Tag: moves

  • TCU Moves Race, Gender Studies Departments to English

    TCU Moves Race, Gender Studies Departments to English

    On June 1, Texas Christian University will close its stand-alone gender studies and race and ethnic studies departments and fold the majors and courses into the English Department, university leaders announced earlier this month.

    The research university in Fort Worth is one of the first private institutions in the state to announce changes to its gender, sexuality and race-related academic programs after firings at Texas A&M University prompted the state’s public institutions to flag, censor and cut classes related to gender, sexuality, race and ethnicity.

    In a meeting with English Department faculty on Oct. 22, TCU provost Floyd Wormley cited financial reasons for the change, asserting that political pressure “had no influence” on the decision to merge the Women and Gender Studies and Comparative Race and Ethnic Studies Departments into the English Department. But some faculty aren’t convinced. They say the move follows a decline in institutional support for the disciplines as the university faces immense pressure to eliminate any and all programming related to gender, race and ethnicity.

    “The explanation from the administration is financial, and that doesn’t necessarily track with earlier correspondence with the department,” said Brandon Manning, an associate professor of gender and sexuality and race and ethnic Studies. The university is expanding its physical footprint and its student body, and “there are new programs and departments popping up daily,” he added. “TCU has been receiving considerable criticism online, and this seems to be a way to placate that criticism.”

    A TCU spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed that conversations about merging the departments started more than two years ago. The two departments already share a leadership structure. The English Department wasn’t mentioned as a partner until the Oct. 17 announcement, said Alexandra Edwards, an English instructor at TCU.

    The merger will affect seven faculty members, five of whom will likely follow the programs into the English Department. Other faculty and support staff will be deployed to other departments, Wormley and Sonja Watson, dean for the AddRan College of Liberal Arts, told faculty at the Oct. 22 meeting. The merger is part of a universitywide restructuring project and is primarily due to low enrollment in the two departments, they said. The Spanish and Modern Languages Departments will also be combined, and so will the Geology and Environmental Sciences Departments.

    “Decisions are not based on academic content but on data,” a TCU spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed. “Students currently majoring in these programs have been notified that there will be no impact to their academic progress, meaning they will be able to complete their degrees as planned. TCU is growing and will need more faculty and staff—not less—to ensure that we meet the academic needs of students and demand for a TCU education.”

    This fall, Critical Race and Ethnic Studies enrolled nine majors and minors, and Women and Gender Studies enrolled just two. The two programs have never been large; since becoming stand-alone departments in 2018, their highest combined enrollment was 31 majors and minors, in fall 2020. But using low enrollments to justify the merger is unfair, Edwards argued. The programs haven’t had a chance to flourish because of constant structural changes, she said.

    “They have been through a ton of turmoil and leadership turnover and reassignment to various different colleges and units across the university, so for a long time they’ve been unable to become stable,” Edwards said. “I don’t see how gender studies or ethnic studies could become a priority in an English department that’s already … juggling a lot of competing interests and varied disciplines.”

    Department chairs weren’t given any warning about the merger with the English department, and faculty were not consulted before the decision was made, according to notes from the Oct. 22 meeting shared with Inside Higher Ed. When faculty asked why, Wormley said it was within “the purview of the institution to make those decisions.”

    A One-Man Campaign?

    While TCU isn’t subject to the same state laws that eliminated diversity, equity and inclusion efforts at Texas’s public institutions, the university is still getting plenty of external pressure to ax its gender and race studies offerings. Faculty say the campaign to abolish related classes, programs and events at the university is led by Bo French, a TCU alum and the son of a sitting TCU board member. French is also chairman of the Tarrant County Republican Party and a conservative politician who was denounced by members of his own party for using slurs for gay people and people with disabilities.

