The University of Kentucky suspended tenured professor Ramsi Woodcock in July for his comments about Israel. Now, Woodcock is suing his university for violating his First Amendment rights.
Woodcock’s lawsuit, filed last week in federal district court in Kentucky, asks the judge for two things: let him go back to teaching and stop the university from enforcing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism.
The lawsuit lays out a damning timeline of UK’s abuse of his First Amendment rights. Woodcock, long an outspoken critic of Israel, remained steadily employed at UK for seven years, gaining tenure in 2022 and a promotion to full professorship this year. But less than two weeks after his promotion, UK removed him from teaching and banned him from campus. This was purportedly because of unspecified complaints about his petition to a faculty listserv in March 2024, more than a year earlier, calling for global war against Israel and its annihilation. On his website, antizionist.net, he claims Israel is waging a genocide and that the world has a “moral duty” to step in.
After UK suspended Woodcock, describing his online petition as “calling for the destruction of a people based on national origin,” FIRE’s Faculty Legal Defense Fund, which provides legal resources for faculty free of charge, intervened with UK to explain that Woodcock’s speech was protected by the First Amendment. While members of the public or UK’s community may have taken offense to Woodcock’s strong views about Israel, faculty members have the First Amendment right to present arguments on matters of public concern outside the classroom. Using Woodcock’s speech as a cudgel to remove him from the classroom was a clear violation of his expressive rights as a faculty member at UK.
The FLDF also announced that Joe Childers, a Kentucky-based attorney, would defend Woodcock through the university’s investigative process. Now Woodcock is taking his fight to court. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is representing Woodcock in the lawsuit, with help from the Chicago-based law firm Kapitan Gomaa Law. Childers is serving as local counsel.
“The University’s suspension of Professor Woodcock violates his First Amendment right of freedom of expression and his right to procedural due process, discriminates against him in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, threatens the democratic principles which sustain this Country’s form of government, and degrades the quality of education at the University of Kentucky,” the lawsuit states.
A university cannot censor the ideas it dislikes out of existence. And it certainly cannot punish its own faculty for making provocative arguments both at the university and in the court of public opinion. FIRE will keep readers apprised about the status of Woodcock’s lawsuit.
If you are a public university or college professor facing investigations or punishment for your speech, contact the Faculty Legal Defense Fund: Submit a case or call the 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533).
UC Berkeley School of Law dean Erwin Chemerinsky spoke at this week’s APLU conference.
Carlos Avila Gonzalez/The San Francisco Chronicle/Getty Images
PHILADELPHIA—The final speech at the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities’ annual conference this week dissected the Trump administration’s “financial assault” on universities and urged the Supreme Court to be a check on a president whom Congress hasn’t reined in.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law and a constitutional scholar, also told the attendees of the APLU meeting that their institutions should be united against the administration’s attacks on higher ed.
“The one thing we all learned on the playground is if you give in to a bully, it only makes it worse in the long term,” Chemerinsky said Tuesday, adding—to applause—that “it’s so important that institutions of higher education stand together at this moment and stand together for our shared missions.”
The speech comes after multiple prominent universities, including a few public ones, refused to sign Trump’s proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” which asked them to give up significant autonomy in exchange for an unspecified edge in competitions for federal funds.
It also follows legal victories against the administration’s grant cancellations. Litigation by UC researchers against Trump, the Department of Government Efficiency and other federal agencies and officials has restored more than $500 million in federal research grants, which the administration cut at UCLA after the Justice Department accused it of tolerating antisemitism during a spring 2024 pro-Palestinian protest encampment. Chemerinsky, who is Jewish, is representing the researchers in that litigation.
Asked for comment, a White House official told Inside Higher Ed in an email, “UC Berkely clearly needs to make some changes – violence broke out on UC Berkeley’s campus just last night and they have failed to police antisemitism by tolerating an ‘unrelenting’ steam of antisemitic harassment toward Jewish students and faculty.”
