Tag: fight

  • Teachers unions leverage contracts to fight climate change

    Teachers unions leverage contracts to fight climate change

    This story first appeared in Hechinger’s climate and education newsletter. Sign up here

    In Illinois, the Chicago Teachers Union won a contract with the city’s schools to add solar panels on some buildings and clean energy career pathways for students, among other actions. In Minnesota, the Minneapolis Federation of Educators demanded that the district create a task force on environmental issues and provide free metro passes for students. And in California, the Los Angeles teachers union’s demands include electrifying the district’s bus fleet and providing electric vehicle charging stations at all schools. 

    Those are among the examples in a new report on how unionized teachers are pushing their school districts to take action on the climate crisis, which is damaging school buildings and disrupting learning. The report — produced by the nonprofit Building Power Resource Center, which supports local governments and leaders, and the Labor Network for Sustainability, a nonprofit that seeks to unite labor and climate groups — describes how educators can raise demands for climate action when they negotiate labor contracts with their districts. By emphasizing the financial case for switching to renewable energy, educators can simultaneously act on climate change, improve conditions in schools and save districts money, it says. 

    As federal support and financial incentives for climate action wither, this sort of local action is becoming more difficult — but also more urgent, advocates say. Chicago Public Schools has relied on funding for electric buses that has been sunsetted by the Trump administration, said Jackson Potter, vice president of the Chicago Teachers Union. But the district is also seeking other local and state funding and nonprofit support.

    Bradley Marianno, an associate professor in the College of Education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said that educator unions embracing climate action is part of a move started about 15 years ago in which more progressive unions — like those in Chicago, Los Angeles and elsewhere — focus on “collective good bargaining,” or advocating for changes that are good for their members but also the broader community. But this approach is unlikely to catch on everywhere: “The risk lies in members feeling that core issues like wages and working conditions are being overlooked in favor of more global causes,” he wrote in an email. 

    I recently caught up with Potter, the CTU vice president, about the report and his union’s approach to bargaining for climate action. Collaborating with local environmental and community groups, the Chicago Teachers Union ultimately succeeded in winning a contract that calls for identifying schools for solar panels and electrification, expanding indoor air quality monitoring, helping educators integrate climate change into their curriculum, and establishing training for students in clean energy jobs, among other steps. 

    This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

    The report talks about contract negotiations being an underused — and effective — lever for demanding climate action. Why do you see that process as such an opportunity for climate action?

    On the local level, our schools are 84, 83 years old on average. There is lead paint, lead pipes, mold, asbestos, PCBs, all kinds of contamination in the HVAC system and the walls that require upgrades. By our estimate, the district needs $30 billion worth of upgrades, and right now I think they spend $500 million a year to just do patch-up work. We’re at a point where it’s a system fail of epic proportions if we can’t figure out a way to transition and make things healthier. And so if you’re going to do a roof repair, put solar on it, have independence from fossil fuels, clean air in areas that have faced environmental racism and contamination. 

    We’re also dealing with a legacy of discrimination and harm, and that is true of the nation. So how do we get out of this and also save the planet and also prevent greater climate events that further destabilize vulnerable communities and put people at risk? It made sense for us to use our contract as a path to do both things — deal with this local crisis that was screaming for new solutions and ideas, in a moment when the climate is on fire, literally.  

    How challenging was it to get educators to view climate issues as a priority? There are so many other things, around pay and other issues, on the table. 

    When we started, it almost felt like people in the membership, in the community, viewed it as a niche issue. Like, ‘Oh, isn’t that cute, you care about green technology.’ As we figured out how to think about it and talk about it and probe where people were having issues in their schools, it became really obvious that when you started talking about asbestos, lead and mold remediation — and helping communities that have been hit the hardest with cumulative impacts and carcinogens and how those things are present in schools — that became much more tangible. Or even quality food and lunch and breakfast for students who are low-income. It went from bottom of the list to top of the list, instantaneously. 

    Your contract calls for a number of climate-related actions, including green pathways for students and agreements with building trade unions to create good jobs for students. Tell me about that. 

    We’re trying to use the transformation of our facilities as another opportunity for families and students in these communities that have been harmed the most to get the greatest benefit from the transformation. So if we can install solar, we want our students to be part of that project on the ground in their schools, gaining the skills and apprenticeship credentials to become the electricians of the future. And using that as a project labor agreement [which establishes the terms of work on a certain project] with the trades to open doors and opportunities. The same goes for all the other improvements — whether it’s heat pumps, HVAC systems, geothermal. And for EV — we have outdated auto shop programming that’s exclusively based on the combustible engine reliant on fossil fuels, whereas in [the nearby city of] Belvidere they are building electric cars per the United Auto Workers’ new contract. Could we gain a career path on electric vehicles that allows students to gain that mechanical knowledge and insight and prepares them for the vehicles of the future? 

    The report talks about the Batesville School District in Arkansas that was able to increase teacher salaries because of savings from solar. Have you tried to make the case for higher teacher salaries because of these climate steps?  

    The $500 million our district allocates for facility upgrades annually comes out of the general fund, so we haven’t at all thought about it in terms of salary. We’ve thought about it in terms of having a school nurse, social worker, mental health interventions at a moment when there is so much trauma. We see this as a win-win: The fewer dollars the district has to spend on facility needs means the more dollars they can spend on instructional and social-emotional needs for students. In terms of the Arkansas model, it’s pretty basic. If you get off the fossil fuel pipelines and electric lines and you become self-sufficient, essentially, powering your own electric and heat, there is going to be a boon, particularly if there are up-front subsidies. 

    Math and climate change 

    When temperatures rise in classrooms, students have more trouble concentrating and their learning suffers — in math, in particular. That’s according to a new report from NWEA, an education research and testing company.

    The report, part of a growing body of evidence of the harms of extreme heat on student performance, found that math scores declined when outdoor temperatures on test days rose above 80 degrees Fahrenheit. Students in high-poverty schools, which are less likely to have air conditioning, saw declines up to twice as large as those in wealthier schools. 

