Tag: News

  • The hypocrisy of community-engaged research (opinion)

    The hypocrisy of community-engaged research (opinion)

    Any critique about the neoliberal university ought to confront and acknowledge its colonial roots. Victoria Reyes, in her book Academic Outsider (Stanford University Press, 2022), highlights that higher education was never designed for the global majority, particularly people of color from low-income backgrounds. It was built by and for the elite—predominantly white, cisgender, male and affluent individuals—whose privilege shaped the norms that dominate higher education today. These norms actively harm oppressed communities. People of color in positions of power within higher education, such as tenured faculty or administrators, often perpetuate these systems of oppression when they conform to institutional norms instead of challenging them.

    The positivist research paradigm (a.k.a. positivism) sustains oppression in academia by prioritizing quantifiable data while dismissing subjective experiences and social contexts in pursuit of “objective” truths. This fragmented approach erases the complexity of lived experiences and ignores the interplay of privilege and oppression in shaping identities. Positivism fuels deficit-based research, white saviorism and helicopter science, invalidating diverse epistemologies and methodologies. Deficit-based research highlights negative conditions in oppressed communities, framing them as lacking while ignoring systemic causes of inequities, such as settler colonialism and structural racism. Legacies of positivism reinforce harmful stereotypes and stigmatization toward communities of color in higher education.

    In contrast, a transformative paradigm offers an alternative to positivism by centering the voices and experiences of oppressed communities. It prioritizes knowledge democracy and dismantling of power imbalances that have historically excluded marginalized communities from the research process. Over the past 25 years, community-engaged research (CEnR) and community-based participatory research (CBPR) have emerged as crucial approaches in health education, public health and the social sciences to address social inequities. Both approaches emphasize equitable, reciprocal community-academic partnerships, to foster genuine collaboration and systemic change.

    As a woman of color from the Global South and an immigrant scientist who studies health equity, I have witnessed firsthand both the transformative potential of CEnR in addressing social injustice and the discriminatory practices that neoliberal universities perpetuate in my own research with low-income and immigrant communities of color. While CEnR and CBPR are integral to addressing complex health and social inequities by empowering communities and fostering sustainable interventions, a question remains: Can these approaches thrive within the neoliberal university?

    White Saviorism and the Neoliberal University

    Unfortunately, the rise of CEnR within neoliberal universities, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, was driven not by a genuine shift toward equity, but by a desire for funding and institutional prestige. As Megan Snider Bailey notes, “Market forces … shape university-community partnerships,” reinforcing a colonial mindset rooted in the white savior complex. This complex positions universities as gatekeepers of resources and legitimacy, exploiting oppressed communities under the appearance of “helping” them to secure funding from entities like the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

    The white savior complex describes privileged individuals, often white, who see themselves as “saviors” or “benevolent rescuers” of oppressed communities. This paternalistic mindset creates exploitative dynamics and replicates patterns of subjugation. For instance, universities often profit significantly from research with oppressed communities, taking up to 50 percent of grant funds as indirect costs for expenses such as facility maintenance and administration. These funds rarely return to the communities that need them most. Instead, universities divert these resources to maintain their own operations, exposing the hypocrisy of institutions that claim to support equity and justice. These exploitative practices raise a critical question: Who benefits the most from the oppression and illness of communities of color?

    The answer often points back to the universities themselves. They profit from the appearance of equity while perpetuating social injustice. The harm caused by white saviorism extends beyond finances. Transactional and extractive research methods are normalized in the neoliberal university. These methods reinforce patterns of subjugation and undermine long-term partnerships that could foster social justice and radical healing. As scholars have shown, a human-centered, liberatory approach must replace the transactional and extractive methods often associated with white supremacy and settler colonialism.

    Precarity in the Academy

    Universities that claim to promote social justice and CEnR often perpetuate exploitative practices and precarious working conditions. They frequently hire community leaders, promotoras de salud (community health workers), students and scholars of color on short-term contracts with little job security and no benefits. These precarious positions create dependency on higher institutions that exploit labor while controlling access to resources.

