Math courses are often a barrier for students seeking to pursue a college credential, and for some, a lack of math curriculum during high school can make a STEM career seem out of reach.
A new course at Wentworth Institute of Technology in Boston serves as a stepping-stone for students who may not have had access to precalculus or calculus courses but are still interested in calculus-based learning. The university hopes the program will boost student enrollment and eliminate barriers to access for disadvantaged students.
What’s the need: The conversation about offering precalculus at Wentworth began in 2019, after university leaders saw that some students, despite having the same GPAs and high school transcripts as their peers, were less mathematically prepared, said Deirdre Donovan, Wentworth’s director of first-year math and interim associate dean of the School of Computing and Data Science.
At that time, Wentworth did not offer a math placement course, so all enrolled students launched at the calculus level.
Wentworth, like many colleges and universities, requires students to have already completed calculus coursework to enroll in specific major programs, which is “a barrier that can prevent otherwise qualified students from pursuing engineering and computing degrees,” Donovan said.
To complete calculus by the end of high school, students had to complete Algebra I in eighth grade, and not every student was ready, aware of or offered that course at their school, Donovan said.
Some high schools also push students to complete AP Statistics in lieu of calculus, and Donovan said this shift “can actually close more doors at STEM schools than it might open, because those AP credits can’t replace the calculus-based statistics required for engineering degrees.”
Campus leaders at Wentworth opted to review policies that were barring students from participating in STEM programs, starting with creating a math placement process and then developing a precalculus course.
How it works: In 2024, Wentworth removed precalculus as an admissions requirement for students, paving the way for the college to admit about 10 percent more students who might have previously received a conditional acceptance, Donovan said.
New students without calculus credit are now enrolled in a four-credit, first-semester course called Foundations of Calculus that helps them get up to speed. The investment in additional content hours is an indication of the university’s commitment to opportunities for students who may not have been able to enroll and succeed previously, Donovan said.
In addition to two hours of lectures each week, students also participate in two hours of labs that focus on engineering problem-solving skills, using real-world problems that are tied directly to a student’s major.
The course is also supported by embedded peer tutors who can address student questions, clarify confusing content and facilitate study groups outside of class time.
It was important to Donovan and her faculty team not to work from a deficit-minded perspective about students’ knowledge gaps. Language regarding the course and its content hours was specifically crafted to help students feel like they’re being guided onto an on-ramp, not held back or punished for not having precalculus experience.
The results: After the first semester, staff have seen promising results, Donovan said. “We are pinching ourselves that it went exactly how we had hoped it would go.”
In fall 2024, about 200 students participated in precalculus either because they lacked the course in high school or their placement exam results indicated it would benefit them.
Approximately 75 percent of precalc students passed their course in the first term, on par with national averages. When they attempted calculus in their second semester, students had similar passing rates to their peers who completed calculus in the first term.
University faculty and staff were encouraged to see that engineering programs received 20 percent more applications this year, signaling an increased level of interest in rigorous programs, Donovan said.
Fall-to-spring retention rates were slightly lower for precalc students, but that could be due to other factors, including students re-evaluating their chosen major or deciding whether they want to be at a STEM-focused institution.
The course has also expanded enrollment opportunities for students who otherwise might not have considered Wentworth. Overall applications were up 25 percent year over year this past application cycle, and deposits were up 30 percent, Donovan said.
What’s next: Student feedback from the first term has indicated a need for an additional credit hour of in-person, interactive lab work, which will be implemented this fall. The hour, which the university is calling a companion class, will function similarly to a first-year seminar, teaching students study skills and metacognition, as well as connecting back math concepts.
None of the downstream courses such as physics have undergone a curriculum change, requiring students to get up to speed in their first term to be successful over all in college. Students who complete precalc also may need to take summer classes to ensure they graduate in four years, but the university is looking to offer affordable online courses to accommodate learners, Donovan said.
Do you have an academic intervention that might help others improve student success? Tell us about it.
Erik Jacobsen, an associate professor of mathematics education at Indiana University, was nearing the end of a years-long project designed to address teacher biases with the goal of helping more students excel in math and pursue STEM careers. But that all stopped several weeks ago, when the National Science Foundation notified him that it had terminated the grant because it was “not in alignment with current agency priorities.”
Jacobsen’s grant, which was funding multiple graduate students and a postdoc, who are all now in limbo, is far from the only STEM education–focused grant the NSF recently canceled.
Of the approximately 1,500 grants the agency recently terminated, at least 750 came from the NSF’s education directorate, according to Grant Watch, an independent website that tracks terminated NSF grants. And that’s not the only shake-up happening at the NSF, which Congress created in 1950 to “promote the progress of science; advance the national health, prosperity and welfare; and secure the national defense.” The Trump administration has also laid off staff and proposed slashing the agency’s budget.
Additionally, NSF announced new priorities that include not funding projects aimed at recruiting more Americans from underrepresented backgrounds to the STEM workforce—a key focus for the agency historically.
The Trump administration says all these changes are part of its plan to reform the NSF, correct an alleged “scientific slowdown,” build a “a robust domestic STEM workforce” and “rapidly accelerate its investment in critical and advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing and biotechnology.” The NSF sends billions to colleges and universities to support STEM education and nonmedical scientific research.
Researchers and policy experts are worried that the major cuts to STEM education programs will jeopardize the long-term future of the STEM workforce and leave the nation with a deficit of scientists and other skilled workers who are capable of carrying out Trump’s vision of winning “the technological race with our geopolitical adversaries.”
“There may be enough scientists to do the projects that are left. But for how long? They’re eventually going to retire and there won’t be this robust pipeline,” Jacobsen said. “There’s so many kids in our country that learn math and science every day. And the reason they learn it as well as they do is because of NSF’s historic investment in education.”
‘Nearsighted’ Changes
Since Trump started his second term in January, the NSF has upended its operations and spurred chaos and uncertainty within the research community. In February, the agency fired 10 percent of its staff—many who help university researchers navigate the grant application and funding process—though a federal judge later ordered the NSF to reinstate some of those employees.
“Their absence means that even if the budget is sufficient to fund new projects, distributing that money fairly and appropriately is going to be delayed if not made impossible,” Suzanne Ortega, president of the Council of Graduate Schools, said. While those and other changes are already “having immediate effects on graduate students, postdocs and early-career scientists,” she said there will also be “major downstream consequences” that won’t come home to roost for at least five years.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment in STEM occupations is expected to grow 10.4 percent between 2023 and 2033, more than double the projections for non-STEM careers. But decimating the NSF’s education directorate—which funds many projects focused on researching how to improve STEM education outcomes starting in K-12—will make it harder to cultivate the robust STEM workforce Trump says he wants, Ortega said.
“This kind of research tells us how we can develop curricula that makes the pathway from a Ph.D. program into industry more seamless. Or how we can create mentoring networks or other kinds of connections that foster more rapid degree completion,” she said. “To forget that education research itself is vital to improving the system that our research enterprise depends on is very nearsighted.”
