Tag: Heres

  • 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

  • Beech-side views: Here’s looking at EU!

    Beech-side views: Here’s looking at EU!

    In February 2025, five years after the UK formally left the EU, Sir Keir Starmer became the first UK Prime Minister since Brexit to head to Brussels to join a meeting of EU leaders. The trip was packaged as part of a “reset” in relations between the UK and the EU, albeit caveated with promises that the UK government is not seeking to re-join the EU’s single market or customs union, nor sign up to the principle of freedom of movement.

    With President Donald Trump back in the White House and war ongoing in Ukraine, closer cooperation between the UK and EU in areas of security and defence will be vital to maintain pressure on Russia and bring about peace on the continent. Enhancing trade between the UK and EU will also be a key ambition shared by both parties, given the looming threat of American tariffs and the need to secure economic growth.

    Youth mobility

    The process of resetting the UK-EU relationship by the spring is one to watch for the UK’s higher education sector. This is because, while the EU has the power to ease restrictions on UK businesses to improve British trade prospects, the UK also has something that many in the EU want in return: namely the power to reinstate a youth mobility scheme between the UK and the EU.

    At its most ambitious, such a scheme could allow young people from the UK and Europe the freedom to travel across countries to study and work as was the norm before Brexit. A curtailed version could at least see mobility enacted for shorter, time-limited placements. Either way, UK universities could find themselves becoming an important bargaining chip in any future renegotiations.

    Bargaining power

    Given the demand for a return of youth mobility is greater in the EU-27 than it is in Britain, UK ministers understandably remain cautious about giving the green light to this idea too soon. The recent gains of the populist Reform UK party in public popularity polls will likely also enhance this nervousness. Moreover, with the policy in clear breach of the UK Government’s own ‘red line’ on freedom of movement, British officials are playing down the prospect of any return to youth mobility between the two powers.

    UK universities could find themselves becoming an important bargaining chip in any future renegotiations

    Yet, as anybody who has ever been involved in some sort of negotiation knows, the key to a good outcome is not showing your own hand too early in the process. Doing so may significantly weaken your bargaining power and ability to leverage the situation in your own favour. The possibility of the UK offering a youth mobility concession to European leaders to secure more lucrative trading conditions and pump-prime economic growth may not, therefore, be completely off the table.

    Risky business

    In the past, the UK higher education sector would have been first to welcome the return to Britain of a youth mobility scheme such as Erasmus+. However, the current financial troubles facing the sector are likely to dampen university managers’ enthusiasm for any measures that would see EU students once again regarded as ‘home’ students, thereby capping the fees they pay.

    The introduction of youth mobility measures would provide a welcome boost to the diversity of UK student populations by making it easier for those from less privileged backgrounds in Europe to study in Britain. However, with universities now focusing on their bottom line rather than the size and shape of their student intakes, any concessions that could reduce the revenue-generating potential of EU students could destabilise universities’ finances at a time when every penny counts.

    Balancing act

    The big question facing the higher education sector, then, is whether there is a proposal the UK government could make involving UK-EU student mobility that reconciles universities’ search for greater diversity on campus and enhanced prospects for their students with their need for extra income.

    As it stands, the future of UK and EU students rests in the back pocket of the UK Prime Minister. Whether he pulls a student mobility scheme out as a trump card to get a beneficial deal for the British economy depends on the messages UK universities send to ministers and officials over the coming months.

    Not enough noise about potential changes to the status of EU students could leave universities exposed without a financial compensation package from Treasury to cover any headline fee changes that a new youth mobility programme would incur. Yet, too much noise would also risk negative headlines around the world that international students are nothing more than lucrative cash flows for hard-up institutions.

    The political reset ahead represents a balancing act for UK higher education. The key is whether we can find a solution that opens up UK universities and their students’ prospects further to the outside world while stabilising them financially so they can continue to transform lives for generations to come.

    The post Beech-side views: Here’s looking at EU! appeared first on The PIE News.

    Source link

  • Here’s how institutions are faring in handling harassment and sexual misconduct complaints

    Here’s how institutions are faring in handling harassment and sexual misconduct complaints

    Evidence suggests that significant numbers of students experience or are affected by harassment and sexual misconduct each year. Yet student complaints to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) about harassment and sexual misconduct have historically formed a very small proportion of our overall caseload.