    The learning losses grew as temperatures rose. Students who took tests on 101-degree days scored roughly 0.06 standard deviations below students who tested when temperatures were 60 degrees, the equivalent of about 10 percent of the learning a fifth grader typically gains in a school year. 

    It’s not entirely clear why student math scores suffer more than reading when temperatures rise. But Sofia Postell, an NWEA research analyst, said that on math tests, students must problem-solve and rely on their memories, and that kind of thinking is particularly difficult when students are hot and tired. Anxiety could be a factor too, she wrote in an email: “Research has also shown that heat increases anxiety, and some students may experience more testing anxiety around math exams.”

    The study was based on data from roughly 3 million scores on NWEA’s signature MAP Growth test for third to eighth graders in six states. 

    The report urged school, district and state officials to take several steps to reduce the effects of high heat on student learning and testing. Ideally, tests would be scheduled during times of the year when it wasn’t so hot, it said, and also during mornings, when temperatures are cooler. Leaders also need to invest in updating HVAC systems to keep kids cool. 

    “Extreme heat has already detrimentally impacted student learning and these effects will only intensify without action,” wrote Postell. 

    Mea culpa: A quick note to say I got two things wrong in my last newsletter — the name of the Natural Resources Defense Council was incorrect, as was the number of hours of learning California students have missed so far this year. It’s more than 54,000. 

    Contact editor Caroline Preston at 212-870-8965, via Signal at CarolineP.83 or on email at [email protected].

    This story about teachers unions was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter on climate and education.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • As more question the value of a degree, colleges fight to prove their return on investment

    As more question the value of a degree, colleges fight to prove their return on investment

    This story was produced by the Associated Press and reprinted with permission. 

    WASHINGTON – For a generation of young Americans, choosing where to go to college — or whether to go at all — has become a complex calculation of costs and benefits that often revolves around a single question: Is the degree worth its price?

    Public confidence in higher education has plummeted in recent years amid high tuition prices, skyrocketing student loans and a dismal job market — plus ideological concerns from conservatives. Now, colleges are scrambling to prove their value to students.

    Borrowed from the business world, the term “return on investment” has been plastered on college advertisements across the U.S. A battery of new rankings grade campuses on the financial benefits they deliver. States such as Colorado have started publishing yearly reports on the monetary payoff of college, and Texas now factors it into calculations for how much taxpayer money goes to community colleges.

    “Students are becoming more aware of the times when college doesn’t pay off,” said Preston Cooper, who has studied college ROI at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. “It’s front of mind for universities today in a way that it was not necessarily 15, 20 years ago.”

    Related: Interested in more news about colleges and universities? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter

    A wide body of research indicates a bachelor’s degree still pays off, at least on average and in the long run. Yet there’s growing recognition that not all degrees lead to a good salary, and even some that seem like a good bet are becoming riskier as graduates face one of the toughest job markets in years

    A new analysis released Thursday by the Strada Education Foundation finds 70 percent of recent public university graduates can expect a positive return within 10 years — meaning their earnings over a decade will exceed that of a typical high school graduate by an amount greater than the cost of their degree. Yet it varies by state, from 53 percent in North Dakota to 82 percent in Washington, D.C. States where college is more affordable have fared better, the report says.

    It’s a critical issue for families who wonder how college tuition prices could ever pay off, said Emilia Mattucci, a high school counselor at East Allegheny schools, near Pittsburgh. More than two-thirds of her school’s students come from low-income families, and many aren’t willing to take on the level of debt that past generations accepted.

    Instead, more are heading to technical schools or the trades and passing on four-year universities, she said.

    “A lot of families are just saying they can’t afford it, or they don’t want to go into debt for years and years and years,” she said.

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon has been among those questioning the need for a four-year degree. Speaking at the Reagan Institute think tank in September, McMahon praised programs that prepare students for careers right out of high school.

    “I’m not saying kids shouldn’t go to college,” she said. “I’m just saying all kids don’t have to go in order to be successful.”

    Related: OPINION: College is worth it for most students, but its benefits are not equitable

    American higher education has been grappling with both sides of the ROI equation — tuition costs and graduate earnings. It’s becoming even more important as colleges compete for decreasing numbers of college-age students as a result of falling birth rates.

    Tuition rates have stayed flat on many campuses in recent years to address affordability concerns, and many private colleges have lowered their sticker prices in an effort to better reflect the cost most students actually pay after factoring in financial aid.

    The other part of the equation — making sure graduates land good jobs — is more complicated.

    A group of college presidents recently met at Gallup’s Washington headquarters to study public polling on higher education. One of the chief reasons for flagging confidence is a perception that colleges aren’t giving graduates the skills employers need, said Kevin Guskiewicz, president of Michigan State University, one of the leaders at the meeting.

    “We’re trying to get out in front of that,” he said.

    The issue has been a priority for Guskiewicz since he arrived on campus last year. He gathered a council of Michigan business leaders to identify skills that graduates will need for jobs, from agriculture to banking. The goal is to mold degree programs to the job market’s needs and to get students internships and work experience that can lead to a job.

    Related: What’s a college degree worth? States start to demand colleges share the data

    Bridging the gap to the job market has been a persistent struggle for U.S. colleges, said Matt Sigelman, president of the Burning Glass Institute, a think tank that studies the workforce. Last year the institute, partnering with Strada researchers, found 52 percent of recent college graduates were in jobs that didn’t require a degree. Even higher-demand fields, such as education and nursing, had large numbers of graduates in that situation.

    “No programs are immune, and no schools are immune,” Sigelman said. 

    The federal government has been trying to fix the problem for decades, going back to President Barack Obama’s administration. A federal rule first established in 2011 aimed to cut federal money to college programs that leave graduates with low earnings, though it primarily targeted for-profit colleges.

