Tag: News

  • Sixty-one media organizations and press freedom advocates contest Perkins Coie executive order — First Amendment News 466

    Sixty-one media organizations and press freedom advocates contest Perkins Coie executive order — First Amendment News 466

    All of the vile executive orders issued by the Trump administration against law firms refer to purported “significant risks” associated with them, and have the same whiff of oppression:

    Below the veneer of such boilerplate claims lies a repressive truth: they’re designed to be punitive, and to produce a fear that leads to robotic subservience. They are but a part of Trump’s enemies list. And his orders are to be executed by his lackey Attorney General Pam Bondi — the same person who once said: “I will fight every day to restore confidence and integrity to the Department of Justice and each of its components. The partisanship, the weaponization will be gone.”

    Mason Kortz (left) and Kendra Albert

    Against that backdrop comes a courageous group of lawyers and press groups led Andrew Sellers, with Mason Kortz joined by Kendra K. Albert as local counsel. 

    Mr. Sellers filed the amicus brief on behalf of 61 media organizations and press freedom advocates in the case of Perkins Coie v. U.S. Department of Justice. At the outset he exposes the real agenda of the authoritarian figure in the White House:

    “The President seeks the simultaneous power to wield the legal system against those who oppose his policies or reveal his administration’s unlawful or unethical acts—who, in many cases, have been members of the press—and then deny them access to the system built to defend their rights. The President could thus ‘permit one side to have a monopoly in expressing its views,’ which is the “antithesis of constitutional guarantees.’”

    Mr. Sellers reminds us that “‘freedom of the press holds an . . . exalted place in the First Amendment firmament,’ because the press plays a vital role in the maintenance of democratic governance. To fulfill that function, the press relies on the work of lawyers. Lawyers assist the press in obtaining access to records and government spaces . . . because the press plays a vital role in the maintenance of democratic governance.”

    Andrew Sellars

    Andrew Sellars

    To honor that principle, Sellers argues that “the press relies on the work of lawyers. Lawyers assist the press in obtaining access to records and government spaces. They advise the press on how to handle sensitive sources and content. And they defend the press against civil and criminal threats for their publications.”

    Among other key points made in this important brief is the following one:

    If the Executive Order stands, many lawyers will be chilled from taking on work so directly in conflict with the President, out of fear for the harm it would cause to their clients whose relationship with the government is more transactional. For the lawyers that remain, the threat of a similar executive order aimed at them or their law firms would practically prevent them from doing their jobs, by denying their access to the people and places necessary to adjudicate their issues. 

    The project was spearheaded by The Press Freedom Defense Fund (a project of Intercept) and the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

    Some of the lawyers who signed this amicus brief include Floyd Abrams, Lee Levine, Seth Berlin, Ashley Kissinger, Elizabeth Koch, Lynn B. Oberlander, David A. Schulz, and Charles Toobin.

    The Table of Contents appears below:

    Introduction & Summary of Argument

    Interests of Amici

    Argument

    1. A Free Press Allows the Public to Check Overreaching Government but Requires Legal Support.
    2. The Oppositional Role of the Press Will Not Function if the Court Allows This executive order.
    3. The government will inevitably use this authoritarian power to target the press.
    4. The executive order will chill lawyers from working with the press.
    5. The lawyers that remain will be unable to do their jobs.
    6. Without a Robust Press, the Public will Lose a Key Vindicator of First Amendment Rights.

    Related

    Pronoun punishment policy in the Trump administration

    You know those email signatures at the end of messages? The ones that include a range of information about the senders — phone numbers, addresses, social media handles. And in recent years, pronouns — letting the recipient know that the sender goes by “she,” “he,” “they” or something else, a digital acknowledgement that people claim a range of gender identities.

    Among those who don’t agree with that are President Donald Trump and members of his administration. They have taken aim at what he calls “gender ideology” with measures like an executive order requiring the United States to recognize only two biological sexes, male and female. Federal employees were told to take any references to their pronouns out of their email signatures.

    That stance seems to have spread beyond those who work for the government to those covering it. According to some journalists’ accounts, officials in the administration have refused to engage with reporters who have pronouns listed in their signatures.

    The New York Times reported that two of its journalists and one at another outlet had received responses from administration officials to email queries that declined to engage with them over the presence of the pronouns. In one case, a reporter asking about the closure of a research observatory received an email reply from Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, saying, “As a matter of policy, we do not respond to reporters with pronouns in their bios.”

    Dare one ask? Is pro-Palestinian speech protected?

    Esha Bhandari

    Esha Bhandari (Photo courtesy of the ACLU)

    Shortly after his inauguration, President Donald Trump vowed to combat antisemitism on U.S. college and university campuses, describing pro-Palestinian activists and protesters as “pro-Hamas,” and threatening to revoke their visas.

    The first target of these threats was Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist and former student of Columbia University, who was a negotiator for Columbia students during talks with university officials regarding their tent encampment last spring, according to The Associated Press.

    Since his arrest, more than half a dozen scholars, professors, protesters and students have had their visas revoked with threats of deportation. Two opted to leave the country on their own terms, unsure of how legal proceedings against them would play out.

    Free speech and civil liberties organizations have raised concerns over the arrests, claiming the Trump administration is targeting pro-Palestinian protesters for constitutionally protected political speech because of their viewpoints.

