Tag: office

  • VA Office of Inspector General no longer accepting emails and VA chatbot has no answers.

    VA Office of Inspector General no longer accepting emails and VA chatbot has no answers.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Inspector General (VA OIG), is no longer accepting tips from veterans who have been ripped off by predatory subprime colleges–at least not via email. The Higher Education Inquirer, at one time, was an important source for information for the VA OIG, but the VA’s watchdogs stopped corresponding with us a few years ago for no apparent reason. This failure to communicate is part of a longstanding pattern of indifference by the US Government (VA, DOD, ED, and DOL) and veterans’ organizations towards military servicemembers, veterans, and their families who are working to improve their job skills and job prospects.   

    VA’s chatbot also has much to be desired.

    Source link

  • It’s the Home Office that’s misselling UK higher education

    It’s the Home Office that’s misselling UK higher education

    On 23 May 2023, then home secretary Suella Braverman announced a package of measures to damp down the higher education sector’s contribution to net migration. The removal of the right for taught postgraduates to bring dependants dominated the headlines, and has loomed large over arguments about international recruitment ever since.

    One of the other changes that attracted less publicity – indeed, it was welcomed by the sector – was the elimination of international students’ ability to switch out of the student route onto a work visa before their studies have been completed (with the exception of PhD students, who would still be allowed to after 24 months, in recognition of the fact they may be employed by their university).

    This new policy was brought into effect by a statement of changes to the immigration rules on 17 July 2023. As set out by paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6 of the explanatory memorandum, the ban on “switching” came into effect at 3pm that same day, counter to usual practice of leaving at least 21 days before immigration rule changes apply. “The Government considers this departure from that convention to be necessary and proportionate,” it is noted, in order to “reduce the possibility of a large number of applications for […] switching being made in the 21 days usually available between Immigration Rules changes being laid and coming into force.”

    A petition opposing the change was launched, eventually gaining 15,579 signatures:

    We want Government to postpone the rule implemented on 17 July 2023 which prevents existing students from moving to a Skilled Worker without completing studies. We believe this rule should only be implemented on new students starting in January 2024.

    We believe this change is unfair and unjustified as when students came the rules allowed them to switch onto the Skilled Worker visa route without completing studies and existing students should not be prevented from switching in this way. The rule should be implemented to new students starting from January 2024.

    There should be no retrospective effect on law, it should be implemented on new students coming from January 2024 onwards.

    The Home Office was unmoved, saying in its response that “the student visa is for study” and that “we needed to crack down on broader abuse of the system and prevent people using the Student route as a backdoor to looking for work.”

    On the charge that this was a “retrospective” application of the law, the response said:

    When someone is switching immigration routes, the rules that apply are those in place at the time they switch, not the rules in place when they first entered the UK under a different route entirely.

    One student affected by the change was Ashraful Islam, from Bangladesh, who had come to the UK on a student visa in January 2023. On 20 July of that year – three days after the statement of changes – he applied to switch to a five-year skilled worker visa, with a plan to work in the care sector. He had a certificate of sponsorship from an employer dated 16 June.

    His application was rejected by the Home Office – and he applied for a judicial review. This was refused in both January and April 2024, so he went to the Court of Appeal. The case was rejected for a final time in April of this year.

    His case rested on a line in the new rules which said:

    An application which does not meet all the validity requirements for a Skilled Worker may be rejected as invalid and not considered.

    The argument was that the presence of may within the rules (“may be rejected”) left discretion to the Secretary of State to make a decision. He also pointed out that his certificate of sponsorship had been issued before the rule change, the rapid implementation of the new rule departed from convention, the application was made very shortly after the change came into force, he had not been aware of the change’s effect, and that he met all other criteria. Given these facts, were the Home Office empowered to exercise discretion there were a variety of reasons why it should choose to do so.

    The judges agreed that this was not a correct interpretation of what the word may was doing in this context – rather, the “natural and ordinary meaning” was that the Home Office is entitled to reject a non-compliant application “without any consideration whatever of the underlying merits of the application.”

    The court did however rule that the Home Office was not able to claim its legal costs from the appellant, as it had failed to submit an argument to the court until 17 March, two weeks before the hearing, despite permission to appeal having been granted in July 2024.

    Nobody cares

    The final tossing out of Ashraful Islam’s persistent attempts to get redress through the courts is probably the last glimmer of attention to a piece of immigration policy that nobody really cared about.

    You would get long odds on switching from student to work visas ever being allowed again in any future migration rules. In the run-up, Universities UK International spoke for most of the higher education sector when it said:

    We would welcome the proposals to end switching from student and work visas where students have not completed their course. This would close an unhelpful loophole and ensure that international students that choose the UK finish their programmes before they are able to move into full-time employment.

    Universities’ work was greatly complicated by international students who had seemingly applied solely in order to get to the UK and then immediately look for employment. There are a whole host of incentives to seek to prevent this from happening, from tuition fees being paid in instalments to UKVI compliance metrics penalising institutions with lower completion rates. And it somehow goes further than this, striking at a sense of what university study is for.

    It’s hardly good for students either, who are paying enormous amounts of upfront tuition fees, visa charges, and in many cases commission to recruitment agents, relative to the worth of the education they receive during a shortened time as a student in the UK.

    But you couldn’t quite imagine a world in which home students were legally prevented from dropping out of university and going into employment (though admittedly a regulatory focus on continuation along with a completely inflexible student finance system put plenty of pressure in the system to prevent this from happening). The government’s whole framing of international students in recent years has become dominated by a tension over whether or not they are supposed to be finding employment. Like this, not like that. And equally in the higher education sector, the change in tenor around an institution’s relationship with its international students that the reintroduction of post-study work permissions engendered has still not really played out in full.

    The corresponding rise in importance of international recruitment agents and sub-agents is a big part of this. The Financial Times’ splash last weekend on how students are being “lured” to the UK was a welcome bit of attention to the issue. One student had been told that they would be eligible for indefinite leave to remain after five years on the student and graduate route – neither qualifies. Another felt she had been misled over the availability and remuneration of part-time work. We’ve covered stories of much worse practice on Wonkhe in the past.

    Recruitment agents (and a wider ecosystem of peers, advisors and influencers) are undoubtedly encouraging and facilitating young people in other countries who would like to work in the UK to find ways to take advantage of student visas. One commentator is quoted over on University World News this week in pretty stark terms:

    One agent once told me that the student visa route, despite upfront tuition payments, was ‘cheaper and less risky than paying a people smuggler’.

