Tag: limits

Senators discuss school tech limits amid youth mental health crisis

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

Senators stressed the need for federal solutions to address a mental health crisis tied to social media and technology use among children and teens during a Thursday hearing held by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

Proposed solutions from senators and hearing witnesses spanned from completely ditching 1:1 devices and ed tech in schools to banning young children and teens from going on social media altogether.

The conversations in the Senate are developing with a sense of urgency as research continues to demonstrate the harmful social and emotional effects of social media use on youth and as more school districts and states seek to ban or limit cellphone use during the school day.

Additionally, the rapid spread of artificial intelligence tools could exacerbate these ongoing fears about technology’s impact on the youth mental health crisis, hearing witnesses said.

In the days leading up to the hearing, a coalition of education, library, and nonprofit leadership organizations sent a letter to Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Chair Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and ranking member Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. The coalition stressed the importance of federal support for ed tech and connectivity in schools.

Some members of the coalition include AASA, The School Superintendents Association, The Consortium for School Networking and national teacher’s unions including the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association.

“It is essential to distinguish between largely unsupervised, entertainment-driven technology use at home and the intentional, monitored, and carefully curated use of technology in schools — where digital tools are employed to support learning and prepare students for future academic and workforce demands,” the coalition’s Jan. 13 letter said.

Senators also brought up various pending bills in Congress that would address their concerns with children and teens’ excessive use of social media and technology. At the same time, nearly 20 bills looking to take on similar concerns about youth safety online are gaining traction after the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade advanced the package of legislation to the full Energy and Commerce Committee in December.

Cruz mentioned the Kids Off Social Media Act, a bipartisan bill he introduced last year that would prevent users under the age of 13 from accessing social media and prevent tech companies from using algorithms that feed addictive content to users under 17. Meanwhile, Cantwell highlighted other bipartisan Senate legislation such as an amendment to the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act and the Kids Online Safety Act that she said would update privacy protections for children online and limit “exploitative designs” by tech companies.

Ed tech and the youth mental health crisis

In Cruz’s opening remarks, he praised the Federal Communications Commission’s decision in September to roll back the Biden administration’s expansion of the E-rate program to offer schools and libraries federal discounts to purchase Wi-Fi on school buses and internet hotspots.

That expansion of E-rate, Cruz said, gave students “unsupervised internet access” while also undermining parental rights. The goal of the E-rate expansion under the Biden administration, however, was to increase internet access to students from low-income families so they can complete their homework and not fall behind in their classes.

Under the Children’s Internet Protection Act, which was passed in 2000, schools and libraries receiving E-rate funds must block harmful content on their devices both on and off campus. Those requirements include denying access to content that is obscene, pornographic or otherwise harmful to students.

CIPA also “requires districts to adopt internet safety policies, monitor online activity, and educate students about appropriate online behavior,” the Jan. 13 coalition letter said. “These longstanding requirements demonstrate both the seriousness with which schools approach online safety and the robust legal architecture to protect students that is already in place.”

Cantwell pushed back on comments against the E-rate program.

“Congress is obligated to act,” Cantwell said, but rather than “focusing on threatening E-rate connectivity for schools, I think we should be passing meaningful protections for kids’ online privacy, regardless of whether they’re accessing the internet from home or school.”

Cruz also questioned during the hearing “whether assigning personal devices to children is actually improving academic outcomes or doing more harm than good.”

Two witnesses supported eliminating 1:1 devices in schools, which became widespread during the COVID-19 pandemic when districts had to operate classes remotely for many months. The witnesses, Emily Cherkin, founder of The Screentime Consultant, and Jared Cooney Horvath, director of education professional development company LME Global, called for a return to traditional analog learning for younger students followed by the integration of technology into academic instruction during later years once key skills are understood.

