Tag: News

  • Religious Freedom as a Defense for DEI?

    Religious Freedom as a Defense for DEI?

    Last month, amid a Trump administration broadside against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, government officials took aim at Georgetown University’s law school.

    “It has come to my attention reliably that Georgetown Law School continues to teach DEI. This is unacceptable,” interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin wrote in a letter.

    Martin announced he had launched “an inquiry into this” and asked Georgetown law school officials, “If DEI is found in your courses or teaching in anyway [sic], will you move swiftly to remove it?” He added that students and others “affiliated with a law school or university” that “continues to teach and utilize DEI” would not be hired “for our fellows program, our summer internship” or other jobs.

    Martin’s letter, which was sent on Feb. 17 and quickly became public, prompted shock and outrage, with many observers noting that it was a clear affront to First Amendment rights at Georgetown. It also drew a quick—and pointed—response from the law school.

    Georgetown Law dean William Treanor invoked both the First Amendment and the tenets of Catholic faith in his March 6 response to Martin, noting that the government cannot control curriculum.

    “As a Catholic and Jesuit institution, Georgetown University was founded on the principle that serious and sustained discourse among people of different faiths, cultures, and beliefs promotes intellectual, ethical, and spiritual understanding,” Treanor wrote in a response that soon spread online. “For us at Georgetown, this principle is a moral and educational imperative. It is a principle that defines our mission as a Catholic and Jesuit institution.”

    Given that multiple institutions have already complied with Trump directives to unwind DEI initiatives, despite numerous outstanding legal questions, Treanor’s response stood out as an uncommon example of a university holding its ground. It also raised a unique question for religiously affiliated institutions: Does religious freedom offer a defense against Trump’s attacks on DEI efforts?

    A Faith-Based Defense for DEI

    It might. For decades, faith-based colleges and universities have cited religious freedom in decrying federal meddling in their policies and practices.

    Some institutions have argued in drawn-out legal battles that they’re exempt from federal rules that chafe against tenets of their faith, such as strictures related to gender and sexual orientation. They’ve similarly asserted in court that whom they hire or fire is within their theological purview. Such legal cases often revolve around the concept of church autonomy doctrine, a legal principle protecting the rights of religious institutions to govern themselves—including their internal operations.

    Now, as Treanor’s letter suggests, the same argument could prove a powerful tool for pushing back against the onslaught of anti-DEI directives coming out of the Trump administration. Religious institutions that view diversity, equity and inclusion as core to their faith missions arguably have a layer of legal protection to defend DEI initiatives that their secular peers do not. They could also ostensibly challenge anti-DEI orders in court on religious freedom grounds at a time when the U.S. Supreme Court has displayed a warm disposition toward religious issues.

    “It’s not an unreasonable argument,” said Charles Russo, Joseph Panzer Chair in Education and research professor of law at the University of Dayton, a Catholic—but not Jesuit—institution in Ohio. He emphasized that he was speaking on his own behalf, not the university’s.

    Church autonomy doctrine is based on the idea that “we have the right to run our institutions consistent with what our beliefs are, and we don’t need people from the outside coming out telling us what we believe,” he added. Most DEI efforts are “certainly consistent with Christian values … to help the underprivileged, the downtrodden, the most in need.”

    Jesuit colleges and universities, such as Georgetown, seem the most likely to consider venturing into this legal battleground, given the religious order’s emphasis on social causes. Many Catholic colleges—and Jesuit institutions in particular—were founded to serve burgeoning Catholic immigrant populations. In recent years, Jesuits founded several new institutions designed explicitly to support low-income students; those colleges, like Arrupe College in Chicago, have emphasized efforts to enroll and retain students from underrepresented groups.

    But even if some Jesuit institutions do view DEI as central to their faith, it remains to be seen whether they’re willing to call on their religious identities to fight for it.

    What Religious Colleges Said

    They’re certainly not keen to do so publicly.

    Of the 27 Jesuit universities that Inside Higher Ed contacted for this story, only two responded by deadline. Fordham University declined to comment, while Seattle University sent a link to a past statement from President Eduardo M. Peñalver that noted the institution “does not plan to make any immediate operational changes in response to [a Feb. 14 Dear Colleague letter] and will await new regulations or formal administrative guidance.” He added that resulting guidance will be studied carefully and the university will “either comply in a manner consistent with our Jesuit Catholic values … or—if that proves impossible—consider other legal avenues.”

    The Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities is also treading carefully.

    “The member institutions of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities share a mission based on long-standing Catholic religious beliefs and values in the Jesuit traditions, which affirm the equal dignity of every human being and of the human family in all its diversity. As noted by the dean of Georgetown Law, we are all ‘founded on the principle that serious and sustained discourse among people of different faiths, cultures and beliefs promotes intellectual, ethical and spiritual understanding,’” an AJCU spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed by email.

    AJCU did not answer specific questions sent by Inside Higher Ed.

    Raymond Plaza, director of Santa Clara University’s Office for Diversity and Inclusion and chair of AJCU’s Diversity and Equity Network, offered a defense of DEI initiatives. Speaking in his personal capacity, Plaza argued that DEI work has been deliberately misconstrued by its critics.

    “DEI is not about divisions or separation, it’s about how can I create a space where people can be their authentic selves and thrive?” Plaza said. “It’s not that this group thrives while the other one doesn’t.”

    He emphasized the need to create an environment where all students feel welcome. “At the end of the day, it’s really about how we build community on our campuses,” Plaza said.

    A review of university DEI pages shows that many Jesuit institutions cite their religious beliefs in support of such initiatives. Some emphasize social justice and inclusion as tenets of their faith.

    “Inspired by the Catholic and Jesuit tradition, our community believes that every human being is a profound gift of God, deserving of both dignity and opportunity,” Creighton University’s website reads. “We thus strive to acknowledge and celebrate diversity at Creighton—building equitable, inclusive, welcoming spaces and relationships that are required for every person to thrive.”

    Some institutions even note their antiracism efforts.

    “At LMU, the goal of diversity, equity, and inclusion is to actively cultivate an anti-racist institutional climate that supports inclusive excellence and fights systemic oppression,” Loyola Marymount University’s website reads, adding that such values are “intrinsic” to their mission.

    But other Jesuit universities appear to have backtracked in the face of Trump’s attacks on DEI.

    The University of Scranton, for example, overhauled its DEI page in recent weeks, removing references to systemic racism and the “historically unfair and unjust treatment of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color,” according to an archived page available on the Wayback Machine.

    Le Moyne University also removed BIPOC references, identity-based resources and an “oath of diversity and inclusion” from its DEI page, an archive on the Wayback Machine shows. Le Moyne officials also told the student newspaper that the university is considering changing the name of its Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging office due to federal attacks on DEI efforts.

    An Untested Strategy

    Just because Jesuit institutions aren’t openly using religious freedom as a rationale for preserving DEI, it doesn’t mean the idea is without merit, legal and Catholic higher ed scholars say.

    Russo hasn’t seen any religious college call on its faith mission to defend DEI in court—at least not yet. While the idea is “floating around out there, it has not yet made much of a judicial splash,” he said.

    Still, he believes it’s a plausible legal argument that could receive a “strong reception” in the Supreme Court, provided colleges aren’t defending practices that directly butt up against the court’s ruling on race-conscious admissions. He believes the overall message of Treanor’s letter to Martin is “on the mark.”