    [ . . . ]

    First Amendment Watch spoke with Esha Bhandari, deputy director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, about the First Amendment implications of the Trump administration’s alleged targeting of pro-Palestinian protesters and activists. Bhandari explained how actions taken under the Immigration and Nationality Act need to be consistent with the First Amendment, described the importance of the right to peacefully assemble, and expressed that all Americans, regardless of their viewpoint, should be concerned with the Trump administration’s actions and its chilling of speech.

    [Interview follows]

    David Cole on the war on the First Amendment


    Just released: Oxford University Press handbook on free speech

    Cover of “The Oxford Handbook of Freedom of Speech” edited by Adrienne Stone and Frederick Schauer

    Freedom of speech is central to the liberal democratic tradition. It touches on every aspect of our social and political system and receives explicit and implicit protection in every modern democratic constitution. It is frequently referred to in public discourse and has inspired a wealth of legal and philosophical literature. The liberty to speak freely is often questioned; what is the relationship between this freedom and other rights and values, how far does this freedom extend, and how is it applied to contemporary challenges?

    “The Oxford Handbook on Freedom of Speech” seeks to answer these and other pressing questions. It provides a critical analysis of the foundations, rationales, and ideas that underpin freedom of speech as a political idea, and as a principle of positive constitutional law. In doing so, it examines freedom of speech in a variety of national and supranational settings from an international perspective.

    Compiled by a team of renowned experts in the field, this handbook features original essays by leading scholars and theorists exploring the history, legal framework, and controversies surrounding this tenet of the democratic constitution.

    Forthcoming book on free speech and social media platforms

    Northeastern University Professor John Wihbey

    Northeastern University Professor John Wihbey

    Why social media platforms have a responsibility to look after their platforms, how they can achieve the transparency needed, and what they should do when harms arise.

    The large, corporate global platforms networking the world’s publics now host most of the world’s information and communication. Much has been written about social media platforms, and many have argued for platform accountability, responsibility, and transparency. But relatively few works have tried to place platform dynamics and challenges in the context of history, especially with an eye toward sensibly regulating these communications technologies.

    In ”Governing Babel,” John Wihbey articulates a point of view in the ongoing, high-stakes debate over social media platforms and free speech about how these companies ought to manage their tremendous power.

    Wihbey takes readers on a journey into the high-pressure and controversial world of social media content moderation, looking at issues through relevant cultural, legal, historical, and global lenses. The book addresses a vast challenge — how to create new rules to deal with the ills of our communications and media systems — but the central argument it develops is relatively simple. The idea is that those who create and manage systems for communications hosting user-generated content have both a responsibility to look after their platforms and have a duty to respond to problems. They must, in effect, adopt a central response principle that allows their platforms to take reasonable action when potential harms present themselves. And finally, they should be judged, and subject to sanction, according to the good faith and persistence of their efforts.

    Franks and Corn-Revere to discuss ‘Fearless Speech’

    Coming this Thursday over at Brooklyn Law School:

    Book Talk: Dr. Mary Anne Franks’ Fearless Speech

    Featuring:

    • Dr. Mary Anne Franks
      Eugene L. and Barbara A. Bernard Professor in Intellectual Property, Technology, and Civil Rights Law, George Washington Law School; President and Legislative & Tech Policy Director, Cyber Civil Rights Initiative

    • Robert Corn-Revere
      Chief Counsel, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)

    Moderators

    • William Araiza, Stanley A. August Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School

    • Joel Gora, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School

    Discussants

    • Ron Collins, Co-founder of the History Book Festival and former Harold S. Shefelman Scholar, University of Washington Law School

    • Sarah C. Haan, Class of 1958 Uncas and Anne McThenia Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law

    Lukianoff’s TED talk

    Greg Lukianoff delivering his TED Talk on April 9, 2025

    FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff (Photo by Gilberto Tadday / TED)

    Last Wednesday, FIRE’s Greg Lukianoff delivered his first TED talk at TED 2025 in Vancouver. He spoke on why so many young people have given up on free speech and how to win them back. As he noted in a recent post for his Substack newsletter, The Eternally Radical Idea:

    “After months of seemingly endless writing, rewriting, and rehearsing, I’m very happy with how it turned out! (Many thanks to Bob Ewing, Kim Hemsley, Maryrose Ewing, and Perry Fein for helping me prepare. Couldn’t have done it without them!)

    We’re not yet sure when the full talk will be available online, but we’ll keep you posted!”

    ‘So to Speak’ podcast: The plight of global free speech


    We travel from America to Europe, Russia, China, and more places to answer the question: Is there a global free speech recession?

    Guests:

    More in the news

    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

    • Thompson v. United States (decided: 3-21-25/ 9-0 w special concurrences by Alito & Jackson) (interpretation of 18 U. S. C. §1014 re “false statements”)

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 465: “‘Executive Watch’: The breadth and depth of the Trump administration’s threat to the First Amendment”

    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 or Mr. Collins.

    Source link

  • Proposed Budget Cuts Could End Fulbright Program

    Proposed Budget Cuts Could End Fulbright Program

    The Trump administration is looking to cut the State Department’s budget by almost half, and educational and cultural exchange programs, like the Fulbright scholarship, could be fully eliminated as a result, The Washington Post reported Monday.

    An internal memo, obtained by the Post, suggested that the department may only have $28.4 billion to spend next fiscal year to cover all of its staffing and operations and to share with the U.S. Agency for International Development, an independent agency that Trump has already tried to eliminate. That’s $27 billion, or 48 percent, less funding than the two groups received in fiscal year 2025.

