Tag: fires

  • Texas State Fires Professor Accused of Inciting Violence

    Texas State Fires Professor Accused of Inciting Violence

    Alter at Texas State is the second Texas professor fired this week.

    Mikala Compton/Austin American-Statesman/Getty Images

    Texas State University fired a professor Wednesday after he was accused of inciting violence during a speech at a socialist conference, The Texas Tribune reported. 

    In a video posted on X, associate professor of history Thomas Alter can be seen giving a speech over Zoom to attendees of the Revolutionary Socialism Conference. “Without organization, how can anyone expect to overthrow the most bloodthirsty, profit-driven mad organization in the history of the world—that of the U.S. government,” he said in the clip, which was circulated online by a YouTuber who infiltrated and recorded the event.

    Texas State president Kelly Damphousse said in a statement Wednesday that the university reviewed the comments, which he said “amounted to serious professional and personal misconduct.”

    “As a result, I have determined that his actions are incompatible with their responsibilities as a faculty member at Texas State University,” he added. “Effective immediately, his employment with Texas State University has been terminated.”

    The video clip shared on social media was spliced and cut together. In the full version of his speech, which is posted on YouTube, Alter discusses the various tactics of different socialist groups. 

    “Another strain of anarchism gaining ground recently is that of insurrectionary anarchism,” Alter said in his speech. “Primarily coming out of those that were involved in the Cop City protest. These groups, individuals have grown rightfully frustrated with symbolic protests that do not disrupt the normal functioning of government and business. They call for more direct action and shutting down the military-industrial complex and preventing ICE from kidnapping members of their communities. Many insurrectionary anarchists are serving jail time, lost jobs and face expulsion from school. They have truly put their bodies on the line. While their actions are laudable, it should be asked, what purpose do they serve? As anarchists, these insurrectionists explicitly reject the formation of a revolutionary party capable of leading the working class to power. Without organization, how can anyone expect to overthrow the most bloodthirsty, profit-driven mad organization in the history of the world—that of the U.S. government.”

    Alter didn’t respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    He is the second Texas professor to be fired from their post this week. On Tuesday, Texas A&M officials fired Melissa McCoul, a senior lecturer, and removed two faculty members from their administrative roles after a student complained that the material McCoul taught in a summer course violated President Donald Trump’s executive orders.

    Source link

  • The University of Kentucky suspended a professor for criticizing Israel. Now, FIRE’s Faculty Legal Defense Fund is stepping up to defend him.

    The University of Kentucky suspended a professor for criticizing Israel. Now, FIRE’s Faculty Legal Defense Fund is stepping up to defend him.

    LEXINGTON, K.Y., Aug. 7, 2025 — A University of Kentucky professor suspended for criticizing Israel’s conduct in the Gaza war now has legal representation thanks to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

    Ramsi Woodcock had established a steady career as a law professor at UK, where he has taught for seven years. He earned tenure in 2022 and was promoted to full professor on July 1.

    Less than two weeks later, the vice provost of the university informed the professor that the university received unspecified complaints about Woodcock’s criticisms of Israel outside the classroom on his personal website and at conferences. 

    The university failed to respond to Woodcock’s requests for copies of the complaints. On July 18, university officials removed Woodcock from teaching and banned him from campus. The university also sent a message to its campus condemning Woodcock’s views as “repugnant” and publicly announcing an investigation. 

    Specifically, the university took issue with a petition Woodcock circulated to other law professors across the country that called for military action against Israel because of its war in Gaza, as well as his arguments that Israel should cease to exist. 

    “This isn’t complicated,” said Graham Piro, FIRE’s Faculty Legal Defense Fund fellow. “Woodcock’s arguments about Israel are clearly protected speech on a matter of public concern, and as a faculty member at a public institution, he has the right to voice his ideas, regardless of whether others find them objectionable. And reprimanding a professor over one set of views opens the door to further restrictions on other opinions down the road.”

    With the help of the FLDF, Woodcock is being represented by Joe F. Childers of Joe F. Childers & Associates. Childers will work to lift Woodcock’s suspension so he can return to teaching in the classroom and continue speaking freely outside of it. 

    “Punishing me for my views on Israel sends a terrifying message to students and colleagues: voice the ‘wrong’ opinion on a sensitive subject and face consequences from the university,” Woodcock said. “It’s not only my career that’s at stake — it’s about whether the University of Kentucky will continue to exist as an institution that encourages and permits free thought and expression.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

    CONTACT:

    Karl de Vries, Director of Media Relations, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • Introducing Expression, FIRE’s official new Substack

    Introducing Expression, FIRE’s official new Substack

    We believe that the ability to speak your mind, question authority, and listen to opposing views is not just a basic right but the cornerstone of a free society.

    That’s why FIRE’s officially launching on Substack — to speak up, push back, and encourage debate. As a platform that deeply believes in free speech, Substack is a natural home for FIRE content.

    SIGN UP FOR FIRE’S SUBSTACK TODAY

    This will be a space for FIRE’s best commentary, analysis, and storytelling. Think of it as FIRE Magazine, curated from staff op-eds, explainers, and the pages of our Newsdesk.

    Our decision to launch on Substack has to do with a rapidly changing media landscape.

    Over 20% of Americans now regularly get their news from social media platforms. But there’s a catch:  Platforms, particularly X, punish users for sharing links in their posts, throttling traffic to other websites, including ours. Historically, FIRE’s website got a significant portion of its traffic from social media posts. Those days are long gone, and AI platforms don’t want you to click any links at all.

    Enter Substack.

    The newsletter platform, which has grown from a few million subscribers five years ago to over 35 million today, offers us a way to deliver important stories and analysis directly to your inbox. No need to go to FIRE’s homepage. Now the content will come directly to you.

    From breaking news analysis and legal battles to cultural trends, Expression is where we go beyond the headlines — taking you into the fight to defend the First Amendment and bringing you the stories that shape (and threaten) free speech in America.