    A Republican reconciliation bill passed this year takes a wider view, requiring most colleges to hit earnings standards to be eligible for federal funding. The goal is to make sure college graduates end up earning more than those without a degree. 

    Others see transparency as a key solution.

    For decades, students had little way to know whether graduates of specific degree programs were landing good jobs after college. That started to change with the College Scorecard in 2015, a federal website that shares broad earnings outcomes for college programs. More recently, bipartisan legislation in Congress has sought to give the public even more detailed data.

    Lawmakers in North Carolina ordered a 2023 study on the financial return for degrees across the state’s public universities. It found that 93 percent produced a positive return, meaning graduates were expected to earn more over their lives than someone without a similar degree.

    The data is available to the public, showing, for example, that undergraduate degrees in applied math and business tend to have high returns at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, while graduate degrees in psychology and foreign languages often don’t.

    Colleges are belatedly realizing how important that kind of data is to students and their families, said Lee Roberts, chancellor of UNC-Chapel Hill, in an interview.

    “In uncertain times, students are even more focused — I would say rightly so — on what their job prospects are going to be,” he added. “So I think colleges and universities really owe students and their families this data.”

    The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

    The Strada Education Foundation, whose research is mentioned in this story, is one of the many funders of The Hechinger Report.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • UC System Warns of Broader Risks in Federal Funding Fight

    UC System Warns of Broader Risks in Federal Funding Fight

    The University of California system is warning state lawmakers that federal funding cuts could extend well beyond UCLA as tensions between the Trump administration and American colleges continue to rise.

    UC president James B. Milliken wrote a letter to dozens of local elected officials Tuesday explaining that “the stakes are high and the risks are very real.” The system’s 10 institutions could lose billions of dollars in aid, forcing its leaders to make tough calls about staffing, the continuation of certain academic programs and more, he said.

    President Trump has already frozen more than $500 million in grants at UCLA, allegedly because the Justice Department accused the university of violating Jewish students’ civil rights. The president demanded the university pay a $1.2 billion fine to unlock the funds, and system officials are worried that more funding cuts are likely. California lawmakers have repeatedly urged the UC system not to capitulate.

    In an August letter, State Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat and chair of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, and 33 other lawmakers told Milliken that Trump’s actions were “an extortion attempt and a page out of the authoritarian playbook,” the Los Angeles Times reported

    Milliken wrote in Tuesday’s letter that a loss in funding would “devastate” the system and harm students, among other groups.

    “Classes and student services would be reduced, patients would be turned away, tens of thousands of jobs would be lost, and we would see UC’s world-renowned researchers leaving our state for other more seemingly stable opportunities in the US or abroad,” he wrote.

    If the UC system loses federal funding, it would need about $4 to $5 billion a year to make up the difference, Milliken added. “That is what fighting for the people of California will take.”

    Source link

  • HACU Seeks to Fight Lawsuit Targeting HSIs

    HACU Seeks to Fight Lawsuit Targeting HSIs

    The Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, represented by the civil rights organization LatinoJustice PRLDEF, recently filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit that takes aim at Hispanic-serving institutions.

    The lawsuit was brought against the U.S. Department of Education by the state of Tennessee and Students for Fair Admissions, the advocacy group whose lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action in college admissions. The lawsuit claims the federal designation for HSIs, which requires 25 percent Latino enrollment, is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional.

    HACU, an association representing HSIs, argued in its motion that it should become a party to the lawsuit to stand up for the constitutionality of the HSI program. The organization suggested the Education Department is unlikely to vigorously defend the federal designation while it’s in the process of dismantling itself.

    Antonio R. Flores, president and CEO of HACU, said the lawsuit “directly undermines years of advocacy by our founding members that led the federal government to formally recognize HSIs in 1992.”

    “The HSI program is a vital engine of educational excellence, workforce readiness and opportunity for all students attending these exemplary learning communities,” Flores said in a statement. “HACU joins in defending the policies and resources HSIs need to educate and serve 5.6 million students from all backgrounds nationwide.”

    Source link

  • Texas Law School Deans Fight to Keep ABA Accreditation

    Texas Law School Deans Fight to Keep ABA Accreditation

    A group of Texas law school deans is urging the state Supreme Court to uphold American Bar Association accreditation standards for public law schools. The state’s highest court announced in April that it was considering dropping the ABA requirement for licensure, opening a public comment period on the matter that closed July 1.

    “We strongly support continued reliance on ABA accreditation for Texas law schools and licensure eligibility,” the deans of eight of the state’s 10 ABA-accredited law schools wrote in a letter to the Texas Supreme Court. “ABA accreditation provides a nationally recognized framework for quality assurance and transparency; portability of licensure through recognition of ABA accreditation by all 50 states, which is critical for graduates’ career flexibility; consumer protections and public accountability through disclosure standards; and a baseline of educational quality that correlates with higher bar passage rates and better employment outcomes.”

    Though the Texas justices did not say why they were reviewing ABA accreditation, the law deans’ letter noted that the body has already suspended its DEI standards—a move it announced in February and then extended in May through Aug. 31, 2026. That means “the language of the Standard can be revised in accordance with federal constitutional law and Texas state law that bar certain diversity, equity and inclusion practices at state universities,” the deans wrote.

    Of the state’s ABA-accredited law schools’ deans, only Robert Chesney of the University of Texas and Robert Ahdieh of Texas A&M didn’t sign the letter, Reuters reported.

    In his own nine-page letter to the state Supreme Court, Chesney urged the justices to look at “alternative” pathways for ensuring law school standards “to help pave the way for innovative, lower-cost approaches to legal education.”

    Ahdieh told Reuters that whatever the court decides about ABA accreditation, it’s “critical” that law degrees earned in Texas remain portable.