    “I don’t think anybody would disagree that helping those most in need, however we describe that, is consistent with Christian values,” Russo said.

    Donna Carroll, president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, agreed equity is a “mission-critical commitment” for most Catholic higher ed institutions.

    “For Catholic colleges and universities, DEI work is a long-held expression of mission and of the Catholic social teaching that anchors it—including a commitment to the dignity of each person, a solidarity with the vulnerable and less advantaged, and a care for the common good,” Carroll wrote to Inside Higher Ed. “All this is foundational to who we are, what and how we teach, and the services that we provide.”

    She sees Martin’s inquiry into Georgetown Law School as a disturbing challenge to academic freedom but isn’t sure if there’s a “threshold that might trigger concern about religious freedom” for Catholic institutions.

    “With so much uncertainty, it is hard to say,” she said. “And such a determination would require sectorwide discussion.”

    Source link

  • The Coalitions We Need to Defend Open Inquiry (opinion)

    The Coalitions We Need to Defend Open Inquiry (opinion)

    For the last few years, many colleges and universities across the country have experienced firsthand attacks on higher education through state legislation targeting diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Since 2023, about 120 anti-DEI bills have been introduced across 29 states, and 15 of them have become law.

    These proposed bills and enacted legislation have largely been met with silence from university leaders. But over the past month, as attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion policies rose to the federal level via multiple executive orders and a Dear Colleague letter from the Department of Education, a broad coalition—professional associations in higher education, labor organizations, civil rights groups and elected officials—has filed numerous federal lawsuits challenging their constitutionality, including at least four suits involving educational organizations as plaintiffs. By taking legal action and securing a preliminary injunction against two of the executive orders, these coalitions are breaking the silence of recent years to send a clear message about the legality and harmful consequences of these policy changes for higher education and society.

    As scholars who examine how the law shapes educational policy and organizations, we have closely studied the consequences of anti-DEI bills on faculty members who engage in the very topics implicated by these laws. We’ve learned that these bills restrict research and teaching protected by academic freedom before they’re even enacted. Unintentionally or not, silence from institutional leaders contributes to the suppression.

    To counter this climate of suppression and protect the robust exchange of ideas and open inquiry, we must embrace coalitions like the ones behind the federal lawsuits and urge higher education leaders to unite and speak out to uphold institutional missions and safeguard our democracy.

    Why Silence Does Not Work—and Makes Matters Worse

    In our recently published study, we interviewed 32 faculty members whose research or teaching focused on race at two public institutions in different Republican-controlled states with proposed anti-DEI, anti–critical race theory and anti-tenure bills. Even before these bills took effect—and despite exemptions for research and teaching—we found that many faculty members pre-emptively altered their work in response to the external interference.

    Some removed diversity-related course readings or avoided certain terms like “intersectionality” in their teaching. Others, like Kourtney, a Black tenured faculty member, hesitated to share their research publicly, fearing harassment if it got into the wrong hands. Kourtney described how previously she would disseminate her research widely to make an impact. But now, out of fear, she was more reserved and cautious when sharing her work as to not get “on the radar [of] anyone that could potentially try to stop” her research.

    We also learned that the actions—or lack thereof—of university leaders shaped faculty members’ responses. University leaders’ silence amplified the pressures proposed legislation created. Danielle, a Black tenured faculty member, explained how silence from institutional leaders made “everything harder” and “sent a really loud and clear message” of “not supporting me.” The “glaring silence,” as participants called it, from senior leaders and college deans heightened uncertainty and anxiety, leaving many faculty members feeling isolated and solely responsible for protecting their rights under academic freedom.

    Yet not all university leaders were silent. Some faculty members in our study had supportive college deans and department chairs who conveyed affirmative internal messages. These participants reported that such messages helped them feel supported, empowered and confident in continuing their teaching and research without compromise. Wilson and Michelle both expressed that messages from their deans, messages that emphasized valuing faculty expertise and a commitment to scholarship addressing inequities, made them “feel at the college level like you’re protected” and reinforced their belief in “having academic freedom to be able to teach.”

    It is understandable that leaders hesitate to speak out, given the risk of losing state funding or their jobs. In fact, many faculty members we spoke to, like Megan, understood the challenging circumstances and empathized with their college deans. Megan recalled her college dean saying, “We don’t agree with [the bill], but let’s wait it out. Trying to … draw attention will be worse. Let’s keep our head down.” However, their silence also created a critical void. Cruz, a Latino tenured faculty member, explained how “not saying anything is just as bad, because then the only conclusion that the faculty take … is ‘we’re on our own out here.’”

    As a result, many faculty members of color undertook additional administrative work and legislative advocacy efforts as private citizens to be able to carry on with their research and teaching, making it increasingly difficult for them to advance their careers. Cruz shared how all this additional work and advocacy was “time that they’re not doing scholarship, that they’re not writing grants, that they’re not updating their classes.” For some, the frustration and exhaustion became so overwhelming that they chose to leave their institutions, or higher education entirely.

    Why Coalitions Are Needed to Break the Silence

    Our findings also revealed that support from coalitions of civil rights groups, advocacy organizations and professional associations like the American Association of University Professors helped some faculty members to resist the pressure to change their teaching or research. These groups organized teach-ins virtually or on campus, provided legislative analysis via one-pagers and facilitated legislative organizing efforts.

    Eliot, a white tenured faculty member, described how these coalitions helped foster “some unity,” making “a real difference psychologically” by ensuring members no longer felt isolated but instead felt that “we’re in this together.” By building collective capacity, these coalitions empowered faculty members to defend academic freedom and push back against a climate of suppression—particularly as most participants in our study received little to no guidance or support from university leaders.

    Now, faculty members across the country—many of whom are only beginning to face these challenges—find themselves overwhelmed with uncertainty and fear, pressured to pre-emptively censor their work. However, we’re starting to see the emergence of the coalitions needed to disrupt this climate of suppression.

    The recent lawsuits mark an important step in the defense of robust expression of ideas and open inquiry, but they are just the beginning. Effectively challenging this suppression requires a united front of policy and advocacy organizations, civil rights groups, unions, professional associations, and institutional leaders. Leaders are better positioned to advocate for higher education and respond to emerging threats when working within a coalition, such as Education for All, which has been providing training sessions and strategic guidance to help institutions safeguard their student success programs.

    These coalitions provide crucial support on the ground to help faculty members, administrators and students continue their work while the legal battles unfold. And they can help break institutional silence by offering timely, research-driven guidance on state legislation, executive orders and other emerging state and federal threats—many of which pressure education professionals to unnecessarily restrict or abandon core principles and programs in higher education.

    Jackie Pedota, Ph.D., is a postdoctoral associate at the University of Texas at Austin. Her research examines topics within higher education at the intersection of race, power and organizational change, revealing how organizational dynamics and sociopolitical contexts perpetuate inequities for minoritized campus communities.

    Liliana M. Garces, J.D., Ed.D., is the Ken McIntyre Professor for Excellence in School Leadership at the University of Texas at Austin. Her research examines how law and education policy interact to shape access and opportunity in higher education.

    Source link

  • “AI-Empowered” Site Accuses Yale Scholar of Terrorism Connection

    “AI-Empowered” Site Accuses Yale Scholar of Terrorism Connection

    Yale University suspended an instructor after a news site powered by artificial intelligence accused her of being part of a terrorist group, The New York Times reported.