    French has berated the university online for what he described as “LGBTQ” and “radical Marxist” indoctrination. He celebrated on Oct. 10 when the university removed the “LGBTQ+” link from the “community initiatives” dropdown on its website. Three days earlier, he posted a poll on X asking followers if the university should “dismantle its entire racist DEI infrastructure and also stop offering courses in degenerate LGBTQ ideology.”

    French interpreted the merger news as a partial victory. “This is simply hiding what they do in another department. Nothing changes,” he wrote on X on Oct. 22. “However, it does show that the public pressure is working. They are bending, but we have to make them break completely and eliminate these courses altogether.”

    Since then, he has continued to wage a social media campaign against anything related to gender, sexuality or diversity at TCU. On Oct. 22 he also posted on X a photo of a lawn sign advertising campus Pride Month events, alongside the comment “I know a few things are happening behind the scenes at ⁦@TCU⁩ and I am now more hopeful than ever, but they haven’t happened yet and so stuff like this is still polluting the campus.”

    Publicly, university officials have said little in response to criticism by French and others, Edwards said. She noted that she was harassed and doxed by conservatives in August 2024 over posts she made before she worked at TCU, and she was advised by administrators to “lay low” until the firestorm subsided. A former TCU Women and Gender Studies professor who received a threat of violence in response to a 2023 course titled The Queer Art of Drag was asked by police to leave campus for his own safety, Edwards said. More recently, a political science professor was doxed for online comments she made in the wake of conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk’s death.

    Asked how the university has responded to political pressure and harassment of faculty, a spokesperson said, “The university has a thorough process to notify faculty and staff members and provide them with appropriate guidance and support to mitigate potential risks.”

    In conversations with faculty, TCU leaders have acknowledged the pressures of the political landscape on the university, particularly on the gender and race studies departments, Edwards said. At the end of the Oct. 22 meeting, Watson told faculty she had been concerned about the future of the departments since Trump was inaugurated in January. During a March 28 meeting between faculty and Watson about combining the gender and race studies departments, Watson expressed concern about recent executive orders from President Trump.

    “I think that we all know that the executive orders disproportionately affect [Comparative Race and Ethnic Studies], right? … As I said in the beginning, [I am] still very much committed to CRES and very much committed to growing the number of majors, and so I think the biggest challenge … is, how do we increase?” Watson said during the meeting, according to a recording obtained by Inside Higher Ed. “All liberal arts majors’ programs are having this issue for various reasons, but we see these issues manifest in a different way in both CRES and [Women and Gender Studies].”

    In an all-hands meeting on April 4, TCU president Daniel Pullin and general counsel Larry Leroy Tyner explained the difficult bind the current national and state political landscapes have put the university in.

    “If there’s a cliff that if you step off, there’s serious consequences, and [if] you don’t know where the edge of the cliff is, you stay way away from the edge,” Tyner said. “The combination of uncertainty and significant consequences creates the chilling effect.”

    About a minute later, Pullin added that he and his cabinet are “trying to figure out how to stay as far away from that unknown cliff as possible so we can stay on mission and live our values and execute our plan.”

    (This story has been updated to more accurately reflect the chronology of events precipitating the merger.)

    Source link

  • HHS moves to cut Harvard off from all federal grants and contracts

    HHS moves to cut Harvard off from all federal grants and contracts

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Harvard University could lose access to all federal grants and contracts under proceedings initiated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Monday.
    • The agency’s Office for Civil Rights has referred the university for suspension and debarment, the process by which the agency can cut off entities from federal grants and contracts if it determines that wrongdoing renders them “not responsible enough to do business” with the government.
    • The move represents the latest federal effort to bend Harvard to the Trump administration’s will through financial pressure. The administration has sought to use multiple federal agencies to gain increased influence over the higher education sector, singling out Harvard as a prime target.

    Dive Insight:

    On Monday, HHS’ OCR recommended excluding Harvard from federal funding, arguing the move would protect the public interest. The agency cited its June notice that formally accused Harvard of being in “violent violation” of Title VI by being “deliberately indifferent” to harassment of Jewish and Israeli students on its campus.