    Source link

  • Jailed for basic journalism, Texas reporter takes free speech fight to Supreme Court

    Jailed for basic journalism, Texas reporter takes free speech fight to Supreme Court

    For years, Priscilla Villarreal has fought to hold officials accountable when they violate Americans’ First Amendment rights, including the Laredo officials who threw her in jail just for asking police to verify facts as part of her everyday news reporting. 

    Priscilla sued, and last fall, the Supreme Court gave her a shot at justice, granting her petition and ordering the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to reconsider Priscilla’s case against the officials who tried to turn routine journalism into a felony.

    But in April, a divided Fifth Circuit doubled down, holding the Laredo officials had qualified immunity, a doctrine that often shields government officials from lawsuits even when they violate the Constitution. In his dissent, one judge lamented that the court had simply reinstated what it “mistakenly said before, just in different packaging.”

    So Priscilla and FIRE are doubling down, too. We’re heading back to the Supreme Court, asking it to make crystal clear that Americans have every ability to hold officials accountable for violating core First Amendment rights — like the right to ask government officials questions, and publish what they share.

    That’s exactly what Priscilla has been doing for years, reporting on local crime, traffic, and other news for her 200,000 Facebook followers. She’s made a name for herself too. The New York Times describes her as “arguably the most influential journalist in Laredo.”  But despite her experience, her journey from Laredo, a city on the Mexican border, to the Supreme Court has been a long one.

    In 2017, she reported on a high-profile suicide and a fatal car accident. For both stories, Priscilla received tips from private citizens and verified those facts by asking a Laredo police officer. The First Amendment squarely protects this routine journalistic practice. After all, at the heart of the First Amendment is the freedom to ask government officials and institutions questions, even tough ones.

    Angered by Priscilla’s reporting on these incidents, Laredo officials tried to bully her into silence by arresting her. But with no legitimate basis on which to charge her with a crime, police and prosecutors turned to a decades-old statute that no local official had ever enforced. 

    That law makes it a felony to ask for or receive non-public information from a government official with the intent to benefit from that information. Laredo police and prosecutors pursued two warrants for Priscilla’s arrest under the statute. In short, Priscilla went to jail for basic journalism. 

    So in 2019, she sued the officials for violating her First and Fourth Amendment rights. As Judge James Ho later remarked in his dissent at the Fifth Circuit, it “should’ve been an easy case for denying qualified immunity.”

    But it hasn’t been. A Texas federal district court dismissed her claims on the basis of qualified immunity. A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed that decision, denying qualified immunity. But when the whole Fifth Circuit reheard the case at the government’s request, it reversed the panel ruling in a splintered 9-7 decision.

    In 2024, Priscilla and FIRE took her fight to the Supreme Court for the first time. The Court granted Priscilla’s petition to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision and ordered it to reconsider her case in light of the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision, Gonzalez v. Trevino. That decision affirmed the ability to sue government officials when they retaliate against protected speech by selectively enforcing statutes.

    But last April, a splintered Fifth Circuit decided against Priscilla again, granting qualified immunity to the officials who defied longstanding Supreme Court precedent and core principles of American liberty by orchestrating her arrest.

    The Fifth Circuit’s ruling not only denies Priscilla justice, but gives police and prosecutors a free pass to turn core First Amendment rights into a crime. That result cannot stand. And that’s why Priscilla and FIRE are going back to the Supreme Court.

    Priscilla’s fearless reporting has made her a local “folk hero.” Now, she’s channeling the same grit into defending not just her own rights, but the First Amendment rights of all Americans.

    Source link

  • Austin Community College Joins Fight Against DOJ and Texas

    Austin Community College Joins Fight Against DOJ and Texas

    Civil rights groups have been piling on to intervene in the recent Texas court case that ended in-state tuition for noncitizens living in the state. Now Austin Community College and a Texas undocumented student are joining the effort to defend the now-defunct law.

    College officials worry they’ll lose students and revenue if undocumented students’ tuition prices suddenly skyrocket. Austin Community College is the first Texas college to try to join the lawsuit.

    The Texas Dream Act, which allowed noncitizens who grew up in the state to benefit from in-state tuition, was overturned last month after the Department of Justice sued Texas over the law. The state didn’t fight back and instead sided with the DOJ mere hours after the legal challenge. A week later, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, a Latino civil rights organization, filed a motion on behalf of a group of Texas undocumented students to intervene in the lawsuit. The group argued the swift resolution of the DOJ’s legal challenge denied those affected any chance to weigh in, so the students should become intervenors, or a party to the case, and have their day in court.

    Other groups quickly followed MALDEF’s lead. Since last week, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the Texas Civil Rights Project, Democracy Forward and the National Immigration Law Center have joined the fight, representing the activist group La Unión del Pueblo Entero, the Austin Community College District’s Board of Trustees and Oscar Silva, a student at University of North Texas. The groups filed emergency motions on their behalf to intervene in the lawsuit and get relief from the judgment that killed the law. If these legal efforts are successful, a case so quickly open and shut by Texas and the DOJ could be reopened.

    Austin Community College board chair Sean Hassan said in a news release from the Texas ACLU chapter that college officials deserved to have their say on the policy shift.

    “Employers and taxpayers are looking to community colleges to produce a sufficient number of highly skilled graduates to meet workforce needs,” Hassan said. “If legislation or court decisions will impact our ability to meet these expectations, we should have a seat at the table to help shape responsible solutions. The action by our board asks the court to ensure our voice is heard.”

    Calculating the Costs

    In court filings, Austin Community College leaders argue that the institution will lose revenue because of the abrupt end of the Texas Dream Act. They estimated that about 440 students will see their tuition rates quadruple, and as a result, hundreds of students will stop out and prospective students will avoid enrolling in the first place. College leaders also argued in the motion to intervene that the need for scholarships will rise, putting extra financial pressure on the community college.

    They cited other potential costs as well, including setting up new processes to identify and notify noncitizen students of tuition rate changes and ramping up public relations efforts so the college can continue to “market itself as an accessible, inclusive, and affordable institution for all Texas high school graduates,” despite the policy change.