    To get you started, we’ve already published a collection of posts:

    Whether you’re a die-hard free speech advocate, a curious skeptic, or someone who just wants to understand the stakes, this is your home for smart, principled, and fearless writing.

    Subscribe now to join the fight — and the conversation. Subscribing is free, but by upgrading to become a paid subscriber, you also become a FIRE Member.

    Membership benefits include invitations to exclusive events, a subscription to the FIRE Quarterly magazine, updates on free speech issues, and access to private events and interactions with FIRE staff. By becoming a member, your additional support helps us fight censorship, defend free thought, and protect your most basic and powerful freedom — expression.

    Source link

  • Freelance investigative journalist Sammy Sussman to headline FIRE’s student press workshop

    Freelance investigative journalist Sammy Sussman to headline FIRE’s student press workshop

    FIRE’s Student Press Freedom Initiative is thrilled to announce that freelance investigative journalist Sammy Sussman will keynote our third annual Free Press Workshop on June 14! The workshop brings college journalists together to learn about the First Amendment, media law, and using the law as a tool in reporting.

    Sussman is based in New York and has written for a variety of publications. He serves as the lead reporter on “Behind the Badge,” an investigative collaboration with MuckRock dedicated to publishing police misconduct files from departments throughout New York State. He has previously written for New York magazine, VAN Magazine, and New York Focus. Sussman covers policing and prison abuses as well as sexual misconduct. He has experience doing extensive public records reporting both domestically and abroad.

    This free workshop will bring together student journalists from across the country to learn how to assert their right to press freedom.

    Sussman began as a student journalist at the University of Michigan, where he founded and directed The Michigan Daily’s investigative section, Focal Point. While at the Daily, Sussman used public records to break stories numerous stories about sexual harassment allegations and the university’s use of non-disclosure agreements to silence former employees.

    Sussman’s experience leveraging the law to build an impressive portfolio, first as a student and now as a professional reporter, makes him well-suited to speak to student journalists getting ready to embark on their own careers.

    We still have a handful of spots available for student journalists who want to hear from Sussman, meet fellow journalists from other schools, and learn about using the law in their newsrooms. Make sure you register here. This conference is free for accepted students and includes meals and a $350 travel stipend. Additional travel scholarships are available by application. 

    Our team is excited to hear what Sussman has to say to the next generation of journalists, and we look forward to welcoming students from across the country to Philadelphia this summer!

    Source link

  • Brown fires new salvo in war against student journalist over list of DEI admins

    Brown fires new salvo in war against student journalist over list of DEI admins

    After news surfaced that the Trump administration plans to pull $510 million in federal funding from Brown University over its DEI programs, student journalist Alex Shieh had the chutzpah to identify administrators who appear to work in DEI through student newspaper The Brown Spectator. The university — which had already been investigating Shieh for the crime of publishing an interactive organizational chart — took aim at him again.

    Brown threatened Shieh with sanctions over his journalism, claiming the report on federal funding was “false” because the government had not yet told Brown of its plans.

    This, just weeks after Brown President Christina Paxson promised “Brown will always defend academic freedom and freedom of expression.”

    Making matters worse, this wasn’t the first time Brown came after Shieh for his journalism. On March 15, Shieh sent each of Brown’s 3,805 administrators a personalized DOGE-style email asking them what they’d done in the past week. He also asked them to explain how Brown students, who pay nearly $100,000 to attend, would be impacted if their role was cut. Ever since, Brown has had Shieh in its crosshairs.

    Tell Brown to Stop Railroading Alex Shieh

    Page (Two-Column)

    Every student deserves due process, and no student should face discipline for investigating institutional structures.


    Read More

    First, Brown launched a preliminary review into Shieh’s reporting, threatening him with a litany of charges, including one for “emotional harm” to the administrators on his email — an exceedingly broad and vague charge that runs roughshod over First Amendment principles. Brown also demanded he return “confidential information” he allegedly accessed without permission, while refusing to tell him what in his reporting was confidential.

    On April 7, just one day after he published the list of possible DEI administrators, Brown officially charged him with “misrepresentation” and “violation of operational rules.” How did he misrepresent himself? By identifying himself as a reporter in the email. Brown’s logic was that because it did not recognize The Spectator as an official student organization, anyone holding themselves out to be a journalist at The Spectator is a liar.

    The second charge was no better. The university argued Shieh had violated rules by accessing a university system and obtaining a report showing reporting relationships, both of which he was allowed to do. That report, Brown claims, included “non-public” information that no student is permitted to publish. How this should be a mystery is itself a mystery, as Google reveals org charts that are publicly available.

    FIRE wrote Brown a letter demanding it drop the misrepresentation charge and produce real evidence that Shieh accessed “non-public” information. We argued that the university’s refusal to abide by its own due process guarantees makes clear that what it really wants is to silence journalism it doesn’t like.

    In a testament to how little Brown values its own promises, the university replied that this targeted investigation into a student journalist was not a free speech issue. But despite this less-than-credible response, Brown actually did drop the misrepresentation charge. Good news, right? Not so fast.

    Rather than produce the requested evidence that Shieh had accessed private information, the university added a new charge, alleging Shieh violated its trademark policy by including the word “Brown” in the name The Brown Spectator, which he and others were helping to restart in April 2025 after it ceased publishing in 2014.

    Brown needs to cut its losses, drop the charges, and stop this chilling investigation into protected student expression.

    On May 2, FIRE wrote Brown a second letter, telling the school to knock it off.

    We explained that this new charge misrepresents trademark law and violates Brown’s free speech promises by attempting to use fair trade practices as a tool to censor non-commercial journalism about news and events taking place at Brown University. It is settled law that trademarks don’t trump the First Amendment or provide infinite control over a word (in this case, literally the word for a color), indeed, mark owners cannot stop the non-commercial use of their mark in a noncompeting industry. And nobody would mistake Shieh or The Brown Spectator for the official voice of Brown University.  