    Title VI forbids institutions that accept federal funds from discriminating based on race, color or national origin.

    HHS can pursue the debarment process when an entity — in this case Harvard — does not voluntarily agree with the agency’s terms to return to compliance with Title VI, according to Paula Stannard, director of HHS’ OCR. HHS and three other federal agencies on the Trump administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism in June called for Harvard to “institute adequate changes immediately” but did not publicly detail what those changes should be.

    Stannard said Monday that Harvard has the right to a formal hearing during the suspension and debarment process.

    “An HHS administrative law judge will make an impartial determination on whether Harvard violated Title VI by acting with deliberate indifference towards antisemitic student-on-student harassment,” Stannard said. 

    Harvard has 20 days to request the hearing. The university did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.

    Suspension and debarment applies to all federal grants and contracts, not just those from HHS. And agencies across the federal government can initiate suspension and debarment proceedings. If sustained, debarment is not permanent and typically lasts under three years, according to a 2022 HHS report.

    Monday’s announcement is unrelated to HHS’ joint civil rights investigation with the U.S. Department of Education into Harvard and the Harvard Law Review. The agencies opened the probe in April, citing allegations of “race-based discrimination permeating the operations” of the student-run journal.

    Months before HHS formally determined Harvard had violated Title VI, the Trump administration’s antisemitism task force froze over $2.2 billion of the university’s grants and contracts. 

    The halt came after Harvard President Alan Garber publicly rebuked the Trump administration’s call for increased federal control of the institution. Its demands included that the university hire a third party to audit the viewpoints of Harvard students and employees, halt all diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, and reduce the power of certain faculty and administrators involved in activism.

    A federal judge ruled in early September that the Trump administration violated the university’s First Amendment rights and didn’t follow proper steps when it suspended the funding. No evidence indicated that “fighting antisemitism was Defendants’ true aim in acting against Harvard,” the judge wrote. 

    The judge’s decision barred the Trump administration from cutting off Harvard’s federal funding in retaliation for the university exercising its free speech rights or without following the procedural requirements of Title VI. However, the judge noted that her ruling didn’t prevent the Trump administration from “acting within their constitutional, statutory, or regulatory authority.”

    Trump administration officials appealed the decision and said it would keep Harvard “ineligible for grants in the future.”

    Source link

  • DHS Moves to Restrict How Long Foreign Students Can Stay

    DHS Moves to Restrict How Long Foreign Students Can Stay

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | aapsky/iStock/Getty Images | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

    After months of speculation, the Department of Homeland Security publicly released its plans to limit how long international students can stay in the United States—a proposal that advocates say will only add to uncertainty and chaos that this group is already facing.

    Currently, students can stay in the country as long as they are enrolled at a college or university. But the proposed rule released Wednesday would allow students to stay for the duration of their program, but no longer than four years. That isn’t enough time for students to complete a doctoral program, and it’s less time than the average student takes to complete a bachelor’s degree. Students who want to stay longer would have to seek authorization to extend their visa.

    The first Trump administration tried to make this change, which would roll back at 1991 rule known as duration of status. However, the Biden administration withdrew the proposal. Officials said in a news release that setting a fixed time for students on visas to stay would curb what they call abuses and allow the government to better oversee these individuals. Additionally, officials alleged that the current policy incentivizes international students to “become ‘forever’ students,” who are “perpetually enrolled in higher education courses to remain in the U.S.”

    DHS will take public comments on the proposal until Sept. 29. Before the agency can finalize the rule, it will have to review and respond to those comments.

    Advocates for international students have been sounding the alarm about this plan since DHS first sought approval in June to make the proposal, and those warnings continued this week now that the plan is public. Changing the rule, they say, would be another hurdle for international students who want to come to the United States. These others include vetting students’ social media profiles and more scrutiny on current visa holders. Since President Trump took office, the State Department has revoked 6,000 student visas.