    The number of complaints about harassment and sexual misconduct we have received has been rising slowly but steadily in recent months. This may in part be a result of greater visibility at providers about mechanisms to disclose, such as “report and support” tools. This is a positive step, but there is more to be done to raise students’ confidence in how their providers can respond to reports.

    Today we have published ten case summaries and a casework note on harassment and sexual misconduct, highlighting some key issues for providers to consider when addressing complaints. Although these examples focus on sexual misconduct, the broad principles of good practice can apply across other forms of harassment.

    Taking reports seriously

    Our recent casework shows that some providers are demonstrating, via the disciplinary action they take against students reported for harassment and sexual misconduct, how seriously they view breaches of their codes of conduct. We’ve seen providers taking swift action to investigate, make findings and apply penalties. In some cases, we have seen well-reasoned and documented decisions and clearly explained outcomes.

    However, we have upheld a high proportion of the complaints we have reviewed about harassment and sexual misconduct. We have identified procedural errors and unfairness that have significantly undermined the value of the process for reporting students, and the validity of findings made against reported students.

    Overall, providers seem to have more confidence in addressing the disciplinary aspect of these complaints. Disciplinary processes are usually well established and are supported by guidance and tools such as classification of the severity of any breaches of a code of conduct and accompanying tariffs of penalties.

    There is less certainty and consistency of approach across the sector in responding to the reporting student. There may be fine nuances between a disclosure, a report or a complaint about harassment and sexual misconduct, and the manner of response to each might be slightly different. Many providers intend to be led by the reporting student’s needs, which is an admirable principle – but not always effective if the student has not been clearly informed about the options available to them and the differences between these routes.

    Sharing an outcome

    In several cases, providers haven’t understood that informing a reporting student that a disciplinary process has taken place is not a complete outcome.

    Providers need to consider how they can support students and lessen the impact upon them of the harassment or sexual misconduct they have experienced. This is especially important when the report concerns the conduct of a member of staff. In our experience, providers have tended to be more transparent about incidents between two students than they have been when a member of staff is involved.

    While providers have particular responsibilities to their employees that may be different to the obligations they have towards students, the imbalance of power makes it even more important that students understand how their complaint has been investigated and what will happen next.

    Gathering and probing evidence

    We recognise that complaints about harassment and sexual misconduct are often complex, and may involve events that unfold over a period of time, multiple incidents or involve numerous individuals. There can be constraints because of concurrent police action, which may not result in a clear outcome for several months. Cases may involve claims and counter-complaints, or turn on the credibility of the parties on nuanced issues such as consent.

    Our experience suggests that in some cases, decision makers have not fully understood the importance of moving carefully through a process that genuinely gives all parties an opportunity to tell their own story and allows for gaps and inconsistencies to be explored. It is right that all parties in these processes must be treated with respect, with kindness, and with an awareness of the impact that re-visiting an experience of harassment or sexual misconduct may have.

    But panel members who must test evidence appear to feel constrained in asking questions. Trying to re-examine or gather additional evidence at a later date can place an undue burden on all parties and prevent individuals from moving forward.

    Consultation on a new section of the Good Practice Framework

    The increased focus on tackling harassment and sexual misconduct across the sector – including the new E6 OfS regulatory condition that applies to some of the providers in our membership – is to be welcomed. The emphasis on clear information that is easy to access, and on well-resourced training for both staff and students may go some way to addressing some issues we have seen in complaints.

    In 2025, we will consult on a new section of the Good Practice Framework addressing these complex issues. It will build on the learning we have identified from our rising volume of casework. Our intention will be to draw together in one place the principles that apply to complaints about harassment and misconduct.

    We look forward to engaging with the sector to benefit from the extensive expertise of hands-on practitioners, to make this as useful a resource as possible. If you’d like to feed in at an early stage, please get in touch with us at [email protected].

    Source link

  • Here’s where AI, VR and AR are boosting learning in higher ed

    Here’s where AI, VR and AR are boosting learning in higher ed

    Australian universities and TAFEs are embracing and combining emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR).

    These innovations are reshaping the further and higher education sectors, offering more engaging, accessible, data-based learning experiences for students, educators and institutions alike.

    As students and institutions seek value amidst economic and work-life challenges, these technologies are crucial in delivering sustainable and scalable skilling and workforce-development goals. Integrating AI, VR, and AR can provide more personalised and cost-effective learning pathways for students facing daily pressures, making education more accessible and financially viable.