    “The loss of these students will have a cascading effect on campus life, academic programs, and student support services,” Austin Community College chancellor Russell Lowery-Hart said, according to court filings.

    The motion also detailed how Silva, the student, would likely have to withdraw from his joint bachelor’s and master’s program at the University of North Texas if he lost his in-state tuition benefits. He was expected to graduate next spring. Silva has lived in Texas since the age of 1 and attended Texas K–12 schools.

    “The Texas Dream Act means everything to me,” Silva said in the ACLU of Texas news release. “This law has made my education possible. Without it, college would’ve been out of reach for me as a first-generation college student.”

    The motion comes after Wynn Rosser, commissioner of higher education for the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, sent out a June 18 memo directing colleges and universities to determine which of their students are undocumented and need to be charged higher tuition starting this fall.

    Trouble Over Timelines

    Texas, the DOJ and civil rights groups have since been haggling over how fast the U.S. District Court should move in response to the new motions.

    The civil rights groups want a decision soon. But, in a joint submission to the court on June 30, the Trump administration and Texas argued emergency motions were uncalled-for and the legal proceedings shouldn’t be expedited, though they acknowledged the intervenors raised issues “which merit response.”

    “Expediting responses to intervenors’ motions would only serve [to] put the United States and Texas at a disadvantage, having to brief and respond to intervenors’ myriad of arguments in a drastically shorter timeframe than would otherwise be necessary, and would do nothing to help intervenors expedite any potential relief,” the response read.

    But the civil rights groups representing Austin Community College and other intervenors weren’t having it. On July 1, they asked that the court deny the request.

    The attorneys argued that the state and the federal government moved quickly to resolve the DOJ’s lawsuit and end the Texas Dream Act, but “when asked to respond on an expedited basis to the consequences of their actions and the imminent harm raised” by the motions, “the parties balk, insisting that the court should postpone its consideration of these motions until well past the point when the looming harms become irreversible.”

    That same day, Judge Reed O’Connor gave the Trump administration and Texas until July 14 to respond to the motion to intervene, which aligns with their requested timeline. He also delayed briefings on the motions to stay the judgement and for relief until he rules on the motion to intervene.

    As this fight plays out in Texas, the DOJ is targeting other states that offer in-state tuition benefits to undocumented students. Last month the Trump administration filed similar lawsuits in Kentucky and Minnesota, which have yet to be resolved.

    Source link

  • Euro visions: A playbook to fight the populists in the Netherlands

    Euro visions: A playbook to fight the populists in the Netherlands

    It looks from here like another Swedish win on Saturday night – but going into Eurovision week, the Netherlands (largely singing in French) was one of the other countries jostling to be top of the odds.

    Its entry for Eurovision 2025 is Claude Kiambe, who was born in Congo and fled with his mother and siblings when he was nine years old, first living in an asylum reception center in Alkmaar before moving to Enkhuizen.

    He got his HAVO high school diploma in the Netherlands and later started studying hotel management at a university of applied sciences – but dropped out when his career took off, largely because of… inflexible timetabling.

    The Netherlands has seen a rise in populist politics in recent years, with some interesting impacts on higher education that it’s worth reviewing as Reform continue to rise in the polls in the UK.

    Controversy kicked off in mid-2024 when the newly formed Dutch coalition government – led by Geert Wilders’ far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) – announced its intention to slash education budgets.

    That caused nationwide protests – with 25,000 student, staff and rector [ie VC] demonstrators in The Hague, garnering support from business leaders, mayors, and health organisations in the process.

    This was fairly new territory for the Universities UK equivalents used to having conversations behind closed doors – but a decision was taken that a new more public and confrontational approach would be needed.

    There’s a “Rector’s Conference” for universities and another for universities of applied sciences – and as well as taking part in the demos, the latter collaborated with students on a major “write in and tell them about them about the impacts” bit of mass activism.

    At the University of Twente the Executive Board and faculty deans expressed strong support for the national protest in November, encouraging staff and students to attend, arranging free transport, and even joining the demonstration to voice concerns about the impact of the cuts on education and research.

    And it worked – to some extent. The planned €2 billion cuts were scaled down to €1.2 billion, and there was a scaling back of international student funding cuts from €293 million to €168 million by December.

    But resistance intensified into early 2025 with “relay strikes” across multiple universities and legal challenges led by Tilburg and Radboud University, as tangible impacts emerged as institutions like the Free University of Amsterdam closing entire departments and others like the University of Twente announcing dozens of staff redundancies.

    And now, they’re very publicly taking the government to court over the cuts.

    It’s like this, it’s like that

    There’s quite a lot of politics to unpack. First, there’s the populist government’s explicit ideological positioning against what it sees as progressive academic culture.

    PVV (the populist “Party for Freedom”) representative Reinder Blaauw made this clear during a June 2024 parliamentary meeting when he celebrated the cuts as a way to force universities to “reconsider their priorities” and choose between political activism or “actual” education:

    For too long, the activist woke culture dominated the lecture halls and education institutions… And all too often, political activism was put above scientific integrity.

    He also specifically questioned…

    …how curricula on critical race theories, decolonisation, feminism and global justice make our students better analytical thinkers,

    Unlike previous cuts from right-wing governments, the rhetoric frames the cuts not as unfortunate fiscal necessity, but as a deliberate political project to reshape Dutch academia. As political scientist Roderik Rekker observes, the PVV has pulled off a remarkable piece of political doublespeak:

    It’s possible the budget cuts are indeed populist policymaking, whitewashed by the rest of the cabinet. But it could also be the opposite – that they were implemented for different reasons [to save money], and that the PVV is passing them off as the realization of their own populist agenda.

    Then there’s the question of Dutch language and identity. The coalition’s proposal to reduce English-taught programmes and require more Dutch-language instruction speaks to broader anxieties about national identity and sovereignty.

