbia had told staff that it gave “affected employees notice that the University was required to provide certain information in compliance with a subpoena. The University did not provide the information voluntarily.”

Columbia did not respond to a request for comment on whether it had advised staff not to respond to EEOC’s messages.

News of the inquiry drew criticism from one of EEOC’s administrative judges, Karen Ortiz, who sent an all-staff email directed to EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas.

Ortiz wrote that Lucas should consider resigning; in an interview with HR Dive, she said the email was in response to news of the text messages and other recent agency actions, including its decision to abandon gender-identity discrimination litigation and halting some claims processing. She said the survey arguably was not within Lucas’ authority to send and could be understood as an attempt to intimidate Columbia and Barnard.

“It’s a complete overreach,” Ortiz said of the survey.
Source link
April 25, 2025
Federal judges deal major blow to Education Department’s anti-DEI guidance

Two federal judges issued separate rulings Thursday that together dealt a major blow to the Trump administration’s recent guidance threatening to strip federal funding from colleges and K-12 schools that consider race in any of their policies, including scholarships and housing.

U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher ruled that the U.S. Department of Education did not follow proper procedures when issuing the Feb. 14 letter and postponed its effective date nationwide while the legal challenge against the guidance plays out.

The order came in response to a lawsuit from the American Federation of Teachers and other groups, which alleged that the guidance “radically upends” federal antidiscrimination law and is too vague for colleges and K-12 school officials to understand what conduct is prohibited.

The guidance interprets the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling against race-conscious college admissions to extend to every aspect of education, including financial aid, administrative support and graduation ceremonies.

According to AFT, the letter also implied that a wide variety of “core instruction, activities, and programs” used in teaching students — from diversity initiatives to instruction on systemic racism — could now be considered illegal discrimination.

The Feb. 14 letter asserted that colleges and K-12 schools had “toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism’ and advanced discriminatory policies and practices.”

The Education Department appeared to walk back some of the strictest aspects of its guidance in a March Q&A document, but Gallagher wrote that the Q&A still lacked “sufficient clarity to override the express terms of the [Feb. 14] Letter.”

Gallagher, a federal distict judge in Maryland, said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their arguments that the letter exceeds the Education Department’s authority by attempting to exercise control over curriculum.

“The government cannot proclaim entire categories of classroom content discriminatory to side-step the bounds of its statutory authority,” Gallagher wrote.

AFT Maryland President Kenya Campbell hailed the court’s order on Thursday.

“This preliminary injunction pauses the chaos caused by targeting and attacking vital communities and temporarily protects the critical funding schools, from our K-12 schools to our higher education institutions, rely on,” Campbell said.

The order came the same day as another federal judge made a similar ruling in a separate case brought against the Feb. 14 guidance.

The National Education Association, its New Hampshire affiliate and the Center for Black Educator Development sued the Education Department in early March, arguing the guidance undermines the free speech rights of educators.

Although the plaintiffs had sought a nationwide injunction, federal Judge Landya McCafferty, ruling for New Hampshire district court, only blocked enforcement of the guidance for federally funded colleges and schools that employ or contract with the plaintiffs’ members. NEA alone has about 3 million members, including higher education workers.

Source link

April 24, 2025
Federal Court Blocks Education Department’s Diversity Directive, Marking Victory for Academic Freedom Advocates

A federal judge in New Hampshire delivered a significant legal victory Thursday for proponents of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in education by granting a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Department of Education’s controversial February “Dear Colleague” letter that critics had denounced as an unprecedented attempt to restrict DEI initiatives nationwide.

The ruling temporarily blocks the Education Department from enforcing its February 14, 2025, directive against the plaintiffs, their members, and affiliated organizations while litigation continues. The court determined the directive potentially contradicts established legal protections for academic freedom and may violate constitutional rights by imposing vague restrictions on curriculum and programming.

The February directive had sent shockwaves through higher education institutions across the country, with many administrators and faculty expressing concern that their diversity programs could trigger federal funding cutoffs. According to court documents, some educators reported feeling targeted by what they characterized as a “witch hunt” that put their jobs and teaching credentials at risk.

“Today’s ruling allows educators and schools to continue to be guided by what’s best for students, not by the threat of illegal restrictions and punishment,” said National Education Association President Becky Pringle in a statement following the decision. She further criticized the directive as part of broader “politically motivated attacks” designed to “stifle speech and erase critical lessons” in public education.

The coalition of plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit on March 5 includes the National Education Association (NEA), NEA-New Hampshire, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Massachusetts, and the Center for Black Educator Development.