    The news site, Jewish Onliner, said that the scholar was connected to Samidoun, a pro-Palestinian organization that the United States government has labeled a terrorist organization. Jewish Onliner said Helyeh Doutaghi, who is an associate research scholar at Yale and deputy director at Yale Law School’s Law and Political Economy Project, spoke on panels at events sponsored by Samidoun, according to the Times.

    Doutaghi told the Times that she’s not part “of any organization that would constitute a violation of U.S. law.” Yale put Doutaghi on administrative leave last week and barred her from campus. In a statement to the Times, Yale officials said they take the allegations seriously and are investigating.

    Jewish Onliner bills itself as an “AI-empowered, trusted online hub for insights, actionable intelligence, exposés, and essential updates about issues impacting the Jewish community worldwide,” according to its Substack page. The organization told the Times that humans, not AI, make the final edits on stories.

    Source link

  • Johns Hopkins Plans for Layoffs Amid $800M Cut to Federal Grants

    Johns Hopkins Plans for Layoffs Amid $800M Cut to Federal Grants

    Johns Hopkins University is planning for staff layoffs after the Trump administration canceled $800 million in U.S. Agency for International Development grants for the Baltimore-based institution, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

    The grants supported a variety of health-related initiatives overseen by Johns Hopkins, including a breastfeeding support project in Baltimore and mosquito-net programs in Mozambique.

    The foreign aid agency was one of the first targets of the Trump administration’s crusade against alleged widespread “waste, fraud and abuse” of federal funding. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said earlier this week that he’s purged 83 percent of USAID’s programs and the remaining contracts will be administered by the U.S. Department of State.

    The $800 million in cuts comes on top of another $200 million Johns Hopkins stands to lose if the National Institutes of Health succeeds in capping indirect research costs at 15 percent. Johns Hopkins is among numerous universities, states and other organizations that have sued the National Institutes of Health over the plan to limit research funding, which a federal judge has temporarily blocked.

    “At this time, we have little choice but to reduce some of our work in response to the slowing and stopping of grants and to adjust to an evolving legal landscape,” JHU president Ronald Daniels wrote in a letter to campus, according to The Baltimore Banner. “There are difficult moments before us, with impacts to budgets, personnel, and programs. Some will take time to fully understand and address; others will happen more quickly.”

    Such drastic cuts to Johns Hopkins—the nation’s largest spender on research and development and the biggest private employer in Baltimore—will reverberate far beyond the campus itself.

    “Johns Hopkins has bet very heavily on a century and a quarter of partnership with the federal government,” Theodore Iwashyna, a JHU critical care physician who is currently overseeing an NIH grant studying at-home care for pneumonia patients, told the Journal. “If the federal government decides it doesn’t want to know things anymore, that would be bad for Johns Hopkins and devastating for Maryland.”

    Source link

  • Study Shows Positive Mental Health for HBCU Students

    Study Shows Positive Mental Health for HBCU Students

    Students at historically Black colleges and universities and predominantly Black institutions are happier and feel a greater sense of belonging, on average, than both Black students at small, predominantly white institutions and college students over all, according to a new report commissioned by the United Negro College Fund.

    The report, “Community, Culture and Care: A Cross-Institutional Analysis of Mental Health Among HBCU and PBI Students,” utilized findings from two years’ worth of data from the Healthy Minds Study, a large annual survey of college students nationwide, to create what the researchers believe is the most comprehensive analysis to date of HBCU and PBI students’ mental health.

    “HBCUs have a long tradition of being centers of excellence and academic achievement,” said Akilah Patterson, the lead researcher on the study and a Ph.D. candidate in the University of Michigan’s Department of Health Behavior and Health Equity. “But this work also highlights that HBCUs are much more than that. They’re cultivating an environment of affirmation and belonging and support.”

    Among the study’s sample of HBCU and PBI students, 45 percent demonstrated positive mental health according to the Flourishing Scale, a series of eight statements—such as “I am a good person and live a good life”—that are used to determine whether a respondent is “flourishing” mentally. The three statements most commonly selected by students in the sample were “I am a good person and live a good life,” “I actively contribute to the happiness and well-being of others,” and “I am confident and capable in the activities that are important to me.”

    Meanwhile, only 36 percent of college students in general and 38 percent of Black students at PWIs indicated positive mental health. HBCU and PBI students also reported lower rates of anxiety, depression and eating disorders than college students broadly.

    HBCU and PBI students also demonstrated a greater sense of belonging on campus, with 83 percent agreeing with the statement “I see myself as part of the campus community,” while 73 percent of all Healthy Minds respondents said the same. High numbers of HBCU and PBI students reported having close connections with others on campus; 54 percent said they have a social group or community where they feel they belong, and 60 percent said they have friends “with whom I can share my thoughts and feelings.”

    Serena Butler-Johnson, the director of the counseling center at the University of the District of Columbia, a public HBCU, said that those findings seem especially noteworthy as mental health professionals increasingly warn of the dangers of loneliness and isolation, which have been associated with physical harms, like increased risk of stroke. Vivek Murthy, the U.S. surgeon general under former president Joe Biden, declared loneliness a public health emergency in 2023, calling community and connection its “antidotes.”

    Butler-Johnson also noted that the findings tie in with the field of Black psychology, which focuses on Black people’s lives, history and experiences.

    “Black psychology emphasizes community, connection, rituals, traditions, which are all very much part of an HBCU experience, whether it’s homecoming or stepping or band,” she said. “Just in general, the concept of Black psychology is mirrored in the findings.”

    Though the findings did not necessarily show causation between the high rates of belonging and the other positive mental health outcomes of HBCU and PBI students, previous research has linked a sense of belonging with high academic achievement and mental well-being.

    Mental Health Concerns

    Despite the mostly positive findings, the sample did report higher rates of suicidal ideation among HBCU and PBI students (17 percent) than the general student population (14 percent). It also highlighted two areas of stress for many HBCU and PBI students: financial instability and, despite feeling high rates of belonging on their campuses, loneliness. The respondents experienced similar levels of stress (56 percent) to the national sample (55 percent) but higher rates of financial stress; 52 percent said they are always or often stressed about finances, compared to 43 percent of the national sample.

    Butler-Johnson said that HBCUs should take extra steps “outside of the four walls of the therapy room” to address these issues; at UDC, that has included opening a new Office of Advocacy and Student Support, which partners with the counseling center to connect students with financial assistance and case management. UDC’s counseling center also offers informal, nonclinical group meetings where students can drop in and talk with others, no paperwork required, as a way to address loneliness.

    Another concerning finding: HBCU and PBI students with mental health challenges are significantly less likely to receive mental health support than Black students at PWIs and students over all. The report notes that this could be due to those institutions having fewer resources, leading to less availability of clinicians on campus. The perceived stigma of going to therapy could be a factor as well; while only 8 percent of respondents said they would judge someone else for getting treatment—slightly above the national rate of 6 percent—52 percent said they feared they would be judged if they sought out treatment. That’s 11 percentage points higher than the national sample.

    Patterson said these findings indicate that HBCUs and PBIs are doing an incredibly successful job supporting students’ mental well-being despite barriers like lack of resources and concerns about stigma. And while she said many HBCU students can benefit from traditional counseling, the results indicate that it’s also important to recognize that therapy is “not the be-all, end-all” of mental health support on HBCU campuses.

    “Knowing and providing multiple options for all students is really important,” she said.