    The proposed budget cuts would terminate the Fulbright scholarship, a highly selective cultural exchange program established by Congress in 1946, along with the State Department’s other educational and cultural programs. The president has yet to propose his budget for fiscal year 2026 to Congress, though he’s expected to do so later this month, the Post reported. Congress, by law, has the final say about which programs get funding.

    Fulbright funding and operations have already been in flux during the early days of the Trump administration as some participants have struggled to obtain their visas for next academic year and others are waiting on stipend funds that had been promised to get them through the current term, Inside Higher Ed has reported.

    The State Department did not respond to the Post’s request for comment.

    Source link

  • CCRC Loses $12M in Federal Grants

    CCRC Loses $12M in Federal Grants

    The Community College Research Center has lost access to funding from four federal grants collectively worth more than $12 million, the center’s director, Thomas Brock, said in a letter Tuesday. The cut was part of the Trump administration’s broader freeze on $400 million in federal funding at Columbia University over accusations that the institution didn’t do enough to response to antisemitism.

    But Brock argued in the letter that “the terminations did nothing to address perceived problems at Columbia, nor did they challenge ‘woke’ ideology, as our projects were nonideological to begin with.”

    CCRC is based at Teachers College, an education graduate school that became affiliated with the nearby Columbia University in 1898 but was founded independently in 1887 and remains “legally, administratively, and financially separate” from the Ivy League institution, Brock explained.

    Still, when the federal antisemitism task force announced the funding cut, Teachers College, and therefore the CCRC, were affected. All four grants that were cut came from the Institute of Education Sciences. The now-terminated grants supported: 

    • A study on whether work-study programs improve retention, degree completion and employment postgraduation.
    • An analysis of how effective Virginia’s Get a Skill, Get a Job, Get Ahead program has been in helping low-income students access short-term training programs.
    • An apprenticeship program that helps develop the next generation of state-level higher ed policy researchers.
    • A network of six research groups studying ways to reverse post-pandemic enrollment declines.

    It added to the blow CCRC had already experienced in February when the Department of Education canceled 10 contracts with Regional Educational Laboratories, which are also overseen by the IES, saying they were examples of “woke” government spending. The REL Northwest had signed a contract with CCRC to pilot a professional development program for community college faculty members.

    “It is hard to overstate the importance of IES grants and contracts to a research center like CCRC,” said Brock, who was commissioner of the National Center for Education Research at IES from 2013 to 2018.

    CCRC has appealed the decision to terminate the grants.

    “We do not know how long the process will take,” Brock wrote, “but are hopeful that fair minds will rule in our favor.”

    Source link

  • Student Success Podcast: Navigating Students’ Digital Addictions

    Student Success Podcast: Navigating Students’ Digital Addictions

    This season of Voices of Student Success, “Preparing Gen Z for Unknown Futures,” addresses challenges in readying young people for the next chapter of their lives in the face of large-scale global changes. The latest episode addresses how digitization has made it easier for young people to engage in unhealthy habits, including substance abuse, pathological gambling or social media addiction, compared to past generations. 

    Host Ashley Mowreader speaks with Amaura Kemmerer, director of clinical affairs for Uwill, to discuss the role of preventive health measures and how existing research can provide a road map for addressing new challenges. 

    Listen to the episode here and learn more about The Key here.

    Read a transcript of the podcast here.

    Source link

  • How to Better Support Deans (opinion)

    How to Better Support Deans (opinion)

    Being a president is hard. Seriously hard. We are watching the rapidly increasing presidential turnover rate collide with the lack of formal succession planning at a time when higher education is under significant political pressure. This is a serious problem for higher education.

    But contrary to the popular perception, the president is not the sole difference-maker to an institution’s success. Once we look outside the spotlight of the presidency, we remember the institution’s core mission: academics. Skilled, effective academic leadership is vital to the ongoing success of an institution.

    Standing at the forefront of the academic mission is the provost. In case you are wondering what a provost does, they are, on paper, the chief academic officer, responsible for the vision and oversight of all academic affairs. As important as that sounds, Larry A. Nielsen, in his book Provost: Experiences, Reflections and Advice From a Former “Number Two” on Campus, describes the provost as the university’s “stay-at-home parent.” Not so glamorous.

    It is those leaders at the next level below the provost, the deans, who have responsibility for the vision and oversight of their respective colleges or schools. It is in these units where the bulk of the work happens for the academy to accomplish its mission, in research, teaching and service.

    In the current climate for higher education, where its value is being challenged and the fight for student enrollment is running high, the provost and deans hold the key to academic transformation, as they strive to make their institution a strong destination that changes students’ lives and opens doors to new careers. Additionally, the deans and their faculty are closer to the ground in terms of understanding what students and their communities need and want. They primarily shape which courses, programs, majors and minors are offered. They do this work. Not the president.

    This raises a question: What can be done to better support the deans?

    Deans operate at a critical transition point. They serve at the discretion of the provost and president, and, as such, take direction (or sometimes lack of direction) that comes down to them. At the same time, deans are serving and representing their faculty and staff, working to support their success in doing the actual work of educating, advancing knowledge and serving the institution as good citizens and stewards. This crunch between above and below brings a lot of pressure for deans, even in the best of circumstances.

    Thus, having coached and/or consulted with close to 100 deans over the years, I offer the following strategies.

    Give Them Resources and Get Out of the Way

    Being a dean is more closely aligned in its responsibilities to a presidential role than that of a provost. The dean oversees their school, with responsibility to set vision, create strategy, raise money, build and oversee administrative teams, manage politics, and drive results.