    Brown’s vendetta against Shieh has officially passed the point of Ivy League parody. Brown needs to cut its losses, drop the charges, and stop this chilling investigation into protected student expression. The university’s own promises demand it.

    Join us in calling for Brown to uphold the free press on campus.

    Source link

  • After the Los Angeles fires, Beverly Hills shut out students whose school burned

    After the Los Angeles fires, Beverly Hills shut out students whose school burned

    LOS ANGELES — After the Palisades Fire destroyed her son’s high school, Shoshanha Essakhar found herself among the thousands of Los Angeles County parents wondering what to do.

    “I was thinking, ‘Oh my God, we’re going to be doing Zoom for the next God knows how long,’” said Essakhar. “It was a lot of fear, a lot of uncertainty.”

    The fire devastated Palisades Charter High School, where Essakhar’s son was a ninth grader, as well as two elementary schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District. The Eaton Fire, which broke out around the same time in early January, severely damaged or destroyed six school facilities in Pasadena Unified School District. Together, the fires disrupted learning for more than 725,000 kids and displaced thousands of students from their schools, their homes or both.

    For Essakhar, a potential solution came by way of an executive order California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Jan. 14. For students in Los Angeles County schools affected by the fires, the order paused, through the remainder of the school year, the requirement that a student live within their school district’s boundaries. That meant she could enroll her son at nearby Beverly Hills High School, where another parent she shared carpool duties with was also enrolling her child. She quickly completed the necessary paperwork.

    But roughly a week later, Beverly Hills Unified School District abruptly stopped accepting students displaced by the fires, closing the door on Essakhar’s son and dozens of other students who expected to spend the semester at Beverly Hills High.

    “As a mom, you try to do your best for your child, but it got so unpleasant,” Essakhar said. Beverly Hills school leadership said it could not afford to accept additional students, nor did it need to: Students who lost their school but whose homes were still intact did not need their help.

    Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education.

    The dispute between Beverly Hills Unified School District and some Palisades parents raises questions that school districts across the U.S. increasingly must grapple with as wildfires and other extreme weather events become more common because of climate change: What does a school district owe its neighbors after a major disaster?

    For Beverly Hills Unified, the answer was admitting 47 students before pausing enrollment over concerns that a surge of newcomers midyear would siphon resources from the district’s 3,000-plus existing students.

    “You’ve got a community where a lot of those folks lost their homes, and half lost their school but their homes weren’t impacted,” said Los Angeles Unified School District board member Nick Melvoin, whose district includes Palisades Charter High School. Like Beverly Hills, its students are predominantly from affluent backgrounds.

    Newsom’s order was an attempt at a fix: It urged districts to “extend every effort to support and facilitate the enrollment of students displaced by the fires.” Lori Peek, director of the Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder, which focuses on the societal effects of disasters, said it “provided the necessary flexibility that disaster survivors really need, because their circumstances are so diverse.”

    In Beverly Hills, school board members resisted the order. Beverly Hills is one of the few “basic aid” districts in the state, meaning it collects more in local property tax revenue than an annual funding target set by the state, which is based on average daily attendance and other factors. Most districts fall short of the target, and the state makes up the difference.

     The January fires in Southern California disrupted learning for more than 725,000 students. Credit: Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    At a series of meetings in January and February, Beverly Hills school board members argued that the district couldn’t absorb additional students without harming those already enrolled. While other school districts see increased funding from increased attendance, that’s not true for basic aid districts like Beverly Hills.

    Board members also questioned whether students who lost their schools, but not their homes, such as Essakhar’s son, should be considered affected by the fire and able to enroll. Board members told district administration that they believed only students whose homes were destroyed should qualify.

    Not so, said Melissa Schoonmaker with the Los Angeles County Office of Education, which provided guidance to the county’s school districts on implementing the order. “It’s not that they had to lose their home or be evacuated, it could be a broad range of impacts,” she said.

    Eighty-seven families were left in limbo: They had completed all of their pre-enrollment steps and were just awaiting class assignments, Assistant Superintendent Laura Collins-Williams told the board on Feb. 3. Dozens more were interested in enrolling.

    Related: 109 degrees on the first day of school? In some districts, extreme heat is delaying when students go back

    Board members supported making this pause permanent.

    “Going forward we are closed to any enrollment that comes right now as a result of a student going to Pali who has not been displaced from their home but would like to come to Beverly Hills because they don’t want to go on Zoom,” board President Rachelle Marcus said at the meeting, referring to Palisades Charter.

    Essakhar, who lives in Brentwood, a Los Angeles neighborhood roughly halfway between Beverly Hills and the Pacific Palisades, called the entire process traumatic.

    She gave up on finding an in-person school option for her son, settling instead for Zoom through Palisades Charter. “Honestly, I didn’t want to go through the experience again,” she said. Plus, most of his friends who left Palisades Charter had enrolled at Beverly High. “Being with your group of friends is different than sending my kid alone to some other school to transition in the middle of the year after the fires on his own,” said Essakhar. 

    Another Palisades Charter parent, Negeen Ben-Cohen, was initially optimistic that the school would quickly secure a temporary campus. But as the weeks went by, she started considering other options for her ninth grader.

    “It was mostly about keeping my son in a healthy social environment, and not isolated at home,” said Ben-Cohen. “Covid already showed that with the amount of learning loss and how much kids fell behind during Zoom.”

    Like Essakhar, Ben-Cohen filled out all the necessary paperwork to enroll her son and was told she would hear soon about his class placements. Then enrollment was paused.

    “They shut the door in our faces. And that was after the kids got their hopes up, they think that they’re going to be able to go in-person, they think they’re going to be able to start with their friends,” said Ben-Cohen. 

    Related: Want to learn more about how climate change is affecting education? Sign up for our newsletter.

    At board meetings, parents and students expressed similar outrage.

    “Beverly had the opportunity to extend a hand when we needed it the most but instead they turned around and slammed the door in our faces,” said Kylie Abdi, a senior at Palisades Charter, at a Feb. 11 meeting.