    As Anne Cafer and Meagen Rosenthal explain, moral outrage often drives short-term involvement in community projects. CEnR that fails to address inequitable power dynamics becomes another tool of oppression disguised as allyship. Superficial, performative community-academic partnerships deepen mistrust of academic institutions in oppressed communities and reinforce power dynamics and social injustice.

    Raquel Wright-Mair and Samuel Museus highlight how academia’s power hierarchies instill a fear of retaliation, silencing junior scholars of color from challenging systemic inequities. Scholars of color are often forced to align their work with institutional goals while sickening their bodies and damaging their mental health. The market-driven model of the neoliberal university prioritizes profits and productivity, limiting justice-oriented research. To address these issues in higher education, we must ask urgent questions:

    • What can we do to dismantle white-led initiatives that perpetuate dependence and subjugation?
    • How can institutions eliminate the white savior complex embedded in their structures?
    • How can we ensure fair calculation of indirect costs in CEnR that prevent the exploitation of community needs for grant funding and institutional prestige?

    Recommendations for Conducting Respectful and Liberatory CEnR

    The neoliberal university perpetuates the white savior complex, commodifies community needs and exploits people of color through short-term appointments designed to maintain systemic inequities. Therefore, it is pivotal to embrace the liberatory nature of CEnR that prioritizes social justice and structural change.

    • Transformative practices. Researchers must critically reflect on how their own positionality and privilege influence the liberation or oppression of marginalized communities. Universities must recognize and amplify the expertise of community members in shaping research agendas and outcomes. Furthermore, institutions must actively embrace linguistic justice and culturally relevant methods, respecting the languages, traditions and cultural contexts of the communities they engage. By prioritizing these practices, institutions can foster decolonial, respectful and inclusive collaborations that effectively challenge and dismantle oppressive systems in higher education.
    • Accountability is essential. Funding agencies must prioritize equitable representation and tangible benefits for communities over superficial metrics when evaluating CEnR. Neoliberal universities must stop exploiting community researchers and scholars of color through precarious, short-term appointments that reinforce tokenization and systemic inequities. Universities often hire people of color temporarily to build trust for community-academic partnerships while maintaining the overrepresentation of white faculty. To disrupt this cycle, funding agencies must require universities to intentionally hire and retain leaders, scholars and students from oppressed communities, ensuring they have job security. Empowering these voices permits CEnR to address community-specific needs, build local infrastructure and foster authentic partnerships rooted in equity, respect and shared power, dismantling the traditional hierarchies of academic research.
    • Rejecting unpaid labor is nonnegotiable. Unpaid labor perpetuates inequities, exploiting oppressed communities. Ethical CEnR demands equitable compensation, collaboration and empowerment, ensuring all participants are treated with dignity and are compensated fairly. These principles are critical to advancing liberation and driving systemic change.

    Advancing CEnR that truly serves oppressed communities requires dismantling the colonial, patriarchal and exploitative structures underpinning higher education. Embracing a transformative paradigm prioritizes genuine representation, community needs and liberation over market-driven motives, creating a model for lasting social change and liberation in an increasingly inequitable world.

    Source link

  • Roundup of select spring university press titles (opinion)

    Roundup of select spring university press titles (opinion)

    Johns Hopkins University Press/MIT Press/University Press of Kentucky/Duke University Press/Princeton University Press/University of Minnesota Press/University of California Press

    More catalogs from university presses started arriving almost immediately after the last roundup of spring titles appeared—and in going through them, a couple of topical clusters of books struck me as notable. Here is a quick overview. Quoted passages come from material provided by the publishers.

    What do ant colonies, online subcultures, the publishing industry and the device you are using to read this all have in common? Each is, in some sense, a network embedded in still wider networks. They, like myriad other phenomena, can be depicted in geometric diagrams in which the components of a system (“vertices”) are connected by lines (“edges”) representing interactions or relationships.