    Source link

  • The Leadership Skills Presidents Need Right Now: The Key

    The Leadership Skills Presidents Need Right Now: The Key

    As college presidents face increasing scrutiny from state and national lawmakers, building a strong cabinet-level team is critical, according to Jorge Burmicky, assistant professor in education leadership and policy studies in the School of Education at Howard University.

    Burmicky is one of three researchers who identified the core competencies of the modern college presidency. In a recent episode of The Key, Inside Higher Ed’s news and analysis podcast, Burmicky noted, “There’s always been a lot of pressure to be a college president, but it really has become an impossible job.” 

    A new leader’s ability to assemble a strong team as soon as they start the job will help fill gaps in their individual skill sets, he said. “It’s not if an emergency happens—it’s when it happens, and you have to have a good team that is going to have your back that you trust and can help you in those areas where you don’t feel as confident.”

    College presidents rated trustworthiness as the most important competency for effective leadership in higher education; however, students surveyed for Inside Higher Ed’s annual Student Voice survey ranked presidents among the least trusted people on their campus. 

    Burmicky isn’t surprised by this gap between presidents’ intentions and students’ perceptions. “Presidents work really hard to build trust, and you would think that because they’re working so hard and they value it so greatly that we would see a narrower difference,” he said. “But the reality is that so much of the communication that goes to different constituents varies. We’re in an era when students really want to understand what’s happening right now.” 

    Blame for structural issues that are beyond the president’s control—like the botched FAFSA rollout—often falls at the feet of presidents and other institutional leaders, Burmicky added. “There’s clearly a lot of resentment.” 

    Students are just one group of constituents college presidents must build trust with, however. Declining trust in higher education in general is one of Burmicky’s biggest concerns for the sector. Better communicating how institutions operate would help address public distrust, he said. 

    “We like to point fingers at the president, but the reality is there are [more people] than just the president who make decisions at a university—there’s also the Board of Trustees or the Board of Regents.”

    Listen to the full interview between Jorge Burmicky and Sara Custer, editor in chief at Inside Higher Ed, and find more episodes of The Key here.

    Source link

  • Trump’s Columbia Cuts Start Hitting Postdocs, Professors

    Trump’s Columbia Cuts Start Hitting Postdocs, Professors

    When the Trump administration announced Friday it was cutting about $400 million in grants and contracts from Columbia University, it didn’t specify what exactly it was slashing. But news of the scope of the cuts has begun trickling out of the institution over the past couple of days.

    So far, much of the information about the canceled grants has come via social media, as neither the Trump administration nor the university have provided a comprehensive accounting of what’s being cut. The National Institutes of Health did say earlier this week that it was pulling more than $250 million in grants from Columbia, though the agency wouldn’t share more details. And it’s hard to tell whether specific cuts are part of the $400 million or a continuation of the Trump administration’s general national reduction of federal funding to universities, such as axing grants it deems related to diversity, equity and inclusion.

    On Tuesday, Joshua A. Gordon, chair of the university’s psychiatry department, emailed colleagues to tell them the National Institutes of Health had terminated nearly 30 percent of grants to Columbia’s medical school—including many within his own department.

    “All of our training grants and many fellowships have been terminated,” Gordon wrote in the email, which a postdoctoral research fellow provided Inside Higher Ed.

    Gordon wrote that he’s still working with university administrators “to find out the full extent of these terminations” and that “the institution is committed to identifying the resources that can be brought to bear to support the people and projects affected by the terminations.” He added, “We remain dedicated to ensuring that our trainees and early-career scientists have the support needed to continue their work and achieve their career goals.”

    The Trump administration said this unprecedented $400 million cut was due to Columbia’s “continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” More cuts at Columbia and other universities could follow as Trump follows through on his pledge to crack down on alleged antisemitism and punish elite universities. Columbia has more than $5 billion in federal grants and contracts.

    Columbia postdocs and faculty have taken to social media to announce canceled grants, fellowships and funding for Ph.D. students, showing some of the individual impacts on people and research wrought by the Trump administration’s actions. They include nixed training for researchers of depression and schizophrenia and a grant that would’ve provided free mental health resources to K-12 students.

    Sam Seidman, a postdoc and a steward for the Columbia Postdoctoral Workers union, told Inside Higher Ed that, “as a Jew,” it’s “particularly outrageous” to hear the Trump administration justifying the cuts by saying it’s fighting antisemitism.

    Seidman said he found out Monday that his T32 grant, an NIH training fellowship for new scientists, had been canceled. “I certainly don’t feel protected,” he said.

    He said it’s clear the Trump administration doesn’t have an issue with antisemitism or even with Columbia specifically. Its issue, Seidman said, is with “public funding of science and it’s with public funding, period,” adding that “Columbia makes a convenient scapegoat.”

    In an emailed statement, a Columbia Irving Medical Center spokesperson said, “Columbia is in the process of reviewing notices and cannot confirm how many grant cancellations have been received from federal agencies” since Friday.

    The spokesperson said, “We remain dedicated to our mission to advance lifesaving research and pledge to work with the federal government to restore Columbia’s federal funding.”

    In a separate statement Wednesday, interim president Katrina Armstrong, herself a medical doctor, didn’t mention the cuts and instead said she stands by broad principles such as “intellectual freedom” and “personal responsibility.”

    “I have no doubt that the days and weeks ahead are going to be extremely difficult,” Armstrong said. “The best I can promise is that I will never stray from these principles and that I will work tirelessly to defend our remarkable, singular institution.”

    Marcel Agüeros, secretary of Columbia’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said, “It’s already looking very grim.”

    Agüeros said it’s a slow process to try to understand how the cuts are affecting such a large and decentralized university. But he said he has learned “it’s not just the kind of classic lab-based biomedical research that’s being impacted.”

    Like Seidman, he said the cuts don’t seem to be about the grants themselves or Columbia. Instead, Agüeros said, it’s “an assault on universities in general” and the concept of peer review that the grants went through.

    “It’s coming for you; it doesn’t really matter where you are or what you research,” Agüeros said

    Cut Off at the Knees

    In its Wednesday statement, the university medical center said that “from pioneering cancer treatments to innovative heart disease interventions and cutting-edge gene and cell therapies, research conducted by Columbia faculty has helped countless people live healthier, longer and more productive lives.”

    Seidman said his NIH grant was for research on family and biological risk factors that predispose kids to develop eating disorders, depression and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. He thinks university higher-ups are trying to find alternative funding but “haven’t been any more specific than ‘we’re looking.’”

    “It’s tragic, I mean these are lifesaving, potentially, interventions,” Seidman said. Yet the researchers developing them have been “cut off at the knees,” he said.

    Gordon Petty, a postdoc in Columbia’s psychiatry department, said his T32 training grant, which has also been canceled, was to study schizophrenia. He said he heard that the department is still dedicated to supporting him, “but it’s unclear where that money’s coming from.”

    Trump’s cuts appear to have also hit Teachers College of Columbia University, which is a separate higher education institution from Columbia with its own board. But it’s unclear if that’s part of the $400 million cut for allegedly not properly addressing antisemitism or part of nationwide cuts to grants perceived as being related to diversity, equity and inclusion. A Teachers College spokesperson said, “We are still sorting through the full impact on the college and will be in touch when we have more to say.”

    Prerna Arora, an associate professor of psychology and education at Teachers College, said she got an email Friday from a deputy assistant U.S. education secretary announcing the cancellation of a five-year Education Department grant. Arora said most of the funds went directly to graduate students training to become K-12 school psychologists serving children in New York City.