    The transformative role of AI in personalised learning

    AI is becoming a game-changer in Australian education by enabling personalised learning and providing data-driven insights. AI-powered platforms can analyse the complex interplay of factors impacting student performance and customise immersive content delivery to improve persistence, resilience and success.

    This integrated approach can serve personalised springboard content that matches students’ strengths, promotes growth in areas of weakness, and builds both capability and confidence.

    In this way, AI is not just about student learning; it also directly benefits teachers and professional staff. It streamlines the development of educational materials, from video and interactive content to branched lessons and adaptive learning paths.

    A few Australian higher and vocational education institutions have already demonstrated this by exploring the affordances of AI-driven platforms to offer personalised learning programs tailored to students’ career goals and development needs.

    Researchers from the University of South Australia are proving how AI can enhance students’ learning outcomes, equip teachers with advanced education tools and overhaul the education sector for good.

    At the University of Sydney, AI-driven learning platforms offer personalised learning experiences via the university’s generative AI platform, Cogniti, which shows that generative AI is a powerful way to support teachers and their teaching, not supplant them.

    Immersive learning through VR

    Virtual reality also continues to revolutionise Australian further and higher education, providing immersive learning environments that make complex subjects more accessible and engaging.

    From medical schools to engineering programs and advanced manufacturing, VR allows students to engage with practical scenarios that realistically present workplace problems, assess skills application and assess complex tasks.

    VR is a technology with tremendous promise in scaling high-quality and safe immersive learning by doing training at TAFE NSW.

    Its Ultimo campus utilises a high-tech, remarkably lifelike canine mannequin to provide aspiring veterinary nurses with invaluable hands-on training.

    Recently imported from the USA, this highly advanced model enables animal studies and veterinary nursing students to develop essential clinical skills, including intubation, CPR, bandaging and ear cleaning.

    By implementing VR as a training tool, TAFE NSW Ultimo plumbing students can learn to recognise potential risk from return electrical current via copper pipes into a residence, which can cause serious, even fatal, electric shock, in a safe and protected environment.

    Additionally, its welding students were able to identify and solve potentially hazardous scenarios when preparing for welding work.

    AR brings practical training to life

    AR is another immersive technology revolutionising Australian education by deepening the interaction between students and their learning materials. AR overlays digital content in the real world, making abstract concepts more tangible and understandable.

    AR is broadly applicable across diverse fields such as healthcare, technical trades, and construction, allowing students to practice and refine their skills in a controlled, simulated environment.

    At TAFE Queensland, welding students use AR to identify and solve potentially hazardous scenarios when preparing for welding work. 

    With a screen inside the helmet, students position their virtual welding torch, with sparks flying like in real life, against a plastic board and press the torch trigger to see the welds they have made.

    The screen flashes red when they are incorrect and gives them a score at the end. Using AR in welding has reduced raw material wastage by 68 per cent at a time of scarcity.

    TAFE Box Hill Institute’s Advanced Welder Training Centre is equipped with the latest augmented reality simulators, allowing students to use best-practice technology and quality systems in a hands-on environment.

    It was developed in collaboration with Weld Australia, which represents Australian welding professionals, and will help address the current shortage of qualified and skilled welders in Australia.

    Monash University’s Engineering Student Pilot Plant is designed to reflect real-world industrial environments and requirements.

    AR experiences are being developed in Vuforia Studio using 3D CAD models of the pilot plant, enabling visualisation of proposed equipment before installation.

    These AR interfaces will integrate with Internet of Things (IoT) devices, Digital Twin models and process simulations, creating an AR-based Human Machine Interface (HMI) that enhances on-site accessibility by providing remote, simultaneous interaction with the physical equipment and its Digital Twin.

    The future of Australian further and higher education

    The future of further and higher education in Australia will likely see these advanced digital technologies integrated further into the curriculum, offering new opportunities and skills for students to thrive in a competitive, tech-driven environment.

    Australia’s educational institutions have a rich history of effectively using educational technology to further learning and teaching.

    Assessing and leveraging rapidly evolving tools like AR and Gen AI will ensure they remain at the forefront of global education by providing students with the relevant and engaging learning experiences they need to succeed.

    Tony Maguire is regional director of ANZ at global learning technology company D2L.

    Source link

  • FIRE’s president to Donald Trump: Here’s how you can help save free speech

    FIRE’s president to Donald Trump: Here’s how you can help save free speech

    Since the 2008 election, our President and CEO Greg Lukianoff has written to each new president upon their inauguration, offering FIRE’s perspective on how they can help defend free speech and academic freedom.