    While some academics have long raised concerns about the over-anglicisation of Dutch higher education, the populist government has folded those pedagogical questions into a much more nationalist political project.

    Third, there’s the housing crisis – a problem that has been weaponised in service of a broader agenda. As in many European countries, student housing shortages have created real pressures in university towns.

    But rather than addressing this through housing policy, the government has used it to justify restrictions on international students.

    It goes up, it goes down

    Coalition minister Robert Bruins has employed all sorts of rhetorical tactics to evade responsibility for the breach. In a March 2025 analysis, eight distinct evasion strategies were identified – blaming other causes, claiming lack of comprehensive view, shifting responsibility, expressing trust in the system, rerouting problems, calling for patience, leaving no room for alternatives, and letting others navigate the fallout.

    Confronted with universities’ deteriorating finances, Bruins typically responds that “how they implement (budget cuts) is up to the institutes themselves,” (that line should sound familiar to anyone in the UK) while simultaneously claiming he “cannot assess what critical factors apply for specific institutes.” The circular reasoning allows him to implement cuts while disowning their consequences.

    So if confrontation rather than collaboration became the name of the game at the end of last year, it’s just stepped up – now universities are taking the government to court over the cuts.

    At the heart of the legal challenge is an allegation of breach of trust – the unilateral cancellation of a ten-year administrative agreement signed in 2022. That promised €300 million annually for starter and incentive grants through 2030, creating a framework that universities relied on for investing, planning and recruiting staff.

    At the insistence of the minister, universities quickly started allocating grants,” the UNL recalled, explaining how institutions adjusted their operations based on this commitment. The challenge centres on whether a new government can simply void binding agreements without consequence.

    And around, and around

    For students, the political battles translate into highly problematic proposals. Most notable was a proposed “long-study fine” – a €3,000 penalty for students taking more than one extra year to complete their degrees.

    The long-study penalty is obviously also a way of encouraging children to complete their studies a bit faster,” said BBB (an agrarian and right-wing populist political party in the coalition) MP Claudia van Zanten.

    But former Education Minister Robbert Dijkgraaf countered that, noting that the fine would penalise “ambitious students who like to develop themselves alongside their studies by, for example, doing administrative [ie volunteering] work” as well as “students who unfortunately fall ill during their studies or who have a disability.”

    SUs were unequivocal in their opposition – and the withdrawal of the fine represented a major victory for the Netherlands’ two NUSes – it has one that does research, policy and lobbying work, and one that’s more activism focussed. But other threats remain, most notably to student sports and extracurricular activities.

    In April, the government announced plans to end subsidies for university sports facilities, with student sports passes potentially rising in cost from €200 to €700 annually. Jon de Ruijter, director of Erasmus Sport, called this a “devastating blow” that threatens student wellbeing:

    The trend is that there is increasing attention to student wellbeing, and sport is important for that… It also concerns social functionality, breaking loneliness and mental health.

    TU/e University Council student member Jeannique Wagenaar explains the broader educational implications:

    Students who engage in extracurricular activities manifest themselves better in society. So there’s a broader interest at stake here.

    Housing costs also continue to squeeze students, with rental prices set to rise by up to 7.7 per cent in 2025 – the highest increase in nearly 30 years.

    The Landelijke Studentenvakbond (one of those two National SUs) noted that this hits students particularly hard, given many lack access to housing benefits and those under 21 earn only minimum youth wages.

    SUs see these various pressures as interconnected. ISO chairwoman Mylou Miché:

    They’ve cut the basic grant, are cutting spending on education, and now they want to take away sport… If pensioners can take cheap sports lessons, why not students?

    Chanter un, deux, trois

    The Netherlands has been at the forefront of European internationalisation in higher education, with approximately half of university programmes taught in English or bilingually. The openness has helped Dutch universities punch above their weight globally, with all research universities now ranking in the top 150 worldwide.

    But the populists see this as a problem to be solved rather than an achievement to be celebrated. Bruins’ “Balanced Internationalisation” bill requires at least two-thirds of bachelor’s programmes to be taught in Dutch and gives the government power to approve any English-language offerings.

    Universities have hit back, arguing it will devastate their international standing and ability to attract talent. UNL president Caspar van den Berg called it “an austerity exercise” that will:

    …impoverish education, deprive us of important scientific talent and also scare away international students, whom we desperately need in our country.”

    Some have attempted to play the economics card. University of Amsterdam finance director Erik Boels reckons that “every euro of cutbacks in the short term costs €3.50 in tax revenue in the long term,” as international students who stay in the Netherlands after graduation contribute significantly to the economy.

    And former Education Minister Jo Ritzen similarly noted that:

    …20 to 30 per cent of economic growth in the Netherlands can be attributed to foreign students who find their way into the Dutch labour market.

    Some observers have suggested the Netherlands may eventually follow Denmark’s trajectory – which implemented similar restrictions on international education five years ago only to completely reverse them when the economic impacts became clear.

    But others have argued that the economic arguments fall on deaf ears, and are tools that fight old battles when the populists are in charge.

    C’est en haut, et en bas

    The cuts also expose a geographic dimension – but on that issue there’s argument within the governing coalition. Universities in border and shrinking regions see disproportionate impacts, because they tend to rely more heavily on international students from neighboring countries.

    The regional disparity led BBB senator Frans van Knapen to break ranks and demand special consideration for institutions like the Open University in Heerlen, where 100 jobs were at risk.

    Every time we absolutely want something, there is enough money,” van Knapen insisted during Senate debates, which has prompted opposition parties to pounce – partly because BBB is both a coalition partner implementing national austerity and a party founded to defend rural and regional interests against centralized policy-making.

    As the cuts take effect, the contradictions will almost certainly become more pronounced – and the universities’ strategy is very much to expose them publicly.