    The email, according to Arora, alleged that the grant funded “programs that promote or take part in initiatives that unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or another protected characteristic” or that “violate either the letter or purpose of federal civil rights law” or “conflict with the department’s policy of prioritizing merit, fairness and excellence in education.”

    “We already have students that are funded under this, and they are at the university and we are in the middle of our admissions cycle for next year,” Arora said. She said, “I’ve spoken to very scared and tearful students” who are afraid of what this means for their training and “for their future.”

    And, beyond the impact on college students, Arora lamented the loss of the grant’s free help to K-12 students and families. “We could’ve helped many children who need this,” she said.

    It’s unclear whether the Trump administration will restore the grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said after the announcement Friday that she had a “productive” meeting with Armstrong. Meanwhile, Columbia said in a statement that it’s “committed to working with the federal government to address their legitimate concerns.”

    Agüeros, with the AAUP, said Columbia has already “gone overboard in an attempt to silence any kind of dissent.” Its previous president called in the New York Police Department to remove a pro-Palestinian protest encampment last spring and publicly criticized and revealed investigations into her own faculty in front of Congress.

    “There’s this assumption that if we just go along with things we’ll escape somehow unscathed,” Agüeros said. But he noted the cuts still arrived.

    “What did all of that get us—all of the sort of compliance that was put in place? It got us nothing.”

    Source link

  • Columbia On Edge Following ICE’s Arrest of Former Student

    Columbia On Edge Following ICE’s Arrest of Former Student

    Columbia University remained on edge Wednesday following the Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a green card–holding recent graduate who helped lead the pro-Palestinian protests that roiled the campus last spring. A federal judge in New York ruled Tuesday that Khalil could not be deported, but following a procedural hearing on Wednesday, the judge said he will remain in ICE custody in Louisiana for now, CNN reported.

    Hundreds of people took to the streets of Manhattan to protest Khalil’s detention; police arrested 12 protesters outside City Hall Park Tuesday night, charging 11 with disorderly conduct, The New York Daily News reported.

    Meanwhile, faculty at Columbia warned other student protesters to be careful. Stuart Karle, a First Amendment lawyer and adjunct professor at Columbia Journalism School, advised students who are not U.S. citizens to avoid publishing opinions that could attract the attention of the Trump administration, The New York Times reported.

    “If you have a social media page, make sure it is not filled with commentary on the Middle East,” he told students and faculty gathered in Pulitzer Hall.

    “Nobody can protect you,” journalism school dean Jelani Cobb added, according to the Times. “These are dangerous times.”

    During a news briefing Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the Trump administration was using intelligence gathered by the Department of Homeland Security to identify people who participated in campus protests, CNN reported. She accused Columbia of holding back information.

    “Columbia University has been given the names of other individuals who have engaged in pro-Hamas activity, and they are refusing to help DHS identify those individuals on campus,” Leavitt said. “As the president said very strongly in his statement yesterday, he is not going to tolerate that and we expect all of America’s colleges and universities to comply with this administration’s policy.”

    Last week, the Trump administration canceled $400 million in grants and contracts over what it claimed was Columbia’s “continued inaction” and failure to protect Jewish students.

    Columbia’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong, released a statement Wednesday reiterating her guiding principles. She wrote, “A great institution, and particularly a great university, depends upon an unwavering commitment to following fair and just processes, no matter the internal and external pressures.”

    Source link

  • Intimidating abridgments and political stunts — First Amendment News 461

    Intimidating abridgments and political stunts — First Amendment News 461

    “This proceeding is a political stunt.”

    Those were the words with which FIRE Chief Counsel Robert Corn-Revere (joined by FIRE General Counsel Ronnie London and FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley) submitted comments on behalf of FIRE to the Federal Communications Commission concerning a complaint by the Center for American Rights.

    Such “political stunts” have become more the norm with the Trump administration. Consider, for example, the recent crazy letter by Trump’s interim U.S. attorney Edward R. Martin, Jr., in which he tried to intimidate the dean of Georgetown Law School by saying that if the school continued to teach DEI, his office would not hire their students. Or consider the bizarre attempt by the Social Security Administration’s acting commissioner to change Maine’s Social Security requirements because their governor criticized Trump. 

    As to the Center for American Rights’ FCC complaint, it alleged “news distortion” by CBS Broadcasting when it assertedly edited the news program 60 Minutes “to such a great extent” that the “public cannot know what answer . . . Vice President [Kamala Harris] actually gave to a question of great importance.”

    The FCC had originally dismissed the complaint because the center failed to make a viable allegation of “intentional” or “deliberate” falsification, as opposed to merely an editorial judgment protected under the First Amendment.

    Nonetheless, on Jan. 20, the FCC seated Trump-appointed Chairman Brendan Carr, and two days later the FCC reinstated the center’s complaint and then invited public comments. 

    It is against that backdrop that Corn-Revere and his colleagues, acting on behalf of FIRE, offered their comments.

    Below are a few of the statements set out in FIRE’s poignant comments on the FCC matter:

    Public comments and the legitimate scope of the Commission’s enforcement authority:

    FIRE . . . seeks to ensure the FCC does not exceed the scope of its authority in encroaching on broadcasters’ journalistic decisions. . . The general public is not a “party” to enforcement proceedings, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1202(d)(1)(iii), and generally lacks standing in such matters. 

    Then what is the point of all this? By seeking public comment, is the Commission seriously asking viewers and listeners, along with politically energized partisans, to “vote” on whether they think CBS’s editorial choices ran afoul of FCC policies? Any such submissions are meaningless in helping the agency decide whether CBS violated any policies or what remedies might lie.

    The commission’s attempt to regulate editorial judgments:

    [B]ecause this proceeding focuses entirely on a news program’s editorial judgment, it runs headlong into the elementary rule that the right to “free speech [and] a free press…may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

    Using the law to pressure CBS:

    Bottom line, the Commission’s request for public comment lacks any legitimate regulatory rationale, but its realpolitik purpose is sadly transparent. This proceeding is designed to exert maximum political leverage on the CBS network at a time when President Trump is engaged in frivolous litigation against it over the same 60 Minutes broadcast, with the FCC using other regulatory approvals the network needs to exert added pressure.”

    An unconstitutional use of regulatory power:

    This is not just unseemly, it is precisely the sort of unconstitutional abuse of regulatory authority the Supreme Court unanimously condemned in NRA v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175 (2024). The Court held that regulators violate the First Amendment when they use their official powers over certain transactions in ways designed “to suppress the speech of organizations that they have no direct control over.”

    And then, with historical accuracy and legal acumen, Corn-Revere, London, and Creeley tendered a powerful point (emphasis added and notes omitted):

    There is a name for this kind of thing — it is called a show trial. When proceedings become a performative exercise conducted to further a political purpose, they forfeit any claim to legitimacy. Show trials tend to be retributive rather than corrective and are designed to send a message, not just to their unfortunate victims, but as a warning to other would-be transgressors. There is a dark and deadly history of such showcase proceedings in authoritarian regimes around the world, ranging from Stalin’s purges of perceived political opponents to China’s trials of “rioters and counterrevolutionaries” after the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. In our own country, similar tactics were employed during the Red Scare with investigations and hearings aptly described by the Chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities as “the best show the committee has had yet.” Those who staged the proceedings “were not seeking justice but staging a show trial to accuse, indict, and punish.” And while the stakes of a sham FCC proceeding obviously differ, the perversion of the rule of law is the same.