    The Home Office’s approach to policymaking has become a whack-a-mole for these instances of unintended consequences – with the result that the majority who would actually like a fulfilling university experience followed by a successful professional life, whether in the UK or elsewhere, are constantly having their experiences made more tawdry and more unfair. And this is to say nothing of the fact that constantly changing how the visa system works creates a perfect state of flux, confusion and misinformation for unscrupulous actors to take advantage of.

    If it was just about switching, that would be one thing. But the changes to the post-study work landscape have proliferated in the last three years – and despite what the government may protest, it is one retrospective change after another if you are an international student.

    Now wait for last year

    From 6 February 2024 the Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS) main rate rose from £624 to £1,035 a year, a 66 per cent increase. This had at least been announced in July 2023 – with the rationale of funding an NHS pay rise – along with an increase to visa fees. The cost of a graduate visa, for example, rose by 15 per cent to £822.

    In neither case did we see quite the level of haste from the Home Office that had been the case with banning switching. But there is still a clear “retrospective” element to it, given that many students moving onto post-study work would have already signed up for their student visa before the changes had been made – in some cases, long before. It doesn’t really make any odds whether those on student visas are given a handful of hours, or 21 days, or several months – they are a captive audience.

    The increase in visa fees and health surcharge also applied to the skilled worker route (with the exception of certain healthcare occupations for the IHS) – again, those moving from study or graduate visas into work visas were charged far in excess of what they could have expected would be the case. For those with dependants, yet more. The IHS is an annual charge, but all years are payable in advance.

    If we consider an international student’s time at university and subsequent entry into the labour market as one “product”, then this would be a clear example of drip-pricing – showing the purchaser an initial price and then including additional, unavoidable charges later in the purchase process. Elsewhere on Wonkhe, Jim has written regularly about how universities themselves are required to avoid this in their marketing and contractual arrangements with students, especially under more stringent CMA guidance which is in effect as of this year.

    The counter-argument would then be that study and work are two separate things – going back to the Home Office response to the switching petition, it’s a “different route entirely” – as well as the fact that the government is not selling a product, it’s operating the country’s border system. But as the international education strategy and many other policy papers spell out, post-study work arrangements are designed to attract students to study in the UK, despite all the subsequent handwringing. They are part of the package. The Home Office might be safe from judicial review here, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.

    The changes last year went far beyond price-gouging. From April the baseline minimum salary for skilled worker visas was increased from £26,200 to £38,700, and the minimum salary specific to particular jobs (the “going rate”) was also substantially increased. Student and graduate visa holders benefit from a discount rate here, but this was still a massive inflation-busting restriction on the jobs that students would be able to get sponsorship for. For many, this was a large part of the reason to come to the UK to study – to progress from university into a career, in the same way that it is for domestic students. For plenty, this was essentially the only reason they had chosen the UK higher education system over international rivals – let’s be honest.

    Again, for international students already at university in the UK, and a large swathe of graduate visa holders, the changes were implemented far too quickly for there to be any possibility of them getting onto skilled work routes before the cut-off (let’s remember, “switching” is banned, and morally suspect). James Cleverly’s statement to Parliament in December was clear this was not retrospectively unfair on those already here:

    Those already in the Skilled work route, and applications made before the rules change, will not be subject to the new £38,700 salary threshold when they change employment, extend, or settle.

    So that’s alright then. Unless you are a student, or a graduate route visa holder not yet in a position to find permanent long-term employment.

    The raised salary threshold was well in excess of the average salary for typical graduate roles in many parts of the UK. It’s unsurprising that both the Scottish and Welsh governments have been hammering the point that two years of graduate route (unsponsored) work is unlikely to allow young people to progress to a point in their careers where they are being paid enough to qualify for the skilled worker visa, given average wages in both nations. The same is true in many parts of England. If you wanted to design a policy to encourage graduates to head to London (and, longer-term, to start their educational journeys at random newly-opened branch campuses in the capital), it would probably look a lot like this.

    So now international students will be paying much more in immigration charges than they could have realistically expected upon coming to the UK to study. And the kinds of work available to them for longer-term settlement have completely changed, as has its geography. Could it get any worse?

    There’s no way this white paper’s CMA compliant

    The latest round of proposed changes to migration policy, as heralded in last Monday’s white paper, represent a new low in terms of changing the rules of the game while it’s already in motion.

    We don’t yet know when the reduction in length of the graduate route will come into effect (for UG and PGT) – next January feels most likely if you had to guess. The detail remains to be seen, but it feels wholly plausible that many students currently studying on courses which finish after this date will see themselves with a smaller post-study work entitlement than they expected when they signed up.

    But as much as this change and the prospect of a fee levy may have caught the sector’s attention – for their as-yet-unknown impact on recruitment and institutional finances – there are much more flagrant examples of rug-pulling in what the government’s proposing.

    Really it’s a cumulative effect. Labour’s overall plan to link up skills and migration is premised on a lot of additional charges and eligibility changes for work visas. For example, the Immigration Skills Charge which employers must pay when sponsoring a skilled worker visa is being hiked by 32 per cent to more than £1,300 a year (for medium and large employers). This (further) discourages companies from sponsoring anyone on the graduate route – ironically, students going directly to the skilled worker visa on completion of their course are exempt, further calling into question how the graduate route is being conceptualised.

    Visa thresholds for skilled work, already massively hiked in 2024, are likely to rise further in many professions that international graduates might have been planning to go into. The planned abolition of the immigration salary list, which provides salary discounts for certain occupations, will see to this – though we don’t know the detail yet. Many occupations will be removed from eligibility altogether. The Migration Advisory Committee has also just said that it would like to further review the “new entrant” discount rate for students (and presumably graduate visa holders):

    The impacts of arrangements for new entrants since the 2024 salary threshold increase are uncertain and would be worth reviewing in more detail.

    All these policy measures and the question marks hanging over them greatly complicate the ability of current students to plan where they are going – and represent a fundamental break with how the system was working when they signed up to study in the UK.