Adding to the challenges is the Trump administration’s crackdown on international student visa holders—who make up a sizable portion of STEM graduate students—which could make strengthening the STEM career pipeline increasingly difficult, said Holden Thorp, editor in chief of the Science family of journals.
“We desperately need more effort to produce scientists who are U.S. citizens,” he said. “Regardless of whether those programs are devoted to marginalized groups or anyone else, there’s people we need to encourage to go into science. Even if you don’t accept the reason why some of these programs were set up. It’s a disastrous economic strategy to get rid of programs—especially when they were in midstream—that would be growing the supply of scientists in the American workforce.”
As these changes keep coming, the NSF remains without permanent leadership. Sethuraman Panchanathan—the Trump appointee who had run the agency since 2020—resigned in late April, stating that he’d done all he could “to advance the critical mission of the agency.”
Earlier this month, the NSF announced a plan to cap indirect cost rates—which fund laboratory space and other research supports that can be used for multiple projects—for universities at 15 percent. At the same time, Trump’s budget bill proposed cutting the NSF’s 2026 budget by 55 percent, which includes cutting $3.5 billion from the agency’s general education and research budget, $1.1 billion from the Broadening Participation programs and $93 million for agency operations and awards management.
A coalition of former NSF directors and National Science Board chairs blasted the proposal, saying it “would thwart scientific progress, decimate the research workforce and take a decade or more to recover” and “fast-track China’s plans for technological dominance.”
Although Congress will have to approve Trump’s budget proposal later this year for it to become law, the NSF is already preparing for a future with less funding.
According to Science, NSF has eliminated 37 divisions across its eight directorates and is also creating a new oversight body of unknown membership that will have the final say in reviewing a proposal to ensure it doesn’t violate the agency’s new anti-DEI priorities. Additionally, the NSF announced earlier this month that it plans to cut more than half of its senior administrations and slash the number of “rotators”—academic scientists who serve two- to four-year terms to help the NSF choose which research to fund—as part of its cost-saving strategies.
That has big implications for NSF-funded initiatives like the Advanced Technological Education (ATE), which is a congressionally mandated effort led by community colleges designed to improve and expand educational programs for technicians to work in high-tech STEM fields that drive the U.S. economy.
“ATE is heavily influenced by rotators from community colleges,” said Ellen Hause, associate vice president for academic and student affairs at American Association of Community Colleges. “With the rotators on the chopping block, we would lose some of this expertise not only in STEM technician education, but in the community college space, which is a unique piece of the STEM workforce and STEM education.”
Many of the future community college students who may want to participate in a program like ATE in the coming years are just now getting exposure to STEM fields in their K-12 classrooms. And projects like Jacobsen’s (the math education researcher at IU) were supposed to help more of those students get comfortable with the academic material required to pursue such careers. But canceling his and other STEM education research grants midstream is already undermining decades of federal investment in STEM education, he and others said.
“We’d already done most of the work and spent most of the money,” he said. “By not having the final amount, we can’t complete our work, which means the public doesn’t get the benefit of the knowledge we would have learned. We still don’t know if the tool we were developing works. And now we’ll never know. It’s just wasting that investment.”
Commencement this year comes at a time of uncertainty for graduates, who find themselves entering a polarized country steeped in political and economic tumult. It’s a scenario many graduation speakers confronted head-on; actress Jane Fonda told the Class of 2025 that “the world has never faced anything like the challenges we face today.”
Much like 2024, this year’s commencement season has been marked by controversy, including at least twoinstances where student speakers were penalized for talking about the war in Gaza. Graduates also protested right-wing commencement speakers, including President Donald Trump himself, who spoke at the University of Alabama—which doesn’t traditionally invite guest speakers to commencement—and at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, where his hourlong, meandering speech went viral.
But for many graduates, commencement went on as expected, with speakers doling out advice about how to survive—and even thrive—in these difficult times. Here’s what they had to say.
On the Current Political Climate
“Ignorance works for power. First, make the truth seekers live in fear. Sue the journalists and their companies for nothing, then send masked agents to abduct a college student who wrote an editorial in her college paper defending Palestinian rights and send her to a prison in Louisiana, charged with nothing. Then, move to destroy the law firms that stand up for the rights of others. With that done, power can rewrite history with grotesque false narratives. They can make criminals heroes and heroes criminals. Power can change the definition of the words we use to describe reality. ‘Diversity’ is now described as illegal. ‘Equity’ is to be shunned. ‘Inclusion’ is a dirty word. This is an old playbook, my friends. There’s nothing new in this. George Orwell, who we met on the street in London, 1949, he warned us about what he called ‘newspeak.’ He understood that ignorance works for power. But then it is ignorance, isn’t it, that you have repudiated every single day here at Wake Forest University? … Can the truth win? My friends, nothing else does.”
“I could never have imagined 55 years [after I graduated college] that a young woman would write her truth in your paper and find herself kidnapped and arrested for speaking her truth, somehow. And be put in jail. I could not have imagined that, 55 years later. But let me tell you that all of America salutes your president and Tufts University for supporting that student, Ms. Öztürk. It’s so important, and there’s the point when you think about Rümeysa. She said something recently. She said, ‘I still believe in this country and the right to free speech and to due process.’ … And so I can tell you when you say, ‘Oh, we’re going down the tubes.’ No, we are not. I believe in this country. As Rümeysa said, ‘We believe in the people.’ In you. This country will be OK.”
—Freeman Hrabowski III, education advocate and former president of the University of Maryland Baltimore County, May 18 at Tufts University
On Persistence
Maggie Rogers, pictured here in 2024, spoke at her alma mater, NYU, this month.
“My career arrived overnight. It’s this Cinderella story of a video—maybe you’ve seen it, maybe it was force-fed to you. If you haven’t seen it, I play a song for Pharrell Williams, he really likes it, his reaction goes on YouTube—ta-da, I’m famous. What people saw in that video was this moment of alignment; they saw a past life or the universe or whatever you want to call it come along and hold my hand to the flame. But no one saw all the hard work or all the times I almost quit. They never heard the songs that didn’t work or the shows that were just bad … I don’t know any artist that hasn’t considered quitting. But you didn’t get here because you wanted to do something easy; you got here because you wanted to do something great.”
“There’s a saying from one of America’s most practical minds, Benjamin Franklin, that I’ve used almost every day of my life: ‘Little strokes fell great oaks.’ It’s simple, it’s old, it’s absolutely true … I did run for governor in 1994 and lost, and one of the reasons I lost, I think, is I didn’t show my heart. I had five-point plans to cure every ailment in the state, but I didn’t really connect at a human level with people.