    More than one million students from other countries enrolled in at a U.S. college or university in 2024, making up about 6 percent of the total student population. Experts predict the number of international students to drop off significantly this academic year.

    Fanta Aw, executive director of NAFSA, the association of international educators, said in a statement that the DHS proposal is a “bad idea” and “a dangerous overreach by government into academia.”

    “These changes will only serve to force aspiring students and scholars into a sea of administrative delays at best, and at worst, into unlawful presence status—leaving them vulnerable to punitive actions through no fault of their own,” Aw added.

    Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, described the proposal in a statement as “another unnecessary and counterproductive action aimed against international students and scholars.”

    “This proposed rule sends a message to talented individuals from around the world that their contributions are not valued in the United States,” she said. “This is not only detrimental to international students—it also weakens the ability of U.S. colleges and universities to attract top talent, diminishing our global competitiveness. International students, scholars, and exchange visitors contribute economically, intellectually, and culturally to American society. They drive innovation, create jobs, and advance groundbreaking research.”

    Source link

  • University of Utah board moves to cut 81 academic programs

    University of Utah board moves to cut 81 academic programs

    Dive Brief: 

    • The University of Utah’s trustee board approved plans Tuesday to discontinue 81 courses and degree programs in response to a new state law ordering public colleges to cut funding for certain academic offerings and administrative functions and invest in high-demand fields. 
    • The programs up for elimination range from a bachelor’s in chemistry teaching to a Ph.D. in theater. Most of them are graduate programs, and about one-quarter are in the university’s humanities college. The programs can be discontinued once the Utah System of Higher Education and state lawmakers sign off on the plan, according to a Tuesday announcement from the university. 
    • Each of the programs graduated at most one student over the past eight years, Richard Preiss, president of the university’s Academic Senate, said in a July 22 letter to the board. Students in affected programs will either be given pathways to complete their studies or referred to “academically appropriate alternatives,” the university said. 

    Dive Insight: 

    Earlier this year, Utah lawmakers cut 10% from the instruction budgets for each of the state’s eight public colleges, The Salt Lake Tribune reported. The cuts amounted to $60.5 million, with University of Utah facing the largest budget reduction of $19.6 million. 

    To reclaim the funding, the legislation orders colleges to craft three-year plans for cutting certain academic programs and administrative expenses and redirecting the money to high-demand programs. 

    In guidance released earlier this year, the Utah System of Higher Education said the funds could be reinvested in programs that meet the state’s workforce needs, lead to high-wage careers, teach students “durable skills” such as critical thinking and problem-solving, or focus on services to increase student retention. 

    The law came on the heels of a 2024 legislative audit that said the state’s public universities were losing students to “private non-traditional” colleges, such as Western Governors University, a large online institution. The audit also found that university leaders largely weren’t able to calculate program-level data about costs, enrollment and completion rates. 

    Because institutions currently lack metrics required to calculate program-level efficienciesincluding returns on investmentpresidents are unable to fully understand the degree to which programs maximize their use of student and taxpayer resources,” the audit stated. 

    The University of Utah submitted a draft of its three-year plan to the state’s higher education board in May. 

    Under the plan, the university said it would cut $7.5 million from its fiscal 2026 budget— including reductions in academic support services and administrative costs — and reallocate that money to instruction aligned with the state’s workforce needs. 

    The university said it plans to devote more money to instruction in engineering, artificial intelligence, nursing, biotechnology and behavioral health, as well as to provide more support for general education about civic engagement. 

    Utah lawmakers aren’t the only ones ordering public colleges to shed certain programs. Six of Indiana’s public institutions are moving to either cut or consolidate over 400 programs to comply with a new state law aiming to end academic offerings that award low numbers of degrees. 

    The impacted programs account for 19% of all degree offerings at Indiana’s public colleges.