    Worst of all is the change to routes to citizenship and indefinite leave to remain – again, ill-defined and uncertain in its exact implementation for the moment. But the white paper promises that in the future it will take 10 years to qualify for settlement, rather than the current five. For one thing, indefinite leave to remain brings with it eligibility for home tuition fees – groups like Hong Kong Watch are already highlighting how this may mean young people on BN(O) visas needing to wait an extra five years to qualify. In England, at least – the Scottish government has already changed the rules to allow them to qualify after three years’ residency.

    And for all the young people from around the world who at some point in the last few years made the decision to plan for a long-term career in the UK? One graduate route visa holder greeted last Monday’s white paper announcements with the following post on social media:

    It’s official: UK graduate visas are a £3000 worth scam. To anyone who’s reading this and pondering about where to study out of the European countries: do not repeat my mistakes and waste your time, energy, and money on boosting the UK economy for nothing in return.

    £3000 is roughly the graduate visa fee plus two years of the immigration health surcharge. The particular policy change that had spurred the post was the change to long-term residency:

    I’m so mad at myself right now! I spent a huge amount of money and time on looking for a sponsored position in this country only to find out that I won’t be able to do it and that if I do land a sponsored role, it won’t mean my whole life isn’t in a precarious situation for 10 YEARS.

    They go onto say that they now regret having studied in the UK, and that they will now do their best to warn off other prospective students and graduates (as well as hoping to “magically land an incredibly high-paying job” in the window before further changes come into effect).

    And in the middle

    Plenty of international students will be confused right now – or furious. Most if not all international applicants will not be sure about exactly what they would be getting into if they came to the UK to study in the next year.

    Into the information void inevitably swoops networks of recruiters and advisors, many acting on slices of commission from higher education institutions, to over-promise and distort what post-study work in the UK is like – or at least to act as if they have the answers.

    Universities are stuck in the middle. Agents will still be keen to “lure” students to the UK, and in the worst parts of the industry this will continue to involve outright deception. And the government is once again making changes to post-study work that retrospectively affect students, in ways that would have affected their decision-making if they had known. There will be a generation of graduates going back to their home countries with cautionary tales of how international education is not how it was promised to them.

    This isn’t to say that the higher education sector is entirely divorced from both these acts of misselling. The behaviour of agents should be within the sector’s gift to improve, and some steps appear to be being taken, though without more transparency it’s hard to know to what extent it’s just talk. As for the Home Office, it would be nice if the impact of changes on current students would feature much more prominently in the sector’s lobbying efforts, as compared to hypothetical applicant numbers.

    But practically, the next few years look set to have continued moral challenges for universities around international students, not just financial ones. UKVI might be cracking the whip, but increased scrutiny of international students’ attendance and progress cannot be allowed to become an intrusive refrain echoing through their lives on campus. The graduate route has changed and could change further, and realistically will not be a route into permanent work in the UK for many – so universities need to think how their graduates can actually get something fulfilling out of it, and evaluate whether this is working.

    International students and applicants alike will need clear, honest advice about how the visa system works – from the university itself, rather than those with a financial stake in the ensuing decisions – as well as honesty when things are shit and honesty when what’s coming down the line is not clear.

    Source link

  • Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment Universal Forms

    Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment Universal Forms

    A Notice by the Education Department on 05/19/2025

    Department of Education[Docket No.: ED-2025-SCC-0002]

    AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 18, 2025.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain to access the site. Find this information collection request (ICR) by selecting “Department of Education” under “Currently Under Review,” then check the “Only Show ICR for Public Comment” checkbox. Reginfo.gov provides two links to view documents related to this information collection request. Information collection forms and instructions may be found by clicking on the “View Information Collection (IC) List” link. Supporting statements and other supporting documentation may be found by clicking on the “View Supporting Statement and Other Documents” link.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Carolyn Rose, 202-453-5967.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment Universal Forms.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0163.

    Type of Review: A revision of a currently approved ICR.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals and Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 83,750.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 217,750.

    Abstract: On April 4, 2024 the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit granted a preliminary injunction against 34 CFR 685.400 et seq. (“2023 Regulation”) enjoining the rule and postponing the effective date of the regular pending final judgment in the case. The current Borrower Defense to Repayment application and related Request for Reconsideration are drafted to conform to the enjoined provisions of the 2023 Regulation. This request is to revise the currently approved information collection 1845-0163 to comply with the regulatory requirements of the borrower defense regulations that are still in effect, 34 CFR 685.206(e) (“2020 Regulation”), 34 CFR 685.222 (“2016 Regulation”), and 34 CFR 685.206(c) (“1995 Regulation”) (together, the “current regulations”). These regulatory requirements are distinct from the 2023 Regulation’s provisions. The revision is part of contingency planning in case the 2023 Regulation is permanently struck down. The Department of Education (“the Department”) is attaching an updated Borrower Defense Application and application for Request for Reconsideration. The forms will be available in paper and electronic forms on studentaid.gov and will provide borrowers with an easily accessible and clear method to provide the information necessary for the Department to review and process claim applications. Also, under the current regulations, the Department will no longer require a group application nor group reconsideration application.

    Dated: May 13, 2025.

    Brian Fu,

    Program and Management Analyst, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.

    [FR Doc. 2025-08857 Filed 5-16-25; 8:45 am]

    BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    Published Document: 2025-08857 (90 FR 21296)

    Source link

  • US Department of Education’s Failure to Address Food Insecurity Among College Students (Government Accountability Office)

    US Department of Education’s Failure to Address Food Insecurity Among College Students (Government Accountability Office)

    Nearly 25% of college students in 2020 reported
    limited or uncertain access to food. Despite being potentially eligible,
    most didn’t receive Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP)
    benefits—formerly known as “food stamps”—which could help them pay for
    food.

    A recent law gave the Department of Education
    authority to share students’ Free Application for Federal Student Aid
    data with federal and state SNAP agencies to identify and help students
    who may be eligible for benefits.

    But Education hasn’t made a plan to start sharing this data—nor have states received guidance about this opportunity.

    We recommended ways to address these issues.

    What GAO Found

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of
    Education have taken some steps to connect college students with
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to help them
    pay for food, but gaps in planning and execution remain. Effective July
    2024, a new law gave Education authority to share students’ Free
    Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) data with USDA and state
    SNAP agencies to conduct student outreach and streamline benefit
    administration. However, according to officials, Education had not yet
    developed a plan to implement these complex data-sharing arrangements.
    This risks delays in students getting important information that could
    help them access benefits they are eligible for. Following the passage
    of this new law, Education began providing a notification about federal
    benefit programs for students who may be eligible for them. However, it
    has not evaluated its method for identifying potentially eligible
    students. According to GAO analysis of 2020 Education data, Education’s
    method could miss an estimated 40 percent of potentially SNAP-eligible
    students.