Even before the latest cuts, Chemerinsky estimated the Trump administration had already slashed close to $1 billion in funding for faculty and researchers across the UC system, a figure that he said was much higher than DOGE’s tally. The UC system didn’t confirm or deny this estimate or provide a more recent estimate Tuesday, saying the system was closed for Veterans Day.
“I think the termination of grants that we’ve seen, whether it’s to researchers and faculty or to universities, is clearly illegal,” Chemerinsky said. But when it comes to “nonrenewal of grants in the future and funding in the future,” he added, the “government has far more discretion, and there it’s going to be much harder to bring legal challenges.”
Chemerinsky also said federal funding cuts are just one of four financial vulnerabilities the administration has identified in universities: “they’re very dependent” on federal money, tuition, philanthropy and foreign students. Using his own institution as an example, he said Berkeley Law has an L.L.M., or master of laws, degree program that’s exclusively for foreign students and represents $20 million in its annual budget.
He then expressed concern about how the Supreme Court has ruled on the administration’s actions, even beyond higher ed.
“By my count, 39 matters have come to the Supreme Court since [Inauguration Day] Jan. 20, challenging actions of the Trump administration,” he said. “All are instances where the lower courts ruled against the Trump administration, and in 36 of 39, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Trump administration.”
Noting eight of the nine justices graduated from the law schools at either Harvard or Yale Universities (Amy Coney Barrett graduated from the University of Notre Dame), he said, “My optimistic self believes that the United States Supreme Court will stand up for higher education.” Chemerinsky added that since Congress hasn’t served as a check on the president, it’s up to the federal judiciary to uphold the laws and the Constitution.
Fittingly, his speech took place at a Philadelphia hotel about a 15-minute walk from where the founders adopted the Constitution. APLU said more than 1,300 people attended this week’s three-day conference.
“Ultimately, I believe the guardrail of our democracy has to be the courts and the Supreme Court,” Chemerinsky said. “If there is going to be a check on a president who has authoritarian impulses, it’s going to have to be from the restraints of the Constitution—and the only way we can enforce those is the courts.”
Chemerinsky noted that “one characteristic of every authoritarian—or would-be authoritarian—rule is the way they go after universities. What we’ve seen in the last nine and a half months is unprecedented in American history.”
He compared Trump’s actions to McCarthyism, the 1950s-era political persecution of faculty, government employees and others. But Chemerinsky pointed out that back then, “it wasn’t the president of the United States leading the attack on higher education,” and “there wasn’t the financial assault on universities.”
“But the one thing that the McCarthy era should say to all of us is that history will judge us,” he said. “Twenty, 30, 50, 75 years from now, people will look back on us the way we look at university officials in the McCarthy era, and they will judge us as to whether we capitulated or whether we had courage.”
School (in)Security is our biweekly briefing on the latest school safety news, vetted by Mark Keierleber. Subscribe here.
Larry Bushart Jr. was just freed from a Tennessee jail cell after spending more than a month behind bars — for a Facebook post.
The high-profile arrest of the 61-year-old retiree and former cop — which made waves in free speech circles — has all the hallmarks of a bingeworthy culture war clash in 2025:
A chronically online progressive turns to Facebook to troll his MAGA neighbors about President Donald Trump’s seemingly lopsided response to school shootings compared to the murder of right-wing pundit Charlie Kirk
An elected, overzealous county sheriff intent on shutting him up
A debate over the limits of the First Amendment — and the president’s broader efforts to silence his critics
Eamonn Fitzmaurice / T74
The controversy, I report this morning, also calls attention to a series of recent Tennessee laws that carry harsh punishments for making school shooting threats and place police officers on campus threat assessment teams working to ferret out students with violent plans before anyone gets hurt.
In Bushart’s case, the sheriff maintained that his post referring to the president’s reaction to a 2024 school shooting in Perry, Iowa, constituted a threat “of mass violence at a school,” apparently the local Perry County High School. The rules that ensnared Bushart have also led to a wave of student arrests and several free speech lawsuits. His is likely to be next, Bushart’s lawyer told The Washington Post.