Despite a surge in ed tech over the past several years, Horvath said students’ proficiency in digital literacy has dropped between 2018 and 2023 as seen on the global assessment known as the International Computer and Information Literacy Study. “So clearly, the secret to learning how to use tech is to not use tech,” Horvath said.

Education organizations in the Jan. 13 letter denounced the idea of banning all technology in classrooms, however, saying that the government instead would better serve the public by adequately funding schools with professional development and technical support to ensure schools have the most effective safeguards and online filters on their devices.

Source link

January 16, 2026
How many graduate borrowers will be impacted by the looming lending limits?
Dive Brief:
- About 28% of graduate borrowers in recent years have borrowed above new federal student loan limits set to go into effect in July, according to a recent analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s Consumer Finance Institute.
- Of those graduate students, nearly 40% would potentially fail to secure private loans without a cosigner under existing underwriting standards because of their credit profiles, the study found.
- The forthcoming limits were created by Republicans’ big tax and spending bill enacted this past summer. Starting in July, that legislation will also sunset the Grad PLUS loan program that has allowed graduate students to borrow up to the cost of their attendance.
Dive Insight:

Researchers with the Consumer Finance Institute set out to provide answers to one of the biggest questions hanging over one of the biggest changes to the federal student aid system of the past two decades: To what extent will private lending fill the gap after Grad PLUS ends and new borrowing limits kick in?

Specifically, the limits cap total student borrowing at $100,000 for graduate students and $200,000 for professional students — a term that regulators are still defining to carry out the statute. Annually, federal lending will max out at $20,500 for graduate students and $50,000 for professional students.

“All else equal, the effects of these new caps depend importantly on the extent to which the private sector is willing and able to fill in the gap left by the withdrawal of the U.S. Department of Education as the main financier of graduate education,” the Consumer Finance Institute authors — Tomas Monarrez, Jordan Matsudaira and Dubravka Ritter — said in their analysis.

To address the question of private lending, the researchers used a blind match of National Student Clearinghouse program enrollment records with data from credit-tracking firms. They focused on a subset of about 66,000 graduate students who first enrolled in graduate programs between 2015 and 2024.

Nearly one in three borrowers surpassed the cap, though researchers found a lot of variance among institutions and program types. For instance, 53% of doctoral students at private nonprofit institutions borrowed above the caps, compared to 13% of master’s students at for-profit colleges.

Many graduate and professional students could struggle under new loan caps

% of borrowers entering graduate programs from 2015 to 2024 who would exceed looming federal student borrowing caps by institution and program

The field matters as well. Across all programs, doctoral students in the health professions had the highest rate of borrowing over the loan caps, at 61%.

Some health profession programs — including nursing, occupational therapy and physician associate programs — could be excluded from the larger “professional” degree caps based on regulatory language the Education Department plans to propose.

Overall, of the 28% of borrowers who surpassed the coming caps, 38% had either subprime credit scores or no score at all, meaning they would struggle to borrow in the private sector without a co-signer — which they wouldn’t necessarily need for Grad PLUS loans.

As other researchers have noted, the Grad PLUS program has largely replaced a portion of private sector student lending for graduate school — which could explain why Grad PLUS loans had no significant effect on enrollment over its lifetime, according to a 2023 working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

But, as that paper’s authors pointed out, much has changed in the private student lending market since Grad PLUS launched in 2006, including the financial crisis of the late aughts that led to tightened lending standards in many sectors.

Private lenders today play a “minimal” role in financing grad school, the Consumer Finance Institute authors noted, also writing that, “It is unclear the extent to which they will be willing to extend credit to graduate students affected by the loan caps.”

Moreover, students with lower credit scores could see higher interest rates and less generous terms compared to federal student loans, which also come with protections for financially challenged borrowers, the authors noted.
Source link
January 9, 2026
Texas runs afoul of the First Amendment with new limits on faculty course materials
In a major broadside against the First Amendment, public university systems in Texas are ordering faculty to watch what they say in the classroom, as state authorities have outlined ideas they want universities to stay away from when teaching their courses.