    What a dean is not is a “stay-at-home parent.”

    For deans to be most successful, the provost needs (to the best of their abilities) to provide deans with resources, professional development, time and clear direction. The provost (and at times the president) then needs to clear roadblocks, make introductions to key donors and stakeholders, and be available to the deans, as needed. You might say that the provost could consider the deans their most important constituents. If the deans are successful, it will greatly enhance the provost’s success.

    Allow Deans to Meet Alone Regularly

    Being a dean can be lonely. There is no one in their school to whom they can express insecurities or speak candidly, especially about sensitive issues. Providing space for the deans to meet and talk openly, candidly and even vulnerably with one another builds a group of trusted peers and advisers and creates a safe space to discuss challenges and give and get feedback from colleagues who may be experiencing the same.

    This process yields tremendous benefits for a campus, where challenges and opportunities across the schools can become aligned, resulting in better institutional decision-making, accountability and communication. The provost may think they should be in the room for these conversations (to hear what’s happening for the deans, to be helpful, etc.), but their presence limits the quality and openness of the conversations. If provosts want to be helpful, sponsor a monthly breakfast or dinner for the deans to meet alone. At a large R-1 where I have co-facilitated a new department chairs program for many years, the program has become affectionately known as “chairapy.” The same support could be provided for deans (deanhabilitation? I’m still working on a name for this one).

    Build a Team of Deans

    The deanship is an isolating role. The default setting for deans is to engage in turf wars with other deans, each jockeying for the attention and resources from the president, provost and CFO. As a result, many institutions fail to recognize how to leverage the deans as a true governing body on campus. Instead, both the provost and the president would benefit from investing their time and energy in supporting a deans’ council that has (as the Center for Creative Leadership proposes) shared direction, alignment and commitment. A unified team of deans allows for better decision-making, mutual support and resource sharing, as well as more consistent communication throughout the institution. Instead of fueling the common narrative of individual fiefdoms, invest in the deans as a team and reap the rewards of a better-functioning organization.

    Provide Deans With Information

    Deans like independence, running their shops with minimal interference. However, deans also need information and from all directions: above, below, across and outside. When information is lacking, rumors fill the void. Faculty will speculate, staff will complain or withdraw, stakeholders will wonder, “What is that dean doing, anyway?”

    To mitigate these issues, stakeholders need to share information and in particular, give the why, the context and rationale behind an issue. So if anyone wants to be helpful to their deans, overinform them and always include reasons why the information is important. If too much information is being provided, let the dean set the limits. And when a dean asks about an issue, please answer them (barring legal reasons not to). Don’t withhold. A dean left in the dark is only as good as the flashlight they have.

    Be a Thought Partner

    Deans attend a relentless number of meetings. As a client of mine once shared with me, “I have more requests for standing monthly meetings than there are hours in a month.” To avoid crushing deans with ineffective usage of their time, any meeting with them should be generative, one in which problems are being solved, decisions are being made, strategies are being forged and deals are being closed. Come to deans with solutions, with innovations and with energy. As the famous line from the film Jerry Maguire goes, “Help me help you!” Offer to be the dean’s thought partner, to stand (metaphorically) shoulder to shoulder and think through an issue together.

    Get Them a Coach

    As an executive coach, I recognize this one comes with my own inherent biases. And yet, I have seen firsthand the payoffs of providing executive coaching to deans. The return on investment easily justifies the financial cost. I do not wish to oversell this service. Just know it is super helpful—some might even say vitally.

    Ask Deans What They Need

    Finally, if you are not sure how to be helpful to a dean(s), ask them. They will know. A savvy dean, given the right mix of resources, support and collaboration, can accomplish great things, ultimately guiding their school to make the lasting impacts higher education so desperately needs these days: good news stories, student successes and positive contributions to their communities and country. A dean’s success can be a great counterbalance to the political side show that distracts from what truly makes the academy invaluable.

    Rob Kramer is a special adviser to the provost at Southern Oregon University, the former senior leadership adviser at the University of North Carolina’s Institute for the Arts and Humanities, and an executive coach and consultant in higher education and academic medicine.

    Source link

  • Cash-Strapped Colleges Opt for Wellness Vending Machines

    Cash-Strapped Colleges Opt for Wellness Vending Machines

    A wellness vending machine helps increase access to reproductive health products at College of the Redwoods.

    ADragan/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    According to a May 2024 Student Voice survey, roughly one in five community college students (19 percent) believe their institution should invest in wellness facilities or services to promote well-being. A recent pilot program across the state of California seeks to remove barriers to accessing health supplies for community college students.

    The Wellness Vending Machine Pilot Program, a state-funded program established by Assembly Bill 2482, which passed in 2022, aims to make preventative care products more accessible to college students. The program provides funding for 18 colleges to address students’ physical health and overall academic success in a unique, lower-cost way: through vending machines that dispense everything from Band-Aids to birth control.

    For some institutions, like College of the Redwoods, the vending machine is the primary source of personal care products on campus.

    Community colleges in particular are often underresourced and limited in their ability to provide students with wraparound support services. A 2024 survey by the Richmond Federal Reserve of 80 community colleges in the District of Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and most of West Virginia found that only 3.8 percent of responding institutions offered on-site health services during the 2022–23 academic year. The greatest obstacle to offering such resources is funding.

    Katrina Hanson, manager of retention, basic needs and well-being for the College of the Redwoods community college district in Central California, applied for the vending machine grant in July 2023 to address a service gap on the main campus in Eureka.