In the news
Updates in Trump’s immigration crackdown: Federal immigration officers chased a Chicago teacher into the lobby of a private preschool Wednesday and dragged her out as parents watched her cry “tengo papeles!” or “I have papers.” The incident is perhaps the most significant immigration enforcement act in a school to date. | The 74
Proposed federal rules would allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement to collect iris scans, fingerprints and other biometric data on all immigrants — including, for the first time, children under 14 years old — and store it for the duration of each individual person’s “lifecycle.” | Ars Technica
On the same day Cornell University notified an international student that his immigration status had been revoked, Google alerted him that federal authorities had subpoenaed his personal emails. Now, the institution won’t say whether federal authorities had tapped into university “emails to track [students] as well.” | The Cornell Daily Sun
In California, federal immigration officers shot a U.S. citizen from behind as he warned the agents that students would soon gather in the area to catch a school bus. The government says the shots were “defensive.” | Los Angeles Times
‘Deportation isn’t a costume’: A Maine middle school principal is facing pushback for a federal immigration officer Halloween costume, complete with a bulletproof vest that read “ICE.” | Boston.com
In Chicago communities that have seen the most significant increase in immigration enforcement, school enrollment has plunged. | Chalkbeat
Also in Chicago, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to hand over use-of-force records and body camera footage after trick-or-treaters were “tear-gassed on their way to celebrate Halloween.” | USA Today
A bipartisan bill seeks to bar minors from using AI chatbots as petrified parents testified their children used the tools with dire consequences — including suicide. Some warn the change could stifle the potential of chatbots for career or mental health counseling services. | Education Week
A Kentucky mom filed a federal lawsuit against online gaming communities Discord and Roblox alleging the companies jeopardized children’s safety in the name of profit. After her 13-year-old daughter died by suicide last year, the mom said, she found the girl had a second life online that idolized school shooters. | 404 Media
Character.AI announced it will bar minors from its chatbots, acknowledging safety concerns about how “teens do, and should, interact with this new technology.” | BBC
Getty Images
A jury awarded $10 million to former Virginia teacher Abby Zwerner on Thursday, two years after she was shot by her 6-year-old student. Zwerner accused her former assistant principal of ignoring repeated warnings that the first grader had a gun. The student’s mother was sentenced to nearly four years in prison for felony child neglect and federal weapons charges. | The New York Times
‘Creepy, unsettling’: This family spent a week with Grem, a stuffed animal with artificial intelligence designed to “learn” children’ s personalities and hold educational conversations. | The Guardian
A judge ordered the Trump administration to release federal funds to California school districts after it sought to revoke nearly $165 million in mental health grants as part of a broader crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion. The grants funded hundreds of school social workers and counselors. | EdSource
In 95% of schools, active-shooter drills are now a routine part of campus life. Here’s how states are trying to make them less traumatic. | The Trace
Sign-up for the School (in)Security newsletter.
Get the most critical news and information about students’ rights, safety and well-being delivered straight to your inbox.
A lawsuit against a Pennsylvania school district alleges educators failed to keep students safe after a 12-year-old girl was attacked by a classmate with a metal Stanley drinking cup. | NBC10
‘Inviting government overreach and abuse’: The Education Department was slapped with two lawsuits over new Public Service Loan Forgiveness rules that could bar student borrowers from the program who end up working for the president’s political opponents, including organizations that serve immigrant students and LGBTQ+ youth. | The Washington Post
ICYMI @The74
1939 redlined maps of Los Angeles showing neighborhoods deemed eligible and ineligible for economic aid
Monash University Dean of Law Steven Vaughan. Source: Monash University website
Monash University’s new dean of law has announced senior law students will stop tutorials and suggested students should do no more than ten hours of paid work a week alongside their studies.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Qualifying high school seniors in California will be automatically admitted to a California State University campus beginning with the 2026-27 academic year under a bill Gov. Gavin Newsomsigned into law this week.
Under the program, eligible students will automatically receive letters notifying them that they have been directly admitted to Cal State campuses with enrollment capacity based on their academic records.