“So, in 1998, when I ran again, I vowed to campaign differently. For example, I went to visit 260 schools in a matter of a year. Back then, my views on education were considered pretty radical, so in essence I went into the lion’s den over and over and over again, trying to dehorn myself, I guess, with people that were skeptical of the ideas that I was advocating. I listened and learned, I shared my passion, I told stories of the challenges that teachers had. And I believe I became governor in 1998 because I was doggedly determined to show my heart. It’s easy to look at the world and believe that success happens overnight. We live in a world of immediate gratification, don’t we? Social media, movies, headlines often highlight the moments of triumph without showing the years of work, sacrifice and persistence that came before.”
“Don’t let anxiety or depression or hopelessness cause you to isolate. On the contrary, grow yourself a deep, solid community of people who share your values, have each other’s backs, check up on each other regularly, and be intentional about this. You know, in these uncertain times, we need to strengthen our ties to community, to our colleagues, our friends and family, because, more and more, we’re going to need this support for safety, for love, for help, for fun—let’s not forget fun—and for survival. You may not be aware of this, but since the 1980s, there’s been a concerted effort to promote individualism. You know, ‘I’m here for me and mine.’ And this shift to individualism is no accident; it’s being driven by people who want us disempowered. The myth of the rugged individual who needs no one is just that: It’s a myth created by stories through culture, told through culture, and the kinds of things that you all are going to be doing. So graduate students working with words and images—do the reverse. Encourage community versus individualism.”
Henry Winkler, pictured here in 2024, gave the commencement address at Georgetown University.
Harmony Gerber/Getty Images
“I was a negative thinker. I wanted to beat the system. ‘I can’t, I won’t, I’ll never, oh, she won’t go out with me.’ So, I tried to find the answer to negative thinking. I found Gurdjieff. He’s an Armenian philosopher who wrote a gigantic book. But he doesn’t want you to finish the book unless you understand him—so I didn’t. ’Cause I didn’t know what the hell he was talking about. And I found a disciple of his, Ouspensky—also a big book. I got one sentence. OK, so, you’re walking to your dream. Never let your dream out of your brain. And when you decide what it is you want to do, just know it without a doubt, know it without ambivalence. So you’re walking to your dream, and you have your dream in your brain, and all of a sudden a negative thought comes in. Your shoulders drop, your head drops and then that negative thought, it blooms into a thesis of negativity. A negative thought comes into your mind—you say out loud, you say out loud, ‘I am sorry, I have no time for you now.’
“Yes, people will look at you very strangely, but it doesn’t matter, because it becomes your habit. A negative thought comes into your mind, you move it out, you move a positive in. For me, it is a Bundt cake with melty chocolate chips—no icing—and all of a sudden your shoulders fly back, your head flies up and you continue your dream. And then you get to stand here and talk to you.”
“[I was] sitting in a doctor’s office, facing one of the most difficult decisions I’ve ever had: continue living my life in pain, or consider having my leg amputated. In that moment, something clicked. I stopped letting the reality of my present circumstances dictate the potential of my future. I stopped coming from a place of victim mentality and realizing that everything happens for a reason and something bigger was going on. That shift in perspective gave me the courage to move forward, to make the decision to have my leg amputated and hope of a better future.
“Since then, I’ve come to realize something. Experiencing pain doesn’t disqualify you from discovering your purpose. It prepares you for it. The reality is, every single person here has lost something at some point, a dream, a loved one, a friend. You see, the promise in [James 1:2–3] wasn’t that trials would go away; it was that endurance would grow. That’s what trials do. They forge something in us that comfort never could. They teach us to keep going when nothing makes sense to believe, when hope feels distant, to see ourselves, not by what we’ve lost, but by who we’re becoming. That’s the hidden gift in pain, because it’s the journey, not the destination that shapes us the most. So if you’re in the middle of something broken, don’t run from it. Embrace it. Life is hard, but the journey is worth it.”
Rep. Jasmine Crockett spoke at the Southern University of New Orleans, an HBCU in Louisiana.
“I will start by saying your existence as a graduate of this HBCU alone is and will be seen as a resistance. Let me break it down this way: They never wanted us to be educated. This isn’t false. It is absolutely a fact. I know y’all know the history, but there is something special in this moment in time to be allowed to tell the story in the midst of the many haters and agitators being elevated to the highest positions of power and trying to use an old-school eraser—emphasis on old-school. You know, the old pink one? They want to use that old-school eraser to erase us. They have no idea that this big pink eraser can’t erase what was written in blood. Blood that was shed by the many who bled so that brighter days like this could come.
“Much like the creation of this school, nothing in this life will be given to you. You will always walk into spaces due to your meritocracy. And even the spaces they seek to disallow you from, just know that they fear your greatness. You see, in 1956, Act 28 of the Louisiana Legislature established SUNO, but only after local African American leaders in the ’40s pushed for public college for Black students during segregation. Turn to your neighbor and say, ‘SUNO wasn’t created out of generosity.’ [graduates repeat] ‘It was created out of segregation.’ [graduates repeat] You see, they sought to build barriers. But SUNO built beginnings.”
“So, you might wonder why I’m speaking here instead of at the business school. Well, it’s because the business school got Snoop Dogg. Hard to compete with Snoop. Even though I did later go to business school, I could not have navigated the business world the way I did without the liberal arts education I earned right here. USC is where I discovered what I liked and what I didn’t. I did not, for example, like writing. That’s ironic for the CEO of a publishing company, I know. Eventually I came around.
“Physics, though, that hooked me right away … Physics instilled something in me that was more valuable than equations and theories. It gave me confidence. It became second nature to think, ‘I don’t know how to solve this problem, but I do know that I will figure out how to solve it.’ And that, Trojans, is what your USC education is giving you. More than a degree, more than a line on a résumé. It’s equipped you with a way of thinking. You now know how to distinguish between fact and fiction, how to analyze and approach problems, how to craft arguments, and how to lead. And whether you know it or not, whether you study law or literature, physics, philosophy, political science or the lab-based kind of science, and whether it took you, like me, an extra year to finish quantum mechanics—that’s a true story—you now have the confidence to navigate the unknowns of life.”
“The artist de Kooning said, ‘The problem with being poor is that it takes up all your time.’ I came here as a scholarship kid, first-gen, loaded up with Pell Grants, work-study, which is actually quite isolating. I never went on a spring break. I never studied abroad. I never had an unpaid internship. I needed all my time to be billable. I was privileged to look like a rich girl, a city girl, a girl who had ridden in a yellow taxi and should rush Tabard. But no, I had, in fact, never ridden in a yellow taxi and should be a Tri Delt. I found a rusted 10-speed bike in the basement of a frat house, tuned it up, rode it around for three years, and left it unlocked on 40th and Irving the day I graduated. Why was I in the basement of a frat house? You know why.
“The point is, I didn’t come to Penn to pursue a career in the arts. I came here to use the best tool for class migration that’s ever existed: higher education. And that was it. It was a low bar: be employable, hopefully well-paid. When people ask me when I knew I wanted to be an actor, my answer is, when I got paid for it. Was I passionate about it? Sure. Did it bring me self-esteem and joy? It did. But I was practical, pragmatic. But during my time here, I began to think differently. I was in control of my life, and I was working hard to build the confidence, the life skills, the connections and the grit to believe success at anything I devoted myself to was possible.”