Sharif El-Mekki, CEO and founder of the Center for Black Educator Development, emphasized the significance of the ruling beyond its immediate legal implications. “While this interim agreement does not confirm the Department’s motives, we believe it should mark the beginning of a permanent withdrawal from the assault on teaching and learning,” he said. “The Department’s attempt to punish schools for acknowledging diversity, equity and inclusion is not only unconstitutional, but it’s also extremely dangerous — and functions as a direct misalignment with what we know to be just and future forward.”

Education legal experts note that the case represents a critical battleground in the ongoing national debate about how issues of race, identity, and structural inequality should be addressed in educational settings. The preliminary injunction suggests the court found merit in the plaintiffs’ arguments that the Education Department overstepped its authority and potentially violated First Amendment protections.

Sarah Hinger, deputy director of the ACLU Racial Justice Program, called the ruling “a victory for students, educators, and the fundamental principles of academic freedom,” adding that “every student deserves an education that reflects the full diversity of our society, free from political interference.”

The lawsuit challenges the directive on multiple legal grounds, including violations of due process and First Amendment rights, limitations on academic freedom, and exceeding the department’s legal mandate by dictating curriculum content. The plaintiffs argue that the directive created a chilling effect on legitimate educational activities while imposing vague standards that left educators uncertain about compliance requirements.

Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, emphasized the importance of the ruling for educational inclusivity. “The court’s ruling today is a victory for academic freedom, the free speech rights of educators, and for New Hampshire students who have a right to an inclusive education free from censorship,” he said. “Every student, both in the Granite State and across the country, deserves to feel seen, heard, and connected in school – and that can’t happen when classroom censorship laws and policies are allowed to stand.”

The injunction comes at a time when many colleges and universities have been reassessing their diversity initiatives amid increased public scrutiny and policy debates. Higher education institutions have expressed particular concern about maintaining both compliance with federal regulations and their commitments to creating inclusive learning environments.

The Department of Education has not issued a public response to the court’s decision. The case will now proceed to further litigation as the court considers whether to permanently block the directive.

Source link

April 24, 2025
No, Endowments Are Not the Answer to Federal Attacks on Higher Ed

Learn more about how endowments support students and research: Contact Congress, read our brief Understanding College and University Endowments, and explore our Tax Resource webpage.

The Trump administration has launched an aggressive and unprecedented attack on higher education—unlike anything we’ve seen before. Billions of dollars in federal support for vital research on diseases like cancer, Alzheimer’s, and HIV disappeared overnight. The law and longstanding due process protections for institutions have been disregarded.

These sweeping actions have harmed every type of institution—and, more importantly, the students and communities they serve. As a consequence, colleges and universities have been forced to freeze hiring, lay off staff, eliminate programs, halt life-saving clinical trials, and pause graduate admissions—all within the administration’s first 100 days.

Some traditional supporters of higher education, as well as frequent critics, suggest that there is an easy way out: colleges and universities should simply use their endowments to plug these sudden financial gaps. This idea has come from across the political spectrum—from Republican Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland and the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute to liberal New York Times columnist Ezra Klein and the left-leaning think tank New America.

These calls to “just spend the endowment” tend to resurface during crises, as seen during the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. If endowment spending increased then, why can’t the same thing happen now? It sounds simple, but it’s wrong.

First, while institutions have increased endowment spending during major emergencies, the billions of dollars in research funding cuts being proposed now dwarfs anything confronted previously. In 2023, the federal government provided nearly $60 billion on research funding, compared to total endowment spending—financial aid, research, student services, academics, operations, and more—of about $35 billion, according to IPEDS data.

Second, during these recent crises, institutions didn’t have to shoulder the burden alone. They acted in partnership with the federal government and other stakeholders to weather the storm. That shared response made a difference. In 2025, however, the federal government isn’t a partner—it’s the source of the crisis. And unlike past emergencies, there is no clear end in sight, leaving open the potential of a devastatingly long-term drain on endowments.

Third, endowments are not like a single checking or savings account that can be dipped into at will. Instead, they consist of up to thousands of individual accounts, the vast majority of which are legally restricted by donors. These restrictions often designate support for specific purposes like expanding financial aid, supporting the chair of a particular academic discipline, or fueling groundbreaking medical and technological research. Most endowment spending boosts access for low-income students and academics. The 2024 NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments found that almost about two thirds of endowment spending goes directly to financial aid and academics, and institutions with large endowments are the most likely to provide need-blind admissions, meet students’ full financial need, and offer no-loan financial aid packages. These funds cannot legally be redirected to make up for canceled government funding—or bail out reckless federal policy decisions.