    Que sera, oui, sera

    Research has also been hit particularly hard. Of the €748 million reduction negotiated in December 2024, only a small fraction benefited science and research funding.

    It is disappointing and worrying that the largest part of the cuts will remain on research,” said Marcel Levi, chairman of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).

    This creates a contradiction in the government’s rhetoric. As UNL president van den Berg pointed out:

    Innovation is mentioned 85 times in the government programme; it is the solution for almost everything the Netherlands is faced with. It is unprecedented that such drastic cuts are being made to the source of innovation.

    Cuts to starter grants for junior researchers of €217 million pose particular problems for renewing the academic workforce and maintaining the Netherlands’ research competitiveness.

    It’s in direct opposition to European goals of investing 3 per cent of GDP in research and innovation – the Dutch investment will amount to just 2.3 per cent.

    Rens Bod from the University of Amsterdam described the compromised budget as “disastrous for universities and ultimately for the Netherlands,” adding that the government’s rhetoric against “woke studies” makes this “a direct attack on academic freedom.”

    Differences have emerged over the retention of starter grants for early-career researchers. While the December compromise preserved some funding for these grants (though still cutting €217 million), Leiden University’s Professor Remco Breuker called this decision “perverse and obscene” in the context of broader cuts:

    The rest of the cuts will force us to lay off many colleagues, while a minority of lecturers who just started working will receive €300,000 in starting funds… This is going to tear apart departments.

    How much time do we have together?

    The Dutch education cuts don’t exist in isolation. They form part of a broader pattern across Europe, where far-right governments are targeting higher education and research funding.

    As Nature reported in October 2024:

    …A surge in far-right parties entering governments across Europe is raising concerns for science. The parties, whose focus is typically immigration, care little about research.

    Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, and Austria have all seen similar developments. HE is becoming a dividing line in European politics, where higher education – once seen as a crown jewel of national prestige – is increasingly viewed with suspicion by populist governments.

    Back in NL, universities are now in damage-limitation mode, with institutions like Erasmus Sport focusing on “increasing revenue creatively” rather than implementing immediate fee hikes. “We are not going to panic by implementing a huge increase in our sports pass price for students and staff in September,” says de Ruijter.

    But the long-term outlook remains pretty bleak. Tim van der Hagen, rector of Delft University of Technology, warns that damage to the Netherlands’ international reputation “may be even more damaging than the budget cuts,” and leading academics abroad now “hesitant to consider positions in the Netherlands, while established researchers within the country are beginning to look elsewhere for opportunities.”

    The ongoing challenge will be reconciling the Netherlands’ need for knowledge-based economic growth with the current government’s ideological stance. As former university president Jouke de Vries observed, it represents “a U-turn in policy,” demolishing former minister Dijkgraaf’s billion-euro investment “to make up for lost ground.”

    For UK universities and students watching the Netherlands experiment unfold, there’s a clear message – preparation for similar confrontations should begin now, not after Reform secures parliamentary power either outright, or in some sort of coalition.

    The Netherlands’ experience demonstrates how quickly a new populist government can dismantle long-standing assumptions, agreements and funding structures using rhetoric that frames universities as bastions of “woke activism” rather than engines of national innovation.

    What has worked in the Netherlands – moving from behind-closed-doors discussions to public confrontation, legal challenges, and visible protest – may offer a playbook for the playbook.

    As Reform UK continues to rise in the polls, the sector would be wise to start building coalitions with business leaders, local governments, and health organisations, while developing a more robust and public defense of higher education’s economic and social value – and a more visible set of stories about the impacts on those attracted to the populists. Even the populists struggle when they look like the enemies of opportunity.

    The path from polite policy conversations to pitched battles over institutional survival can be short. Waiting until after an electoral victory to develop a counter-strategy will almost certainly be too late.

    Source link

  • Alumni seek to rewaken the forgotten fight for free speech at UC San Diego

    Alumni seek to rewaken the forgotten fight for free speech at UC San Diego

    History is rarely lost all at once. More often, it slips away — one forgotten battle at a time.

    For Daniel Watts, that revelation arrived with the quiet ping of an alumni email. The Guardian, the campus newspaper at the University of California, San Diego, was seeking alumni donations to stave off financial collapse. Watts, who used to write for the paper, took interest — and noticed something unusual.

    Buried in their appeal, the editors blamed The Guardian’s decline, in part, on a now-defunct satirical campus paper. The Koala, informally known as “The Motherfucking Koala,” had a reputation for irreverence — in 2003, it published an issue titled Jizzlam, a parody of Playboy Magazine for Muslim men. 

    But for Watts, The Guardian’s jab at The Koala represented a fading understanding of the hard-won battles for a free press at UCSD.

    Censorship is like poison gas: effective when your enemy is in sight — but the wind has a way of shifting.

    The Koala wasn’t just a juvenile snark sheet, but an unruly bulwark of the First Amendment. In 2015, after lampooning “safe spaces,” The Koala faced defunding efforts by a student government, prodded by administrators. But with the help of FIRE and the ACLU, they fought back and won. In The Koala v. Khosla, a federal appeals court affirmed that public universities can’t defund a student publication just because they dislike what it prints, marking a victory for all campus newspapers — including The Guardian.

    But that history, along with nearly $800,000 in public funds that UCSD spent on litigation in an effort to silence its own students, now seems to have vanished. 

    “Reading that email,” says Watts, “and realizing that even the official student newspaper had no idea about UCSD’s history — or the sacrifices made to protect their right to publish — was a galvanizing moment.”

    He adds, “If the university won’t teach students the history and value of free speech, then who will?”

    Love, loyalty, and liberty: ASU alumni unite to defend free speech

    News

    The mission of ASU Alumni for Free Speech is to promote and strengthen free expression, academic freedom, and viewpoint diversity, both on campus and throughout the global ASU community.


    Read More

    So Watts stepped into the breach, founding Tritons United for Free Speech, an independent group of UCSD alumni committed to defending free expression at their alma mater.