    Read LETTER FROM Greg Lukianoff to President DONALD Trump

    As President Trump enters office today, there is much work to be done. Free speech is under attack on college campuses. In fact, last year was the worst on record for free speech on college campuses, as more attempts were made to deplatform speakers on campus than any year since FIRE began tracking in 1998. And professors are censoring themselves more now than at the height of the McCarthy era.

    Off campus, the situation is alarming as well.

    Greg’s letter to President Trump highlights some policies his administration can implement to help remedy the situation and protect free speech over the next four years, on campus or off.

    1. Support the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act

    A 2024 FIRE study found that only 15% of public colleges and universities’ speech policies comply fully with their First Amendment obligations. This should be a national scandal.

    But there’s a simple way for the Trump administration, working with Congress, to better protect the free speech rights of our nation’s students.

    FIRE to Congress: More work needed to protect free speech on college campuses

    News

    FIRE joined Rep. Murphy’s annual Campus Free Speech Roundtable to discuss the free speech opportunities and challenges facing colleges.


    Read More

    We ask that Trump support the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act — or another piece of legislation to protect campus speech rights — to codify speech protective standards  including ending “free speech zones” that limit where students can hold demonstrations, the levying of viewpoint-based security costs to punish student groups seeking to host “controversial” speakers, and encouraging institutions to adopt the Chicago Principles on Free Expression.

    At least 23 states have enacted some of these commonsense provisions, but student free speech rights deserve federal protection. Legislation to ensure that all of our nation’s public colleges and universities finally protect the basic free speech rights of their students should be a top priority.

    2. Address the abuse of campus anti-harassment policies

    In the landmark 1999 decision Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, the Supreme Court defined student-on-student harassment as behavior that “is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims’ educational experience, that the victims are effectively denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities.”

    After 25 years of advocating for students’ rights on campus, FIRE knows all too well how definitions of student-on-student harassment that fail to meet the Davis standard will inevitably be used to punish protected speech. Consider the 2022 case of eight law students at American University who were put under investigation for participating in a heated back-and-forth following the leak of the Dobbs v. Jackson draft opinion, after another student said their pro-choice commentary harassed and discriminated against him based on his religious, pro-life beliefs. 

    As president, Trump inherits the privilege and the obligation to defend the First Amendment rights of all Americans, regardless of their viewpoint

    But properly applied, the Davis standard ensures that institutions protect students against actual discriminatory behavior as opposed to punishing students who merely express controversial viewpoints.

    3. Rein in government jawboning

    Leaks and disclosures over the past few years have brought to light demands, threats, and other coercion from government officials to social media companies aimed at suppressing particular viewpoints and ideas.

    This practice, known as jawboning, is a serious threat to free speech. But the Trump administration can prevent jawboning by federal officials with the following steps:

    • Prohibit federal employees from jawboning;
    • Support legislation to require transparency when government officials communicate with social media companies about content moderation. FIRE’s SMART Act is one such model bill.
    • Refrain from threatening or pressuring social media platforms to change their content moderation practices or suppress particular users.

    And, of course, refrain from making calls for investigations, prosecutions, or other government retaliation in response to the exercise of First Amendment rights outside of the social media context as well.

    4. Protect First Amendment rights when it comes to AI

    Over the course of history, technologies that make communication easier have aided the process of knowledge discovery: from the printing press and the telegraph to the radio, phones, and the internet. So too have AI tools revealed their potential to spark the next revolution in knowledge production.

    What is jawboning? And does it violate the First Amendment?

    Issue Pages

    Indirect government censorship is still government censorship — and it must be stopped.


    Read More

    The potential power of AI has also prompted officials at all levels of government to move towards regulating the development and use of AI tools. Too often, these proposals do not account for the First Amendment rights of AI developers and users. 

    The First Amendment applies to AI just as it does to other technologies that Americans use to create and distribute writings, images, and other speech. Nothing about AI software justifies or permits the trampling of those rights, and doing so would undermine its potential as a tool for contributing to human knowledge.

    Trump’s administration can prevent this by rejecting any federal regulation of AI that violates the First Amendment.

    Conclusion

    The Trump administration faces historic challenges both at home and abroad. But the United States is uniquely capable of solving our challenges because of our unparalleled commitment to freedom of speech. 

    As president, Trump inherits the privilege and the obligation to defend the First Amendment rights of all Americans, regardless of their viewpoint — and FIRE stands ready to help in that effort.

    Source link