The program expands a pilot announced last year limited to high school students in California’s Riverside County. Out of 17,000 students who received admission offers to Cal State for the fall 2025 term, 13,200 completed the required paperwork, according to state Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, who co-sponsored the bill.
Dive Insight:
California’s new legislation, called SB 640, aims to boost college access and help reverse enrollment declines at some of Cal State’s 23 campuses.
“Direct admission removes the applications hurdle that stops some students from going to college, and relieves the fear that they won’t get in anywhere,” Cabaldon said after SB 640 cleared California’s Legislature last month.
The lawmaker cited a 2022 academic study of Idaho’s direct admissions program, implemented in 2015, that found the initiative increased first-time undergraduate enrollments by 4% to 8% — an average increase of 50 to 100 students per campus. It also boosted in-state enrollment levels by approximately 8% to 15%, the study found.
Enrollment gains from the direct admissions program were concentrated mainly in community colleges, though it had “minimal-to-no impacts” on the enrollment of Pell Grant-eligible students, according to the study. At the time of publication, one of the researchers noted the lack of change was not surprising, given that the program did not focus on any particular student group.
Meanwhile, a 2023 study of 33,000 students found a Common App direct admissions initiative geared toward marginalized student groups increased applications among Black, Latinx, multiracial, first-generation and low-income students.
California joins a growing number of states incorporating direct admissions into the acceptance process for their public colleges.That list includes North Carolina, which this year offered 62,000 public high school students admissions into one of dozens of institutions through the NC College Connect Program, an expansion of a pilot launched last year.
“The process of applying to college, transferring between institutions, and navigating the maze of financial aid feels like an insurmountable series of hurdles,” Shun Robertson, the University of North Carolina’s senior vice president for strategy and policy, told Higher Ed Dive earlier this fall. “Eliminating these barriers has been a high priority.”
The Biden and Trump administrations have both stepped up enforcement of Title VI in the last two years.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Etienne Laurent/AFP/Getty Images | Scott Olson/Getty Images
A new report released Monday by the American Association of University Professors and its Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure argues that the Trump administration has weaponized federal civil rights laws with a goal of discrediting colleges and compromising their academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
The report focuses in part on a surge of investigations that have been launched by the Department of Education since Oct. 7, 2023, especially those that involve national origin and religion. Based on an analysis of those cases, AAUP argues that in many instances the Trump administration has targeted types of speech or programming that do not actually qualify as legally actionable discrimination. Rather, the association says, the Trump administration has used this surge to sidestep historical procedures and enforce its own interpretation of the law.
Both the Biden and Trump administrations stepped up their enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, after the Hamas attack on Israel prompted a number of protests on college campuses and an increase in reports of antisemitism. Their approaches, however, have been quite different.
Biden civil rights officials took issue with how colleges responded to reports of antisemitic harassment and found severalcolleges in violation of that law.
However, the Trump administration has moved aggressively to cut off funds and to demandsweeping changes at institutions—all in the name of combating antisemitism. More recently, the administration has used Title VI as a way to restrict and investigate race-based practices and programs as well as admissions decisions.
“In a perverse reading of DEI, the administration makes it an instance of racial discrimination rather than an attempt to dismantle the structures of discrimination based on race,” the report notes.
Over all, the AAUP argues that the Trump administration is attempting to “unmake” and “hijack” Title VI.
The Trump administration is “unmooring the Civil Rights Act from its foundational commitments to addressing structures of discrimination that prevent educational access,” the report stated. And doing so “is nothing less than an attempt to rewrite the history of the nation.”
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression sued the University of Texas System on Wednesdayon behalf of students over a new state law that directs public colleges to prohibit expressive activitieson campusfrom 10 p.m. to 8 a.m.
The lawsuit also takes aim at the statute’s provisions that prohibit inviting speakers to campus, using devices to amplify speech, or playing drums or other percussive instruments during the last two weeks of any term.
