Tag: Lose

  • Education researchers lose to Trump administration in first round of court challenge

    Education researchers lose to Trump administration in first round of court challenge

    The courts have pushed back against much of President Donald Trump’s agenda, but he did win a small victory this week in a dispute with education researchers.

    On June 3, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., denied a request by four education research trade associations for a preliminary injunction, which means that the Education Department doesn’t have to temporarily reinstate fired employees and canceled contracts within its research and data arm, the Institute of Education Sciences.

    Researchers had hoped to return the research division to its pre-Trump status while the court takes time to decide the overall issue in the case, which is whether the Trump administration exceeded its executive authority in these mass firings and contract terminations. Now, the cuts in the research arm of the department will remain while the case proceeds. 

    Four education research groups (the Association for Education Finance and Policy (AEFP), the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP), the National Academy of Education (NAEd) and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME)) are suing the Education Department because their federally funded studies, evaluations and surveys have been slashed and their access to data is slated to be curtailed. They also contend that historical data archives are at risk, along with future data quality. Their legal argument is that the cuts were arbitrary and capricious and they say that the Trump administration eliminated many activities that Congress requires by law.

    Related: Education researchers sue Trump administration, testing executive power

    U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden acknowledged that the “upheaval” at the Institute of Education Sciences is “understandably jarring for those who rely on studies and data produced by the Institute.” However, McFadden explained in a written opinion that the law that the researchers are using to sue the executive branch, the Administrative Procedure Act, was “never meant to be a bureaucratic windbreak insulating agencies from political gales.”

    “It is not this Court’s place to breathe life back into wide swathes of the Institute’s cancelled programs and then monitor the agency’s day-to-day statutory compliance,” McFadden wrote.

    In the opinion, McFadden noted that some of the researchers’ complaints, such as losing remote access to student data for research purposes, may be “ripe for standalone challenges,” but bundling all of their grievances together is a “losing gambit.”

    The ruling not only denied researchers the short-term remedy they sought but also cast doubt on the prospects of their overall case. “We are disappointed with and disagree with the Court’s decision, and are evaluating our next steps,” said Adam Pulver, an attorney at Public Citizen, a nonprofit advocacy organization representing two of the research organizations.

    A federal judge in Maryland is still considering a similar request to temporarily restore research-related cuts at the Education Department by two other education research groups. That suit, which also accuses the Trump administration of exceeding its executive power, was brought by the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE). 

    Educators fighting the cuts have had one victory so far, in a separate case filed in federal district court in Boston. On May 22, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun ordered the Trump administration to reinstate 1,300 Education Department employees terminated in March. The Trump administration is challenging the decision, but the court said on June 4 that the Education Department couldn’t postpone rehiring everyone while the appeal works its way through the courts. This case was brought by two Massachusetts school districts, a teachers union and 21 Democratic attorneys general. 

    Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or barshay@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about education researchers suing the Trump administration was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

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

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • A Michigan research professor explains how NIH funding works − and what it means to suddenly lose a grant – Campus Review

    A Michigan research professor explains how NIH funding works − and what it means to suddenly lose a grant – Campus Review

    In its first 100 days, the Trump administration has terminated more than US$2 billion in federal grants, according to a public source database compiled by the scientific community, and it is proposing additional cuts that would reduce the $47 billion budget of the US National Institutes of Health, also known as the NIH, by nearly half.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Students Lose Food Benefits Between High School and College

    Students Lose Food Benefits Between High School and College

    Fewer than half of low-income students retain their state food benefits in the transition from high school to college or the workforce, even though they might still be eligible, according to a new report from the California Policy Lab, a nonpartisan research group affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley, and UCLA.

    The report, released today, drew on data from 2010 to 2022 from five state agency partners: the California Departments of Education and Social Services, the California Student Aid Commission, the University of California Office of the President and the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. It found that only 47 percent of high school seniors who participated in CalFresh were still enrolled in the state food assistance program two years after graduation.

    “That’s a significant drop-off, and our goal is to shed some light on the causes of that drop-off and if there are ways to address it,” co-author Jesse Rothstein, professor of public policy and economics at UC Berkeley and the faculty director of the California Policy Lab’s UC Berkeley site, said in a news release.

    Researchers estimated that 40 percent of those students were no longer eligible for CalFresh because of specific eligibility requirements for college students. But the remaining 60 percent were likely eligible.

    Researchers also found disparities in which students maintained their CalFresh benefits. Students who participated in CalFresh for longer in high school were more likely to continue to participate afterward. Students who attended University of California campuses were also more likely to continue participating in CalFresh than those attending community colleges. The report suggests this is because community college students are more likely to live at home with their parents, whose incomes are factored into the eligibility for CalFresh, which can prevent them from meeting the program’s income requirements.

    Some community college students, including Hispanic and Filipino students, were less likely than their peers to continue receiving food benefits. The report recommended targeted outreach to these students to help them stay enrolled in the program.