    “We do not even want to get an education in a school that kicks others while they are down, you have lost the opportunity to teach your students how to be there for each other,” said another Palisades student, junior Rosha Sinai, calling the board “selfish.”

    Jason Hasty, the interim superintendent of Beverly Hills Unified School District, said in an interview that enrolling any more than 47 students would have strained the district’s resources and required hiring more teachers — although he acknowledged that his district is better funded than most.

    “We get more money than the state formula because of the way we’re funded. That is a fact. Also what is a fact is on July 1 of every year, we set a budget … based on the students we are projecting to have,” Hasty said.

    State Sen. Ben Allen, who represents both the Pacific Palisades and Beverly Hills areas, said that Beverly Hills would be compensated for taking in displaced students, although the details are still being worked out. 

    “We’re going to have their backs and that they’re going to be fully compensated for any students that they take in,” he said.

    Hasty said the district has been “in direct discussion” with Allen’s office, but “until we are sure that those funds are materializing and will be provided,” the pause on enrollment under the executive order (which expires at the end of the school year) remains in place. The district continues to enroll students who move to Beverly Hills or who are eligible under the McKinney-Vento Act, said Hasty. That legislation provides protections for students who are homeless, which is defined as “individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate, nighttime residence.”

    Related: Universal prekindergarten is coming to California — bumpy rollout and all

    Nearby Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District is also a basic aid district, but it interpreted the order “to mean that any student who wants to come here can come here right now,” said Gail Pinsker, the district’s chief communications officer. So far, the district has enrolled more than 140 students, with about 200 enrollment requests still being processed. The influx of students prompted the district to combine some elementary classes and hire a new high school teacher, Pinsker said.

    Three months after Palisades Charter High School burned, students remain on Zoom. The school just finalized plans to use an old department store building in downtown Santa Monica about 20 minutes southeast of the high school as its temporary campus. In-person instruction should resume sometime after the school’s spring break in mid-April, according to Palisades Charter High School.

     Palisades Elementary Charter School, which was devastated by the wildfires in January. Credit: Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    Allen, the state senator, said the episode shows the need for a policy for compensating basic aid districts that take in displaced students to make the process smoother after future disasters.

    Also helpful would be a website listing districts accepting affected students, said Peek, the University of Colorado researcher.

    Lessons from the Los Angeles fires could inform policymaking elsewhere, she added. “They’re going to need it sooner rather than later, as other disasters continue to unfold across the country.”

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

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

    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

  • New College of Florida Fires Chinese Adjunct

    New College of Florida Fires Chinese Adjunct

    New College of Florida fired a Chinese adjunct instructor after he asked why he wasn’t being paid and officials replied that they had overlooked regulations prohibiting his employment, according to a Suncoast Searchlight investigation.

    Kevin Wang—whose area of concentration was listed as Chinese Language and Culture on his now-deleted college directory page—told the nonprofit news outlet that he previously lost his professorship in China over criticizing Chinese leader Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party. He’s seeking asylum and is allowed to work in the U.S., Searchlight reported.

    But New College fired him March 12, citing a university regulation based on Florida’s “countries of concern” law, the outlet reported. This came two days after Wang inquired why he hadn’t been getting paychecks all semester, Searchlight wrote. New College didn’t return Inside Higher Ed’s requests for comment Friday.

    Florida’s Legislature has passed multiple laws limiting public colleges’ and universities’ relationships with listed “countries of concern,” such as China. The Searchlight story pointed to 2023’s Senate Bill 846, which—with exceptions—bars institutions from participating “in any agreement” with a “foreign principal.” The law defined foreign principals as “any person who is domiciled in a foreign country of concern and is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States.” The Florida Board of Governors followed up the law by releasing guidance, Searchlight reported.

    Wang told the outlet, “I truly hope that such interference undermining academic freedom will not occur again in a place that claims to be a ‘beacon of democracy.’”

    Source link

  • Free speech advocates rally to support FIRE’s federal appeal to defend advocacy in public parks

    Free speech advocates rally to support FIRE’s federal appeal to defend advocacy in public parks

    Protesting in public parks is as American as apple pie. It’s at the heart of our First Amendment — and one of our nation’s most time-honored principles. That right does not disappear merely because a private entity operates the public park on the government’s behalf. 

    That’s why FIRE and the Law and Religion Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law are appealing a district court ruling that weakens this First Amendment right. And we are proud to be backed by a broad coalition of prominent organizations as “friends of the court.” 

    Here’s what happened. Several years ago, animal welfare advocates Daraius Dubash and Dr. Faraz Harsini took to Houston’s largest public park to raise awareness about the harms of industrialized farming. For Dubash, this activism is rooted in his Vedantic Hindu faith, which compels him to promote the teaching of ahimsa, or nonviolence. To communicate their message, Dubash and Harsini serve as co-organizers for an international nonprofit animal-rights group. Their signature event involves volunteers showing muted documentary footage of farming practices to passersby, while others remain available to answer questions.

    Dubash and Harsini’s right to peacefully advocate on this issue in a public park is beyond dispute. But on three separate occasions, the public park’s private management ordered them to leave. The fourth time, park management had Houston police arrest Dubash for criminal trespass and banned them both from showing their video footage in the park in the future. Why? Because the park’s private managers and city police deemed their message “offensive.”

    With the help of FIRE and the Law and Religion Clinic, Dubash and Harsini filed suit in 2023 against the City of Houston, the park management corporation, its then-president, and the arresting officers. But in September, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed their claims, ruling that none of the defendants were responsible for violating Dubash and Harsini’s constitutional rights in a public park. 

    We disagree. 

    FIRE and the Clinic appealed to the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the ruling effectively lets the government bypass the First Amendment by delegating the management of public spaces to private organizations. And the court’s limited interpretation of governmental liability would make it nearly impossible for anyone to challenge violation of their constitutional rights by municipalities or law enforcement. 