The Trump administration still won’t be able to prevent Harvard University from enrolling international students after a federal judge decided Thursday to keep a temporary restraining order in place.
The hearing before Judge Allison Burroughs in Massachusetts District Court came a week after the Department of Homeland Security revoked Harvard’s ability to enroll international students and required those currently at the university to transfer. Harvard quickly sued to block that decision, and Burroughs granted a temporary restraining order May 23.
Harvard argued in the lawsuit that the administration violated the First Amendment and the university’s due process rights with the abrupt revocation. In an apparent effort to address Harvard’s concerns, the administration said ahead of the hearing that it would go through a more formal administrative process to decertify Harvard from the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. According to the notice filed in court Thursday morning, Harvard has 30 days to respond to the claims that it failed to comply with certain reporting requirements and to maintain a campus free from discrimination as well as “practices with foreign entities raising national security concerns.”
But while that process continues, Burroughs wants to maintain the status quo for Harvard, which means that international students can remain at the university. She plans to eventually issue a preliminary injunction, the next step after a temporary restraining order.
Burroughs said an order would give “some protection to international students who might be anxious about coming here or anxious about remaining here once they are here,” The Boston Globe reported.
The government lawyers argued in the hearing that an order wasn’t necessary because of the new notice. But Harvard’s lawyer Ian Heath Gershengorn countered that “we want to make sure there are no shenanigans” while Harvard challenges the Trump administration’s action.
And despite Burroughs’s quick restraining order, current and prospective international students at Harvard have faced disruptions.
Maureen Martin, director of immigration services in the Harvard International Office, wrote in a court filing that students scheduled to travel to the United States in the fall found out by the morning of May 23 that their visa applications were denied. (The administration revoked Harvard’s certification May 22.)
“I am personally aware of at least ten international students or scholars whose visa applications were refused for ‘administrative processing’ immediately following the Revocation Notice,” Martin wrote, adding that none of the visa applications that were refused or revoked following the revocation have been approved or reinstated.
For example, when a visiting research scholar at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine tried to obtain a J-1 visa at the U.S. embassy in Prague on May 23, her visa application was rejected.
“The officer gave the scholar a slip that stated she had ‘been found ineligible for a nonimmigrant visa based on section 221(g) of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).’ The slip said, ‘In your case the following is required,’ and the consular officer checked the box marked ‘Other’ and handwrote, ‘SEVP Revocation / Harvard,’” Martin wrote.
Martin wrote that the Trump administration has caused “significant emotional distress” for current international students and raised a number of questions for either incoming or prospective students who are trying to assess their options. At least one student deferred admission for a year for visa-related reasons.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Wednesday night that the Trump administration will “aggressively revoke” Chinese college students’ visas and heighten scrutiny of visa applicants from China. The new policy specifically targets “those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.”
It’s the administration’s latest move in what has been a sudden resurgence in its attacks on international students, which it seemed to suspend in April after legal efforts led to the restoration of the legal status of thousands of students.
The news sent shock waves through higher education and could lead to a major reduction in foreign students at American universities, especially public research institutions. China contributes the largest number of international students to the U.S., with nearly 280,000 enrolled in 2023–24, according to data from the Institute of International Education—about a quarter of the total international student population in the country.
That share, however, has been shrinking since the COVID-19 pandemic; last year, India overtook China as the No. 1 source country of international students. But Chinese students are far more likely to enroll in undergraduate programs and pay more in tuition. They also make up a significant slice of STEM researchers: 16 percent of all U.S. graduate students in STEM fields and 2 percent of undergraduates are Chinese nationals, according to a 2020 report from the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University.
It’s not clear whether the visa revocations would be accompanied by legal status terminations in the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System or prompt deportation proceedings, as they did for thousands of international students in March and April. Those steps would be the purview of the Department of Homeland Security.
The targeting of students in “critical fields” in particular could devastate STEM programs and research labs at smaller universities across the country, where Chinese international students are heavily represented. Rubio did not clarify what fields could be considered critical, potentially setting the stage for a sweeping focus on areas where GOP lawmakers have raised concerns about sensitive national security research being shared with the Chinese government.
A spokesperson for the State Department did not respond to a list of questions, including requests to clarify the scope of the new policy’s target and the timeline for visa revocations, in time for publication. At a press conference yesterday, department spokesperson Tammy Bruce declined to “get into the details” of how the new visa scrutiny would be applied or what “critical fields” the department was referring to, because it “might give up our hand and make certain things less effective.”
“When we think of critical fields, we think of national security, the nature of how we keep America safe and secure and more prosperous,” she said. “It is important to keep a broad base, because that could mean many things.”
The new policy’s focus on students with ties to the Chinese Communist Party has also raised concerns about academic freedom and free speech violations. Jonathan Friedman, managing director of U.S. free expression at PEN America, said the new policy targeting Chinese students would “hold student visas hostage to an ideological litmus test and disrupt the open exchange of ideas across cultures and borders.”
“‘Aggressively revoking’ visas based on political ideology is a gross violation of basic free expression principles that anchor the academy,” he wrote to Inside Higher Ed.
William Brustein, a retired longtime international student administrator, said the vague nature of Rubio’s directive could enable a sweeping dragnet that catches the majority of Chinese students—especially since association with the ruling Communist Party is difficult to avoid in China.
“How will they know who’s a member? Maybe they’ll say if you were in a Chinese-sponsored youth group as a child, that could prevent you,” Brustein said. “Right now that policy is so vague that it could cover all Chinese students who want to study in the U.S.”
A lull followed the restoration as students, advisers and lawyers waited for the administration’s next move. It came two weeks ago, when the Department of Homeland Security released a new Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy granting the agency more leeway to revoke students’ SEVIS status with little justification.
The State Department has also begun to tighten visa restrictions for applicants and incoming students. On Tuesday, Rubio announced a pause on all new student and exchange visa interviews while the administration implements an intensive new social media screening policy. The latest announcement on China also said the State Department would review application criteria to “enhance scrutiny of all future visa applications” from China and Hong Kong.
Marjorie Hass, president of the Council of Independent Colleges, said there’s already a process for vetting international students, and that the administration’s new policy seems more aimed at scoring political points and justifying deportations than enhancing national security.
“Institutions have their own admissions standards and the embassies do vet students who come into the country,” she said. “It’s not currently the Wild West.”
Brustein said that if international students from China weren’t already moving away from American colleges en masse due to this spring’s targeting of foreign students, the latest move is sure to discourage future applicants.
“We’re shooting ourselves in the foot,” he said. “Even if some of these decisions are reversed, we’re undoing the progress we’ve made over so many years in being this welcoming environment for the best and brightest in the world.”
“That harm I don’t think can be undone.”