    The College of the Redwoods closed its Eureka student health center in spring 2023, shifting from having a part-time nurse to instead offering tele–mental health services through TimelyCare. It also purchased three wellness vending machines: two for Eureka and one for one of its other two campuses, on the Hoopa Indian reservation.

    “It’s not a complete substitute for in-person care,” Hanson said. “But it is more equitable for our students on our Hoopa [Klamath-Trinity Instructional City] and Crescent City [Del Norte Education Center] campuses, as well as all of our online students.”

    How it works: The college set up the three wellness vending machines in August 2023, placing one in Eureka’s library and the other in a residence hall, as well as one on the Hoopa campus. The grant requires participating colleges to place vending machines in a central location that students can access at any time.

    The requirements also outline the products that should be sold, including condoms, dental dams, menstrual cups, lubricants, tampons, menstrual pads, pregnancy tests and emergency contraception pills. College staff identify and supply the machines with other popular or needed supplies.

    Eureka’s wellness vending machine is located in the library, which has the most hours of availability for students, allowing them to access it when they need various health supplies.

    Katrina Hanson/College of the Redwoods

    For example, when Eureka’s health center closed, Hanson asked which services were most popular. She learned that pregnancy tests and urinary tract infection tests were most commonly used, so she now ensures that the campus vending machines has those supplies available.

    Other popular items are Band-Aids, which are free in the machine, and Benadryl, which is discounted.

    The machines themselves are rented from a company that also handles snack machines around campus, so the college does not have to deal with maintenance or money collection. Grant funding will cover the machines for the five years of the pilot, but supplies are budgeted by the institution.

    “We are trying to get it to be at least somewhat self-sustaining by trying out different items,” Hanson said. “The sexual health and menstrual health supplies are free or discounted, per our grant agreement. The other items we can offer at regular price to try to make some money to keep the project going.”

    Survey Says

    Inside Higher Ed’s Student Voice survey of college students found that about two-thirds of respondents (n=5,025) rated the variety and quality of campus health and wellness offerings as good or average; about 5 percent indicated they had poor resources. Numbers were similar for respondents at two- and four-year institutions.

    Two birds, one machine: In addition to offering tailored health products for students, the vending machines also work as a resource hub, displaying informational posters in English and Spanish to equip learners with important information.

    Poster content includes what to know about emergency contraception, how to use the opioid overdose–reversing drug Narcan/naloxone, sexual wellness education and how to provide feedback to the college about using the machine.

    Rightsizing: Since setting up the machines, college staff have noticed that two machines (the one on the reservation campus and the one in the Eureka dorm) weren’t being used often, or students were only buying certain supplies. In the residence hall, for example, students only really wanted condoms. So campus leaders elected to downsize and just keep the one machine in the library, offering free supplies in other places instead.

    This academic year, the most purchased items have been condoms, menstrual cups, fentanyl tests, Narcan, tampons and acetaminophen. Students also frequently purchase deodorant, energy gels, LiquidIV, lip balm, ibuprofen, pregnancy tests and cough drops.

    So far, the machines haven’t been profitable, but staff pull supplies from the Basic Needs Center or local partners to keep costs low and continue to vary their offerings.

    The college is planning to reopen its student health center following construction, so the vending machines will support students in the meantime, Hanson said.

    Do you have a wellness intervention that might help others promote student success? Tell us about it.

    Source link

  • Some Rules for Campus Resistance (opinion)

    Some Rules for Campus Resistance (opinion)

    Given what’s happened at Columbia University (and what is happening now at other Ivies, and beyond), every university leader in the United States ought to be planning in advance what they will do when similar pressures are brought to bear on them. Academics ought to as well; all the citizens of our republics of learning should care about their institutions and be willing to defend them.

    Over a decade ago, here at the University of Virginia, we had a nasty little fight with our Board of Visitors when they tried to fire President Teresa Sullivan with little more logic or rationale than we’re currently seeing come out of Washington. (The American Association of University Professors produced a pretty good report about it, if you want to read something unsettling.)

    Our opponents in that little pas de deux had a degree of ignorance that amply matched their arrogance, but we were lucky in discovering allies far beyond Charlottesville in our alumni base and other institutions.

    At the time, I recognized that we had learned some smaller, tactical lessons in the whole shindig that might be relatively portable across different universities. I almost published them, but decided that it was better to let my university go forward without adding my two cents.

    Now, however, in our moment, these seem relevant again. So, in the wake of Columbia’s capitulation to Trump’s assault, I dusted them off and polished them up. They didn’t need much polishing, to be honest. Consider this a small pamphlet for thinking about hosting “a little rebellion now and then” on your campus, when such is needful.