FIREcalled the provisions “blatantly unconstitutional,” arguing they violate First Amendment and due process rights on public colleges.The group is urging the judge overseeing the case to declare the prohibitions unconstitutional and to permanently block the UT System from enforcing them.
Dive Insight:
Texas state Sen. Brandon Creighton— who authored the billand has been named the sole finalist for chancellor of theTexas Tech University System — has framed the legislation as a response to pro-Palestinian demonstrations campuses both within Texas and across the nation last year.
“While the world watched Columbia, Harvard and other campuses across the country taken hostage by pro-terrorist mobs last year, Texas stood firm. UT allowed protest, not anarchy,” Creighton told Austin American-Statesman earlier this year after lawmakers passed his bill.
In the new lawsuit, several student groups— including the independent student newspaper at the University of Texas at Dallas, an interdenominational student ministry,and libertarian organization Young Americans for Liberty — say the legislation blocks a broad array of protected speech.
That’s because the legislation defines expressive activities as “any speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
“Early morning prayer meetings on campus, for example, are now prohibited by law,” the lawsuit says. “Students best beware of donning a political t-shirt during the wrong hours. And they must think twice before inviting a pre-graduation speaker, holding a campus open-mic night to unwind before finals, or even discussing the wrong topic — or discussing almost anything — in their dorms after dark.”
Other activities covered by the 10-hour daily block on expressive activities include screening a film at midnight, “wearing a Halloween costume after 10 p.m.,” photographing the sunrise, setting up an information booth early on the morning of election day to boost voter awareness, or even saying, ‘Good morning,’ the lawsuit says.
The Retrograde, a student-run newspaper at UT-Dallas, voiced concerns that the ban covers their reporting and publishing deep into the night. Working in those hours is necessary for the students to fulfill their journalist mission, according to the lawsuit.
Similarly, the student ministry group, the Fellowship of Christian University Students’ chapter on UT-Dallas, often meet to discuss issues of faith — even after their official events conclude at 10 p.m.
“The First Amendment doesn’t set when the sun goes down,” FIRE senior supervising attorney JT Morris said in a statement Wednesday. “University students have expressive freedom whether it’s midnight or midday, and Texas can’t just legislate those constitutional protections out of existence.”
Along with the UT System’s board members and chancellor, the lawsuit also names the heads of UT-Austin and UT-Dallas as defendants.
The UT System said via email Thursday that it has not reviewed the lawsuit and declined to comment further. UT-Austin and UT-Dallas did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The 10-hour daily block on expressive activities exempts commercial speech. According to the lawsuit, that means students would be banned from protesting world hunger at 7 a.m. but they would not be prevented from hosting a bake sale at that time.
That type of content-based restriction makes the law unconstitutional, the lawsuit argues.
The lawsuit also argues against the prohibitions on certain types of expressive activities — including inviting speakers or playing percussive instruments — during the last two weeks of any term. Those bans are overly broad, the lawsuit alleges.
UT-Austin, for instance, has seven academic terms, meaning bans on those expressive activities would cover 98 days of the year. At UT-Dallas, these bans would be in place for over 90 days, according to the lawsuit.
What’s in a name? To Gallaudet University, quite a lot.
When the Gallaudet chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine protested the war in Gaza, Gallaudet moved swiftly to silence the group, neutering the SJP chapter’s social media presence and sending a campus-wide email condemning the group’s rhetoric. While they initially succeeded, swift action by FIRE and the social media company Meta ensured that free speech — and proper application of trademark law — won the day.
The leadup to last spring’s commencement ceremonies was a tense time at Gallaudet. Gallaudet SJP put up stickers across campus containing the phrase “from the river to the sea.” Many of these placements could fairly be considered vandalism by the university — and thus not protected by First Amendment principles. But rather than focus on where the stickers were placed, or where written materials should be placed, Gallaudet took a more troubling approach.
On May 22, the university released a video “community statement . . . affirming our values and addressing recent concerns.” In it, Provost Khadijat Rashid and President Roberta Cordano noted that the phrase “from the river to the sea” is “associated with rhetoric that promotes violence and hatred” and is “considered hate speech.”