The Texas Tech University System ordered its five member-universities to comb through faculty materials to root out any of the state’s disfavored viewpoints, and Texas A&M ordered its faculty not to “advocate” for “race or gender ideology,” or topics concerning sexual orientation or gender identity in the classroom, without getting approval for whatever they’re teaching first.

On Dec. 1, the Texas Tech University System issued a memo to faculty outlining the views faculty members cannot “promote or otherwise inculcate” in the classroom. Those concepts include:
One race or sex is inherently superior to another;

An individual, by virtue of race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, consciously or unconsciously;

Any person should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of race or sex;

Moral character or worth is determined by race or sex;

Individuals bear responsibility or guilt for actions of others of the same race or sex; or

Meritocracy or a strong work ethic are racist, sexist, or constructs of oppression.
The memo also requires that if faculty believe that their course materials may touch on these issues, they must submit the material to the Board of Regents for review.

At first glance, some of these concepts may appear innocuous on the surface. The memo attempts to hedge by cabining its impacts to “advocacy or promotion,” which it defines as “presenting these beliefs as correct or required and pressuring students to affirm them, rather than analyzing or critiquing them as one viewpoint among others.”

Meanwhile, at Texas A&M, the Office of the Provost issued guidance prohibiting faculty from “requiring or encouraging students to hold certain beliefs, particularly regarding gender or race ideology or sexual orientation, or to feel shame for belonging to certain racial or ethnic groups.” Faculty there also have to submit their course materials for review before teaching. That guidance hedges itself by specifying that faculty may still “present concepts and theories that are contrary to what a student believes.”

But a significant chilling effect remains. It does not take much to envision how broad, sweeping mandates like these chill faculty instruction. The state is singling out specific viewpoints that it does not want faculty to teach their students. If faculty wanted to impose the opposite viewpoint — say, the idea that moral character or worth is not determined by race or sex, that would presumably be fine with state authorities.

Those authorities may not like it, but the First Amendment prohibits the singling out of specific viewpoints for disfavor. When faculty discuss these issues, they will have to walk on eggshells to ensure that they aren’t perceived as advocating for a specific viewpoint. But if they want to just stick to pressuring students to adopt the state’s pre-approved position? No problem!

That’s viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple. Preventing faculty — or anyone else — from speaking based on the ideas they express is “censorship in its purest form.” Academic freedom protects the right of faculty to determine how best to approach potentially sensitive topics. It does not abide administrators placing their thumbs on the scale for ideas they like or dislike.

The language in Texas Tech’s memo echoes language in Florida’s Stop WOKE Act, which FIRE is currently challenging to prevent the law from restricting the classroom instruction of faculty at colleges and universities in Florida. That act regulates classroom instruction on eight concepts regarding “race, color, national origin, or sex.”

In late 2022, after FIRE sued, a federal court halted the enforcement of the act’s components implicating higher education. The court described the act’s restrictions as “positively dystopian” and rightfully recognized that the First Amendment protects professors’ in-class speech, and therefore prohibits authorities from banning teaching certain ideas in the classroom.

Now, FIRE is writing to all of the member universities of the Texas Tech system, and publicly flagging our serious concerns with these directives from authorities. We urge universities to remain steadfast in their commitment to the First Amendment. Those well-versed in their constitutional history know that decades ago the Supreme Court warned against “laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom,” Authorities in Texas would do well to remember this lesson.
Source link
December 12, 2025
Finally Learned My Limits (Heidi Weber)

[Editors note: “No Stop” Heidi Weber has been a hero of ours for several years. Her courage fighting corruption at Globe University was documented on an episode of

First, I would like to thank Dahn, and all the other truth tellers who work tirelessly every day and sacrifice so much to elevate truth. Without them, any whistleblower efforts would not have half the positive impact that they do.