    USDA encouraged state SNAP agencies to enhance student outreach and
    enrollment assistance. However, USDA has not included important
    information about the use of SNAP data and other student data in its
    guidance to state SNAP agencies. These gaps in guidance have left states
    with questions about how to permissibly use and share students’ data to
    help connect them with benefits.

    Student Food Assistance at a College Basic Needs Center

    Officials from the three selected states and seven colleges GAO
    contacted described key strategies for communicating with students about
    their potential SNAP eligibility. These include using destigmatizing
    language, linking students directly to an application or support staff,
    and coordinating outreach efforts with SNAP agencies. Officials from the
    states and colleges GAO contacted said it is helpful to have staff
    available on campus to assist students with the SNAP application. Some
    colleges have found it helpful to partner with their respective SNAP
    agencies to obtain information on the status of students’ applications.

    Why GAO Did This Study

    According to a national survey, almost one-quarter of college
    students were food insecure in 2020, yet GAO found many who were
    potentially eligible for SNAP had not received benefits. The substantial
    federal investment in higher education is at risk of not serving its
    intended purpose if students drop out because of limited or uncertain
    access to food. Studies have found using data to direct outreach to
    those potentially eligible can increase benefit uptake.

    GAO was asked to review college student food insecurity. This report
    addresses (1) the extent to which Education and USDA have supported data
    use to help college students access SNAP benefits, and (2) how selected
    states and colleges have used student data to help connect students
    with SNAP benefits.

    GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and agency documents. GAO also
    interviewed officials from Education, USDA, and national higher
    education and SNAP associations. GAO selected three states and
    interviewed officials from state SNAP and higher education agencies and
    seven colleges in these states. GAO visited one selected state in person
    and interviewed two virtually. States were selected based on actions to
    support food insecure students and stakeholder recommendations.

    Recommendations

    GAO is making five recommendations, including that Education develop a
    plan to implement FAFSA data-sharing and assess its benefit
    notification approach; and that USDA improve its SNAP agency guidance.
    The agencies neither agreed nor disagreed with these recommendations.

    Recommendations for Executive Action

    Agency Affected Recommendation Status
    Department of Education The
    Secretary of Education should develop a written plan for implementing
    provisions in the FAFSA Simplification Act related to sharing FAFSA data
    with SNAP administrators, to aid in benefit outreach and enrollment
    assistance. (Recommendation 1)
    Department of Education The
    Secretary of Education should, in consultation with USDA, evaluate its
    approach to identifying and notifying FAFSA applicants who are
    potentially eligible for SNAP benefits and adjust its approach as
    needed. (Recommendation 2)
    Department of Education The
    Secretary of Education should inform colleges and state higher
    education agencies that FAFSA notifications are being sent to applicants
    who are potentially eligible for SNAP benefits. (Recommendation 3)
    Department of Agriculture The
    Administrator of USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service should, in
    consultation with Education, issue guidance to state SNAP agencies—such
    as in its SNAP outreach priority memo—to clarify permissible uses of
    student data, including FAFSA data, for SNAP outreach and enrollment
    assistance. (Recommendation 4)
    Department of Agriculture The
    Administrator of USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service should issue
    guidance to state SNAP agencies—such as in its SNAP outreach priority
    memo—to clarify the permissible uses and disclosure of SNAP data to
    support SNAP student outreach and enrollment assistance. (Recommendation
    5)

    Source link

  • Will end to federal Office of Ed Tech mean an end to equity?

    Will end to federal Office of Ed Tech mean an end to equity?

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

    From internet access to 1:1 devices, ed tech use in schools has grown at a rapid pace since Congress formed the Office of Educational Technology three decades ago within the U.S. Department of Education.

    But now that OET is gone, former employees fear the office’s progress to push for equitable access to technology for students and teachers nationwide will be lost — particularly as the implementation of artificial intelligence tools accelerates. 

    The Trump administration informed all seven OET employees in a March 12 email that their positions and office were being “abolished” as the Education Department announced massive layoffs across the agency. 

    Just a couple weeks later, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of the Education Department. The move comes as the Trump administration aims both to reduce the overall size of the federal government and to give states more authority over their education systems. 

    The Education Department did not respond to a request for comment on OET’s closure.

    When Kristina Ishmael, OET’s deputy director from October 2021 to December 2023, found out about the office’s closure, she said she felt “shock and surprise, as well as disappointment and anger.” Ishmael added that those feelings extended to the decimation of other Education Department offices as well. 

    OET’s role in guiding schools

    OET’s responsibilities over the years, among many other things, included the development of six National Educational Technology Plans between 2000 and 2024. 

    The latest plan identified three persistent barriers to equity in ed tech to be addressed by education leaders at state, district and school levels. Those barriers included inequitable implementation of ed tech in classrooms, uneven availability of ed tech professional development opportunities for teachers, and gaps in students’ access to broadband connections, devices and digital content.

    There is still a lot of work to do to address those inequities, Ishmael said. 

    Just months after ChatGPT debuted, OET began to release guidance on AI use in schools, focusing first on its impact on educators, and then on responsibilities for ed tech industry leaders and logistical concerns for school district leaders. 

    Beyond offering nonregulatory federal guidance, OET worked with multiple offices in the Education Department and other federal agencies. Additionally, OET acted as a point of contact for Congress to keep lawmakers informed about the state of ed tech in classrooms, according to former staff. 

    For instance, OET collaborated with the Office for Civil Rights when the Education Department released guidance last year on students’ civil rights protections regarding the use of AI tools in schools, said Anil Hurkadli, who held a one-year appointment as OET’s acting deputy director through Jan. 20. 

    “If we don’t have a really clear interpretation or articulation of how civil rights laws do indeed apply in the use of educational technology and educational settings, you create a lot of risk that districts and states are not procuring products and services in ways that are in alignment with those laws,” Hurkadli said. 

    The same issue applies to ed tech developers, Hurkadli said. If the industry creates tools without a clear understanding of civil rights laws, they also run the risk of violating students’ privacy and potentially compromising their sensitive data, he added. 