    Researchers across many disciplines understand how systems and processes can be conceptualized as networks. The lay public, on the whole, does not. Anthony Bonato’s Dots and Lines: Hidden Networks in Social Media, AI, and Nature (Hopkins University Press, May) aims to bring nonspecialist readers up to speed on elements of the network perspective. Everything from “Bitcoin transactions to neural connections” and “political landscapes to climate patterns” can be mapped via dots and lines. The author’s use of demotic labels seems well-advised, given that “Vertices and Edges” seems much less commercially viable as a title.

    Some networks make it a priority to remain diagrammable, of course. Isak Ladegaard’s Open Secrecy: How Technology Empowers the Digital Underworld (University of California Press, May) looks into the “military-grade encryption, rerouting software, and cryptocurrencies” enabling “shadowy groups to organize collective action.” Examples include dark-web markets for illegal drugs, the activities of online hate groups and the efforts of Chinese citizens to remain connected to parts of the internet blocked by the Great Firewall. In each case, those running stealth networks “move through cyberspace like digital nomads, often with law enforcement and other powerful actors on their tails.”

    Leif Weatherby’s Language Machines: Cultural AI and the End of Remainder Humanism (University of Minnesota Press, June) offers “a new theory of meaning in language and computation” applicable to the production of texts by artificial intelligence based on large language models.

    Generative AI “does not simulate cognition, as widely believed,” he argues, “but rather creates culture” instead of just shuffling together fragments of it. (This is perhaps as good an occasion as any to issue my prediction that 2025 will see the first best-selling novel written by an AI algorithm.)

    On an altogether more dire note, Daniel Oberhaus’s The Silicon Shrink: How Artificial Intelligence Made the World an Asylum (MIT Press, February) warns that the use of AI in psychiatry has shown “vanishingly little evidence” of improving patient outcomes. The problem is not one of engineering but of programming: The algorithms incorporate “deeply flawed psychiatric models of mental disorder at unprecedented scale,” posing “significant risks to vulnerable people.”

    In old-school psychodynamic therapy, what’s said during the consultation does not leave the room. The author warns that a “psychiatric surveillance economy” is emerging, one “in which the emotions, behavior, and cognition of everyday people are subtly manipulated by psychologically savvy algorithms.”

    Doubling down on a strictly defined and vigilantly enforced understanding of sex and gender as binary is high on the MAGA cultural agenda. A few books out this spring insist on the ambiguities and complexities, even so.

    Agustín Fuentes offers perhaps the most basic challenge to traditional assumptions with Sex Is a Spectrum: The Biological Limits of the Binary (Princeton University Press, May). Arguing on the basis of recent scientific research, the book “explain[s] why the binary view of the sexes is fundamentally flawed,” with “compelling evidence from the fossil and archaeological record that attests to the diversity of our ancestors’ sexual bonds, gender roles, and family and community structures.”

    The ability to survive and thrive in unwelcoming circumstances is a focus of the writings collected in To Belong Here: A New Generation of Queer, Trans, and Two-Spirit Appalachian Writers (University Press of Kentucky, April), edited by Rae Garringer. The term “two-spirit” refers to a nonbinary gender category recognized among some Indigenous peoples in North America. Contributors discuss “themes of erasure, environmentalism, violence, kinship, racism, Indigeneity, queer love, and trans liberation” in Appalachia, exploring “the writers’ resilience in reconciling their complex and often contradictory connections to home.”

    Transgender philosophy is covered at some length in an entry recently added to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Talia Mae Bettcher, whose work figures prominently in the entry’s bibliography, continues her work in the field with Beyond Personhood (University of Minnesota Press, March), presenting “a theory of intimacy and distance” that proposes “an entirely new philosophical approach to trans experience, trans oppression, gender dysphoria, and the relationship between gender and identity.”