Even the wealthiest institutions don’t have enough unrestricted funds to routinely absorb massive, sustained cuts without irreparably draining their endowments. Endowments are managed like marathon runners: they expend energy strategically, knowing they can’t sprint the whole race. There are times to surge—such as during the pandemic—but that pace can’t last. Try to sprint the whole race, and the endowment, like a runner, collapses. Reckless financial decisions today won’t just hurt current students—they’ll shortchange the next generation as well.

For this reason, endowment spending is closely monitored, regularly audited, and guided by strict policies designed to ensure long-term sustainability. Colleges and universities spend what is both prudent and legally permitted each year while preserving benefits for future students. According to the 2024 NACUBO report, institutions’ average effective spending rate was nearly 5 percent. That figure isn’t arbitrary. It’s shaped by state laws, donor intent, and sound financial stewardship. Some states actually impose legal restrictions on the percentage of endowment spending each year. For example, in Ohio, spending more than 5 percent in a given year could expose an institution to legal liability.

Misconceptions about endowments aren’t just misleading—they threaten the very people and programs that they were created to support: scholarships, research, academic excellence, and the futures of countless students and faculty. And they divert attention from the real issue: an unprecedented assault on American higher education.

If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

Source link

April 22, 2025
Northwestern to Fund Research After Federal Freeze

Northwestern University is stepping in to fund ongoing research projects after the private institution received stop-work orders on nearly 100 federal grants, CBS News Chicago reported.

The move comes after the Trump administration froze $790 million in federal research funding at Northwestern, which is one of multiple institutions across the U.S. hit by similar setbacks. Others include Harvard University, which had $2.2 billion frozen after it rejected changes demanded by the Trump administration in response to alleged antisemitism and harassment; Cornell University (more than $1 billion); Columbia University ($650 million); Brown University ($510 million); Princeton University ($210 million); and the University of Pennsylvania ($175 million).

Northwestern, like others on the list, had a pro-Palestinian encampment protest on campus last spring, which prompted Congress to bring its president in for a hearing on antisemitism in May.

Northwestern president Michael Schill and Board of Trustees chair Peter Barris told the university community in an email obtained by CBS News Chicago that the university still had not received formal notice that federal research funding had been pulled, but the university has received stop-work orders. They noted the university will continue funding on projects that received stop-work orders as well as other research threatened by the Trump administration.

“The work we do is essential to our community, to the nation and to the world. Enabling this vital research to continue is among our most important priorities, and supporting our researchers in this moment is a responsibility we take seriously,” Schill and Barris wrote in the Thursday email.

Northwestern is among the nation’s wealthiest universities, with an endowment recently valued at $14.2 billion. However, financial experts have cautioned against leveraging endowments to plug budget holes, prompting some wealthy institutions targeted by the administration to issue bonds or take out private loans.

Source link

April 21, 2025
Federal Education Cuts and Trump DEI Demands Leave States, Teachers in Limbo – The 74

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

Early this month, the U.S. Department of Education issued an ultimatum to K-12 public schools and state education agencies: Certify that you are not engaging in discrimination under the banner of diversity, equity and inclusion, or risk losing federal funding — including billions in support for low-income students.

The backlash was immediate. Some states with Democratic governors refused to comply, arguing that the directive lacks legal basis, fails to clearly define what constitutes “illegal DEI practices,” and threatens vital equity-based initiatives in their schools.

After lawsuits from the National Education Association teachers union and the American Civil Liberties Union, the Department of Education agreed to delay enforcement until after April 24.

But states across the country, both liberal- and conservative-led, are worried about losing other aid: the pandemic-era money that in some cases they’ve already spent or committed to spending.

The Department of Education has long played a critical role in distributing federal funds to states for K-12 education, including Title I grants to boost staffing in schools with high percentages of low-income students, and emergency relief like that provided during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conservative-led states — particularly Mississippi, South Dakota and Arkansas — rely the most heavily on these funds to sustain services in high-need districts.

The 15 states with the highest percentage of their K-12 budget coming from federal funding in fiscal year 2022 — the latest year with data available from the National Center for Education Statistics — voted for Trump in the 2024 presidential election. Similarly, 10 of the 15 states receiving the highest amounts of Title I funding in fiscal year 2024 also voted for Trump.

Mississippi and Kentucky have sent letters to the Department of Education expressing concern over halted pandemic aid.