A Blow for Research Universities
Brustein has led international student offices at West Virginia University, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Ohio State University, where he said there were “thousands” of Chinese students who often paid three times as much as their domestic peers.
He said the colleges likely to be hit hardest by a major reduction in current and future Chinese students are public ones, especially regional institutions in areas with shifting demographics and declining college-going rates.
“There are regional public universities and flagships across the Midwest, in the South, that have a large contingent of Chinese students who are coming particularly for STEM education,” Brustein said. “It’s those ones that survive on a thin revenue stream who are going to suffer the most.”
He added that a sizable reduction in Chinese international students would likely hit scientific research hardest.
“Many Chinese students get degrees in computer science, engineering, and go on to go to grad school or do an OPT,” he said. “They stay in the country, work in our labs, contribute significantly to innovation in this country, not China. To lose that is going to be a very big blow to our capacity for innovation.”
Hass said that Chinese students have been both a financial lifeline and a source of cross-cultural exchange between the two countries for more than a decade. She said the benefits for higher education and for American diplomacy have been overwhelmingly positive, and a large-scale rollback of that relationship would be destructive for both.
“This is a place where the balance of trade is very much in favor of the U.S.,” she said. “It’s mystifying why we would be undermining that.”
She added that for many colleges, international students—and the volume of full-paying Chinese students in particular—help institutions improve access for local students.
“Colleges will miss out on a lot of revenue,” she said. “That means the burden has to be borne by domestic students.”
University of Florida presidential pick Santa Ono could earn nearly $3 million a year if confirmed by the Florida Board of Governors next week, according to a copy of the contract proposal.
Ono’s proposed base salary for the presidential role is $1.5 million, an increase from the $1.3 million he earned at the University of Michigan before stepping down to pursue the Florida job. He could also earn 20 percent annual performance bonuses and a yearly raise of 3 percent.
In addition, the proposal includes a role for Ono at UF Health, where he will chair the board and serve as a principal investigator, overseeing a lab, which comes with a $500,000 annual salary. That role also earns a 3 percent annual raise and performance and retention bonuses.
Other elements of the contract, such as benefits and deferred compensation, bring its total value to more than $3 million a year if Ono is approved by the Board of Governors, which has called a special meeting for Tuesday to decide.
Ono, an ophthalmologist by training, would also receive a tenured faculty role in the UF College of Medicine.
The contract includes some unusual provisions. It requires Ono to work with the Florida Department of Government Efficiency “to evaluate and reduce administrative overhead, ensuring that University resources are directed to teaching, research, and student success while safeguarding taxpayer and donor investments.” In addition, he would be prohibited from spending “any public or private funds” on “DEI or political or social activism.”
Though the University of Florida Board of Trustees unanimously approved Ono as president earlier this week, he has faced opposition from conservative critics over past support of diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Ono spent much of his public interview with the board this week articulating how he changed his mind on DEI. He argued that while he was initially supportive of DEI, he now believes such initiatives are costly, divisive and counterproductive.
Ono’s public about-face comes amid a campaign from anti-DEI activist Chris Rufo, who circulated numerous videos on social media ahead of the UF Board of Trustees meeting that showed Ono supporting DEI and speaking against systemic racism, which Rufo argued was disqualifying because it ran counter to the goals of Republican governor Ron DeSantis.
Other conservative figures have since leveled additional criticism at Ono, including state officials and Donald Trump Jr., who wrote online, “This woke psycho might be a perfect fit for a Communist school in California, but how is he even being considered for this role in Florida?” Trump Jr. also encouraged the Florida Board of Governors to vote against confirming Ono.
While DeSantis, who has wielded considerable influence over university hiring decisions, told local media that Ono’s past comments on DEI have made him “cringe,” he has not joined the chorus of conservatives calling to block Ono and has expressed confidence in the search.
Administrators at Duke University have devised a creative program to encourage medical students to practice mindfulness and take time for themselves during a rigorous and demanding course of study.
A partnership between the Office of Learning Environment and Well-Being and Duke Arts Create established a free workshop that takes place twice a month to provide students the chance to unwind using various artistic media. The events help students engage in new art forms, connect with their peers and learn skills they can apply to their careers and beyond.
In the Literature
A 2018 research study found that medical students who had greater exposure to arts and humanities had better empathy, emotional intelligence and wisdom than those who didn’t. They were also less likely to develop burnout. Another study showed that art courses reduced stress for students enrolled in medical school.
Crafting opportunities: Duke’s School of Medicine enrolls over 1,400 students in a variety of health-profession programs, including doctor of medicine, physician assistant, master of biomedical sciences and doctor of physical therapy programs, each with its own goals and accrediting body. Students represent a variety of backgrounds and experiences, so “there is no one-size-fits-all strategy for well-being,” said Jane Gagliardi, associate dean for learning environment and well-being for the medical school.
Medical school students are able to participate in wider campus events, but the programs often feel siloed or off-limits to them, Gagliardi explained.
Gagliardi first met Anna Wallace, who is the student engagement coordinator for Duke Arts, the university’s school of arts, at a student resource fair where they both had tables. Wallace had decorated hers with brown paper and crayons, allowing visitors to stop by and color.
Gagliardi realized how much something as simple as coloring could be a pick-me-up for students, and she created a partnership with Wallace to provide art workshops for those in the medical school.
Getting artsy: The free workshops, part of Duke Arts Create Workshops, take place twice monthly throughout the academic year on Duke Medicine’s Wellness Wednesdays.
Activities include watercolor painting, needle felting, poetry through text deconstruction, zine making and singing workshops. One notable art project focused on the Duke chapel; students used watercolors to decorate a freely drawn image of the chapel.
Students bring a variety of skills and talent levels to the workshops, sometimes surprising the staff.
“It’s the students you think are the most clearly science-focused who are also just brilliant at expressing themselves creatively and supporting their classmates and colleagues at doing those things,” Gagliardi said.
Some of the events are cohosted by affinity organizations on campus; for instance, the Lunar New Year celebration was conducted in partnership with the Duke Med Chinese Association, which taught students paper cutting and shared treats like boba tea.
Events have been well received by everyone who’s participated, Gagliardi said, but having high attendance isn’t a goal. Rather, Gagliardi hopes such efforts show students that the school cares about their mental health and well-being.
“I wanted an outlet to be free and let my creativity flow,” said Carly Williams, a Ph.D. student in the department of biochemistry, according to a Duke Arts press release. “I remembered doing watercolors as a kid and loving it, so this seemed like the perfect art session for me. And it turned out to be a relaxing two hours of painting and good company.”
One of the benefits of the program is that it’s fairly low budget and easy to implement, Gagliardi said, allowing the school to pivot and be responsive to student interests as they arise.
Holistic support: In addition to art workshops, Gagliardi heads various well-being initiatives across the medical school to support students and staff.
“Finding ways to maintain your humanity while pursuing your rigorous study is important,” she said, particularly in a field like medicine, in which students learn about illness, recovery and death. “Equipping people with skills and strategies to deal with distress is important to maintain a functional ability to learn.”