    Engineering and programming enter transgender studies’ already interdisciplinary ambit with Oliver L. Haimson’s Trans Technologies (MIT Press, February), which draws on the author’s “in-depth interviews with more than 100 creators of technology” for trans people, showing “how trans people often must rely on community, technology, and the combination of the two to meet their basic needs and challenges.” From the book’s description and the author’s published articles, it seems that the technology in question tends to be digital: social networks, games, extended reality systems (akin to virtual reality but with additional capacities). The book also considers the factors shaping, and in some cases restricting, innovation in trans tech.

    To close this list, there’s The Dream of a Common Movement (Duke University Press, April), a collection of writings by and interviews with Urvashi Vaid (1958–2022) edited by Jyotsna Vaid and Amy Hoffman. Urvashi Vaid was a feminist and a civil rights advocate whose work “over the course of four decades fundamentally shaped the LGBTQ movement.” Her perspective that “the goal of any liberation movement should be transformation, not assimilation” seems compatible with an older principle, which holds that an injury to one is an injury to all.

    Scott McLemee is Inside Higher Ed’s “Intellectual Affairs” columnist. He was a contributing editor at Lingua Franca magazine and a senior writer at The Chronicle of Higher Education before joining Inside Higher Ed in 2005.

    Source link

  • Media on the run: A sign of things to come in Trump times? — First Amendment News 451

    Media on the run: A sign of things to come in Trump times? — First Amendment News 451

    “[There is a] deeply troubling notion that anyone who dares to report unfavorable facts about a presidential candidate is engaged in ‘sabotage’ (as opposed to, say, contributing to the free exchange of information and ideas that makes our democracy possible).” – David McCraw (New York Times lawyer)

    While some liberals are busy pissing in the free speech pot with their PC campus cancel culture campaigns, some conservatives do likewise with their compliant support of Trump’s anti-free speech crusade.

    Mind you, this is not any equivalence dodge but rather further proof of Nat Hentoff’s damnatory maxim, “free speech for me — but not for thee.” 

    I continue to be amazed by the fact that so many so-called free speech supporters in the conservative and even libertarian camps are cowardly silent when Trump and his sycophantic serfs (e.g., his Attorney General candidate) make it abundantly clear that they intend to wage censorial war on their political opponents.

    ABC’s $15 million+ settlement

    Before I say more about anti-free speech Trumpsters, let me say a few words about ABC’s $15 million settlement (replete with an apology and another $1 million for attorneys’ fees) in the Trump defamation case involving George Stephanopoulos. ABC News agreed to pay that amount toward Donald Trump’s presidential library.

    Warranted or not, ABC’s settlement has drawn criticism. For example:

    Alejandro Brito, lawyer for Donald Trump.
    • Joyce Vance: “I’m old enough to remember — and to have worked on — cases where newspapers vigorously defended themselves against defamation cases instead of folding before the defendant was even deposed. . . . That, by the way, includes defamation cases brought by candidates for the presidency.”
    • Stephen Rohde: “I think the reasoning behind Judge Altonaga’s denial of ABC’s Motion to Dismiss was flawed and ABC should have sought appellate review before paying Trump’s non-existent ‘Presidential Library’ $15 million and his lawyers another $1 million. I think on the witness stand Stephanopoulos would have impressed the jury that he genuinely believed the defamation verdict meant that Trump had raped Carroll. Even before it got to the jury, ABC would have had a good motion for a nonsuit under NYT v Sullivan that Trump failed to prove Stephanopoulos subjectively possessed ‘knowledge of falsity’ or acted in ‘reckless disregard of the truth.’ And ABC’s lawyers would have a field day cross-examining Trump on his entire sordid past in order to show that his reputation as a sexual abuser, liar, and convicted felon was hardly damaged by this one broadcast.”