    OET served as a key convener for districts and states in the ed tech space, which also included student and teacher perspectives, Hurkadli said. For decades, the office leveraged its federal role to advocate both within the government and with external stakeholders for equitable access to ed tech in classrooms. 

    Without OET, there will be “a gaping hole in those efforts at a time when technology is accelerating at a pace where we can’t afford to lose ground,” Hurkadli said.

    Source link

  • Explaining Sussex v the Office for Students

    Explaining Sussex v the Office for Students

    The University of Sussex has published a pre-action protocol letter to the Office for Students (OfS).

    The letter notifies the regulator of the university’s intention to seek judicial review and appeal the decision – which imposed a £600k fine over breaches related to academic freedom and freedom of speech.

    Thus far we’ve had a war of words – now we see the legal basis for the argument. Sussex argues that OfS acted ultra vires (ie beyond its powers), misinterpreted legal principles, misapplied statutory definitions, and demonstrated irrationality in its findings, particularly over the Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement (TNBEPS).

    It also asserts that OfS overstepped its authority, failed to engage in procedural fairness, and ignored safeguards already in place – putting meat on the bones of its eye-catching “free-speech absolutism” claim.

    Some of it concerns a regulatory regime that’s set to be replaced – but some of it concerns an allegation of “absolutism” about how the regulator is interpreting the law. The second of those could go on to matter quite a bit once the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 actually gets implemented.

    Chilling effects and balancing acts

    Sussex’s disciplinary statement classified “transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying” – including name-calling and derogatory jokes – as serious disciplinary offences, and it argues that OfS made a legal error in finding that the statement breached regulatory requirements around freedom of speech.

    It arguies that the language targets conduct already covered by existing laws – like section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which prohibits abusive speech likely to cause harassment or distress.

    In 2023, the university introduced clarifications – a “harm threshold” requiring speech to be reasonably expected to cause fear or distress, and an explicit statement safeguarding lawful academic freedom and speech, stating that the policy should not justify disciplinary action for expressing controversial or unpopular views.

    It claims OfS ignored those contextual safeguards and wrongly interpreted the policy as restricting lawful speech, even though its objective meaning, when read in full and in context, demonstrates otherwise.

    Broadly, this is about the “chilling effect” – Sussex is saying that universities can lawfully discipline harmful or abusive speech, as long as there’s an alignment with existing legal prohibitions, and as long as there are clear safeguards for lawful expression – limiting OfS’s power to challenge policies based on hypothetical misreadings. Doing so gives universities freedom to uphold respectful environments without breaching free speech duties.

    Expression that you can restrict

    Next, Sussex argues that OfS misunderstood what “freedom of speech within the law” actually means – taking the position that universities can’t prohibit any speech unless it’s already explicitly banned by civil or criminal law.

    Sussex’s argument is that universities, like other institutions, are allowed to set standards of conduct and discipline behaviour – like plagiarism, abuse, or poor academic quality – even if those behaviours aren’t technically illegal:

    The University would have to tolerate academics designing curriculums which lack academic rigour, for example a curriculum which seeks to reinforce stereotypes (as distinct from a curriculum that discusses stereotypes).

    The University would have to tolerate an academic starting every lecture by swearing at and demeaning students, so long as such action did not relate to protected characteristics.

    The University would have to tolerate an academic conducting every lecture through the medium of song or mime (noting that freedom of speech protects the manner of speech as well as the content).

    The argument is that lawful speech can still be restricted if the restriction is lawful and proportionate, as allowed under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that the mere possibility of disciplinary action doesn’t amount to an unlawful restriction on speech, citing European case law to back this up.

    This one’s interesting because it’s a key part of the “absolutism” argument – in its draft guidance on the new legislation last year, for example, OfS said:

    It is likely to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for higher education providers and other relevant organisations to comply with their free speech duties if they seek directly or indirectly to restrict the particular content of speech. For instance, a provider, constituent institution or relevant students’ union may wish to restrict or prohibit speech because it has made a negative value judgement about the content of the speech. There is likely to be very little scope to restrict or prohibit lawful speech in this way.

    Sussex is basically saying that the case law suggests that it’s not nearly as difficult or impossible as OfS claims – and that universities retain the lawful authority to set and enforce standards of behaviour, academic integrity, and professionalism – even where those rules affect speech that isn’t illegal. It’s also saying that having disciplinary procedures in place isn’t, by itself, a breach of free speech obligations, so long as they aren’t used to punish lawful expression improperly.

    Stereotyping standoffs

    One of the things we’ve reflected on before is the apparent refusal of the regulator to accept that the case law puts a higher value on free speech in academic contexts than in others – and of course a university encompasses all sorts of contexts.

    Put another way, what a student writes in an essay or what an academic teaches (with all the usual qualifications about proper rigour) that might, say, stereotype a trans person is a world away from stereotyping banter on a society social.

    In the letter, Sussex challenges the logic and legality of OfS’s conclusion about the 2023 “Stereotyping Statement” in the TNBEPS. OfS accepted the statement didn’t infringe academic freedom, noting the policy included a safeguard against constraining academic freedom or imposing disproportionate limits on free speech. Yet it still found the same policy breached freedom of speech duties, because it could chill other lawful speech, particularly by students or non-academic staff.

    Sussex argues this is irrational because the Stereotyping Statement only relates to how the curriculum is designed – something that exclusively involves academics. If OfS was satisfied that the policy didn’t infringe the academic freedom of those academics in setting the curriculum, it argues there is no rational basis to then conclude that their freedom of speech was infringed by the same policy.

    This standoff matters. OfS is saying that even if a policy respects academic freedom, it can still breach free speech duties if it chills broader expression – while Sussex argues that in curriculum design, those duties converge, and protecting academic freedom inherently protects speech.

    Is a policy statement a governing document?

    Sussex argues that the Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement (TNBEPS) is not a “governing document” as defined by section 14(1) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (HERA), which it says only refers to foundational legal documents like a university’s Charter and Statutes.

    In comments to the Guardian at the end of last month, Sussex vice chancellor Sasha Roseneil argued as follows:

    This is a really small statement, of which we have many dozens, if not hundreds, of similar policies and statements. Whereas the governing documents of the university are its charter and statutes and regulations. So that’s the core of the problem

    In the pre-action letter, Sussex claims OfS has wrongly expanded the definition through its regulatory framework, which includes broader policy documents, without the legal authority to do so – insisting that only Parliament can define those terms – and that interpreting TNBEPS as a governing document is beyond the OfS’s powers (ultra vires).