Each week, she hosts Granola With Gagliardi, open hours for anyone to stop by, pick up a KIND bar and talk with her.
Duke Medicine also regularly collaborates with Medicine in Motion, hosting events like power yoga, running or pickleball tournaments to promote physical activity and well-being.
In the future, Gagliardi hopes to connect additional student groups with Wellness Wednesday events.
Do you have a wellness intervention that might help others promote student success? Tell us about it.
Every day, in articles, podcasts and social media, I learn about American higher education.
I learn that it aggressively stifles ideas that deviate from a narrow leftist orthodoxy. I learn that it privileges identity and politics over merit and knowledge.
I learn that it is rife with antisemitism while serving as a safe harbor for people of color and LGBTQ+ people. I learn that Harvard, Columbia and other Ivy League universities are the prominent tip of a higher education iceberg that threatens to destroy our culture and country.
If that is all I knew about American higher education, I would support tearing it down.
I would think that American higher education, in anything resembling its current form, cannot and should not be saved.
However, because I am a college president and have the opportunity to engage with students, faculty, staff and other college leaders every day, I think otherwise.
Every day, I see students from myriad backgrounds and with disparate beliefs flourishing because they interact with one another in class, in the dining hall, in student residences, on athletic teams and in clubs. I hear about students whose understanding of the world is being pushed and transformed by faculty who expose them to new perspectives and new information.
Every day I interact with students and alumni who are achieving their full potential because our college and our donors provide financial aid that caps student loans at $27,000 over four years, which is less than the average new car loan. Every day I am reminded that racism, sexism and transphobia have not been eliminated from our classrooms or our campuses—despite seeing daily evidence of our efforts to ensure that neither race, religion, nor any other identity confers advantages or disadvantages on our students, faculty and staff.
It is because I see what college is every day, and not just what occurs on rare days on some campuses, that I know that ongoing efforts to tear down higher education are a travesty for our children and our country.
It is why I know that the actions of those who are rarely on campus, and those who are focused on scoring political points, represent existential threats to America in what will continue to be a world in which knowledge and technology dominate.
Much of the past 80 years shows what happens when the United States chooses knowledge over ignorance and decides to invest in its young people. After World War II, the U.S. made it possible for veterans, and then women, people of color and lower-income students, to attend college, raising the quality of life for millions.
Our government partnered with universities to develop a research infrastructure that became the envy of the world. Innovations transformed lives and society. Diseases were cured. People lived longer and healthier lives.
So, what confronts us now is a decision that will determine what kind of lives our children and grandchildren have.
Are there too many colleges and universities at current prices? Are there some faculty who are intolerant of views that are inconsistent with their own? Would some college curricula benefit from more engagement with the real world?
Yes, yes and yes.
But will future generations thank us if we destroy the higher education system that took generations to build? Will they be better off if we judge every faculty member, administrator and student by the actions of those on the fringe, or by what we observe at a small number of colleges? Will they be better off if we shift control of scientific and intellectual innovations, course content and pedagogy from scholars to bureaucrats and politicians?
For the sake of future generations and our country, we must find ways to convene a national discussion on the future of higher education. What are we trying to accomplish as a country, what part does each college play in that collective goal and how can we ensure the system is effective? What is right for the country is not the sum of the paths colleges set for themselves. It is not what colleges individually decide while trying to avoid existential threats from protesters, activist donors or state and federal governments.
We must continue constructive engagement involving representatives from government, boards of trustees, college leadership, think tanks, student groups, the American Association of University Professors and other critical constituencies. The result must be a plan and action.
As a soon-to-be former college president and the father of a future college student, I look forward to continuing to be part of this fight in the years to come. Those who sacrificed to create our great country, and those who will be impacted by our actions in the future, deserve nothing less.
David R. Harris will step down in June after seven years as president of Union College in Schenectady, N.Y. He will join Harvard Graduate School of Education in the fall as a president in residence.
Beginning next week, First Amendment News (FAN) will be moving to Substack. Be sure to sign up and follow us there for future installments!
“No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit . . . The instant case presents an unprecedented attack on . . . foundational principles. . . . Here, deciding what process was due to plaintiff is unnecessary, because no process was provided.” — Perkins Coie LLP v. Department of Justice (Dist. Ct., D.C., May 2)
“[T]he Court found that Ms. Rumeysa Ozturk has demonstrated a substantial claim of a violation of due process.” — Ozturk v. Hyde (Dist. Ct., VT, May 16)
Maxim: #1: Vagueness and due process cannot coexist, at least not in any system of constitutional justice worthy of the name.
Maxim #2: The broader the law’s sweep, the greater the likelihood that it was designed to be arbitrarily punitive.
It is undeniable: Many of Donald Trump’s executive orders run wildly afoul of basic tenets of fairness. Time and again, he has ordered his subordinates to enforce orders that are shockingly vague and disturbingly broad. Both in their conception and execution, such orders patently violate the commands of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. And yet, the public and the courts are asked to countenance such abridgments of law in the name of unfettered executive prerogative.
Clarity and precision in lawmaking are fundamental to any system of justice. That call for clarity, which traces back at least to Roman law, finds expression in Montesquieu’s “Spirit of Laws” and William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” Laws must be “plainly and perspicuously penned,” is how Blackstone tagged it.
In “FederalistNo. 62,” James Madison condemned those laws that were “incoherent that they cannot be understood.” The idea is rooted in basic fairness, in due process of law. Such a process is especially important in the First Amendment context.
Whether it be in executive orders directed at DEI practices, law firms, universities, libraries, or immigrants, among others, the basic problem of vagueness is the constitutional cancer present in all of them.
As Justice Thurgood Marshall made clear in 1972’s Grayned v. City of Rockford, vagueness offends fairness because (i) it provides no meaningful warning to ordinary persons as to “what is prohibited,” (ii) it provides no “explicit standards” to law enforcement officials, judges, and juries necessary to avoid “arbitrary and discriminatory application,” and (iii) vague laws chill protected speech insofar as the “boundaries of the forbidden areas [are not] clearly marked.”
Justice William Brennan explained the First Amendment importance of that principle in 1963’s NAACP v. Button: “Standards of permissible . . . vagueness are strict in the area of free expression. . . [I]n the area of First Amendment freedoms, the existence of a [vague mandate is] susceptible of sweeping and improper application.”
In the unconstitutional process, lawyers, scientists, librarians, universities, law firms and others are chilled into silence — and that is precisely the point.
The evils of vagueness, among other constitutional wrongs, were thoughtfully identified by federal district court Judge Adam B. Abelson in the recent Maryland District Court case National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump. In relevant part, Judge Abelson began:
This Court remains of the view that Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their facial free speech and vagueness claims . . . The Challenged Provisions forbid government contractors and grantees from engaging in “equity-related” work and from “promoting DEI” in ways the administration may consider to violate antidiscrimination laws; they demand that the “private sector” “end . . . DEI” and threaten “strategic enforcement” to effectuate the “end[ing]” of “DEI”; and they threaten contractors and grantees with enforcement actions with the explicit purpose of “deter[ring]” such “programs or principles.”