    Note

    Corn-Revere was a legal adviser to FCC Commissioner James H. Quello from 1990 to 1993 and was Chief Counsel while Quello was interim chair of the FCC in 1993. Among other works, he is the editor of the 1997 book “Rationales & Rationalizations: Regulating the Electronic Media.”

    Beyond stunts

    In all of this, it is important to emphasize a critical point: It is not partisan to speak out against authoritarianism. It is vital.

    Furthermore, and as the poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti (a strong defender of free speech) put it in his book “Poetry as an Insurgent Art”:

    Governments lie. The voice of the government
    is often not the voice of the people. 
    Speak up. Act out. Silence is complicity.

    What we are witnessing in the first weeks of the Trump administration is more than intimidating political stunts; it is the start of the serial suppression of free speech. See, for example, Michelle Goldberg’s piece in The New York Times, “This Is the Greatest Threat to Free Speech Since the Red Scare,” in which she writes that “a government [so] willing to disregard the First Amendment is a danger to us all.”

    I will say more about this general point in a future post. Meanwhile, next week I will post another installment of professor Timothy Zick’s “Executive Watch.”

    Trump v. CBS update

    Thomas C. Riney

    Thomas C. Riney (lead counsel for defendants)

    Argument

    1. The Lanham Act And The DTPA Do Not And Could Not, Consistent With The First Amendment Apply To Editorial Speech Like The Broadcasts At Issue
      1. Editorial Speech About Public Officials During An Election Enjoys Maximum First Amendment Protection 
      2. Consistent With The First Amendment, The Lanham Act And The DTPA Extend Only To Commercial Speech 
      3. The FTN And 60 Minutes Broadcasts Are Indisputably Editorial, Not Commercial, Speech
    2. Plaintiffs Fail To Plead Article III Standing 
    3. President Trump Fails To Plead A Lanham Act Claim
    4. Plaintiffs Fail To Plead A DTPA Claim

    Revenge Storm: ‘Chill all the lawyers’

    • G.S. Hans, “Trump’s Attacks On Law Firms Are Borrowed From Some Pretty Famous Despots,” Balls and Strikes (March 10)

    Threatening lawyers and legal organizations remains a classic from the despot’s playbook. Letting these orders stand without robust opposition — such as lawsuits from the affected firms, media statements from their leaders, and advocacy from similarly situated law firms — merely makes it easier for this administration to continue to stomp on less prominent targets.

    Ronnie London on the Trump administration’s directive to impose court costs on rights litigants

    FIRE general counsel Ronnie London

    FIRE General Counsel Ronnie London

    A new White House directive to heads of executive departments and agencies threatens to make it prohibitively expensive for Americans to defend the Constitution in court. The memo “directs” the departments and agencies to “demand” that courts make those seeking injunctions against federal actions “cover the costs . . . incurred if the Government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined.”

    The move could not be more transparent in attempting to scare off potential litigants challenging executive orders or other federal actions of questionable constitutionality.

    The White House deems this necessary because “activist organizations” are supposedly “inserting themselves into the executive policy making process” and have “obtained sweeping injunctions.” The administration claims Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates security bonds for all preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders to protect against the prospect of a later judicial ruling that the defendant was improperly enjoined.

    But this is misleading. That literal reading of the rule may make sense in the mine-run of private disputes, like claims in commercial contexts. But courts have long recognized exceptions for public-interest litigation, especially when it comes to those seeking to protect constitutional rights. In other words, “activist groups” like FIRE and the clients we proudly defend.

    David Cole on self-censorship

    David Cole ACLU Legal Director

    Former ACLU Legal Director David Cole

    The Trump administration’s attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in higher education has many college administrators running scared. The Chronicle of Higher Education, which is tracking DEI changes, has already identified forty-one campuses that have altered or dismantled their programs since Inauguration Day. The University of North Carolina ordered all its colleges to remove DEI-related courses from its requirements for specific majors or general education. The University of Alaska will not use the terms “diversity,” “equity,” or “inclusion” in any communications. Columbia “removed diversity, equity, and inclusion policy language from several of its websites.” Northwestern’s business school “removed a diversity, equity, and inclusion pathway from its MBA program.” Vanderbilt “took down its Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion page, which now redirects to ‘You at VU.’” And on Friday, the University of Virginia governing board voted to end all DEI at the state’s flagship school.

    Yet not a single one of these changes was necessary. This is self-censorship. It’s what Trump wants — but it’s not what either his executive order or federal law requires. Clarifying that confusion is essential as more colleges plan their response to Trump’s attack. But so is a little courage on the part of college administrators.

    Executive Watch

    New cert. grant on ‘conversion therapy’ case  

    • Chiles v. Salazar: Issue: Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

    John Bursch (Counsel of Record, Alliance Defending Freedom)

    [T]he Supreme Court granted certiorari in Chiles v. Salazar, a First Amendment challenge to a Colorado law that prohibits so-called “conversion therapy” for minors. At issue is whether this is a permissible regulation of professional conduct or a viewpoint-based restriction on speech (with potential religious liberty implications as well). This will almost certainly be one of the most watched (and potentially most controversial) cases of next term.

    Cert denied in college reporting bias case

    • Speech First, Inc. v. Whitten: Issue: Whether university bias-response teams — official entities that solicit anonymous reports of bias, track them, investigate them, ask to meet with the perpetrators, and threaten to refer students for formal discipline — objectively chill students’ speech under the First Amendment.

    Related

    The Supreme Court said March 3 it wouldn’t hear a challenge from conservative college students who say their freedom of speech is violated by a university program for reporting allegations of bias. Two of the nine justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, publicly said they would have heard the case.”)

    Primate speech: PETA’s First Amendment complaint

    The case is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. National Institute of Mental Health (Dist. Ct., MD, March 6, 2025). The lead lawyer for the Plaintiff is Laura Handman. 

    Laura Handman

    Laura Handman (Counsel for Plaintiff)

    Below are a few excerpts from the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland:

    This lawsuit seeks to enforce the fundamental first amendment right of Plaintiff, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. (PETA), to receive, without censorship or interference, communications from fellow primates, imprisoned and tortured in the laboratory of Elisabeth Murray, PhD, at the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Maryland.

    The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides PETA a right to receive communications from willing speakers. This right exists regardless of whether the speakers themselves possess First Amendment rights. The First Amendment also protects nonverbal communications as speech.

    PETA engages in extensive news gathering and reporting activities as part of its charitable animal protection mission. This includes substantial investigation and reporting on the plight of animals subject to experimentation, including specifically the deprivations and injuries inflicted on the captive rhesus macaques in Murray’s NIMH laboratory. This Circuit has applied first amendment protections to PETA’s new gathering activities.

    News gathering serves a particularly powerful function under the First Amendment when seeking access to incarcerated beings whose voices are otherwise silenced, to ascertain information about their conditions.

    The captive rhesus macaques, including but not limited to Beamish, Sam Smith, Nick Nack, and Cersi in Murray’s NIMH laboratory are willing speakers under the First Amendment, regularly communicating about their physical and psychological pain and suffering through vocalizations, facial expressions, head and limb movements, body postures, and stereotypical behavior, indicating anxiety and depression (including pacing, rocking, pulling out their hair, and biting their flesh).