    Five possible reasons for ABC’s settlement

    Though ABC was represented by Nathan Siegel and Elizabeth McNamara (Davis Wright Tremaine), it is well to remember that while settlement agreements can be those urged by counsel, they are ultimately decided by the client even if their counsel urges otherwise. In other words, in the Trump case, counsel and client may have agreed on settling or disagreed, and the client’s wishes prevailed. However that might be, the following reasons might explain why ABC opted to settle:

    1. Fear of what discovery might reveal: Here, the concern would have to do with the possibility of making public damning e-mails or other communications that showed an animus towards Trump and/or a certain recklessness in how ABC conducted itself.
    2. Desire to shield Stephanopolous from deposition and/or cross-examination at trial: The concern here may have been that Stephanopolous might be dangerously vulnerable during discovery or at trial when pressed by Trump’s lawyer (Alejandro Brito).
    3. Fear of a potential hostile Florida jury: Trying a case before a South Florida jury could be dangerous given the possibility of sympathy towards Trump and/or the possibility of Dominion-sized damages (unlikely though still possible). 
    4. Best time to settle: After U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid ordered Trump to be deposed, ABC might have figured that this was the best time to cut a deal with the plaintiff and cut its losses.
    5. Desire to placate Trump moving forward: Here, fear of retribution going forward might have also played a role in ABC’s decision to settle.

    Going forward: Media on the run

    While not compliant in duplicitous ways, some in the media world are nonetheless guarded in how to proceed in Trump times.

    For example, “The news media is heading into this next administration with its eyes open,” said Bruce Brown, executive director of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press. “Some challenges to the free press may be overt, some may be more subtle,” Brown said. “We’ll need to be prepared for rapid response as well as long campaigns to protect our rights — and to remember that our most important audiences are the courts and the public.”

    That said, consider the following:

    1. Libel Lawsuits on the rise: “During the presidential campaign, Trump sued CBS News [for $10 million] for the way it edited an interview with opponent Kamala Harris. At his news conference, Trump said he was expecting to file a lawsuit against the Des Moines Register in Iowa for publishing results of a poll shortly before the election that suddenly had him behind Harris. He said that amounted to ‘fraud and election interference.’”

    UPDATE: Graham Kates, “Trump sues Des Moines Register over poll, promises more lawsuits against news outlets after ABC News settlement,” CBS News (Dec. 17)

    1. Licensing Threats: “Over the past several weeks, lawyers for Mr. Trump and two of his most high-profile nominees — Pete Hegseth, the potential defense secretary, and Kash Patel, whom Mr. Trump has picked to run the F.B.I. — warned journalists and others of defamation lawsuits for what they had said or written.”

    See also: Jon Brodkin, “Trump FCC chair wants to revoke broadcast licenses—the 1st Amendment might stop him,” Ars Technica, (Dec. 17):

    “Look, the law is very clear,” Brendan Carr [Trump’s pick for the FCC] told CNBC on Dec. 6. “The Communications Act says you have to operate in the public interest. And if you don’t, yes, one of the consequences is potentially losing your license. And of course, that’s on the table. I mean, look, broadcast licenses are not sacred cows.” Carr has said his FCC will take a close look at a complaint regarding a CBS 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris before the election. Trump criticized the editing of the interview and said that “CBS should lose its license.”

    [ . . . ]

    The Carr FCC and Trump administration “can hassle the living daylights out of broadcasters or other media outlets in annoying ways,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, who is senior counselor for the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society.

    1. Seizing Journalists’ Records: “News organizations are worried that a Justice Department policy that has generally prohibited prosecutors from seizing the records of journalists in order to investigate leaks will be reversed, and are already urging journalists to protect their work. ‘If you have something you don’t want to share with a broader audience, don’t put it on the cloud,’ ProPublica’s [Jesse] Engelberg said.”
    2. Ending Support for Public Radio and TV: “Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana recently introduced a bill that would end taxpayer funding for public radio and television, a longtime goal of many Republicans that may get momentum with the party back in power.”
    3. Testing the Boundaries of Current Defamation Law: “‘There’s been a pattern and practice for the past couple of years of using defamation litigation as a tactic to harass or test the boundary of case law,’ said Ms. [Elizabeth] McNamara, who represented ABC News and Mr. Stephanopoulos but was speaking in general.”