    You might argue that it’s sensible for both the law and the regulator to only look at proper, formal governing documents when assessing breaches of things, you might not – but if Sussex is right on that, it does underline a key difference between the law operating in 2021 and what would be the position if the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was fully in force.

    It goes on to argue that the regulator “misunderstood and misapplied” its regulatory role, because OfS was supposed to determine whether the university’s governing documents were consistent with principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech – not to speculate on how someone might misread a policy.

    It criticizes OfS for relying on “hypothetical misinterpretations” rather than objectively interpreting the actual text, ignoring contextual safeguards like the university’s disciplinary rules and Free Speech Code – which the university says led to a flawed and unlawful decision.

    If Sussex is right, it’s saying that OfS may have failed a basic legal duty – to interpret documents in context and according to their actual effect, not based on imagined misunderstandings.

    Delegation and proportionality

    You’ll recall that the other big fine for Sussex was about delegation. Sussex argues that OfS acted beyond its legal authority by making findings about whether the university properly followed its internal rules on who has the power to approve policies (its delegation arrangements).

    Sussex contends that these are matters for our old friend the Visitor, a traditional legal role in UK university governance, who in Sussex’s case is the actual King.

    It cites longstanding legal authority confirming that the Visitor has exclusive jurisdiction over internal governance questions, including interpretation and application of the university’s own rules, and says that unless Parliament clearly removes or overrides that jurisdiction, external bodies like OfS can’t interfere.

    Sussex says HERA 2017 doesn’t meet the test, because it neither expressly nor necessarily implies that OfS can judge whether a university has followed its internal delegation rules.

    OfS argues that cases like Thomas v University of Bradford [1987] AC 795 make clear that HERA 2017 grants it the power to impose conditions as long as those conditions fall within its statutory mandate.

    This one’s interesting because it has echoes of arguments about the powers OfS has over consumer protection. In that area, C1 allows it to assess whether a provider has paid “due regard” to guidance, but OfS doesn’t have actual powers to judge whether a provider is in breach – which is partly why it’s busy proposing to remix consumer law as a “fairness condition” of its own, and partly why interim Chair David Behan has been arguing to DfE that it needs to be given proper powers to become an enforcement body.

    Poking around in the annex

    As such, Sussex also argues that OfS exceeded its legal authority by including Annex H in its Final Decision.

    That contains OfS’ views on whether the university may have breached other legal obligations – like Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Equality Act 2010. Sussex asserts that HERA 2017 doesn’t authorise OfS to investigate or make findings about compliance with these separate legal duties, which fall outside its jurisdiction.

    OfS tries to justify its actions by saying that potential non-compliance with these laws might indicate whether Sussex breached Condition E1 (the requirement for governing documents to support freedom of speech and academic freedom).

    But Sussex argues this logic is flawed – it says E1 is about the content of governing documents and whether they align with public interest governance principles – not about whether the university might have violated unrelated legal duties that OfS doesn’t oversee.

    The university also points out what it says are legal errors in OfS’ analysis. OfS claimed the university might have breached Article 10 ECHR simply because it didn’t conduct a formal “proportionality assessment” – but case law says that’s not a requirement to prove a breach.

    The case referenced is a fascinating one – in Belfast City Council v Miss Behavin’ Ltd [2007] the council had denied a licence to an adult entertainment business, who argued their freedom of expression was infringed because the council hadn’t assessed whether the denial was proportionate.

    The House of Lords rejected the argument, deciding that what matters is whether the interference was in fact justified – not whether the council had formally weighed it up using proportionality language.

    And Sussex argues that OfS wrongly suggested the university’s curriculum content could amount to indirect discrimination under the Equality Act, even though curriculum content is explicitly excluded from that law under section 94(2).

    Process issues

    Some of the process issues are eye-opening. We learn, for example, that OfS suggested various potential penalties and breaches throughout the 1246 days of the investigation, “most of which were later dropped”.

    We already knew that OfS “never met with university representatives”, declined all requests for meetings or discussions about its findings or decisions, and would not confirm whether changes the university made to its policy addressed the concerns raised.

    Here Sussex says that when the provisional decision was reached and sent in March 2024, it was “259 pages long, repetitive and poorly written”. A year or so later, out of the blue, it says it got a call from OfS requesting a meeting within 3.5 hours – a courtesy call that the final decision was coming that day.

    It says that the majority of the findings and proposed penalties in the provisional decision had been abandoned, but the proposed penalties had actually increased – with no explanation.

    Sussex claims OfS acted unfairly during its investigation by meeting with Kathleen Stock multiple times while refusing nine requests to meet with university representatives – and argue OfS relied on a second statement from Stock, obtained after the university’s submissions, without disclosing it or allowing any response, using it to reject the university’s position on harm caused under condition E1.

    What happens next will hinge on whether OfS engages with the university’s legal challenge or digs in for a court fight – there’s a question over whether there’s any pre-action protocol for this kind of tribunal, and Sussex reserves the right to rely on other grounds.

    But more broadly, the case lays bare fundamental disagreements about how speech should be regulated in higher education, who gets to interpret the law, and where the boundaries lie between institutional autonomy and regulatory oversight.

    Whether you think Sussex is bravely standing up for a more balanced view of the campus culture see-saw, or is simply resisting accountability, the outcome may well reshape how free speech duties are understood and enforced across the sector.

    Source link

  • Head Start Providers Shocked as Federal Office Serving Wisconsin Shuts Without Notice – The 74

    Head Start Providers Shocked as Federal Office Serving Wisconsin Shuts Without Notice – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Head Start child care providers in Wisconsin and five other Midwestern states were stunned Tuesday to learn that the federal agency’s Chicago regional office was closed and their administrators were placed on leave — throwing new uncertainty into the operation of the 60-year-old child care and early education program.

    “The Regional Office is a critical link to maintaining program services and safety for children and families,” said Jennie Mauer, executive director of the Wisconsin Head Start Association, in a statement distributed to news organizations Tuesday afternoon.

    The surprise shutdown of the federal agency’s Chicago office — and four others across the country — left Head Start program directors uncertain about where to turn, Mauer said.