Judge Adam B. Abelson
Thereafter, he emphasized that the Court was
…deeply troubled that the Challenged Provisions, which constitute content-based, viewpoint-discriminatory restrictions on speech (in addition to conduct), have the inherent and ineluctable effect of silencing speech that has long been, and remains, protected by the First Amendment. And they do so through impermissibly vague directives that exacerbate the speech-chilling aspects of the Challenged Provisions.
To elucidate that point, he added:
Historically, the metaphor used to describe the effect of laws that restrict speech is “chill.” The more apt metaphor here is “extinguish.” Part of the explicit purpose and effect of the Challenged Provisions is to stifle debate — to silence selected viewpoints, selected discourse — on matters of public concern. They forbid government contractors and grantees from engaging in discourse — including speech such as teaching, conferences, writing, speaking, etc. — if that discourse is “related” to “equity. ” And they direct the “private sector” to “end” diversity, to “end” equity, and to “end” inclusion. See J21 Order § 4(b) (directing agencies to “encourage the private sector to end . . . DEI”). “End” is not a mere “chill.” “Deter[rence]” is not a side-effect of the Challenged Provisions; their explicit goal is to “deter” not only “programs” but “principles” — i.e. ideas, concepts, and values. After all, the opposite of inclusion is exclusion; the opposite of equity is inequity; and, at least in some forms, the opposite of diversity is segregation.
Such are but some of the evils rooted in many of Trump’s executive orders. Those affronts to due process and First Amendment principles are so obvious as to render their design intentional (see “Trump’s ‘So what?’ stratagem,” FAN 470).
Trump’s Justice Department defends such lawlessness by procedural obfuscation coupled with political rhetoric and claims of unrestrained executive prerogative. When that fails they take cover by being evasive, as revealed in oral arguments in the Second Circuit case of Ozturk v. Hyde:
The appeals court judges pushed . . . [Department of Justice attorney Drew] Ensign on whether or not the Trump administration believed that both students’ speech was lawful speech.
“We have not taken a position on that,” Ensign told the panel of three judges, saying concerns over where the students’ cases should be heard were more important.
“Help my thinking along,” Judge Barrington D. Parker then said. “Take a position.”
“Your honor, I don’t have authority to take a position on that right now,” Ensign replied.
Drew Ensign
In the unconstitutional process, lawyers, scientists, librarians, universities, law firms and others are chilled into silence — and that is precisely the point.
Consider as well this from an article in The New York Times by Stephanie Saul:
The Trump administration is set to cancel the federal government’s remaining federal contracts with Harvard University — worth an estimated $100 million, according to a letter that is being sent to federal agencies on Tuesday. The May 27 letter [from the U.S. General Services Administration] also instructs agencies to “find alternative vendors” for future services.
The additional planned cuts, outlined in a draft of the letter obtained by The New York Times, represented what an administration official called a complete severance of the government’s longstanding business relationship with Harvard.
The letter is the latest example of the Trump administration’s determination to bring Harvard — arguably the country’s most elite and culturally dominant university — to its knees, by undermining its financial health and global influence. Since last month, the administration has frozen about $3.2 billion in grants and contracts with Harvard. And it has tried to halt the university’s ability to enroll international students.
This episode features a conversation with Cass Sunstein, the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School and former administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. His recent working paper, ‘Our Money or Your Life!’ Higher Education and the First Amendment,’ explores the First Amendment constraints on federal funding to American universities.
In the last few weeks, the Trump administration has made several announcements that it is withholding a significant amount of federal funds from specific universities, notably Columbia University and Harvard University, and that those funds will not be released until those universities comply with a set of demands. Harvard received a letter on April 11 demanding changes in Harvard’s governance, faculty hiring practices, student admissions practices, viewpoint diversity among the faculty, and student disciplinary policies, among other things. On May 5, the Secretary of Education sent a letter to Harvard informing the university that the federal government will award it no grants for scholarly research in the future. Reportedly, there is more than $2 billion dollars at stake.
On the podcast we talk through what the Trump administration is doing, what the consequences are for Harvard and other affected universities, and what constitutional issues are raised by the administration’s actions in denying Harvard access to federal research funds. In the process, we get a short course on First Amendment doctrine relating to viewpoint discrimination and unconstitutional conditions.
Trump’s lackey: FCC Chairman Brendan Carr
FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr
“He has . . . abandoned the FCC’s posture as an independent regulator in favor of an openly personal embrace of Trump.”
Four months into his tenure as head of America’s top communications regulator, Brendan Carr appears to be running a Trumpian playbook to transform a long-independent agency.
Immediately after being promoted by President Donald Trump to chair the Federal Communications Commission, on Jan. 20, Carr launched investigations into top media companies, including NPR, PBS and Comcast.
Related
Latest update of Zick’s Executive Orders repository
SCOTUS denies review in middle school ‘two genders’ shirt case
This past Monday the Supreme Court denied review (7-2) in L.M. v. Town of Middleborough. The issue raised in that case was whether school officials may presume substantial disruption or a violation of the rights of others from a student’s silent, passive, and untargeted ideological speech simply because that speech relates to matters of personal identity, even when the speech responds to the school’s opposing views, actions, or policies.
Summary of facts: “In this case, L.M.’s [middle] school prohibited him from wearing a non-obscene, non-vulgar shirt stating, ‘There Are Only Two Genders,’ because the message ‘would cause students in the LGBTQ+ community to feel unsafe.’. The school even banned him from wearing the same shirt on which he covered the words ‘Only Two’ with a piece of tape on which he wrote “CENSORED” so that the message read, ‘There Are [CENSORED] Genders.’”
The petition had been distributed for conference twelve times.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent. Justice Samuel Alito also wrote a separate dissent, which in part read:
This case presents an issue of great importance for our Nation’s youth: whether public schools may suppress student speech either because it expresses a viewpoint that the school disfavors or because of vague concerns about the likely effect of the speech on the school atmosphere or on students who find the speech offensive. In this case, a middle school permitted and indeed encouraged student expression endorsing the view that there are many genders. But when L. M., a seventh grader, wore a t-shirt that said “There Are Only Two Genders,” he was barred from attending class. And when he protested this censorship by blocking out the words “Only Two” and substituting “CENSORED,” the school prohibited that shirt as well.
The First Circuit held that the school did not violate L. M.’s free-speech rights. It held that the general prohibition against viewpoint-based censorship does not apply to public schools. And it employed a vague, permissive, and jargon-laden rule that departed from the standard this Court adopted in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503 (1969).