    Source link

  • Will Harvard lose its ability to enroll foreign students?

    Will Harvard lose its ability to enroll foreign students?

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday threatened to pull Harvard University’s ability to enroll foreign students if the Ivy League institution does not comply with an extensive record request by April 30. The agency also canceled $2.7 million in grants to the university.
    • Earlier in the week, President Donald Trump reupped his calls for Harvard to lose its tax-exempt status and all federal funding. This all comes just days after the Trump administration’s antisemitism task force announced it was freezing over $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and contracts to Harvard.
    • The federal onslaught follows Harvard’s refusal to comply with a list of unprecedented demands from the Trump administration, which university leadership called an overstep of authority — an assessment with which free speech and higher education experts have agreed.

    Dive Insight:

    The federal Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism first turned its attention on Harvard last month. The task force announced a review into $9 billion of the university’s federal funding and claimed that Harvard has not done enough to protect Jewish students from harassment. However, it did not publicly cite specific incidents or allegations, and some free speech experts and Israeli academics argue the administration is weaponizing antisemitism concerns.

    Days after announcing the review, federal officials delivered Harvard a laundry list of ultimatums, including changes to academic programming and “meaningful governance reforms.” If the university complied, it had a chance — but no guarantee — to continue receiving federal funding, the task force said.

    In response, Harvard became the first well-known institution to rebuke the Trump administration’s demands. Alan Garber, president of Harvard, said the task force’s desired oversight oversteps its authority and infringes on the university’s constitutional rights.

    “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” he said in a Monday statement. 

    Upon Garber’s defiance, the task force froze billions of the university’s federal funding and made further demands, including that it “audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity.”

    On Wednesday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Harvard was “bending the knee to antisemitism” under “its spineless leadership.”

    The department is now demanding that the university hand over “detailed records on Harvard’s foreign student visa holders’ illegal and violent activities” by the end of the month or immediately lose its Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification.

    International students studying the U.S. cannot attend a college that is not SEVP approved.

    The program has gained national attention in recent weeks as waves of foreign students studying in the U.S. have had their visas revoked, often without warning or explanation. DHS is facing several lawsuits over its actions.

    In 2024-25, 6,793 international students attended Harvard, making up 27.2% of the university’s enrollment, according to institutional data.

    “If Harvard cannot verify it is in full compliance with its reporting requirements, the university will lose the privilege of enrolling foreign students,” DHS said in a statement.

    Following Harvard’s condemnation of federal interference attempts, Trump ratcheted up his criticism of the university online.

    “Harvard can no longer be considered even a decent place of learning, and should not be considered on any list of the World’s Great Universities or Colleges,” he said in a Wednesday social media post. “Harvard is a JOKE, teaches Hate and Stupidity, and should no longer receive Federal Funds. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

    In a separate post, he said that Harvard should “be Taxed as a Political Entity.” 

    The Internal Revenue Service is reportedly making arrangements to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status, according to CNN.

    It’s not clear that the Trump administration would have gone easier on Harvard had it complied.

    Columbia University, another Ivy League institution, agreed to a similar round of task force demands following the cancellation of $400 million in federal contracts and grants. The task force praised the university’s compliance but has yet to publicly reinstate its funding. The Trump administration also reportedly began pursuing a consent decree against Columbia, which would give the federal courts increased oversight of the institution.

    Columbia has since followed Harvard’s lead. In a Monday statement, its newly-appointed acting president said the university “would reject heavy-handed orchestration from the government that could potentially damage our institution and undermine useful reforms that serve the best interests of our students and community.”

    Source link

  • Penn to Lose Security Clearance in Trump Attack

    Penn to Lose Security Clearance in Trump Attack

    President Donald Trump signed a directive Wednesday removing the security clearances of University of Pennsylvania community members, the latest government action to pummel the president’s alma mater.

    In the directive, Trump, a 1968 Wharton School of Business graduate, ordered the Department of Justice to investigate Miles Taylor, a former senior Department of Homeland Security official who has criticized the president, including in a 2018 New York Times op-ed and in a book in which he alleges presidential misconduct during Trump’s first term.

    Taylor taught an undergraduate course at Penn in fall 2023 called The Future of Conservatism and the GOP, according to The Daily Pennsylvanian, and it’s this tie that has put Penn in the crosshairs.

    Trump’s memo asks the attorney general, the director of national intelligence and other relevant department and agency heads to suspend the security clearances held by Taylor “and any individuals at entities associated with Taylor, including the University of Pennsylvania.”

    According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Penn does not conduct classified research and has no security clearance.

    “The University does not possess a government security clearance and cannot as a corporate entity possess classified material,” the website states. “It is the policy of the university not to accept agreements which require access to classified data, require university employees to obtain security clearances, or restrict the dissemination of the results.”