    [ . . . ]

    PETA has a right to receive those communications in real time directly from the rhesus macaques and to report the information received to the American people in order to inform the public discourse on the highly controversial and much criticized issue of government funded experiments on animals. Without these communications, the public will remain inadequately informed about the circumstances of their fellow primates.

    This lawsuit follows the Defendants’ refusal of PETA’s August 5, 2024 written request for reasonable, uncensored, and unedited access to a live streamed audiovisual feed of the rhesus macaques in Murray’s laboratory in order to receive the macaques’ communications and exercise its first right to listen. Defendants also refused PETA’s offer in this letter to cooperate in devising and the alternative means for PETA to meaningfully access the macaques’ communication in real time without government interference [citations omitted]. 

    New scholarly article: Abrams, et al, on the press clause

    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 (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

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 460: “James Goodale on Trump: ‘He’d sue everybody . . . in the media business’ and their ‘response has been pathetic’”

    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

  • Why many men feel lost in an age of shifting roles and expectations

    Why many men feel lost in an age of shifting roles and expectations

    A friend recently argued compellingly that two major gaps in the Harris campaign strategy affected voter turnout and engagement: a reluctance to acknowledge policy shortcomings and a failure to address the specific needs of men, particularly working-class men and those in communities of color. These gaps represent missed opportunities to connect with voters who feel overlooked and underserved.

    Many noncollege men today are navigating economic hardship and social isolation, grappling with precarious work and shifting social expectations. In a world that often emphasizes adaptability and academic success, the message they hear is clear: They should have worked harder, been more flexible or chosen a different path. 

    Yet this message can feel dismissive—more moralizing and patronizing than empathetic—ignoring the broader economic and structural challenges these men face. The decline of jobs in traditional industries, limited access to meaningful work and a diminished sense of purpose have fostered a profound sense of alienation where mainstream political narratives simply don’t resonate.

    Broader cultural shifts compound these issues. Traditional male roles have eroded, leaving many men feeling marginalized and uncertain, struggling to navigate changing gender expectations. Many also experience personal isolation, strained relationships and limited social support, adding to a sense of being stuck without clear solutions.

    While the Harris campaign frequently highlighted issues affecting women and promoted family-centered policies, it lacked a narrative that could directly address working-class men’s distinct challenges. The focus was often on broad achievements and visions rather than a targeted response to the real, often invisible, struggles these men face.

    As my friend put this, “With her (proper) advocacy for reproductive rights, Harris already had the women’s vote, and the hard-core Democratic base are never-Trumpers whom they wouldn’t lose, no matter what else her campaign said. But instead of talking concrete policies that address where she was about to lose large numbers of (potentially persuadable) voters, Harris and her proxies talked about ‘joy’ and ‘helping the guy sitting next to you’—in short, to remain polite and appeal to upper-middle class tastes.”

    By overlooking a direct appeal to men dealing with economic, social and personal challenges, the campaign missed a critical opportunity to engage with and support a population that increasingly feels unseen and left behind.

    The erosion of traditional male roles—breadwinner, family leader, protector—has left many men grappling with identity, isolation and a profound sense of purpose. As society evolves, these long-standing markers of masculinity have lost relevance, especially for working-class men who once found dignity and respect in roles that aligned with hard work, family provision and community involvement.

    Now, as economic and cultural shifts reshape these roles, many men are struggling to find a path forward, a reality that not only affects them but impacts the broader social fabric.

    This identity crisis reflects a broader issue: As traditional definitions of masculinity are increasingly challenged, men are left with fewer frameworks for meaningful contributions to family, work and community. The fading emphasis on male-led provision and protection has led to a vacuum where isolation and frustration often take root. Without clear societal pathways that respect both historical contributions and evolving social needs, men can feel left behind, unsure of how to participate in a society that often seems to have moved beyond their previous roles.

    To address this crisis, society must reimagine male roles in ways that offer respect, purpose and connection. Only by acknowledging the disintegration of traditional frameworks and creating new, healthier pathways can we guide men toward meaningful identities. This means valuing male contributions not only in economic terms but also in terms of their relational and communal roles. Reintegration into family, work and community as valued members demands that we redefine what it means to be a man in today’s world—placing dignity, contribution and connection at the forefront.

    In an era where masculinity itself is under re-evaluation, it’s essential to shape new definitions that honor both the past and present. Men today need roles that allow them to thrive within evolving social landscapes, where they can build connections and be respected for contributions beyond traditional parameters. Only by doing so can we address the underlying causes of alienation, providing men with a renewed sense of purpose in a society that, with the right approach, can benefit immensely from their reimagined roles.

    Addressing the challenges that many men face is not about overlooking or minimizing the very real struggles women continue to confront. Recognizing one group’s needs does not diminish the other’s; rather, it broadens our capacity to understand and support everyone more fully. Just as society benefits when women’s voices are heard, it also strengthens when we address the unique struggles that many men experience in today’s world. This inclusive approach allows us to tackle challenges holistically, building a society that values and supports each person’s dignity, purpose and place.

    The alienation felt by many men today reflects a profound shift in the economic, demographic and cultural landscape of American life. These changes have created a reality for a large group of men—often isolated, lonely, frustrated and angry. In this demographic, men frequently find themselves without the traditional anchors of family, stable friendships or secure employment. As society has evolved, these men increasingly feel disrespected or dismissed, disconnected from the structures that once provided support, identity and a sense of purpose.

    The economic landscape for men, particularly those without a college degree, has changed dramatically over the last few decades. The decline of traditional industries, such as manufacturing, construction and mining, has resulted in the disappearance of millions of stable, well-paying jobs. These industries were not only sources of economic stability but also providers of identity and community. For many men, especially those who entered the workforce in the 1980s and 1990s, job loss has meant not just an economic setback but a disruption in their sense of self-worth and purpose.

    As these traditional industries shrank, the economy pivoted to sectors like technology, health care and the service industry—fields that often emphasize educational attainment, interpersonal skills and adaptability. Many men who once relied on stable blue-collar jobs have struggled to transition to these new fields, either due to a lack of qualifications or because the roles simply don’t align with the values and identities they were raised with. As a result, these men experience economic precarity, often living paycheck to paycheck, juggling temporary or part-time work without benefits, or relying on the gig economy, which lacks the long-term stability they might have expected earlier in life.

    The rise of “kinless America” has compounded the problem of economic insecurity, leading to a broader crisis of social disconnection. In the United States, rates of marriage have declined significantly and divorce rates remain high. For men, divorce and separation often mean loss of regular contact with children, limited social networks and, sometimes, an emotional isolation that they struggle to overcome.

    Marriage and family life once provided social stability, companionship and a sense of purpose. Without these connections, many men find themselves living alone or in shared, temporary arrangements, removed from the grounding influence of family. For those who are also economically disadvantaged, the struggle to form new partnerships or social networks can be insurmountable, leaving them largely kinless and isolated.

    This demographic shift affects friendships, too. Research shows that men, more than women, often depend on their partners to maintain social ties and that they struggle to form friendships as adults. As such, unpartnered men frequently end up in a kind of social desert, with few meaningful connections to rely on for emotional support or companionship.

    Cultural shifts have further deepened this sense of alienation. Over recent decades, there has been a growing emphasis on individual achievement and self-realization, sometimes at the expense of communal identity and traditional values. While this shift has empowered many, it has also led to the devaluation of certain traditional roles that many men historically occupied. Traits associated with traditional masculinity, such as stoicism, physical labor or even traditional provider roles, are sometimes framed as outdated or even “toxic,” leaving some men feeling that their core values and sense of identity are now stigmatized.