    Last week, 12 prominent organizations from across the ideological spectrum filed nine amicus curiae briefs in support of Dubash and Harsini:

     The ACLU of Texas argues the park management company was acting as a state actor and public-private partnerships “cannot serve as an end run around the First Amendment.” The brief also argues the district court erred by failing to hold the arresting officers accountable based on their “mistaken belief” that the park was private. As the brief explains, probable-cause findings must be based on “objective facts and circumstances rather than subjective beliefs.”

    Young America’s Foundation, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, and Advancing American Freedom explain that Houston cannot bypass its duty to protect free speech in its public spaces by granting oversight authority to a private third party. The brief also emphasizes the sweeping implications of the district court’s decision, including in the academic context where state universities are increasingly attempting to evade First Amendment protections by outsourcing park management to nominally private entities like student governments.

    Liberty Justice Center argues the district court’s decision “blurs the line between state and private actors,” allowing Houston to “contract out of its constitutional obligations.” We could not agree more.

     The Center for American Liberty, in a brief submitted through Reeves Law LLC, argues that maintaining a public park is a traditional and exclusive government function, with public parks serving “as public forums for the expression of speech,” whether or not they are managed by a private entity.

     The National Press Photographers Association, in a brief submitted through the First Amendment Clinic at Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, explains how the district court’s ruling “threatens the sanctity of the spaces where speech is deserving of the highest protection.”

     Law Enforcement Action Partnership and the National Police Accountability Project explain that accountability for law enforcement officers and municipalities is crucial to preserving public confidence in the police and the government, and that failing to hold police officers accountable “undermines public trust in law enforcement.” The brief also argues that municipalities should know their police officers “need training and guidance to appropriately respond” to peaceful expressive activity, and failing to provide that training is sufficient to establish municipal liability.

    Protect the First Foundation, in a brief submitted through the Religious Freedom Clinic at Harvard Law School and Schaerr Jaffe LLP, highlights that Dubash was motivated to proselytize nonviolence by his deeply held religious beliefs, and describes the long history and tradition of public proselytization, from the persecution of religious minorities in the colonies through the legal protections established by First Amendment jurisprudence.

    The Hindu American Foundation, in a brief submitted through Jackson Walker LLP, explains that Dubash’s religious motivation to advocate for nonviolence towards animals is consistent with Hindu teachings. The brief also argues that his “arrest, detention, and the ongoing prohibition on his method of proselytizing” do not pass constitutional muster.

    The American Hindu Coalition, in a brief submitted through the Free Exercise Clinic at Yale Law School, emphasizes the history of public parks and streets as centers of religious activity, how marginalized faiths rely on these spaces to exercise their faith, and that Dubash’s activism is rooted in his religious beliefs.

    Our clients and their counsel are grateful for the support of this impressive and diverse amicus coalition. This case will play a critical role in protecting the rights of other protesters and religious minorities to engage in protected expression as guaranteed under the First Amendment.

    Source link

  • The National Institutes of Health shouldn’t use FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings to allocate research funding — here’s what they should do instead

    The National Institutes of Health shouldn’t use FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings to allocate research funding — here’s what they should do instead

    In December, The Wall Street Journal reported:

    [President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the National Institutes of Health] Dr. Jay Bhattacharya […] is considering a plan to link a university’s likelihood of receiving research grants to some ranking or measure of academic freedom on campus, people familiar with his thinking said. […] He isn’t yet sure how to measure academic freedom, but he has looked at how a nonprofit called Foundation for Individual Rights in Education scores universities in its freedom-of-speech rankings, a person familiar with his thinking said.

    We believe in and stand by the importance of the College Free Speech Rankings. More attention to the deleterious effect restrictions on free speech and academic freedom have on research at our universities is desperately needed, so hearing that they are being considered as a guidepost for NIH grantmaking is heartening. Dr. Bhattacharya’s own right to academic freedom was challenged by his Stanford University colleagues, so his concerns about its effect on NIH’s grants is understandable.

    However, our College Free Speech Rankings are not the right tool for this particular job. They were designed with a specific purpose in mind — to help students and parents find campuses where students are both free and comfortable expressing themselves. They were not intended to evaluate the climate for conducting academic research on individual campuses and are a bad fit for that purpose. 

    While the rankings assess speech codes that apply to students, the rankings do not currently assess policies pertaining to the academic freedom rights and research conduct of professors, who are the primary recipients of NIH grants. Nor do the rankings assess faculty sentiment about their campus climates. It would be a mistake to use the rankings beyond their intended purpose — and, if the rankings were used to deny funding for important research that would in fact be properly conducted, that mistake would be extremely costly.

    FIRE instead proposes three ways that would be more appropriate for NIH to use its considerable power to improve academic freedom on campus and ensure research is conducted in an environment most conducive to finding the most accurate results.

    1. Use grant agreements to safeguard academic freedom as a strong contractual right. 
    2. Encourage open data practices to promote research integrity.
    3. Incentivize universities to study their campus climates for academic freedom.

    Why should the National Institutes of Health care about academic freedom at all?

    The pursuit of truth demands that researchers be able to follow the science wherever it leads, without fear, favor, or external interference. To ensure that is the case, NIH has a strong interest in ensuring academic freedom rights are inviolable. 

    As a steward of considerable taxpayer money, NIH has an obligation to ensure it spends its funds on high-quality research free from censorship or other interference from politicians or college and university administrators.

    Why the National Institutes of Health shouldn’t use FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings to decide where to send funds

    FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings (CFSR) were never intended for use in determining research spending. As such, it has a number of design features that make it ill-suited to that purpose, either in its totality or through its constituent parts.

    Firstly, like the U.S. News & World Report college rankings, a key reason for the creation of the CFSRs was to provide information to prospective undergraduate students and their parents. As such, it heavily emphasizes students’ perceptions of the campus climate over the perceptions of faculty or researchers. In line with that student focus, our attitude and climate components are based on a survey of undergraduates. Additionally, the speech policies that we evaluate and incorporate into the rankings are those that affect students. We do not evaluate policies that affect faculty and researchers, which are often different and would be of greater relevance to deciding research funding. While it makes sense that there may be some correlation, we have no way of knowing whether or the degree to which that might be true.