Instead of specifying that the underlying speech is protected but the methods used (i.e., unauthorized stickering on university property) in communicating that speech were unacceptable, Gallaudet conflated the two, stating, “Antisemitism has no place at Gallaudet. These acts of vandalism are not protected speech.”
As FIRE has thoroughly explained, simply repeating the “river to the sea” slogan during a peaceful protest in the United States most certainly is protected speech, regardless of the dispute over whether it is also antisemitic. Gallaudet, which tells its community members it believes in “the principles of freedom of expression and open dialogue without fear of censorship or retaliation,” therefore promises to protect such speech in its own policies. Yet after threatening protected speech, Gallaudet’s leaders went on a curious digression:
We also want to address a source of confusion. A social media account [on Instagram] with the handle @sjpgallaudet uses the university’s name in its profile. This account does not represent a university-sanctioned student organization. The use of “Gallaudet” in this context is unauthorized, and the university filed a trademark infringement complaint [with Meta]. The social media handle has now been removed.
Trademark law (and corresponding Meta guidance) does allow parties with marks — such as distinctive names, logos, or even sounds, textures, or colors — to protect their creative works from infringers. But Gallaudet was stretching trademark law far beyond its bounds. In order to bring a trademark claim, rights holders generally need to show that other parties using their marks will cause confusion among consumers as to who is generating the content. In other words, Gallaudet can protect itself against would-be infringers who want to use its name to fool folks into thinking the infringer represents Gallaudet in some way. Posers beware, says the law.
But few if any social media users would think that a student group — especially one with a clear advocacy posture like SJP — represents a university just because the group references the name of the school where it operates. If someone actually exists who would assume Gallaudet officially sponsors the @sjpgallaudet Instagram handle, they would surely be dissuaded by the prominent message on the account saying: “GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY SHUTS DOWN STUDENTS FOR JUSTICE.” No likelihood of confusion, no trademark infringement.
Intellectual property rights cannot and should not be used to make unpopular speech go away.
FIRE made this simple point to Gallaudet in a June 3 letter, while also taking the time to carefully explain that “from the river to the sea” is protected by the university’s free speech promises. We received no reply, just crickets.
Fortunately, Meta proved significantly more helpful. On July 29, FIRE contacted Meta, urging the company to reinstate the @sjpgallaudet account. On Aug. 26, Meta wrote to FIRE explaining that, upon further review, its legal teams had determined that the account does not violate trademark guidelines, and reinstated it. Meta deserves praise in this case for thoroughly reassessing its earlier trademark determination and changing its decision accordingly.
Is saying ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ protected speech under the First Amendment?
While the phrase may offend some listeners, feeling offended is hardly adequate cause to circumvent First Amendment protections for freedom of speech.
But Gallaudet, for its part, refuses to acknowledge its mistake or hostility toward student expression. This creates the troubling possibility that the university will again try to misuse trademark law to bully groups it doesn’t like, even if Meta is onto its shenanigans.
This is not the only time we’ve seen universities try to use their names to knock down perceived opponents. In July, FIRE blogged about a similar case involving Purdue University, where the independent student newspaper The Exponent published an editorial saying it would remove the names and images of pro-Palestinian activists from its website over concerns that the federal government would use them in its efforts targeting what the government called “pro-jihadist” speech.
In response, Purdue’s administration went on the offensive. The university told the publication, run by Purdue students since 1889, to stop using the name “Purdue” in its website address. Purdue also said it would stop circulating the paper and end preferential parking for its staff. As we noted at the time, Purdue’s decision made a mockery of trademark law and threatened independent journalism.
Purdue and Gallaudet surely won’t be the last higher-learning institutions to invoke trademarks to silence dissent. But FIRE will continue to call on universities to protect their marks in a way that respects the First Amendment.
Names are valuable to organizations, who have a right to protect their brands from abuse and safeguard consumers, donors, and passersby from confusion. Yet intellectual property rights cannot and should not be used to make unpopular speech go away.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
In June, Ohio became the second stateto regulate how colleges can use third-party vendors to help launch and operate their online degree programs.