    Penn is also currently facing a $175 million funding freeze from the federal government, announced in March, related to participation of a transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team in 2022. The university was further affected by visa revocations of international students and scholars earlier this week.

    Source link

  • When universities take sides, we all lose

    When universities take sides, we all lose

    For many students and faculty, it’s an exhausting time to be on campus. The long–polarized climate has been supercharged by everything from the flurry of executive orders to lingering tensions over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to proposed cuts to government spending on higher ed. All while administrators come under intense pressure from groups on all sides to issue public statements, invest or divest, and cancel speakers — as federal and state government actors stoke the flames.

    Some have argued universities have a duty to cast aside neutrality and, for example, declare certain politicians fascists. But this kind of political grandstanding undermines the central purpose of the university: the pursuit of truth, a process that requires debate and discussion. This process can’t happen when a university’s leaders put a proverbial thumb on the scale. Instead, it’s in the most fraught times that university leaders most need to draw a line in the sand against censorship and intimidation.

    While the current climate feels unprecedented, history tells a different story. In the late 1960s, America was on fire — literally and figuratively. Protests erupted, generational divides widened, and a divisive president presided over a deeply unpopular war in Vietnam that claimed tens of thousands of lives. Amidst the chaos, the president of the University of Chicago convened a faculty committee to determine how the institution should respond to burning political and social upheaval.

    Their answer was simple yet compelling: the university, as an institution, must remain neutral.

    Enshrined in the committee’s Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action (commonly called the Kalven Report, after its lead author, First Amendment scholar Harry Kalven, Jr.), the report warned that universities “cannot take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness. There is no mechanism by which it can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives.”

    In other words, the mere act of taking an official position on an issue stifles dissent — and, again, undermines the primary reason for the university’s existence.

    Critics have argued that neutrality is impossible because everything is political, from school calendars to core curricula. By that logic, even declining to make political statements is a political act. But this merely serves as a rhetorical trap designed to justify disposing of neutrality altogether.

    America already has plenty of division and distrust. Institutional neutrality is a critical tool for fostering academia’s only peaceful path through the storm: honest debate.

    The Kalven Report’s authors made clear that the university must take a position when its mission is at stake. For example, they must defend academic freedom when governments attempt to silence professors. But that’s entirely different from taking a stand on which side was “right” in Vietnam, or is “right” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There may be close cases in which people will disagree on where that line should be drawn. But denying that intelligent distinctions can be made is like arguing that one cannot differentiate red from blue because they are both on a visual spectrum that lacks clear demarcations. 

    Neutrality does not mean that universities will play no part in grappling with social and political questions. The Kalven Report affirms that “[t]he university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic,” and notes that universities play a vital role “in fostering the development of social and political values in a society.” This is a long-term role “defined by the distinctive mission of the university and defined too by the distinctive characteristics of the university as a community.” But rather than acting as an advocacy organization, the university is a community of learned advocates with the freedom to agree or disagree with one another. Administrators must intentionally avoid becoming the former so they can function as the latter.

    The Kalven Report recognized taking sides in the day’s debates would kneecap the university’s ability to serve as a forum for the pursuit of truth among individual scholars. “There is no mechanism by which it can reach a collective position,” the committee explained, “without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives.”

    Most faculty understand this. Two-thirds of faculty members agree that colleges and universities should remain neutral on political and social issues, according to FIRE’s 2024 Faculty Survey Report. The issue of neutrality is especially salient for adjunct instructors, who lack the tenure protections of their full-time peers. As FIRE notes in its Scholars Under Fire report of attempts to sanction professors for speaking their minds, adjuncts — who account for 70 percent of all faculty — are particularly prone to speech-related terminations. An astounding 54 percent of attempts to sanction adjuncts result in termination, compared to 21 percent for all scholars. The most vulnerable faculty have the most to lose when universities take sides.

    FIRE has taken a proactive stance on institutional neutrality, discouraging universities from taking up ill-advised “collective positions” on divisive issues. The University of North Carolina System, Vanderbilt, Harvard, Yale, and Dartmouth — and, of course, the University of Chicago — have all adopted official positions on institutional neutrality, and we’re leading the fight to get more colleges on board.

    Institutional neutrality is key, but it is not the be-all and end-all. It’s an important slice of a well-diversified portfolio of pro-free speech policies — but just one slice. Universities must also refrain from punishing students and faculty for dissenting views amid sky-high tensions and changing political winds. Sometimes this is an uphill battle against political and social pressure. It’s vital nevertheless.

    America already has plenty of division and distrust. Institutional neutrality is a critical tool for fostering academia’s only peaceful path through the storm: honest debate. All sides must have a fair chance to speak and be heard. If universities cannot deliver an environment that cultivates such discussion, they risk becoming just another partisan casualty in the culture war.

    Source link

  • The US Will Lose To China If It Doesn’t Stop (Rogue Rocket)

    The US Will Lose To China If It Doesn’t Stop (Rogue Rocket)

    Source link