    Source link

  • Tracking the Trump administration’s moves to cap indirect research funding

    Tracking the Trump administration’s moves to cap indirect research funding

    Status: Temporarily blocked

    What happened? On May 14, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a memo declaring that the Defense Department would move to cap reimbursement for indirect research costs to 15% for all new grants for colleges. Hegseth also ordered officials to renegotiate rates on existing awards. If colleges do not agree, DOD officials should terminate previously awarded grants and reissue them under the “revised terms,” he said. 

    Overall, Hegseth estimated the move would save the agency $900 million annually. 

    A group of higher education associations and research universities sued on June 16, arguing that the Defense Department overstepped its authority and noting that other courts had blocked the Trump administration’s caps at other agencies. 

    As with those policies, if DOD’s policy is allowed to stand, it will stop critical research in its tracks, lead to layoffs and cutbacks at universities across the country, badly undermine scientific research at United States universities, and erode our nation’s enviable status as a global leader in scientific research and innovation,” they wrote in court documents

    The next day, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy granted a temporary restraining order blocking the Defense Department from implementing its policy until further ordered. 

    What’s next? Murphy has scheduled a July 2 hearing on the temporary restraining order.

    Source link

  • Trump administration moves to cut off Maine’s federal K-12 funds

    Trump administration moves to cut off Maine’s federal K-12 funds

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

    The U.S. Department of Education on Friday moved to terminate federal K-12 funding for the Maine Department of Education, following through on its promise to cut off the state and ultimately others if they do not enforce Title IX so as to keep transgender students from girls’ locker rooms, restrooms and athletic teams. 

    The move marks the first time the Trump administration has officially initiated a cut in federal funding to a state K-12 school system over civil rights violations.

    The department at the same time referred its Title IX investigation of Maine to the U.S. Department of Justice for enforcement — after multiple threats that it would do so if the state did not sign onto a resolution agreement within 10 days of the agency finding Maine in violation of Title IX.  

    “The Department has given Maine every opportunity to come into compliance with Title IX, but the state’s leaders have stubbornly refused to do so, choosing instead to prioritize an extremist ideological agenda over their students’ safety, privacy, and dignity,” said Craig Trainor, acting assistant education secretary for civil rights in an April 11 statement. 

    Gov. Janet Mills “would have done well to adhere to the wisdom embedded in the old idiom — be careful what you wish for,” Trainor said. “Now she will see the Trump Administration in court.” 

    Mills has maintained since the investigation’s launch that the state is not in violation of Title IX. The governor has said the federal investigation is “not just about who can compete on the athletic field,” but rather “about whether a President can force compliance with his will, without regard for the rule of law that governs our nation. I believe he cannot. 

    A swift investigation

    The directed investigation — meaning one initiated without a public complaint — was initiated by the department on Feb. 21 and concluded less than a month later in March. The move was precipitated by a public spat between Mills and Trump in February over the state’s transgender athlete policies, during which Mills threatened to see Trump in court. 

    The day the investigation was launched, alongside a nearly identical one into Maine by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also over Title IX, Mills said the outcome was “all but predetermined.” 

    Indeed, the investigation’s directed nature, quick turnaround time, high stakes attached, and referral to the Department of Justice — which traditionally has been reserved for egregious cases — has raised eyebrows in the education civil rights community. 

    The seemingly targeted, quick and aggressive enforcement strategy marks a significant shift from education civil rights enforcement under past administrations. Investigations traditionally took months or years, involved interviews and other investigative tools, and concluded with a negotiation with schools to bring them into compliance with federal law. Resolution agreements often included changes to school district operations like conducting climate surveys or hiring or training staff to ensure all students have access to an equal education. 

    Resolution agreement rebuffed

    In this case, however, the administration gave Maine 10 days to sign a draft resolution agreement that would change state and district policies to define “females” by “a reproductive system with the biological function of producing eggs (ova),” and “males” by having “a reproductive system with the biological function of producing sperm.” “Gender” would be the same as “sex” under the agreement.