For years, I really struggled with the title of whistleblower. I thought if I could distance myself from it, all the resulting traumas would just disappear, and life would be “normal” again.

However, I underestimated how much a landmark whistleblower case, especially in higher education, would affect and continually haunt me. I’m glad now, that it did, because it forced me to see how much of an impact it has had on an entire for-profit sector. I learned it’s ok to allow myself to feel a sense of pride. After all, it was the most painful, stressful thing I imagined I’d ever go through.

Unfortunately, life didn’t get that memo and still had lessons for me about the depth of pain adversity, and struggle, in ways that I never imagined.

In the middle of the pandemic, my husband’s sudden unexpected stroke forced us into a reality we weren’t prepared for. Overnight, I became his nurse, advocate, cheerleader, and his sole rehabilitation task master, simultaneously trying to maintain and hold our home together and make ends meet.

At the same time, our once close, beautiful, adult daughters estranged from us without explanation, treating us as if we do not exist, and are of no value to them… *

All I knew, was that it resulted in leaving a pain and heartache so profound that has reshaped the way I understand love, loss, and resilience.

In the midst of these personal storms, I rediscovered a purpose in educating and helping others as an advocate. So, I added two post graduate certificates and learned how to support and even the field for families who feel powerless in a biased system financially incentivized to separate families and little accountability or oversight.

Injustice and unfairness still stir a fire in me, just as it had when I made that fateful decision to become a whistleblower, and it still inspires me to be relentless in seeking truth and fairness.

Only now, I have the unique experience and knowledge to inspire/teach others.

Currently, I’ve been writing curricula and developing an online training program for a Certificate as a Justice Support Advocate. It focuses on some basic foundations of civics, (no longer taught in school), finding your own resilience and purpose, the various types of advocates, incorporating it into your personal and professional life, and protecting yourself and the public at the same time.

My wish is for learners to find their own fire and realize that courage is easier found when you are fighting for what you know is true and just for everyone, no matter what that is.

I’ve also been doing family advocacy consulting work, as an affordable option for parents, alone or as a partner to their attorney to provide non legal support, evaluation, investigation, and provide fair, logical solutions:

1. For parents facing or concerned about unethical practices in the Child Protective Services (CPS) system to audit, teach and ensure that parents are being portrayed truthfully with reasonable realistic goals to reunite the family, if indicated.

2. In high conflict custody, providing evaluation and screening for signs of parental alienation, and support, education, and resources (to both parents) on how to navigate being a divorced family, as well as providing recommendations to the Court (if indicated) centered around the best interests of the child and importance of both parents to healthy development.

If you would like to discuss either of those services or more info on the advocacy certificate course, please contact me at [email protected]. I’m shooting for February or March 2026 to have the website, and course available online.

These years have been painful, transformative, and defining, but with pain comes growth and wisdom. Life still had more lessons…. to show me there is no limit to how much I can carry and keep positively moving forward.

*Adult children from “normal” average parents have become an almost celebrated (unhealthy) trend over the last ten years especially, for many adult children who have been influenced, poisoned, or alienated against one or both parents by undertrained therapists, peers, and social media influencers, allowing avoidance of responsibility, self-discipline, or concern for others.

Source link

November 16, 2025
Phones, devices, and the limits of control: Rethinking school device policies

Key points:

By now, it’s no secret that phones are a problem in classrooms. A growing body of research and an even louder chorus of educators point to the same conclusion: students are distracted, they’re disengaged, and their learning is suffering. What’s less clear is how to solve this issue.

Of late, school districts across the country are drawing firmer lines. From Portland, Maine to Conroe, Texas and Springdale, Arkansas, administrators are implementing “bell-to-bell” phone bans, prohibiting access from the first bell to the last. Many are turning to physical tools like pouches and smart lockers, which lock away devices for the duration of the day, to enforce these rules. The logic is straightforward: take the phones away, and you eliminate the distraction.