    “We have received calls throughout the day from panicked Head Start programs worried about impacts to approving their current grants, fiscal issues, and applications to make their programs more responsive to their local communities,” Mauer said.

    The regional offices are part of the Office of Head Start in the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    In an interview, Mauer said there had been no official word to Head Start providers about the Chicago office closing. Some program leaders learned of the closing from private contacts with people in the office.

    “We have not seen official information come out” to local Head Start directors, who operate on the federal grants that fund the program, Mayer said. “It’s just really alarming. For an agency that is about serving families, I don’t understand how this can be.”

    The National Head Start Association issued a press release Tuesday expressing “deep concern” about the regional office closings.

    “In order to avoid disrupting services for children and families, we urge the administration to reconsider these actions until a plan has been created and shared widely,” the association stated.

    Katie Hamm, the deputy assistant secretary for early childhood development at HHS during the Biden administration, posted on LinkedIn shortly before 12 noon Tuesday that she had learned of reduction-in-force (RIF) notices to employees in the Administration for Children and Families earlier in the day.

    RIF notices appear to have gone to all employees of the Office of Head Start and the Office of Child Care in five regional offices, Hamm wrote, in Boston, New York, San Francisco and Seattle in addition to Chicago.

    “Staff are on paid leave effective immediately and no longer have access to their files,” Hamm wrote. “There does not appear to be a transition plan so that Head Start grantees, States, and Tribes are assigned to a new office. For Head Start, it is unclear who will administer grants going forward.”

    Hamm left HHS at the end of the Biden administration in January, according to her LinkedIn profile.

    Mauer said regional office employees “are our key partners and colleagues,” and their departure has left Head Start operators “incredibly saddened and deeply concerned.”

    Regional employees work with providers “to ensure the safety and quality of services and to meet the mission of providing care for the most vulnerable families in the country,” Mauer said.

    The regional offices provide grant oversight, distribute funds, monitor Head Start programs and advise centers on complying with regulations, including for child safety, she said. They also provide training and technical assistance for local Head Start programs.

    “The Regional Office is a critical link to maintaining program services and safety for children and families,” Mauer said. “These cuts will have a direct impact on programs, children, and families.”

    In addition to Wisconsin, the Chicago regional office oversees programs in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota.

    Head Start supervises about 284 grants across the six states in programs that  enroll about 115,000 children, according to Mauer. There are 39 Head Start providers in Wisconsin enrolling about 16,000 children and employing about 4,000 staff.

    The federal government created Head Start in the mid-1960s to provide early education for children living in low-income households. Head Start operators report that the vast majority of the families they serve rely on the program to provide child care so they can hold jobs.

    The regional office closings came two months after a sudden halt in Head Start funding. Head Start operators get a federal reimbursement after they incur expenses, and program directors have been accustomed to being able to submit their expenses and receive reimbursement payments through an online portal.

    Over about two weeks in late January and early February, program leaders in Wisconsin and across the country reported that they were unable to log into the system or post their payment requests. The glitches persisted for some programs for several days, but were ultimately resolved by Feb. 10.

    Mauer told the Wisconsin Examiner on Tuesday that so far, there have not been new payment delays. But there has also been no communication with Head Start operators about what happens now with the unexpected regional office closings, she said.

    “No plan for who will provide support has been shared, and the still-existing regional offices are already understaffed,” Mauer said. “I’m very nervous to see what happens. With no transition plan this will be a disaster.”

    In her statement, Mauer said the regional office closing was “another example of the Federal Administration’s continuing assault on Head Start” following the earlier funding freeze and stalled reimbursements.

    She said closing regional offices was undermining the program’s ability to function.

    “We call on Congress to immediately investigate this blatant effort to hamper Head Start’s ability to provide services,” Mauer stated, “and to hold the Administration accountable for their actions.”

    Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Making Higher Ed’s Back Office More Efficient and Student-Centric

    Making Higher Ed’s Back Office More Efficient and Student-Centric

    Facing challenges in enrollment, retention, or tech integration? Seeking growth in new markets? Our strategic insights pave a clear path for overcoming obstacles and driving success in higher education.

    Unlock the transformative potential within your institution – partner with us to turn today’s roadblocks into tomorrow’s achievements. Let’s chat.

    Source link

  • Office for Civil Rights Commences Title VI Investigations Against 45 Universities

    Office for Civil Rights Commences Title VI Investigations Against 45 Universities

    On March 14, the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that it had opened Title VI investigations into 45 universities. In a news release, ED noted that these investigations follow a Feb. 14 Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) signed by Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights. According to the ED release, the DCL — sent to all educational institutions that receive federal funding — reiterated that schools were obligated “to end the use of racial preferences and stereotypes in education programs and activities.”

    Among the universities being investigated are both public and private institutions that include Clemson University, Cornell University, Duke University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Arkansas-Fayetteville, the University of California-Berkeley and the University of Kentucky.

    An article from the Courier Journal reported that University of Kentucky spokesperson Lindsey Piercy said, “We have not received any official notification of this review. However, the university complies with both the constitution and Title VI. Our graduate programs are open to all qualified applicants. We will continue to monitor and review this issue, cooperate with any official inquiries and, as always, comply with the law.”

    Montana State University-Bozeman (MSU) is also among the 45 institutions under investigation. MSU vice president for communications Tracy Ellig released a statement which reads in part: “MSU strictly adheres to all federal and state laws in the hiring of its faculty and staff. … Montana State University strictly adheres to all applicable laws with regard to its students. MSU has well-established processes and procedures in place to investigate any claim of discrimination by students, faculty, staff or the public.”

    The ED press release noted that the investigations were prompted by these institutions having partnered with The PhD Project, an organization founded in 1994 with the goal of creating more role models leading business classrooms. It endeavors to improve diversity in the business world by encouraging people from underrepresented backgrounds to attain doctoral degrees in business. ED asserted that The PhD Project “limits eligibility based on the race of participants.”

    The PhD Project issued the following statement: “For the last 30 years, The PhD Project has worked to expand the pool of workplace talent by developing business school faculty who inspire, mentor, and support tomorrow’s leaders. Our vision is to create a broader talent pipeline of current and future business leaders who are committed to excellence and to each other, through networking, mentorship, and unique events. This year, we have opened our membership application to anyone who shares that vision. The PhD Project was founded with the goal of providing more role models in the front of business classrooms, which remains our goal today.”