    See also: Angel Eduardo, “Why New York Times v. Sullivan matters more than ever,” FIRE (March 7, 2023):

    There have been numerous bids for the Supreme Court to overrule the Sullivan decision, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have both expressed a willingness to revisit it. Politicians from former President Donald Trump to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis have publicly attacked the Sullivan decision and its underlying arguments, and Florida state legislator Alex Andrade filed a bill in February 2023 designed to effectively overturn it.

    1. Currying favor with Trump: A recent New York Times headline says much: “In Display of Fealty, Tech Industry Curries Favor with Trump.” That seems to be the trend:

    The $1 million donations came gradually — and then all at once.

    Meta. Amazon. OpenAI’s Sam Altman. Each of these Silicon Valley companies or their leaders promised to support President-elect Donald J. Trump’s inaugural committee with seven-figure checks over the past week, often accompanied by a pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago to bend the knee.

    The procession of tech leaders who traveled to hobnob with Mr. Trump face-to-face included Sundar Pichai, Google’s chief executive, and Sergey Brin, a Google founder, who together dined with Mr. Trump on Thursday. Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive, shared a meal with Mr. Trump on Friday. And Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, planned to meet with Mr. Trump in the next few days. 

    [ . . . ]

    With their donations, visits and comments, they joined a party that has already raged for a month, as a cohort of influential Silicon Valley billionaires, led by Elon Musk, began running parts of Mr. Trump’s transition after endorsing him in the campaign.

    See also: “List of Tech Companies That Donated to Trump’s Inaugural Fund,” Newsweek (Dec. 13)

    Related

    TikTok takes its case to Supreme Court

    A group of TikTok users filed a separate application on Monday afternoon, also asking the court to block enforcement of the law.

    Social media giant TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, on Monday asked the justices to block a federal law that would require TikTok to shut down in the United States unless ByteDance can sell off the U.S. company by Jan. 19. Unless the justices intervene, the companies argued in a 41-page filing, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.”

    The request came three days after a federal appeals court in Washington turned down a request to put the law on hold to give TikTok time to seek review in the Supreme Court. A panel made up of judges appointed by Presidents Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Ronald Reagan explained that the companies were effectively seeking to delay “the date selected by Congress to put its chosen policies into effect” — particularly when Congress and the president had made the “deliberate choice” to “set a firm 270-day clock,” with the possibility of only one 90-day extension.

    Congress enacted the law, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, earlier this year, and President Joe Biden signed it on April 24. The law identifies China and three other countries as “foreign adversaries” of the United States and bans the use of apps controlled by those countries.

    TikTok, which has roughly 170 million users in the United States and more than a billion worldwide, ByteDance, and others filed challenges to the law in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

    Related

    Oklahoma Settlement protects journalists’ right to cover education officials

    Oklahoma City, OK — After officials blocked reporters from attending state government proceedings, Oklahoma’s oldest television station has now secured a major victory for press freedom, reaching a settlement that ensures its reporters will have full access to state education meetings and officials. The win also includes a court-ordered permanent injunction that bars officials from ever repeating the behavior that led to the lawsuit.

    The agreement resolves the First Amendment lawsuit filed by the Institute for Free Speech and local counsel Robert “Bob” Nelon of Hall Estill on behalf of three reporters and their employer, the owner of Oklahoma City television station KFOR-TV, against Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters and Press Secretary Dan Isett. The settlement guarantees KFOR equal access to State Board of Education meetings, press conferences, and other media events.

    “This settlement vindicates the fundamental principle that government officials cannot declare themselves the arbiters of ‘truth,’ or pick and choose which news outlets cover their activities based on how favorable the reporting is,” said Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Charles “Chip” Miller. “The First Amendment protects the right of journalists to gather and report news, even — or especially — when the coverage scrutinizes government officials and holds them accountable to the public.”

    The agreement requires the Oklahoma State Department of Education to restore KFOR’s access to board meetings, press conferences, and media events. It also mandates KFOR’s inclusion in all press distribution lists and advance notifications of department activities. Additionally, the department agreed to re-establish a media line for journalists to attend board meetings.