    1. Don’t start the fight. Have a prompting event—even if you invite it merely by doing your job. We were lucky to have a “day of infamy” jump-start our events in 2012. It was dropped, gift wrapped, into our lap. We were, from the beginning, in the position of the victim—the one who was wronged. Being the aggrieved party from the start helps. A lot.
    1. Be a big tent, but have one common aim. Because the misdeed was so expansive in its implications, the scope of our “we” was enormously wide. The “we” who was violated included not just the president, but the administration, faculty and staff—and not just them, but the students, and the alumni, and indeed the community of Charlottesville, and possibly all those interested in the future of academia in America and beyond. And anyway, you’re not seeking consensus: You’re seeking alliance. This is hard for us academics, because we are so excellent at invidious distinctions. But remember: World War II was won by an alliance of the British empire, the anticolonialist liberal United States and the definitionally revolutionary U.S.S.R. If those three states could work together, you can say something nice about professors in the business school, or vice versa. The same goes for deans and administrators: They are not the enemy. By coordinating the most expansive community as the community to whom voice could be given, we ensured not just that numbers were on our side, but that the widest set of complaints and grievances were brought to bear on the most precise targets.
    2. Lean into shared governance. No one ever expected the UVA Faculty Senate to be consequential, least of all the Faculty Senate. It was the place where we sent junior faculty “to learn about the university”; given how much import anyone normally gives to learning about the university, that shows you what we thought of it. But, to borrow from Don Rumsfeld, you go to war with the institutions you have, not the institutions you wish you had, and now everyone knows that the Faculty Senate can matter, and matter decisively. I hope we never forget it. I hope you can learn from our example and not your own.
    3. Tenure counts. You know that thing we say about tenure mattering for free expression and for ensuring that you can speak your mind on academic matters without getting fired by administrators who don’t like what you have to say? I used to find it annoying and silly— “of course that’s not going to happen, not today,” I thought; “no one will be so dictatorial.” Well, lookie here—I was wrong. The first and consistently most vocal group in the whole UVA fracas was the faculty. The staff members were behind us (especially the women on the university’s staff, who had felt represented by Sullivan in a powerful way), but obviously they were in the most vulnerable position. And the deans and administrators were by and large ready to accept the coup as a fait accompli. (While the deans of the various schools eventually came around, it took them some time; only after they realized that almost every last one of the faculty were extraordinarily pissed, and shopping their CVs around, did they realize that they were hurting themselves more by not saying anything than they would by saying something.)
    1. “If a problem cannot be solved, enlarge it.” Dwight D. Eisenhower said that, and it’s true here. The prompting event of our crisis was of course the firing of our President Sullivan by our board rector, Helen Dragas, and a few others (let’s be honest about what it was and who did it). But it was clear from the beginning that there were larger issues here—about the disconnect between oversight, management and teachers and researchers, about the creeping “corporatization” of the board (though that does a terrible disservice to wise governance of corporations around the world, which would never be run the way most university boards try to run their institutions), about the failure of faculty to take seriously how the higher levels of the university were operating—matters far larger than simply this act. As the crisis developed, we realized we were reaping the consequences of structural contempt toward the faculty (and the rest of the university, really) by the Board of Visitors and a crisis of apathy about university governance on the part of the faculty. The problem may be larger than you first realize: Get it in focus, first and foremost.
    2. “Do you expect me to talk?” “No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die.” The idea that disputes of these sorts are amenable most basically to conversation is mistaken. Statements were continually communicated to our Board of Visitors, but we knew almost at once that argument was not our real weapon. Once you decide to dissent, the time for talk is over, at least with opponents such as these; they will not be amenable to conversation—not without a great deal of pressure from other forces and sources. Your aim is not to convince your opponents; your aim is to beat them. To do that, you must persuade potential allies, not actual enemies. That said, it never hurts to be reasonable and produce strong arguments directed at your opponents, so long as you know those arguments are largely valuable because they are overheard by others.
    3. At no point should you demonize or vilify your opponents. It weirdly invests them with power you need not bestow. You’re in a fight with someone who’s like a toddler—do not descend to their level. Speak calmly, as to a toddler having a temper tantrum. You won’t convince them, but you will demonstrate you are not afraid. That will upset them more. If they lose, of course they will say you did demonize and belittle them; they’ll call you “so mean,” “ungracious” and “nasty in tone.” Don’t worry; everyone else knows otherwise. Saying that may be their only consolation prize. Let them have it. You’re walking out with the Benjamins. Or, in our case, the Sullivan.
    1. Time is not your friend, but nonetheless, boil the frog slowly. In a delicious irony, the coup at UVA was reversed “incrementally”—a bad word for Rector Dragas, a good word for President Sullivan. Resistance to the coup began with some immediate disquiet from the faculty and a few students on campus when it was first announced. But the faculty knew from the beginning they wouldn’t be the material cause of any change; they needed more powerful allies. The momentum built slowly, then snowballed at the end. And the momentum built both inside the institution and outside it: inside, mostly by growing outrage at the trickle of information released and the little bit we could discover (or, more properly, the media could discover) over time, and outside, by the gradual but eventually approaching exponential expansion of numbers and kinds of UVA stakeholders who expressed outrage.

    The end of the first week saw the Faculty Senate meeting where 800 faculty and others listened as our provost, John Simon, expressed real and powerful concern, and subtle outrage, over what had happened and how it had happened. By the end of the second week, we had politicians, alumni, other university faculties—and a number of major donors—speaking out in outrage. And then, too, we began to see newspaper editorial boards—and Katie Couric—condemn the firing. Had the Board of Visitors waited a bit longer to reverse its action, no doubt the United Nations, the E.U., the Nature Conservancy, the NBA, al Qaeda and Justin Bieber would have issued statements.

    The lesson here? Don’t try to get everyone on board all at once. Trust the swarm method, but go through your list of stakeholders methodically—moving from the most swayable to the least so. Rank them in their “get-ability,” and then get them, encouraging the ones you already have on your side to increase pressure on the next-most-gettable ones. On day two of a crisis, you probably won’t get The Washington Post and your institution’s major donors to sign on to calling this an outrage; but by day 10, or 14, with a little help, and momentum from other people, you may. And better still, while this is happening, your opponents probably won’t notice the pressure gradually ratcheting up, as they are simply trying to keep responding to different constituencies. By the time they realize that there are a lot of people angry at them, there’s little they can do to quell the anger, except give in.