    Secondly, for the component that most directly implicates the academic freedom of faculty, we penalize schools for attempts to sanction scholars for their protected speech, as tracked in our Scholars Under Fire database. While our Scholars Under Fire database provides excellent datapoints for understanding the climate at a university, it does not function as a systematic proxy for assessing academic freedom on a given campus as a whole. As one example, a university with relatively strong protection for academic freedom may have vocal professors with unpopular viewpoints that draw condemnation and calls for sanction that could hurt its ranking, while a climate where professors feel too afraid to voice controversial opinions could draw relatively few calls for sanction and thus enjoy a higher ranking. This shortcoming is mitigated when considered alongside the rest of our rankings components, but as discussed above, those other components mostly concern students rather than faculty.

    Thirdly, using CFSR to determine NIH funding could — counterintuitively — be abused by vigilante censors. Because we penalize schools for attempted and successful shoutdowns, the possibility of a loss of NIH funding could incentivize activists who want leverage over a university to disrupt as many events as possible in order to negatively influence its ranking, and thus its funding prospects. Even the threat of disruption could thus give censors undue power over a university administration that fears loss of funding.

    Finally, due to resource limitations, we do not rank all research universities. It would not be fair to deny funding to an unranked university or to fund an unranked university with a poor speech climate over a low-ranked university.

    Legal boundaries for the National Institutes of Health as it considers proposals for actions to protect academic freedom

    While NIH has considerable latitude to determine how it spends taxpayer money, as an arm of the government, the First Amendment places restrictions on how NIH may use that power. Notably, any solution must not penalize institutions for protected speech or scholarship by students or faculty unrelated to NIH granted projects. NIH could not, for example, require that a university quash protected protests as a criteria for eligibility, or deny a university eligibility because of controversial research undertaken by a scholar who does not work on NIH-funded research.

    While NIH can (and effectively must) consider the content of applications in determining what to fund, eligibility must be open to all regardless of viewpoint. Even were this not the case as a constitutional matter (and it is, very much so), it is important as a prudential matter. People would be understandably skeptical of, if not downright disbelieve, scientific results obtained through a grant process with an obvious ideological filter. Indeed, that is the root of much of the current skepticism over federally funded science, and the exact situation academic freedom is intended to avoid.

    Additionally, NIH cannot impose a political litmus test on an individual or an institution, or compel an institution or individual to take a position on political or scientific issues as a condition of grant funding.

    In other words, any solution to improve academic freedom:

    • Must be viewpoint neutral;
    • Must not impose an ideological or political litmus test; and
    • Must not penalize an institution for protected speech or scholarship by its scholars or students.

    Guidelines for the National Institutes of Health as it considers proposals for actions to protect academic freedom

    NIH should carefully tailor any solution to directly enhance academic freedom and to further NIH’s goal “to exemplify and promote the highest level of scientific integrity, public accountability, and social responsibility in the conduct of science.” Going beyond that purpose to touch on issues and policies that don’t directly affect the conduct of NIH grant-funded research may leave such a policy vulnerable to legal challenge.

    Any solution should, similarly, avoid using vague or politicized terms such as “wokeness” or “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Doing so creates needless skepticism of the process and — as FIRE knows all too well — introduces uncertainty as professors and institutions parse what is and isn’t allowed.

    Enforcement mechanisms should be a function of contractual promises of academic freedom, rather than left to apathetic accreditors or the unbounded whims of bureaucrats on campus or officials in government, for several reasons. 

    Regarding accreditors, FIRE over the years has reported many violations of academic freedom to accreditors who require institutions to uphold academic freedom as a precondition for their accreditation. Up to now, the accreditors FIRE has contacted have shown themselves wholly uninterested in enforcing their academic freedom requirements.

    When it comes to administrators, FIRE has documented countless examples of campus administrators violating academic freedom, either due to politics, or because they put the rights of the professor second to the perceived interests of their institution.

    As for government actors, we have seen priorities and politics shift dramatically from one administration to the next. It would be best for everyone involved if NIH funding did not ping-pong between ideological poles as a function of each presidential election, as the Title IX regulations now do. Dramatic changes to how NIH conceives as academic freedom with every new political administration would only create uncertainty that is sure to further chill speech and research.

    While the courts have been decidedly imperfect protectors of academic freedom, they have a better record than accreditors, administrators, or partisan government officials in parsing protected conduct from unprotected conduct. And that will likely be even more true with a strong, unambiguous contractual promise of academic freedom. Speaking of which…

    The National Institutes of Health should condition grants of research funds on recipient institutions adopting a strong contractual promise of academic freedom for their faculty and researchers

    The most impactful change NIH could enact would be to require as a condition of eligibility that institutions adopt strong academic freedom commitments, such as the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure or similar, and make those commitments explicitly enforceable as a contractual right for their faculty members and researchers.

    The status quo for academic freedom is one where nearly every institution of higher education makes promises of academic freedom and freedom of expression to its students and faculty. Yet only at public universities, where the First Amendment applies, are these promises construed with any consistency as an enforceable legal right. 

    Private universities, when sued for violating their promises of free speech and academic freedom, frequently argue that those promises are purely aspirational and that they are not bound by them (often at the same time that they argue faculty and students are bound by the policies). 

    Too often, courts accept this and universities prevail despite the obvious hypocrisy. NIH could stop private universities’ attempts to have their cake and eat it too by requiring them to legally stand by the promises of academic freedom that they so readily abandon when it suits them.

    NIH could additionally require that this contractual promise come with standard due process protections for those filing grievances at their institution, including:

    • The right to bring an academic freedom grievance before an objective panel;
    • The right to present evidence;
    • The right to speedy resolution;
    • The right to written explanation of findings including facts and reasons; and
    • The right to appeal.