In many ways, it works. Schools report fewer behavioral issues, more focused classrooms, and an overall sense of calm returning to hallways once buzzing with digital noise. But as these policies scale, the limitations are becoming more apparent.

But students, as always, find ways around the rules. They’ll bring second phones to school or slip their device in undetected–and more. Teachers, already stretched thin, are now tasked with enforcement, turning minor infractions into disciplinary incidents.

Some parents and students are also pushing back, arguing that all-day bans are too rigid, especially when phones serve as lifelines for communication, medical needs, or even digital learning. In Middletown, Connecticut, students reportedly became emotional just days after a new ban took effect, citing the abrupt change in routine and lack of trust.

The bigger question is this: Are we trying to eliminate phones, or are we trying to teach responsible use?

That distinction matters. While it’s clear that phone misuse is widespread and the intent behind bans is to restore focus and reduce anxiety, blanket prohibitions risk sending the wrong message. Instead of fostering digital maturity, they can suggest that young people are incapable of self-regulation. And in doing so, they may sidestep an important opportunity: using school as a place to practice responsible tech habits, not just prohibit them.

This is especially critical given the scope of the problem. A recent study by Fluid Focus found that students spend five to six hours a day on their phones during school hours. Two-thirds said it had a negative impact on their academic performance. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 77 percent of school leaders believe phones hurt learning. The data is hard to ignore.

But managing distraction isn’t just about removal. It’s also about design. Schools that treat device policy as an infrastructure issue, rather than a disciplinary one, are beginning to implement more structured approaches.

Some are turning to smart locker systems that provide centralized, secure phone storage while offering greater flexibility: configurable access windows, charging capabilities, and even low admin options to help keep teachers teaching. These systems don’t “solve” the phone problem, but they do help schools move beyond the extremes of all-or-nothing.

And let’s not forget equity. Not all students come to school with the same tech, support systems, or charging access. A punitive model that assumes all students have smartphones (or can afford to lose access to them) risks deepening existing divides. Structured storage systems can help level the playing field, offering secure and consistent access to tech tools without relying on personal privilege or penalizing students for systemic gaps.

That said, infrastructure alone isn’t the answer. Any solution needs to be accompanied by clear communication, transparent expectations, and intentional alignment with school culture. Schools must engage students, parents, and teachers in conversations about what responsible phone use actually looks like and must be willing to revise policies based on feedback. Too often, well-meaning bans are rolled out with minimal explanation, creating confusion and resistance that undermine their effectiveness.

Nor should we idealize “focus” as the only metric of success. Mental health, autonomy, connection, and trust all play a role in creating school environments where students thrive. If students feel overly surveilled or infantilized, they’re unlikely to engage meaningfully with the values behind the policy. The goal should not be control for its own sake, it should be cultivating habits that carry into life beyond the classroom.

The ubiquity of smartphones is undeniable. While phones are here to stay, the classroom represents one of the few environments where young people can learn how to use them wisely, or not at all. That makes schools not just sites of instruction, but laboratories for digital maturity.

The danger isn’t that we’ll do too little. It’s that we’ll settle for solutions that are too simplistic or too focused on optics, instead of focusing not on outcomes.

We need more than bans. We need balance. That means moving past reactionary policies and toward systems that respect both the realities of modern life and the capacity of young people to grow. It means crafting strategies that support teachers without overburdening them, that protect focus without sacrificing fairness, and that reflect not just what we’re trying to prevent, but what we hope to build.

The real goal shouldn’t be to simply get phones out of kids’ hands. It should be to help them learn when to put them down on their own.

Emily Smith, HonestWaves

Emily Smith is the founder of HonestWaves, a California-based company that designs and suppliesphone charging solutions, including smart lockers and charging stations, for businesses and public spaces.

Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

Source link

September 2, 2025
Virginia enacts ban on school cellphone use, limits on social media
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin recently signed legislation banning cellphone use during school hours for all students. The law makes Virginia the 21st state to ban or limit cellphones in schools, according to a legislation tracker by Ballotpedia.
- Starting January 2026, children in Virginia under the age of 16 will also only be allowed to use social media for an hour per day under another law signed by Youngkin in early May. That law, SB 854, mandates that social media companies verify a minor’s age and enforce a time limit of one hour per day for children and young teens.
- In Florida, a similar — albeit stricter — law passed in 2024 that bans social media use for children under 14 years old hit a roadblock in court. On Tuesday, a federal judge temporarily barred parts of HB 3 from being enforced while the case moves forward, saying that the law’s restrictions are “likely facially unconstitutional.”
Dive Insight:

Pushes for bans or limits on cellphone and social media use among children are growing as lawmakers and some advocates note the harmful effects of technology on young people’s mental health and wellbeing.

In 2024, then-U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called for social media platforms to display warning labels similar to messages that accompany alcohol and cigarettes. Murthy said at the time that social media is an “important contributor” to the nation’s worsening teen mental health crisis.

Teens themselves are also increasingly aware of the harmful impacts social media can have on their mental health. A recent Pew Research Center survey of U.S. teens found that 48% said social media has a mostly negative impact on their peers — up 16 percentage points from 2022.

Laws enforcing cellphone bans in schools have also largely gained bipartisan support in both liberal and conservative-leaning states.

Upon signing Virginia’s K-12 cellphone ban, Youngkin said in a May 30 statement that “students will learn more and be healthier and safer” under this new legislation. “School should be a place of learning and human interaction — free from the distractions and classroom disruptions of cell-phone and social media use.”

Research from Common Sense Media finds that 1 in 4 children had their own cellphone by the age of 8 in 2024. A separate study from 2023 also revealed that 97% of teens use their phones to some extent during the school day, and that students were most likely to turn to social media, YouTube or gaming when doing so.

However, data privacy and cybersecurity concerns are rising alongside states’ efforts to enforce broader social media bans outside of school.

In the Florida case, Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice v. James Uthmeier, challenging the state’s 2024 social media ban for children, the plaintiffs have alleged the law violates the First Amendment and puts Floridians’ online security at risk. The recent order from Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker temporarily prevents the law from requiring those in Florida to provide identification to access social media apps, said NetChoice in a Tuesday statement.

“HB 3 violates the First Amendment by forcing all Floridians to hand over their personal data just to access lawful, protected speech online,” NetChoice said of Walker’s order. “It requires websites to collect their users’ sensitive documentation, creating a cybersecurity risk by making private data more vulnerable to hackers and predators.”
Source link
June 6, 2025
Financial sustainability in UK higher education: the limits of self-help?
- Matthew Howling, Principal Associate at Mills & Reeve LLP, and Poppy Short, Partner at Mills & Reeve, reflect on a February round table discussion amongst university leaders chaired by Nick Hillman of HEPI.
On 26 February 2025, a group of 18 university leaders, advisors and stakeholders met to reflect on how universities can best position themselves in the current financial climate. The meeting was a follow-up to our joint dinner with HEPI on 10 October 2024 at the Royal Society in London. As we remarked at the time, there was a clear desire to continue the conversation, and the fast-paced and content-rich discussion here was a testament to that desire.

Our theme was the limits of self-help. Given the current financial headwinds, institutions have been restructuring their activities on an unprecedented scale. However, once the severance schemes, asset sales and course closures have come to pass, will these remedies be sufficient to put institutions back on a sound enough financial footing to continue to serve their students and communities for the longer term? The unspoken and yet resounding understanding across the group was that further and more radical changes are needed across the sector to stabilise the situation.