The clash over federal funding comes even as the future of the Department of Education is murky, given President Donald Trump’s pledge to dismantle the department.

DEI-related cuts

In letters to the Department of Education, state officials and superintendents in Illinois, New York and Wisconsin pushed back against the DEI directive.

New York officials said they would not provide additional certification beyond what the state already has done, asserting that there “are no federal or State laws prohibiting the principles of DEI.” Illinois Superintendent Tony Sanders wrote that he was concerned that the Department of Education was changing the conditions of federal funding without a formal administrative process. Wisconsin Superintendent Jill Underly questioned the legality of the order.

New York State Department of Education Counsel and Deputy Commissioner Daniel Morton-Bentley noted that the federal department’s current stance on DEI starkly contrasts with its position during Trump’s first term, when then-Education Secretary Betsy DeVos supported such efforts.

Colorado and California also confirmed they would not comply with the Department of Education’s order.

While some states with liberal leaders are gearing up for legal battles and possible revocation of funding, conservative-led states such as Florida have embraced the federal directive as part of a broader push to reshape public education.

In Florida, anti-DEI laws have been in place dating back to 2023. In fact, many school districts and the state education department say they plan to follow the federal department’s directives, noting the similar state laws.

Pandemic aid cancellations

In March, the Department of Education abruptly rescinded previously approved extensions of pandemic-era aid, ending access to funds months ahead of the original March 2026 deadline.

When the Massachusetts governor’s office voiced concern over that decision, the federal department’s reply on social media was blunt: “COVID is over.”

Sixteen mostly Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Education and Secretary Linda McMahon, challenging the abrupt rescission of previously approved extensions for spending COVID-19 education relief funds.

But backlash against abrupt federal cuts to education has not been limited to blue states.

Mississippi’s Department of Education warned the cuts would jeopardize more than $137 million in already obligated funds, slated for literacy initiatives, mental health services and infrastructure repairs. “The impact of this sudden reversal is detrimental to Mississippi students,” state Superintendent Lance Evans wrote in a letter to McMahon.

The letter also outlines the state’s repeated — but unsuccessful — efforts to draw down millions in approved funds since February.

Shanderia Minor, a spokesperson for the Mississippi education department, told Stateline the agency is awaiting next steps and direction about the funds and federal directives.

In Kentucky, state Education Commissioner Robbie Fletcher told districts — which stand to lose tens of millions in pandemic aid — that abrupt federal changes leave them “in a difficult position,” with schools already having committed funds to teacher training and facility upgrades.

According to Kentucky Department of Education spokesperson Jennifer Ginn, the state has about $18 million in unspent pandemic aid funds left to distribute to districts. And districts have about $38 million in unspent funds, for a total $56 million that could be lost.

Lauren Farrow, a former Florida public school teacher, told Stateline that schools that receive Title I money are already underfunded — and the federal threat only widens the gap.

“Florida is pouring billions into education — but where is it going? Because we’re not seeing it in schools, especially not in Title I schools,” said Farrow. “I taught five minutes away from a wealthier school, and we didn’t even have pencils. Teachers were buying shoes for students. Why is that still happening?”

Effects in the classroom

Tafshier Cosby, senior director of the Center for Organizing and Partnerships at the National Parents Union, a parents advocacy group, told Stateline that while most families don’t fully understand the various school funding systems, they feel the impact of cuts in the classroom.

Cosby said parents are worried about the loss of support services for students with disabilities, Title I impacts, and how debates about DEI may deflect from more urgent needs like literacy and teacher support.

“We’ve been clear: DEI isn’t the federal government’s role — it’s up to states,” she said. “But the confusion is real. And the impact could be devastating.”

Today, as a consultant working with teachers across Florida’s Orange County Public Schools — one of the largest districts in the country — Farrow says many educators are fearful and confused about how to support their students under changing DEI laws.

“Teachers are asking, ‘Does this mean I can’t seat a student with glasses at the front of the room anymore?’ There’s so much fear around what we’re allowed to do now.”

“There’s no one giving teachers guidance or even basic acknowledgment. We’re just left wondering what we’re allowed to say or do — and that’s dangerous.”

Amanda Hernández contributed to this report. Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

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

Source link

April 20, 2025
Federal judge freezes Energy Department’s 15% cap on indirect costs

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

A federal judge Wednesday temporarily blocked the U.S. Department of Energy from implementing a 15% cap on grant funding for indirect costs. The ruling came just days after a dozen higher education associations and colleges sued the department, calling the new policy an overstep of authority and a threat to U.S. research and advancement.