    If the professor exhausts these options, they may sue for breach of the contract. To reduce the burden of litigation, NIH could require that, if a faculty member prevails in a lawsuit over a violation of academic freedom, the violating institution would not be eligible for future NIH funding until they pay the legal fees of the aggrieved faculty member.

    NIH could also study violations of academic freedom by creating a system for those connected to NIH-funded research to report violations of academic freedom or scientific integrity.

    It would further be proper for NIH to require institutions to eliminate any political litmus tests, such as mandatory DEI statements, as a condition of grant eligibility.

    The National Institutes of Health can implement strong measures to protect transparency and integrity in science

    NIH could encourage open science and transparency principles by heavily favoring studies that are pre-registered. Additionally, to obviate concerns that scientific results may be suppressed or buried because they are unpopular or politically inconvenient, NIH could require its grant-funded research to make available data (with proper privacy safeguards) following the completion of the project. 

    To help deal with the perverse incentives that have created the replication crisis and undermined public trust in science, NIH could create impactful incentives for work on replications and the publication of null results.

    Finally, NIH could help prevent the abuse of Institutional Review Boards. When IRB review is appropriate for an NIH-funded project, NIH could require that review be limited to the standards laid out in the gold-standard Belmont Report. Additionally, it could create a reporting system for abuse of IRB processes to suppress, or delay beyond reasonable timeframes, ethical research, or violate academic freedom.

    The National Institutes of Health can incentivize study into campus climates for academic freedom

    As noted before, FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings focus on students. Due to logistical and resource difficulties surveying faculty, our 2024 Faculty Report looking into many of the same issues took much longer and had to be limited in scope to 55 campuses, compared to the 250+ in the CFSR. This is to say there is a strong need for research to understand faculty views and experiences on academic freedom. After all, we cannot solve a problem until we understand it. To that effect, NIH should incentivize further study into faculty’s academic freedom.

    It is important to note that these studies should be informational and not used in a punitive manner, or to decide on NIH funding eligibility. This is because tying something as important as NIH funding to the results of the survey would create so significant an incentive to influence the results that the data would be impossible to trust. Even putting aside malicious interference by administrators and other faculty members, few faculty would be likely to give honest answers that imperiled institutional funding, knowing the resulting loss in funding might threaten their own jobs.

    Efforts to do these kinds of surveys in Wisconsin and Florida proved politically controversial, and at least initially, led to boycotts, which threatened to compromise the quality and reliability of the data. As such, it’s critical that any such survey be carried out in a way that maximizes trust, under the following principles:

    • Ideally, the administration of these surveys should be done by an unbiased third party — not the schools themselves, or NIH. This third party should include respected researchers across the political spectrum and no partisan slant.
    • The survey sample must be randomized and not opt-in.
    • The questionnaire must be made public beforehand, and every effort should be made for the questions to be worded without any overt partisanship or ideology that would reduce trust.

    Conclusion: With great power…

    FIRE has for the last two decades been America’s premier defender of free speech and academic freedom on campus. Following Frederick Douglass’s wise dictum, “I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong,” we’ve worked with Democrats, Republicans, and everyone in between (and beyond) to advance free speech and open inquiry, and we’ve criticized them in turn whenever they’ve threatened these values.

    With that sense of both opportunity and caution, we would be heartened if NIH used its considerable power wisely in an effort to improve scientific integrity and academic freedom. But if wielded recklessly, that same considerable power threatens to do immense damage to science in the process. 

    We stand ready to advise if called upon, but integrity demands that we correct the record if we believe our data is being used for a purpose to which it isn’t suited.

    Source link

  • OCR’s new Title VI letter: FIRE’s analysis and recommendations

    OCR’s new Title VI letter: FIRE’s analysis and recommendations

    Last week, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights published a “Dear Colleague Letter” describing educational institutions’ obligations under federal anti-discrimination law and explaining how OCR will interpret Title VI and other legal authorities.

    Since FIRE is, at its core, an organization dedicated to free expression, we reviewed OCR’s letter through that lens. In this blog entry, we offer recommendations to OCR to ensure that it does not unlawfully censor educational institutions or pressure them to censor their students and faculty, and we ask for additional clarification of the letter. We also offer recommendations to colleges and universities to prevent overreactions to the DCL and to ensure they continue to protect student and faculty free speech rights.

    Overview of Title VI and OCR’s ‘Dear Colleague’ Letter

    Title VI prohibits educational institutions receiving federal funding from discriminating against individuals on the basis of race, color, or national origin. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down racial preferences in college admissions for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964. In interpreting Title VI, the Equal Protection Clause, and the SSFA decision, OCR’s letter states:

    Although SFFA addressed admissions decisions, the Supreme Court’s holding applies more broadly. At its core, the test is simple: If an educational institution treats a person of one race differently than it treats another person because of that person’s race, the educational institution violates the law [ . . .] Put simply, educational institutions may neither separate or segregate students based on race, nor distribute benefits or burdens based on race.

    The letter also advises institutions to:

    1. Ensure that their policies and actions comply with existing civil rights law;
    2. Cease all efforts to circumvent prohibitions on the use of race by relying on proxies or other indirect means to accomplish such ends; and
    3. Cease all reliance on third-party contractors, clearinghouses, or aggregators that are being used by the institutions in an effort to circumvent prohibited uses of race. 

    The letter warns that “[i]nstitutions that fail to comply with federal civil rights law may, consistent with applicable law, face potential loss of federal funding.”

    Irrespective of whether one agrees or disagrees with race-conscious policies, OCR is likely within its authority to prohibit institutions from providing or denying benefits to individuals based on their race. But while FIRE has no institutional position on affirmative action programs, we routinely see government actors use anti-discrimination rationales to censor First Amendment-protected speech. 