    OCR is also investigating six universities that have allegedly awarded race-based scholarships, which it asserts is not allowed, and one university that allegedly administers a program that “segregates students on the basis of race.” Among those schools are Grand Valley State University, Ithaca College and the University of Tulsa School of Medicine.

    “The Department is working to reorient civil rights enforcement to ensure all students are protected from illegal discrimination,” noted U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Students must be assessed according to merit and accomplishment, not prejudiced by the color of their skin.”

    Kelly Benjamin, media and communications strategist for the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), noted that AAUP was a plaintiff in a case for which the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has granted a preliminary nationwide injunction on parts of two executive orders issued by President Donald J. Trump that sought to end diversity, equity and inclusion policies and programs among federal government grantees and contractors, which includes most colleges and universities.

    “Unfortunately, the Office of Civil Rights within the Education Department has…intensified the clamp down on speech and expression related to race and identity, and they’ve moved beyond censorship into a true weaponization of federal civil rights law,” said Benjamin. “It’s fundamentally at odds with what the mission of higher education should be, which is the search for knowledge that serves the common good.

    “They’re trying to remake higher education into their own agenda, where they can control not only who has access to higher education but what is taught in the classroom, what can be researched, what can be written about,” he added. “It’s an assault on the very core mission of higher education.”

    The defendants, which include President Trump and ED, filed for a stay of the injunction pending appeal, which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted. “Having reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion, and the parties’ briefing, we agree with the government that it has satisfied the factors for a stay under Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009).” Entered at the direction of Chief Judge Albert Diaz, with the concurrence of Judge Pamela Harris and Judge Allison Rushing.

    EdTrust issued a statement from Augustus Mays, vice president of partnerships and engagement,  condemning the investigations. He noted: “By using federal investigations as a weapon to intimidate institutions committed to racial equity, the Trump administration is not only undermining the fundamental mission of higher education but is also jeopardizing student success. These attacks are grounded in a false narrative that DEI initiatives are about exclusion. The reality is the opposite: these programs are designed to expand access, increase opportunity, and strengthen institutions by ensuring that all students, particularly underserved students, can thrive.”

    Source link

  • Navigating the Kafkaesque nightmare of Columbia’s Office of Institutional Equity

    Navigating the Kafkaesque nightmare of Columbia’s Office of Institutional Equity

    Franz Kafka’s masterpiece “The Trial” begins when Josef K discovers that “one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested.”

    What follows is the story of his desperate attempt to navigate a nightmarishly opaque bureaucracy — and the bleak results. Like Josef K, Columbia students awoke one morning to find themselves at the mercy of the university’s new Office of Institutional Equity.

    In recent weeks, the OIE sent dozens of warnings to students telling them they were under investigation for alleged discriminatory harassment simply for engaging in pro-Palestinian advocacy on campus. Individual acts of protected political expression — social media posts, peaceful demonstrations, and op-eds in the student newspaper — were treated as creating a “hostile environment” for criticizing Israel, with accusations framed in expansive interpretations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

    FIRE has since heard from a number of students lost in the maze of Columbia’s cryptic dispatches and confusing accusations, and one thing is clear: the OIE has cast a late-winter chill across campus. 

    These investigations can take months or even years, and leave students in fear of what they can and cannot do or say while they await the results. 

    Take the two Columbia seniors who were notified just months before graduation that they were under investigation and subject to expulsion for allegedly writing a student newspaper article signed by a consortium of pro-Palestinian student groups urging divestment from Israel. One student described the situation as “dystopian” and said she is now reluctant to speak out on the issue again. Even worse, the two students were targeted not because there was any evidence they’d actually authored the article, much less created a hostile environment by doing so, but merely because of their involvement with the pro-Palestinian student group consortium.

    Another student contacted FIRE to report that they were afraid to return to campus because they feared the administration would retaliate against them for their previous advocacy with Students for Justice in Palestine. 

    Moreover, Columbia made national headlines this week when Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detained former student Mahmoud Khalil, who previously tried to fight the OIE. Though he had already successfully appealed the university’s disciplinary charges against him, federal agents showed up on his doorstep and hauled him off to an ICE detention center based on accusations that he led campus protest activities aligned with Hamas. 

    Trump administration’s reasons for detaining Mahmoud Khalil threaten free speech

    News

    The government arrested and detained Mahmoud Khalil for deportation, and its explanation for doing so threatens the free speech of millions of people.


    Read More

    Khalil reported that just before he was due to graduate this past December, the OIE buried him in allegations relating to social media posts with which he was uninvolved. Furthermore, when he stood up for himself and refused to sign a nondisclosure agreement, the university put a hold on his transcript and threatened to block his graduation — until he hired counsel, and the OIE seemed to temporarily back off. The timing of the ICE raid and the OIE’s investigation into Khalil leaves students and faculty with more questions than answers, especially as he has still not yet been criminally charged for anything and is facing deportation.

    While Columbia’s OIE is charged with addressing claims of unlawful discrimination and harassment, it cannot do so by employing an overly broad definition of harassment that stretches the meaning beyond recognition. Yet the OIE has done exactly that in interpreting Title VI harassment to include protected criticism of Israel, suppressing political activism under the guise of maintaining a “safe” environment by defining speech against another country as possible discriminatory harassment if “directed at or infused with discriminatory comments about persons from, or associated with, that country.” 

    Is it possible for such speech to be part of a pattern of discriminatory harassment? Yes. It’s also possible for it not to be harassment. The way Columbia is treating such speech, though, makes that impossible to discern. 

    The OIE’s needlessly murky investigatory process is also deeply troubling. Students report being left in the dark about the specifics of the charges against them, and being required to sign a nondisclosure agreement in order to see the evidence. In other words, they can’t talk to anyone about their case or get help until after it’s too late and the OIE has already decided their case and potentially sealed their fate. 

    These investigations can take months or even years, and leave students in fear of what they can and cannot do or say while they await the results. When students are forced to endure lengthy investigations that may result in serious sanctions such as suspension and expulsion, it’s obvious that the process, even if it results in a student’s favor, is the punishment. 

    The original title of “The Trial” was Der Prozess, or literally “The Process,” because the true horror Josef was forced to confront was that of a Byzantine and convoluted process custom-built to crush dissent. If nothing else, we can perhaps thank Columbia, like so many schools before it, for bringing classic literature to life.

    Source link