    ‘So to Speak’ podcast: Whittington on academic freedom


    “Who controls what is taught in American universities — professors or politicians?”

    Yale Law professor Keith Whittington answers this timely question and more in his new book, “You Can’t Teach That! The Battle over University Classrooms.” He joins the podcast to discuss the history of academic freedom, the difference between intramural and extramural speech, and why there is a “weaponization” of intellectual diversity.

    Keith E. Whittington is the David Boies Professor of Law at Yale Law School. Whittington’s teaching and scholarship span American constitutional theory, American political and constitutional history, judicial politics, the presidency, and free speech and the law.

    Stephen Solomon on ‘Revolutionary Dissent’


    What persuaded our nation’s founders to reject the British laws that made it a crime to criticize government officials and, instead, guarantee freedom of speech and press? NYU Professor and First Amendment Watch editor Stephen Solomon told the story of the protests and controversy that led to the First Amendment in a recent talk at The Ferguson Library in Stamford, CT.

    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).”)

    Review granted

    Pending petitions

    Petitions denied

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 450: “‘What Is Free Speech? The History of a Dangerous Idea’ — Major new book coming next year”

    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

  • Good News About the FAFSA

    Good News About the FAFSA

    Millions of current and prospective college students were let down last year when the federal rollout of the new FAFSA form was badly bungled and delayed for months. The fallout from the resulting chaos and uncertainty was well-documented and widespread, including a drop in over 5 percent in first-year enrollment for fall 2024 linked at least in part to the FAFSA problems.

    But now, there is some good news for students, their families, and the institutions working hard to ensure that low- and middle-income students have a path to higher education.

    While we have been harsh critics of the Department of Education’s failed FAFSA rollout, it is important to recognize when they’ve done well. The department committed to making the new FAFSA form work as intended for the next academic year—and they not only have accomplished that, but they have also done it faster than promised, and faster than many expected.

    Education Secretary Miguel Cardona announced Nov. 21 that after four successful rounds of beta testing, the 2025-26 FAFSA form is now available to all students and families. While we would have preferred for the 2025-26 FAFSA to have been available on Oct.1, we applaud that the department’s announcement came 10 days ahead of the promised Dec. 1 date, and the system appears to be performing as expected. In addition, this fully opens the gateway to the other benefits of the new FAFSA form, including allowing hundreds of thousands more individuals to access Pell Grants, the cornerstone of college affordability for so many students.

    This success is mirrored by a rare bipartisan moment in Congress that underscores how important it is to get federal student financial aid determinations to low-income students as early as possible. During the lame-duck session of Congress–and despite the partisan polarization and acrimony of the election season—the House and Senate approved and sent to President Biden legislation  aimed at streamlining the application process for federal student aid by making Oct. 1 the official FAFSA launch date each year.

    ACE and other higher education associations identified how critical this change in date was, and Congress listened. The FAFSA Deadline Act, introduced earlier this year, gives students and families more time to make crucial financial decisions and institutions adequate time to provide clear and transparent aid offers. We pushed Congress to move the legislation as quickly as possible, and lawmakers acted quickly—and in a bipartisan manner—to approve it.

    Passage of this legislation is a vital step toward improving access to financial aid, particularly for low-income students. Ensuring a properly functioning FAFSA form is another.

    There has been much consternation, rightfully so, about the flawed FAFSA roll out, and the consequences remain serious. All of us—the government and colleges and universities—will have to work hard to bring back the students who were not able to attend college this year because the financial aid system failed them.

    Campus leaders can do their part by ensuring that current and prospective students are well informed about the FAFSA and how to best navigate the new form and process. In its Nov. 21 announcement about the release of the 2025-26 FAFSA, the department also included an array of resources that institutions can share with students and their families and college counselors.

    In a difficult political climate, it is great to see both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government working in tandem to better support low- and middle-income students. These twin successes are extremely important and long overdue. We’ll keep urging policymakers to build on this progress in 2025, and we know that our institutions will do their part as well.

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link