What is the role of the private providers in helping to improve the financial health of the sector? Several voices suggested that foreign investment could help to save certain British universities and that the sector needs to be less reticent about such investment. Other participants thought that, while foreign investment might work in the context of smaller providers, it was less likely to be successful when dealing with larger, more complex institutions, particularly those that have a legacy of contracts with trade unions and other stakeholders. It is well known that a number of private providers and foreign investors are waiting in the wings to acquire UK degree-awarding powers from distressed higher education providers if the opportunity presents itself. The sector should be prepared to consider its response to this.

In a recent HEPI poll, when students were presented with a list of 10 options for what could happen if their own higher education institution were to fall over financially, a takeover by a foreign company was the joint least popular option. Foreign investors would have to work hard to tackle these negative perceptions.

In some ways, the antithesis of self-help is a forced merger. It was noted that, in other jurisdictions, forced mergers are not as uncommon as might be thought. Estonia, France, Germany and Denmark had all experienced forced university mergers. Is this the direction of travel for the United Kingdom? There was a feeling that, in Wales and Scotland, there was a willingness to consider higher education provision on a more holistic basis than in England.

In terms of state support, it was felt that the sector had to acknowledge government spending pressures. The evidence of cuts to budgets elsewhere (such as foreign aid) strongly suggests that there will be no chance of further increases to the home undergraduate tuition fee in the foreseeable future and despite the need, other forms of financial help are not expected.

If government funding will not be forthcoming, the other obvious source of funds is existing lenders. Participants observed that, while sector borrowing was high, much of the recent debt taken on by providers was in the form of revolving credit facilities (which provide short-term funds up to a specified limit for a stipulated period of time, all or part of which can be repaid and re-borrowed as required), rather than the term loans that universities have traditionally found more attractive (which provide long-term funds for a specified period of time). There was concern that, in some cases, banks might be considering withdrawing those lines of credit when they come up for renewal. There was also a concern about how many institutions might be relying on revolving credit facilities to satisfy the OfS’s minimum liquidity requirements. There was anecdotal evidence that certain banks were focussing their new lending on higher tariff institutions, partly because of credit risk but also because of the ancillary opportunities to make money from larger institutions. This risks a self-fulfilling cycle of winners and losers.

It was generally felt that a new Special Administration Regime would make life easier as opposed to harder in terms of access to funds. It is not necessarily about encouraging enforcement by banks. It is highly unlikely that a UK clearing bank would want the adverse publicity associated with enforcing against a UK university (although foreign lenders may be less PR squeamish). However, giving lenders a clear line of sight as to a recovery process, even if not used in practice, may further encourage commercial lending to the sector.

Beyond the question of more money, there was a feeling that certain sector skills were lacking to navigate these troubled waters. As one participant put it, transformation expertise was what was needed, not just transformation funds. And how does all this transformation happen at pace?

Above all, there was a sense that the sector needed to move as one on certain key issues. One example was the increased costs for post-92 institutions associated with the Teachers’ Pension Scheme. Another key area where the sector needs to work together is soliciting the opinion of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) on how universities can collaborate without breaching competition law. There were grounds for optimism: the CMA guidance on applying the competition rules to sustainability agreements and collaborations is an example of the CMA taking a proactive approach to assuage concerns that competition law should not hinder legitimate collaboration where this was in the public good. In other areas, such as procurement and shared services, it was felt that there was much that the sector could be doing together to be more efficient and reduce the cost of delivery.

As an hour of rapid and informed discussion drew to a close, perhaps the overall conclusion was that it is only by acting collectively that the sector can arrive at solutions to allow institutions to truly put their houses in order at an individual level. Universities need to start planning how they will support themselves through this next phase. To survive they will need to mobilise themselves to work at pace to foster local and regional connections to drive forward the priorities for their regions.
Source link
March 21, 2025
West Virginia Executive Order on ‘DEI’ unconstitutionally limits university classroom discussions.
West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey issued an executive order yesterday to eliminate certain diversity, equity, and inclusion practices in state agencies and organizations that receive state money. While the state may limit certain programs or activities of state agencies, the executive order is written so broadly that it applies to classroom instruction in higher education. As such, the executive order violates the First Amendment and must be rescinded or amended to make clear that it does not affect what’s discussed in college classrooms. If the order is not rescinded or amended, West Virginia’s public institutions must protect faculty academic freedom rights and make sure that classroom teaching is not affected.