    Watts knows the terrain well. 

    As an undergraduate, he battled administrative efforts to censor TV broadcasts and student publications. Late nights were spent scrolling the internet and cold-calling local lawyers in search of anyone to defend them. 

    “No one ever answered,” he recalls. “FIRE would write letters, but they didn’t litigate back then and the ACLU was spread thin. We were on our own.”

    It was a lonely education but a clarifying one. Watts decided to go to law school. “I wanted to be the kind of lawyer who would pick up the phone,” he says. 

    Over the past 15 years, Watts has built a robust legal career defending the First Amendment rights of students and journalists across California, arguing an anti-SLAPP case before the California Supreme Court and even running for governor in 2021 on a platform of “Free Speech. Free College.” 

    Now, through Tritons United for Free Speech, Watts is channeling those lessons into a new kind of advocacy. The group’s mission is threefold: educate students about the history of free speech, especially at UCSD; reform campus policies that stifle free expression; and connect students under fire with alumni who can offer legal aid, journalistic expertise, or public advocacy.

    “Students are like a country without an army,” says Watts. “They have moral suasion, but they lack resources — funding for litigation, experience navigating bureaucracy, or simply the wisdom of age. Alumni bring all that, as well as staying power and historical memory.”

    But the fight won’t be easy. 

    FIRE’s most recent College Free Speech Rankings place UCSD at a middling 133 out of 251 schools overall. More troublingly, UCSD ranks 205th on the question of whether students feel comfortable expressing ideas. Among UCSD students surveyed, 78% say shouting down a speaker is sometimes acceptable; 28% say using violence to stop speech is sometimes acceptable; and 48% say they self-censor on campus at least once or twice a month.

    These numbers reflect a striking cultural shift. 

    “When I was at UCSD in 2001,” Watts recalls, “the student government would occasionally vote on whether to defund The Koala. Every time, it was unanimous — 20 to 0 against censorship.”

    By 2015, the vote was again unanimous — 22 to 0, with 3 abstentions — but this time to defund The Koala. Even The Guardian greeted the news with a gloating article, quoting the immortal words of American diplomat Paul Bremer after the fall of Saddam Hussein: “Ladies and gentlemen, we got him!”

    Watts was appalled. “You’re a newspaper! And you’re celebrating censorship?!”

    Today, he fears, many students seem to believe that free speech is conditional. Good for me, but not for thee. They’ve forgotten, or more likely have never learned, as former ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser warns, censorship is like poison gas: effective when your enemy is in sight — but the wind has a way of shifting.

    As students cycle through every four years, faculty grow fearful of speaking out, and administrators grow ever entrenched with power, institutional memory slowly fades. 

    Alumni are the living link to that past — and the stewards of its future.

    “That’s why Tritons United for Free Speech exists,” Watts says. “And that’s why I’m not giving up.”


    If you’re ready to join Tritons United for Free Speech, or if you’re interested in forming a free speech alumni alliance at your alma mater, contact Bobby Ramkissoon at [email protected]. He will connect you with like-minded alumni and offer guidance on how to effectively protect free speech and academic freedom for all.

    Source link

  • Harvard faculty group pledges 10% of salary to help university fight Trump

    Harvard faculty group pledges 10% of salary to help university fight Trump

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

     Dive Brief:

    • Dozens of faculty members at Harvard University have signed on to contribute 10% of their salaries, for up to a year, to the institution’s legal fight against the Trump administration
    • As of Friday afternoon, 88 senior faculty had signed the agreement, according to organizers. Of those, 43 have done so publicly.
    • The faculty pledge came just before President Donald Trump said his administration will pull Harvard’s tax-exempt status, adding “It’s what they deserve!” in a Friday social media post.

    Dive Insight:

    This week’s developments are only the latest in the ongoing battle between Harvard and Trump.

    In the president’s numerous attacks on higher education, Harvard in particular has borne intense scrutiny from the Trump administration. That aggression escalated significantly in mid-April when the Ivy League institution rebuked demands from federal agencies to interfere in academic matters, becoming the first well-known college to respond so forcefully.

    Since then, the administration has slashed Harvard’s federal funding by almost $2.3 billion, threatened billions of dollars more, opened Title VI investigations into it and its law review, and threatened its ability to enroll international students.

    Harvard is now suing the Trump administration over what it calls the government’s efforts to withhold federal funding “as leverage to gain control of academic decisionmaking.”

    Though Harvard is one of the best-resourced institutions in the country, the legal battle is likely to be arduous and expensive. This week’s faculty salary pledge described the university as facing “severe financial damage for its defense of academic freedom.” 

    That damage could come in the form of an unprecedented tax bill.

    In previous social media posts, Trump said Harvard “is a JOKE, teaches Hate and Stupidity, and should no longer receive Federal Funds” and should “be Taxed as a Political Entity.”

    Trump, as president, does not have unilateral legal authority to pull Harvard’s tax exemption, a status bestowed by the Internal Revenue Service. And neither the president nor employees of the executive office can legally direct the IRS to audit or investigate an institution. Federal law requires IRS employees who receive such directions to report them to the agency’s oversight office.

    Despite this, CNN reported in April that the IRS was making arrangements to revoke Harvard’s status, just after Trump posted on the matter.

    Such a change would significantly escalate Trump’s financial battle against Harvard that prompted the faculty pledge. The 11 faculty members leading the salary pledge said they intend for the signatories to hold a vote.

    “If the majority agrees that the university is making a good faith effort to use its own resources in support of staff, student, and academic programs, faculty will proceed with their donation,” their letter said.

    The pledge also acknowledged that not all faculty at Harvard are in a position to pledge 10% — or any — of their income and said the salary contribution plan is “only one of the various ways in which we can express solidarity around the university.”

    “We also know that many faculty are making important contributions to the Harvard community during this difficult time in other ways, by helping students and staff directly,” it said. 

    Source link