    Furthermore, as cultural narratives around gender have evolved, men who do not or cannot align with these new expectations often feel marginalized or invisible. Messages around the importance of academic achievement and professional success can leave those who have struggled to meet these expectations feeling dismissed or left behind.

    Adding to this sense of disrespect is the rise of social media and a culture of comparison, where it can feel as though one’s successes or failures are on display for public scrutiny. Men who feel they don’t measure up may withdraw even further, reinforcing their isolation and frustration. For those experiencing economic precarity or relationship struggles, these messages compound an existing sense of inadequacy.

    These changes have left many men feeling disconnected from their families, their communities and their traditional roles. For many working-class men, in particular, these economic and social shifts can lead to a crisis of identity, with few alternative sources of meaning or recognition to replace the roles they once filled. Lacking the dignity they once found in hard but honorable work, many now worry they are being dismissed as “losers” or that their labor is undervalued.

    This shift often translates into feelings of anger, shame and frustration. Without clear avenues for expressing or resolving these feelings, some men may withdraw, becoming more isolated and resentful.

    The isolation, loneliness and frustration felt by these men manifest in various ways, including higher rates of mental health issues, substance abuse and even suicide. Data shows that men, particularly middle-aged men, have some of the highest rates of suicide in the United States, and they are also disproportionately affected by the opioid crisis. Lacking strong social support systems, they often fall through the cracks of mental health and social services, either because they lack the resources or because they feel stigmatized in seeking help.

    Politically, this alienation can drive disenchantment with mainstream narratives and established institutions. Many feel overlooked or even disrespected by a society they perceive as indifferent to their struggles. As a result, some turn to populist figures who channel their frustrations, adopting hypermasculine postures that seem to defy what they view as a culture overly critical of traditional masculinity. They are often receptive to leaders who emphasize strength, defiance of convention and a willingness to challenge norms—qualities that appear to stand in opposition to the mainstream culture they feel has rejected or devalued them. Political rhetoric that champions the “forgotten man” resonates deeply with these individuals, promising to restore the dignity and respect they feel has been taken from them.

    Gender antagonism has surged due to a complex mix of economic, social and cultural changes that have disrupted traditional roles, heightened insecurities and polarized public discourse.

    With the decline of traditionally male-dominated industries and growth in service sectors, many men face economic insecurity, disrupting the breadwinner role that historically provided identity and respect. Meanwhile, women’s increased workforce participation challenges traditional male roles, creating frustration and resentment as economic stability and established identities shift.

    As expectations for equal partnerships grow, many men raised with conventional norms feel unprepared for these shifts. New dynamics around independence and equity can fuel misunderstandings, alienation and resentment, especially when traditional gender expectations clash with modern relationship ideals.

    Increased awareness of issues like misogyny and toxic masculinity has led to critiques that some men feel unfairly target their identities. Misunderstandings around terms like “toxic masculinity” can foster defensiveness, as positive models for masculinity are often lacking in these discussions.

    Social media amplifies divisive, adversarial portrayals of gender, reinforcing stereotypes and fostering resentment. Gender issues have also become politicized, making nuanced conversations difficult and polarizing gender dynamics further.

    Traditional gender roles are evolving quickly, leading to identity crises as qualities like stoicism or assertiveness are redefined. Without inclusive pathways to navigate these changes, many feel insecure or alienated, fueling tension.

    Social isolation, especially among men, has intensified, with limited support systems leading to loneliness and resentment. Emphasis on victimhood narratives also fuels a “competition of grievances,” as men’s economic and social struggles seem to compete with women’s issues, leading to mutual resentment.

    What is the path forward?

    To address the rising sense of alienation among American men and reduce gender antagonism, we need practical solutions that validate their experiences, offer purpose and foster constructive engagement. This isn’t solely about economic or demographic shifts; it requires holistic policies and social initiatives that support men’s economic stability, familial roles and community involvement without condescension.

    1. Economic stability and accessible upskilling. Policies that support well-paying, stable jobs, especially in trades and skilled labor, can help restore pride and purpose. Expanding accessible training—through apprenticeships, vocational programs and targeted certifications—can revitalize pathways to economic self-sufficiency and respect. Higher education, particularly community colleges, can play a vital role, but they must adopt practical, flexible models that allow working men and women to balance existing responsibilities with upskilling opportunities. Here are some strategies:
    • Employer partnerships for on-the-job training: Colleges can work with local industries to design programs that meet workforce needs and offer on-site training, allowing employees to earn while they learn.
    • Affordable, results-oriented programs: Expanding low-cost programs that focus on high-demand skills provides a clear incentive for workers to invest their time, with direct connections to jobs, salary increases and career advancement.
    • Mentorship and career support: Programs that connect students with mentors who have successfully upskilled can offer both guidance and motivation, especially for those hesitant about returning to school.
    • Enhanced job placement and counseling services: Colleges can offer support in aligning new skills with market demands, ensuring students can quickly apply their skills to new roles or promotions.
    • Skills-based certifications in growth sectors: Short-term certifications in fields like cybersecurity, skilled trades and advanced manufacturing can appeal to workers by providing clear pathways to better jobs.

    Higher education must provide clear, realistic pathways to secure employment, with affordable, high-quality vocational training and credentialing programs that align tightly with job market needs.

    1. Supporting fathers and family involvement. Fostering men’s roles as fathers, particularly those separated from their children, is essential. Legal reforms that promote equitable custody arrangements, along with targeted support for single fathers, can help men stay actively involved in family life. Programs offering parental counseling and father-centered parenting classes can restore purpose and fulfillment, reducing feelings of alienation from loved ones.
    2. Building community and combating isolation. To address social isolation, we need community spaces where men can forge friendships and feel connected. Initiatives centered on shared activities—such as sports leagues, volunteer groups or veterans’ organizations—offer valuable opportunities for camaraderie, helping men form supportive networks and reinforcing a sense of belonging and social cohesion.
    3. Recognizing and celebrating men’s contributions. Society benefits from recognizing men’s contributions through mentorship, craftsmanship, coaching and community leadership. Programs that emphasize these roles and celebrate male contributions can help men find renewed purpose in positive, community-oriented activities. Acknowledging these contributions adds value to society without diminishing other forms of progress.
    4. Addressing gender antagonism with understanding. Reducing gender antagonism requires an approach that acknowledges the unique challenges men and women face without casting all men as insensitive or prone to toxic traits. Public discourse should address specific actions or attitudes within their contexts rather than implying these are inherent in all men. Media portrayals that reinforce negative stereotypes about masculinity need to be challenged. Inclusive narratives that recognize both men’s and women’s struggles and contributions foster empathy, helping bridge divides rather than deepen them.
    5. Embracing shared human values. Many core values—compassion, respect, integrity, resilience—are universal. Shifting our focus from gendered virtues to shared human qualities can foster unity and mutual respect, emphasizing individual strengths over rigid gender norms.

    The erosion of traditional male roles has left many men feeling adrift, disconnected from the sources of pride and identity that once defined them. Only by acknowledging these challenges and investing in creative solutions that restore economic stability, respect, connection, meaning and purpose can we create a healthier, more balanced and respectful society for all.

    Steven Mintz is professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin and the author, most recently, of The Learning-Centered University: Making College a More Developmental, Transformational and Equitable Experience.

    Source link