    The draft agreement also would have required the state to apologize to each cisgender girl impacted by the state’s transgender female athlete policy “for allowing her educational experience and participation in school sports to be marred by sex discrimination.” 

    After the state refused to sign the agreement, the department warned officials on March 31 that it would send the case to the Department of Justice by April 11. 

    “Under prior administrations, enforcement was an illusory proposition. No more,” said Trainor in a March 31 statement.  “The Trump-McMahon Education Department is moving quickly to ensure that federal funds no longer support patently illegal practices that harm women and girls.” 

    While cutting off states or districts from funds was always within the Education Department’s power, it was a stick that was rarely used in past administrations, and especially not over Title IX, according to the Association of Title IX Administrators. 

    Within three months under this Trump administration, the department has threatened the cancellation of more than $9.5 billion for Ivy League universities over alleged Title VI and Title IX violations related to alleged antisemitism and LGBTQ+ policies, threatened some 60 colleges and a handful of districts with additional loss of funding over allegations of antisemitism, and promised that “this is only the beginning.”  

    Source link

  • Department of Education Moves Forward With Title IX Final Rule – CUPA-HR

    Department of Education Moves Forward With Title IX Final Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | February 5, 2024

    On February 2, 2024, the Department of Education (ED) sent its highly anticipated Title IX final rule to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. OIRA review is the final step before the Title IX rule is published. While ED’s final rule is being reviewed, the public is not provided with any specific details on changes to the proposed rule. However, interested stakeholders can request a meeting with the administrator while a rule is under review.

    The Department of Education introduced a Title IX proposed rule in June 2022, under which the department proposed to replace the Trump administration’s 2020 Title IX rule and establish expanded protections against sex-based discrimination to cover sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy or related conditions. CUPA-HR submitted comments in response to the proposed rule, in which we brought attention to the possible impact the proposed regulations could have on how higher education institutions address employment discrimination.

    The Department of Education has been reviewing the 240,000 submitted comments in response to the Title IX proposed rule since the comment period closed in September 2022. The final rule was initially included in the Fall 2022 Regulatory Agenda with a target release date in May 2023, but the department had to further delay that timeline to ensure all comments submitted in response to the proposed rule were reviewed and addressed in the final rule. Most recently, ED indicated a March 2024 release of the final rule in the Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda.

    OIRA reviews typically last between 30-60 days, though the agency has up to 90 days to review the rule before it is released to the public. As such, the final rule could be released as soon as early March, possibly meeting the Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda’s target date.

    Once the final rule is published, CUPA-HR will hold a webinar presented by Title IX experts. In the meantime, CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of additional updates on the Title IX final rule, including when the review is completed and the rule is published.



    Source link

  • Department of Labor Moves on Proposed Overtime Rule – CUPA-HR

    Department of Labor Moves on Proposed Overtime Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | July 13, 2023

    Yesterday, the Department of Labor (DOL) sent its proposed rule on “Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees” to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. This is a required initial step before the proposed overtime rule is published.

    OIRA, part of the president’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is required to review all proposed and final rules, as well as all regulatory actions, before implementation. While OIRA has 90 days to conduct its review, in most cases, the review takes 30 to 60 days. If this timetable holds true, DOL stands a reasonable chance of publishing a proposed rule sometime close to the August 2023 target date set forth in the Spring 2023 Regulatory Agenda.

    The proposed rule is not public during OIRA’s review, so at this time we do not have any specific details on what the proposal contains. However, OIRA takes meetings to hear from concerned parties about proposed rules under their review, and CUPA-HR will be requesting a meeting to reiterate concerns we have set forth in letters to DOL since the proposal appeared on the Fall 2021 Regulatory Agenda.

    We’ll be sure to keep CUPA-HR members updated on all the latest details regarding the proposed overtime rule and possible advocacy opportunities during the OIRA review process.

     



    Source link