FBI reopens probe into Dobbs Supreme Court leak
The FBI will launch new probes into the 2023 discovery of cocaine at the White House during President Joe Biden’s term and the 2022 leak of the Supreme Court’s draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, a top official announced on Monday. Dan Bongino, a rightwing podcaster-turned-FBI deputy director, made the announcement on X, saying that he had requested weekly briefings on the cases’ progress. . . .
‘So to Speak’ podcast: Heather Mac Donald on Trump & free speech
“[M]y reaction to everything that Trump is doing, and I agree almost across the board with his substantive aims whether it’s with regards to the universities, whether it’s regards to immigration, is what would we feel if the democratic administrations were doing this exact same thing in favor of their values? Everything we’re doing sets a precedent. Again, I acknowledge the precedent has already been set. . . . I’m still very nervous about the government using power because even though I’m not deeply libertarian, I do think that the hope of a neutral arbiter of a government that is restrained by rules that are content-free that are politics-free is one of the biggest yearnings of humanity, at least in the west.” — Heather Mac Donald
Heather Mac Donald discusses the Trump administration’s free speech record amidst its battles with higher ed, mainstream media, law firms, and more.
Mac Donald is a Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Her most recent book is “When race trumps merit: How the pursuit of equity sacrifices excellence, destroys beauty, and threatens lives.”
Related
Heather Mac Donald, “The White House’s Clumsy Attack on Harvard,” City Journal (April 15) (“The administration is growing ever bolder in its crusade against the institutions responsible for left-wing ideology — whether elite law firms or universities. That crusade is unquestionably justified. Its targets deserve little sympathy. . .”)
2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases
Cases decided
Villarreal v. Alaniz(Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (9-0: The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)
Review granted
Pending petitions
Petitions denied
Emergency Applications
Yost v. Ohio Attorney General (Kavanaugh, J., “IT IS ORDERED that the March 14, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, case No. 2:24-cv-1401, is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Wednesday, April 16, 2025, by 5 p.m. (EDT).”)
Free speech related
Mahmoud v. Taylor (argued April 22 / free exercise case: issue: Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.)
Thompson v. United States (decided: 3-21-25/ 9-0 w special concurrences by Alito and Jackson) (interpretation of 18 U. S. C. §1014 re “false statements”)
Beginning next week, First Amendment News (FAN) will be moving to Substack. Be sure to sign up and follow us there for future installments!
This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE.
Earlier this week, we announced a new partnership between the University of Michigan and Google to provide free access to Google Career Certificates and Google’s AI training courses for more than 66,000 students across U-M’s Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Flint campuses. These high-demand, job-ready programs are now available through the university’s platform for online and hybrid learning, Michigan Online. The courses and certificates help students to develop in-demand skills in areas like cybersecurity, data analytics, digital marketing, UX design, project management and foundational AI.
We’re both proud graduates of the University of Michigan. Our undergraduate experiences in Ann Arbor were transformational, shaping how we think, who we are and the lives we’ve led. There are countless ways to take advantage of an extraordinary place like U-M. But with the benefit of hindsight, one lesson stands out: Learning how to learn may be the most valuable thing you can take with you.
That has always been true. But it’s becoming more essential in a world where technological change is accelerating and the life span of a “job-ready” skill is shrinking.
A False Choice We Can’t Afford to Make
Today’s learners are navigating a noisy debate: Is a degree still worth it? Should they invest in college—or seek out a set of marketable skills through short-term training?
Too often, this is framed as an either-or choice. But our new partnership underscores the power of both-and.
A college degree is a powerful foundation. And when paired with flexible, high-impact programs like Google Career Certificates, AI Essentials and Prompting Essentials, students are positioned to thrive in a dynamic global workforce. This is not about diluting the value of higher education. It’s about enhancing it—by equipping students with the durable intellectual tools of a university education and the technical fluency to succeed in real-world roles.
The stakes are high. Nearly 70 percent of recent college graduates report needing more training on emerging technologies, while a majority of employers expect job candidates to have foundational knowledge of generative AI. As noted in a New York Times opinion piece by Aneesh Raman, chief economic opportunity officer at LinkedIn, the rise of AI and automation is reshaping the skills required for many jobs, making it imperative for educational institutions to adapt their curricula accordingly. This underscores the importance of integrating practical, technology-focused training into traditional degree programs to ensure graduates are prepared for the modern workforce. The world of work is changing rapidly. Higher education can and must evolve with it.
Rethinking What It Means to Prepare Students for the Future
This partnership is part of a larger effort at the University of Michigan to reimagine what it means to support lifelong learning and life-changing education. Through Michigan Online, U-M students already have access to more than 280 open online courses and series created by faculty in partnership with the Center for Academic Innovation, as well as thousands of additional offerings from universities around the world. These new certificates and AI courses deepen that commitment, creating new on-ramps to opportunity for every student, regardless of background or campus.
Through Google’s flexible online programs, we’ve seen how high-quality, employer-validated training can make a meaningful difference. More than one million learners globally have completed Google Career Certificates, and over 70 percent report a positive career outcome—such as a new job, raise or promotion—within six months of completion. Google’s employer consortium, including more than 150 companies like AT&T, Deloitte, Ford, Lowe’s, Rocket Companies, Siemens, Southwest, T-Mobile, Verizon, Wells Fargo and Google itself, actively recruits from this pool of talent. Google partners with over 800 educational institutions in all 50 states, including universities, community colleges and high schools, to help people begin promising careers in the Google Career Certificate fields.This new partnership extends these opportunities to U-M students to further support career readiness.
By offering accessible, skill-based programs like the Google Career Certificates, we aim to provide additional scaffolding for student success and career readiness, alleviating some of the pressures associated with traditional academic routes and recognizing diverse forms of achievement.
An Invitation to Higher Ed and Higher Ed Ecosystem Leaders
We believe this partnership is a model for how industry and education can come together to create scalable, inclusive and future-forward solutions.
But it’s just one step.
As we reflect on this moment, we invite fellow leaders in higher education, industry and government to ask,
How can your institution better integrate career-relevant skills into the student journey without sacrificing the broader mission of a liberal arts education?
What partnerships or platforms might allow your students to benefit from both a degree and credentials with market value?
In an era defined by AI, how will your institution ensure students are not just informed users of new tools, but thoughtful, responsible and empowered innovators?
How can your institution or organization expand equitable access to high-value learning opportunities that lead to social and economic mobility?
What role should public-private partnerships play in shaping the future of education, work and innovation, and how can we design them for long-term impact?
The path forward isn’t a binary choice. It’s a commitment to both excellence and access, both degrees and skills, both tradition and transformation.
We’re honored to take this step together. And we look forward to learning alongside our students and our peers as we navigate what’s next. In a rapidly shifting higher education environment, we see reason for optimism: opportunities to reimagine student success, forge lasting strategic partnerships and strengthen the bridge between higher education and the future of work.
James DeVaney is special adviser to the president, associate vice provost for academic innovation and the founding executive director of the Center for Academic Innovation at the University of Michigan.