    1. Have a lousy enemy, and let everyone see that. Maleficence is usually associated with incompetence, and in the case of this episode, that was true. We were extraordinarily fortunate in our foe. The Kremlin-like silence of the Board of Visitors as the shock and anger mounted; the Politburo-like prose when the board decided to speak; the slow uncovering of the incredibly flimsy reasoning behind the decision, revealed in emails over the previous months; the remarkable stubbornness, coupled with utterly no sense of the appearance of absurdity regarding the irrationality of the stubbornness—it’s as if we couldn’t have had a better opponent for this fight.

    But it is important that what gets publicized is your opponents’ badness, not your contempt for them. Academics are really, really skilled at expressing contempt. Few of us realize it doesn’t make us look good, either in faculty meetings or on social media. You never win an argument by judging your opponents. Instead, let your opponents be seen for who they are.

    This is mostly out of your control, but it might be possible to imagine different ways of framing your opponent, so that different profiles of them emerge. In our case it was clear early on that it would be very important not to make this about the entire Board of Visitors but to focus on a small clique inside it so that pressure could be put upon the whole in such a way that some fractures would result; we hoped that such fractures, once they appeared, would quickly cause the whole to shatter. And they did: In the end Sullivan’s reinstatement was a unanimous board decision, the unanimity induced by the fact that the Dragas faction knew they had lost and quickly crumbled.

    Anyway, these are some things I think we learned. Best of luck if you get in a position to need them. You’ll need all the luck you can get. We certainly did. But, you know, luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. That was on a motivational poster I saw once. Occasionally such things are useful. If you don’t know what I mean, I fear you will soon.

    Charles Mathewes is a professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia.

    Source link

  • U of Utah Urges Compliance After State Restricts Pride Flags

    U of Utah Urges Compliance After State Restricts Pride Flags

    A University of Utah lawyer last week urged faculty to comply with the state’s new prohibition on the “prominent“ display of pride flags and other flags on campus, The Salt Lake Tribune reported.

    Deputy general counsel Robert Payne urged faculty in a meeting not to “be a lightning rod to the Legislature” and said state lawmakers “have a lot of power over us,” the newspaper reported. Payne also suggested that if employees tried to get around the law by hanging pride posters instead of flags, legislators might “come back with something worse,” the Tribune reported.

    Utah’s Republican-controlled Legislature passed House Bill 77 last month, and Gov. Spencer J. Cox, a Republican, let it become law without signing or vetoing it. When it takes effect May 7, it will ban government entities, including public colleges and universities, from displaying flags on government property “in a prominent location.” Some flags are exempted, such as the U.S. flag and the prisoner of war/missing in action flags.

    Trevor Lee, a Republican Utah House member and HB 77’s chief sponsor, told Inside Higher Ed he didn’t file the legislation specifically to ban pride flags. But “that’s just been the biggest, biggest issue of any political flag,” he said. “I mean, it’s not even close.”

    Lee said the flags go beyond representing inclusivity. He said, “It’s a sex flag. It tells everyone what sexual ideology you believe in.”

    The University of Utah has released guidance online saying the law generally bans pride flags, Juneteenth flags and others from prominent locations. The guidance notes exemptions, including that students and employees can “wear or carry a flag as a personal expression of free speech,” and that employees can decorate their offices with flags “so long as they are not easily visible outside of their personal space (e.g., posted in an office window).”

    Payne said the university hasn’t yet decided how it will enforce the flag ban, according to the Tribune. The university’s guidance says, “Flags may also be used as decorations in connection with a brief cultural celebration hosted by the university within a university building,” but can’t be up for more than a week. It’s unclear whether pride will be considered a cultural celebration.

    Source link

  • Federal Grants Website Gets DOGE’d

    Federal Grants Website Gets DOGE’d

    The Department of Government Efficiency has taken control of a federal website that universities and other organizations use to find out about—and apply for—federal grant opportunities, The Washington Post reported Friday. 

    Federal officials have historically listed on Grants.gov more than $500 billion in annual federal grant opportunities from numerous agencies, including the Defense, State and Interior Departments, that fund research on a range of topics, such as cancer, cybersecurity and wastewater management. However, an engineer from DOGE—the agency run by billionaire Donald Trump donor Elon Musk—deleted, without notice, many of those officials’ permissions to post those funding opportunities.

    Agency officials have been instructed instead to send their planned grant notices to a Department of Health and Human Services email address that DOGE is monitoring. The HHS, which has long managed Grants.gov, said it’s “taking action to ensure new grant opportunities are aligned” with the Trump administration’s priorities outlined in its Make America Healthy Again agenda, according to the Post. 

    Now DOGE is responsible for posting grant opportunities. And if it delays them or stops posting them altogether, that “could effectively shut down federal-grant making,” an anonymous federal official told the Post.

    Source link

  • Students and Institutions in Limbo After Mass Layoffs at OCR

    Students and Institutions in Limbo After Mass Layoffs at OCR

    A month after the Department of Education closed seven of its 12 regional civil rights offices and laid off nearly half the staff in the Office for Civil Rights, there’s still uncertainty about how the agency will perform its functions with such reduced numbers.