If you are a faculty member whose teaching may be impacted by Executive Order 3-25, FIRE is here for you.

Provision 1.b. sweeps in an enormous amount of expression protected under the First Amendment protected expression at West Virginia’s universities and colleges. It provides:

[No] entity receiving state funds, shall utilize state funds, property, or resources to . . . Mandate any person to participate in, listen to, or receive any education, training, activities, procedures, or programming to the extent such education, training, activity, or procedure promotes or encourages the granting of preferences based on one person’s particular race, color, sex, ethnicity, or national origin over that of another.

This language violates the First Amendment, reaching college classroom instruction and discussion. It is viewpoint-discriminatory, prohibiting faculty from sharing any material that “promotes or encourages” a view while allowing them to criticize that viewpoint. And while other states’ anti-DEI efforts have included language that might protect discussions in university and college classrooms, West Virginia’s does not — instead, it applies to any agency receiving state funds. West Virginia’s public universities cannot both comply with the executive order and their obligations under the first Amendment.

Governor Morrisey should rescind or amend the Executive Order to make clear that it does not affect higher education classroom instruction.

Whatever authority states might have to regulate other state agencies (including K-12 education and non academic higher education programming), the university classroom context is different. The First Amendment protects the right of faculty members at public universities and colleges to discuss pedagogically-relevant material in their courses, even if that material is offensive to students, colleagues, the public, or lawmakers. As the Supreme Court held in Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York (1967), state officials cannot use the law to impose an “orthodoxy over the [college] classroom,” where students learn “through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas,” not “authoritative selection,” wrote Justice William Brennan.

FIRE has defended this important right across the ideological spectrum in courts across the country, successfully suing over Florida’s “Stop WOKE Act” and maintaining an ongoing challenge against California’s requirement that faculty incorporate ‘anti-racist’ viewpoints into their classroom teaching.

Executive Order 3-25 violates those First Amendment rights. Under Executive Order 3-25:
- A law professor teaching constitutional law cannot present Supreme Court opinions arguing in favor of race-conscious admissions at universities and colleges, including the dissenting opinions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College or the plurality or majority opinions in Bakke and Grutter.
- A college professor cannot recount other arguments in favor of affirmative action or racial preferences, which remain legal in many other circumstances outside of the university context.
- A professor discussing reparations — including proposals recently introduced in the United States Senate — can only criticize reparations, but could not present arguments in favor, even if they want to dissect those arguments.
- A history professor would have to think twice before presenting materials relating to historic immigration policies that limited immigrants by national origin, as that might “promote” preferences based on national origin.
- A political science professor cannot present materials arguing in favor of continuing to limit Selective Service (i.e., the military draft) registration requirements to men, or limiting combat roles to men, as those arguments would “promote” preferences based on sex.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion statements FAQ

Issue Pages

Vague or ideologically motivated DEI statement policies can too easily function as litmus tests for adherence to prevailing ideological views on DEI.

Read More

Worse still, it is impossible for an educator to know what might “promote or encourage the granting of preferences” with regard to a particular student. For instance, since students reading the Supreme Court decisions in Bakke and Grutter may find their arguments convincing, even teaching about these landmark cases would risk violating the executive order. This cannot be reconciled with the First Amendment and academic freedom rights of West Virginia students and professors.

The plain language of the provision clearly conflicts with West Virginians’ constitutional rights. Governor Morrisey should rescind or amend the Executive Order to make clear that it does not affect higher education classroom instruction. If you are a faculty member whose teaching may be impacted by Executive Order 3-25, please contact FIRE: https://thefire.org/alarm.
Source link
January 15, 2025