Under a new law, both public and private colleges in Ohio must disclose on their websites for their online programs when they are using vendors to help run those offerings.Staff who work for these vendors, known as online program managers, must also identify themselves when talking to students. And it requires colleges to report OPM contracts annually to the state’s higher education chancellor.
The law, part of a larger state budget bill, additionally prohibits OPMs from making decisions about or disbursing student financial aid.
“Ohio’s law is a step in the right direction,” said Amber Villalobos, a fellow at The Century Foundation, a left-leaning think tank. “It’s great to see transparency laws because students will know who’s running their program, who’s teaching their programs.”
The new law is the latest sign that states may take on a greater role in regulating OPM contracts, heeding calls by consumer advocates for stronger government oversight.
However, Villalobos said Ohio lawmakers could have improved the legislation by barring colleges from entering agreements that give OPMs a cut of tuition revenue for each student they recruit into an online program. Minnesota, the first state to pass a law regulating OPMs in 2024, prohibited its public colleges from striking tuition-share deals with these companies if they provide marketing or recruiting services.
U.S. law bars colleges that receive federal funding from giving incentive-based compensation to companies that recruit students into their programs. However, in 2011, federal guidance created an exception for colleges that enter tuition-share agreements with OPMs for recruiting services — but only if they are part of a larger bundle of services, such as curricular design and help with clinical placements.
But these deals have led to OPMs using misleading recruitment and marketing practices to enroll students and fill seats, Villalobos said.
“When tuition-sharing is used for marketing or recruiting purposes we’ve seen issues like predatory recruitment,” she said.
OPMs under scrutiny
OPMs help colleges quickly set up and market online programs, said Phil Hill, an ed tech consultant. That’s important since launching a successful online program catering to nontraditional working adults can be challenging for colleges that typically enroll 18- to 24-year-olds, Hill said.
“It gives them a way to operate in the online space based on what students expect, but do it right away,” Hill said.
However, OPM contracts have been subject to lawsuits and federal scrutiny in recent years.
In Ohio, for instance, legislators passed the new state law following Eastern Gateway Community College’s closure in 2024 after it offered tuition-free online college programs with an OPM.
After the college began working with the for-profit company Student Resource Center, its enrollment soared from just 3,182 students in fall 2014 to 45,173 enrollees by the fall 2021, according to federal data. Former employees of the college accused the relationship of turning the college into an education mill, Inside Higher Ed reported at the time.
By early 2022, the rapid enrollment growth and the college’s relationship with the Student Resource Center had attracted the attention of the U.S. Department of Education.
The federal agency alleged that year that the college’s free college initiative illegally charged students with Pell Grants more than those without. In response, the Education Department placed the college on Heightened Cash Monitoring 2 status, which forced the institution to pay its students’ federal financial aid out of pocket before seeking reimbursement from the agency.
In 2023, Eastern Gateway reached a deal with the Education Department to end its free college program.Its board of trustees voted to shutter the institution the following year.
Ohio likely had “the worst example of an OPM contract harming students, harming an institution of any state in the country,” said Hill. Legislators were “reacting to that situation and the collapse of that school.”
Colleges nationwide have also faced scrutiny over their OPM relationships.
In 2023, the University of Southern California also winded down its partnership with an OPM on most online degrees they ran together.The move came after a 2023 class-action lawsuit accused USC of misrepresenting an online social work master’s degree program developed with the OPM as the same as its campus-based one.
In January, the Biden administration’s Education Department issued guidance informing colleges that they could lose access to federal financial aid or face penalties if OPMs misrepresent themselves to students. That includes OPM employees implying they work for colleges or representing a virtual program as equivalent to an institution’s campus-based version when they have material differences.
Pros and cons of Ohio’s law
Adam Kissel, a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, criticized Ohio’s new law on the conservative Minding the Campus website in June. Despite being watered-down after it was first introduced in the Ohio House, the bill essentially “required a warning label when a college had an OPM partnership,” Kissel wrote.