    OCR was founded to ensure equal access to education for all students and is responsible for investigating claims that schools and institutions of higher education failed to protect their students from discrimination. But under the current administration, the office has shifted gears to focus on President Donald Trump’s top priorities: removing trans women from women’s sports teams, protecting against alleged discrimination against white students, and protecting students against alleged antisemitism.

    Back in February, the office’s acting head, Craig Trainor, told employees to pause all investigations except for a handful that aligned with those priorities, according to ProPublica. Trainor quickly told investigators they could once again begin investigating disability-related complaints, which made up the largest share of the pending complaints, but not those related to race- or sex-based discrimination.

    Tracey Vitchers, the executive director of It’s On Us, a nonprofit advocacy organization focused on combating campus sexual violence, says this harks back to the first Trump administration: At the time, a large number of complaints were “quietly ignored” by OCR, leading to a massive backlog for former president Joe Biden’s administration to handle when he came into office in 2021.

    “That was the playbook during the first administration, and it was just that they just sat on shelves, essentially—digital shelves. Those cases were put on the digital shelf, ignored, not opened, not investigated,” she said.

    When Trump took office, more than 12,000 cases were open with OCR, including over 3,000 at institutions of higher education, according to a database of open OCR cases.

    Over half of all OCR cases were being handled by a regional office that is now closed, according to a report from Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont Independent who is the ranking member on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Following the layoffs, each investigator’s caseload—which was already at an all-time high of 42 cases—is expected to skyrocket to 86 cases as a result of the cuts, significantly reducing investigators’ ability to resolve each complaint, per the report.

    The data in the report reflects concerns from former OCR staffers who warned that the layoffs would make protecting students’ civil rights more difficult.

    Experts say that OCR complaints going unresolved can be a serious impediment to a student’s ability to learn.

    “At the postsecondary level, common complaints are refusals to accommodate,” said Paul Grossman, an attorney who worked at OCR for 41 years and is now executive counsel for the Association for Higher Education and Disability. “A student wants a particular kind of accommodation, and the school says, ‘No, that’s a fundamental alteration or an undue burden,’ and the student, as a result, may get dismissed because they don’t meet the academic standards, may get dismissed because they don’t meet conduct standards, whatever the case may be. Or the student may just be unhealthy—they may not be well enough to continue, because they don’t get the accommodation.”

    The public repository of open OCR cases, which used to be updated weekly, has not been updated since Jan. 14, just before Inauguration Day. But ProPublica reported in late February that only about 20 new cases have been opened since Trump took office, whereas about 250 cases were opened in the same period last year.

    That most likely comes down to OCR’s decisions about what to investigate. But Vitchers also noted that, since even before Trump’s second term began, she hasn’t been as eager to advise students to open a case with OCR in response to their institutions mishandling Title IX complaints. After the Biden administration finalized its Title IX regulations, which offered protections to transgender students and which organizations like It’s On Us said were much more sympathetic to victims of sexual violence than Trump’s previous regulations, in the summer of 2024, numerous states sued to block the regulations. The legal tussle made for a complicated environment for students seeking justice for sexual harassment or assault through Title IX, and the Biden rule was eventually vacated just over a week before Inauguration Day.

    “Very honestly, with the back-and-forth on Title IX, and particularly once we saw the Biden rule get challenged, we sort of, somewhat quietly, encouraged students to really pause and take a hard look at, what was the outcome that they were looking for? And help them assess, is the OCR complaint going to get you the outcome that you’re actually looking for here?” she said. “If it is, then we will support you in finding an attorney and filing a case. But with so many of the students that we work with, many of them made the decision to, essentially, protect their own peace.”

    ED did not respond to a request for comment.

    Mediation, Digital Accessibility and More

    On top of concerns about the backlog of complaints going unanswered, experts are also worried about other, lesser-known functions of OCR that likely are not currently happening.

    In some cases, complainants can opt for early mediation, a type of resolution that is more informal and generally quicker than an investigation. But it is unclear if such mediations are happening currently; Grossman said he has heard one example of a planned mediation being canceled, and ED did not respond to a question from Inside Higher Ed about the issue. Grossman also noted that OCR is responsible for continuing to monitor the aftermath of investigations that have already been resolved.

    Jamie Axelrod, director of disability resources at Northern Arizona University and a past president of AHEAD, pointed out that OCR is responsible for conducting digital compliance reviews, in-depth surveys of whether a school or university’s digital resources, such as its website and learning management systems, are accessible to students with disabilities. During the previous Trump administration, Axelrod said, ED stood up a specialized team to complete these reviews and provide technical assistance to institutions to help them make their digital resources more accessible. Now, that team has been reduced significantly, according to Axelrod.

    He also noted that OCR is supposed to be a tool schools and universities can turn to in order to answer any questions about how to appropriately accommodate their students.

    “The point of that is to avoid circumstances that wind up causing discrimination against students with disabilities, and so that’s a key role,” he said. “And it’s hard to really calculate how many instances of discrimination [that prevented from] happening in the first place. It’s hard to count what you prevented, but that is an important role, and I’m sure it leads to resolution of lots of complicated circumstances.”

    The impacts of the cuts are likely to go even deeper than the individual cases that have been displaced to new investigators and the specific programs that will likely fall by the wayside.

    “Like any postsecondary educational institution, there’s a lot of institutional memory that’s developed,” Grossman said. “You have to develop connections, relationships, understandings, insights, experience, and all these people who are going out the door, you’re just lighting a match to all that expertise and experience. And to me, that’s a really sad thing.”

    Source link