In the ruling Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs said the plaintiffs — including higher ed groups like the American Council on Education and threatened colleges like the University of Michigan and Brown University — had successfully demonstrated that they would “sustain immediate and irreparable injury” if the policy were allowed to proceed in tandem with the lawsuit.

Burroughs’ temporary restraining order bars the Energy Department — until further court order — from terminating grants, either under the challenged policy or “based on a grantee’s refusal to accept an indirect cost rate less than their negotiated rate.” The judge is also requiring the department to submit biweekly reports confirming that the federal funds are being distributed during the pause.

When announcing the funding cap last Friday, the Energy Department said the move would save $405 million annually and reduce what it called inefficient spending. Indirect research costs typically include overhead expenses such as facilities and administrative support staff.

The department said the change would affect over 300 colleges and that it would terminate grants to any institutions that failed to comply.

But the plaintiffs said the policy’s rapid implementation would give institutions no choice but to scale back funding and lay off staff.

Their lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, called the Energy Department’s policy “a virtual carbon copy” of one announced in February by the National Institutes of Health. A federal judge permanently blocked NIH’s plan to cap indirect cost funding at 15% earlier this month, a decision the agency quickly appealed. The NIH plan would cost research universities billions in annual funding.

“DOE’s action is unlawful for most of the same reasons and, indeed, it is especially egregious because DOE has not even attempted to address many of the flaws the district court found with NIH’s unlawful policy,” the plaintiff’s lawsuit said.

The next hearing in the case is set for April 28 before the same court.

Source link

April 17, 2025
CCRC Loses $12M in Federal Grants
The Community College Research Center has lost access to funding from four federal grants collectively worth more than $12 million, the center’s director, Thomas Brock, said in a letter Tuesday. The cut was part of the Trump administration’s broader freeze on $400 million in federal funding at Columbia University over accusations that the institution didn’t do enough to response to antisemitism.

But Brock argued in the letter that “the terminations did nothing to address perceived problems at Columbia, nor did they challenge ‘woke’ ideology, as our projects were nonideological to begin with.”

CCRC is based at Teachers College, an education graduate school that became affiliated with the nearby Columbia University in 1898 but was founded independently in 1887 and remains “legally, administratively, and financially separate” from the Ivy League institution, Brock explained.

Still, when the federal antisemitism task force announced the funding cut, Teachers College, and therefore the CCRC, were affected. All four grants that were cut came from the Institute of Education Sciences. The now-terminated grants supported:
- A study on whether work-study programs improve retention, degree completion and employment postgraduation.
- An analysis of how effective Virginia’s Get a Skill, Get a Job, Get Ahead program has been in helping low-income students access short-term training programs.
- An apprenticeship program that helps develop the next generation of state-level higher ed policy researchers.
- A network of six research groups studying ways to reverse post-pandemic enrollment declines.
It added to the blow CCRC had already experienced in February when the Department of Education canceled 10 contracts with Regional Educational Laboratories, which are also overseen by the IES, saying they were examples of “woke” government spending. The REL Northwest had signed a contract with CCRC to pilot a professional development program for community college faculty members.

“It is hard to overstate the importance of IES grants and contracts to a research center like CCRC,” said Brock, who was commissioner of the National Center for Education Research at IES from 2013 to 2018.

CCRC has appealed the decision to terminate the grants.

“We do not know how long the process will take,” Brock wrote, “but are hopeful that fair minds will rule in our favor.”
Source link
April 16, 2025
Federal Grants Website Gets DOGE’d

The Department of Government Efficiency has taken control of a federal website that universities and other organizations use to find out about—and apply for—federal grant opportunities, The Washington Post reported Friday.

Federal officials have historically listed on Grants.gov more than $500 billion in annual federal grant opportunities from numerous agencies, including the Defense, State and Interior Departments, that fund research on a range of topics, such as cancer, cybersecurity and wastewater management. However, an engineer from DOGE—the agency run by billionaire Donald Trump donor Elon Musk—deleted, without notice, many of those officials’ permissions to post those funding opportunities.

Agency officials have been instructed instead to send their planned grant notices to a Department of Health and Human Services email address that DOGE is monitoring. The HHS, which has long managed Grants.gov, said it’s “taking action to ensure new grant opportunities are aligned” with the Trump administration’s priorities outlined in its Make America Healthy Again agenda, according to the Post.

Now DOGE is responsible for posting grant opportunities. And if it delays them or stops posting them altogether, that “could effectively shut down federal-grant making,” an anonymous federal official told the Post.

Source link

April 15, 2025