    Recommendations for OCR

    FIRE has seen a number of states seek to rein in DEI-related administrative offices at their state educational institutions. We’ve told those legislatures repeatedly that, while they have significant authority to manage nonacademic bureaucracies at their public higher education institutions, they cannot restrict which ideas can be taught in the college classroom, including on topics related to “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” or related concepts. They also cannot restrict student organizations from forming around or advocating on behalf of DEI initiatives.

    OCR’s new Dear Colleague letter chides educational institutions for “routinely us[ing] race as a factor in admissions, financial aid, hiring, training, and other institutional programming.” [Emphasis added.] It states that over the past few years, schools have “toxically indoctrinated” students, asserting that institutions have been “smuggling racial stereotypes and explicit race-consciousness into everyday training, programming, and discipline.” [Emphasis added.]

    West Virginia Executive Order on ‘DEI’ unconstitutionally limits university classroom discussions.

    News

    West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey issued an executive order to eliminate DEI practices in state agencies and organizations that receive state money.


    Read More

    While OCR is free to criticize colleges for overstepping the bounds of the law on  DEI-related issues over the past few years, it must be careful when turning that criticism into policy. When a regulatory agency with the authority to cut off all federal funding to institutions cites certain types of “programming” as evidence that institutions could be violating federal anti-discrimination law, it risks chilling speech on those topics. That is especially true when the term “programming” is left undefined in the letter. Private institutions also maintain broad First Amendment rights of their own, and threats to punish them for their own speech about DEI or affirmative action risks violating the free speech rights of those institutions. 

    To abate any confusion arising from the letter, OCR should provide additional guidance to describe in more detail the types of programming it thinks violates Title VI and other anti-discrimination laws. Does OCR seek to prohibit institutions from hosting outside speakers who espouse disfavored ideas about DEI? Does OCR seek to limit particular classwork or research at institutions? If so, it has strayed beyond the First Amendment’s boundary. 

    To avoid chilling protected speech, OCR should clarify the distinction between providing benefits or preferences to individuals based on race or other protected characteristics, and pure speech about DEI and affirmative action — and make clear that it is not banning the latter. OCR must also be careful about regulating institutional trainings at private institutions in ways that violate institutional free speech rights. 

    As FIRE has made clear many times over the course of several administrations, OCR is bound by the First Amendment and cannot order or compel colleges and universities to violate it. 

    Courts have struck down government attempts to regulate DEI-related trainings offered by private businesses. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, for example, upheld an injunction blocking Florida’s Stop WOKE Act insofar as it applied to private business trainings, writing that “by limiting its restrictions to a list of ideas designated as offensive, the Act targets speech based on its content. And by barring only speech that endorses any of those ideas, it penalizes certain viewpoints—the greatest First Amendment sin.” 

    FIRE hopes OCR will quickly provide institutions with additional clarity about the full scope of its Title VI interpretations. 

    FIRE is challenging other parts of the Stop WOKE Act that restrict classroom instruction in higher education on First Amendment grounds. After a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the state from enforcing those sections of the law, our case is now before the Eleventh Circuit.  

    To the extent OCR is concerned about the lawfulness of certain mandatory training programs, OCR could require state institutions to make public their training materials on DEI-related issues. FIRE’s Intellectual Freedom Protection Act, which prohibits public colleges from requiring mandatory DEI statements — or any other political litmus test — as a condition of hiring or promotion, contains a provision that could be a useful starting point: 

    Each public institution of higher education in the state shall post and make publicly available all training materials used for students, faculty, and staff, on all matters of nondiscrimination, diversity, equity, inclusion, race, ethnicity, sex, or bias, and all of its policies and guidance on those issues, on its website. 

    Such a requirement would provide both regulators and the public with a better idea of how institutions train its students about DEI-related topics. 

    Recommendations for institutions interpreting recent executive orders, memos, and letters

    If there is a conflict — real or perceived — between federal guidance and the First Amendment, the First Amendment prevails. For public institutions, this means they cannot violate faculty or student speech or associational rights regardless of federal agency guidance. For private institutions, this means federal guidance cannot unlawfully restrict the institution’s speech or pressure the institution to unlawfully suppress the speech or association of their faculty or students. 

    Campus administrators nationwide should not over-read this Dear Colleague Letter to justify censoring student or faculty expression. It would be wise to read it in conjunction with President Trump’s Jan. 21 Executive Order “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” the directive that likely led to this letter and that contains provisions expressly protecting free speech and academic freedom:

    (b)  This order does not prevent State or local governments, Federal contractors, or Federally-funded State and local educational agencies or institutions of higher education from engaging in First Amendment-protected speech.

    (c)  This order does not prohibit persons teaching at a Federally funded institution of higher education as part of a larger course of academic instruction from advocating for, endorsing, or promoting the unlawful employment or contracting practices prohibited by this order.

    Since the Justice Department has a role in enforcing Title VI alongside that of the Education Department’s OCR, institutions should also note Attorney General Bondi’s memo on “Ending Illegal DEI and DEIA Discrimination and Preferences.” Her memo expressly notes:

    This memorandum is intended to encompass programs, initiatives, or policies that discriminate, exclude, or divide individuals based on race or sex. It does not prohibit educational, cultural, or historical observances—such as Black History Month, International Holocaust Remembrance Day, or similar events—that celebrate diversity, recognize historical contributions, and promote awareness without engaging in exclusion or discrimination. 

    When read together in the context of these companion documents, the new DCL should provide no justification for institutions to believe they must censor students, student organizations, or faculty, or rush to cancel university-sponsored cultural events or celebrations. Moreover, doing so may well violate the First Amendment at public universities—and again, courts will always give precedence to constitutional guarantees over guidance and regulations. Colleges will, however, need to end any policy or programs that actively separate individuals or provide benefits based on race.

    Given the tight timeline for compliance, FIRE hopes OCR will quickly provide institutions with additional clarity about the full scope of its Title VI interpretations. In the meantime, we again remind colleges and universities to honor their constitutional duties or institutional promises to protect the freedom of expression and academic freedom of their students and faculty. 

    Source link