However, higher education experts said students will benefit from the disclosures and reporting standards in Ohio’s law.
A 2022 U.S. Government Accountability Office report found that at least 550 colleges worked with OPMs to support at least 2,900 education programs. However, the office couldn’t determine the exact number of OPM arrangements due to a lack of comprehensive data.
“Without any real tracking, any real reporting or accountability systems in place, I think that some states just don’t know how large of a scale the OPMs may be operating at in their state,” said Villalobos. “In some cases, that may be a reason we don’t see states taking action.”
Yet Stephanie Hall, a higher education policy expert, said the Ohio law could have been improved if it had banned institutions from paying companies that provide recruiting services on a commission basis, referring to tuition-share agreements.
“This practice has long been banned in the context of typical, on-campus admissions, but for some reason online students are not afforded the same consideration and protection,” Hall, a former senior director of higher ed policy at the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, said in an email.
Additionally, how Ohio enforces the law’s prohibitions on OPMs controlling or influencing financial aid decisions will be key, said Hall.
OPMs in some arrangements provide input on whether the program’s tuition price is competitive, which Hall argues influences pricing, she said.
Some colleges, through such contracts, also agree to offer promotions such as special scholarships or discounts, which the OPM markets or uses to persuade prospective students to enroll, Hall said.
The availability of financial aid including those scholarships and discounts, for example, is often discussed as OPMs field questions from prospective students about the program and its price on behalf of its college client, she said.
“These activities bring the OPM close enough to financial aid decisions to warrant oversight,” Hall said.
Many contracts between OPMs and colleges include a clause stating that the OPM is not a financial aid servicer — but those clauses are meaningless if regulators don’t verify them, Hall said.
The state’s higher education chancellor’s office should thoroughly review how OPMs are involved in pricing, discounts, scholarships and enrollment strategies, instead of just ensuring that such clauses are in their contracts, she said.
The reforms Hall and others are calling for have merit, said Hill. Transparency about contracts, particularly in public education, is a good thing, he said.
But Hill cautioned against characterizing all OPMs as predators.
“I would argue that without this model, a lot of nonprofit colleges and universities just wouldn’t be able to make an online offering that grows at all,” he said.
Alena AllenAlena Allen, who broke barriers in 2023 as the first Black person and woman to serve as dean of Louisiana State University’s Paul M. Hebert Law Center, will step down from her leadership role against her wishes, citing racial and gender discrimination.
LSU announced Allen’s departure in an internal email dated August 29, stating she would transition to a full-time faculty position at the Baton Rouge institution. However, Allen maintains she did not voluntarily resign and may pursue legal action for alleged whistleblower retaliation.
The controversy began when Allen raised concerns about financial “irregularities” she discovered in the law school’s budget—problems that predated her appointment. When she attempted to address these gaps and implement reforms, Allen alleges LSU leadership unfairly blamed her for the pre-existing issues.
“I am the first woman and the first person of color to serve as the permanent dean of the Paul M. Hebert Law Center. That fact is not incidental—it is central to what follows,” Allen wrote in her response to auditors. “I find it deeply troubling, and frankly difficult to ignore, that I appear to be held to a standard far more exacting than that applied to my white, overwhelmingly male predecessors.”
Allen’s attorney claims the LSU Board of Supervisors “engaged in systematic discrimination and retaliatory conduct” against her, arguing that her predecessors had “oversaw and entrenched the very practices” she questioned and began reforming.
Allen’s forced departure adds to a concerning pattern of Black leadership exits at LSU. The university recently lost its first Black president, Dr. William Tate, who left on June 30 to become president of Rutgers University. Several other Black administrators have also announced departures from the institution.
After Allen requested an investigation into the alleged racial and gender discrimination, university leaders informed her during a meeting that the law school would move in a “different direction” without her leadership.
Allen will continue serving as dean through the end of the spring 2026 semester while LSU conducts a national search for her replacement. Interim LSU Provost Dr. Troy Blanchard is overseeing the search process.