Monash University will pay more than $10 million to cover the underpayments of thousands of staff, after investigations into wage-theft claims found the institution had failed to properly pay employees for almost a decade.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
An independent arbitrator ordered Portland State University to reinstate 10 faculty members after determining the university violated its collective bargaining agreement with the Portland State University American Association of University Professors, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.
The faculty senate in April voted no confidence in the administration’s “Bridge to the Future” plan to address an $18 million budget deficit, and the vote “underscores the fact that the university made its layoff decisions before it had sufficient evidence to support them. That is a violation of the collective bargaining agreement,” the arbitrator wrote in her decision.
PSU-AAUP filed a labor grievance after the university laid off 17 non-tenure-track professors at the end of the 2024–25 academic year as part of its plan to close the deficit before the end of the spring term. The remaining seven employees declined to grieve their layoffs.
“[The decision] forces the university to respect the concept of shared governance,” union president Bill Knight told OPB. “It’s a reminder to the university that they can’t simply make arbitrary administrative decisions without involving the faculty.”
The union contract requires university officials to follow a specific, lengthy process to lay off faculty members for economic reasons—as opposed to eliminating courses or programs—which the arbitrator determined they did not do. Portland State is considering an appeal.
The budget cuts were successful in closing the deficit, OPB reported. Recent financial documents show the university saved more than $12.3 million—about 88 full-time faculty positions—in its academic affairs division. But more personnel cuts are likely. In September, the Portland State University Board of Trustees approved a plan to address a $35 million shortfall over two years.
On Tuesday, an Education Department spokesperson said the agency stands by its grant decisions and will appeal the order.
The Education Department announced in September that their new $270 million grant competition is accepting applications to use the federal funds from the two programs that were canceled in April. The department issued new priorities prohibiting the mental health grant money to be used for “promoting or endorsing gender ideology, political activism, racial stereotyping, or hostile environments for students of particular races.”
The Education Department spokesperson, in a Tuesday email, said, “Our new competition is strengthening the mental health grant programs in contrast to the Biden Administration’s approach that used these programs to promote divisive ideologies based on race and sex.”
Some education organizations said they were concerned that the new competition focuses only on school psychologists and does not include school counselors and social workers who also provide student mental health supports.
The canceled grants, which were set to expire on Dec. 31, were focused on increasing the pipeline of credentialed school-based mental health professionals working in rural and underserved areas and providing direct services to students in high-needs schools, according to court documents. Court records said that the Education Department valued the canceled grants at about $1 billion.
Addressing the discontinuation of the grants, Judge Kymberly Evanson in the U.S. District Court Western District of Washington said in the order that there was no evidence the Education Department “considered any relevant data pertaining to the Grants at issue,” leaving it difficult to determine “whether the Department’s decision bears a rational connection to the facts.”
Kelly Vaillancourt Strobach, director of policy and advocacy for the National Association of School Psychologists, called the ruling “a win for children, families, and educators across the country.”
Vaillancourt Strobach said in an email Tuesday that the grants “have proven essential in addressing nationwide shortages of school psychologists and other school mental health professionals.”
Seven-hundred Marines in California have been ordered to assist in Los Angeles and they’re expected to arrive over the next 24 hours, a U.S. official confirmed. The Marines are from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines at Twentynine Palms, California, whom U.S. Northern Command had said Sunday were on a “prepared to deploy status” if the Defense Department needed them.
For millenia, medical students have taken the Hippocratic Oath, solemnly pledging to prioritize the well-being of patients and “abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous.” But unfortunately, schools such as the University of Connecticut have recently created their own versions of the oath that prioritize politics at the expense of the First Amendment.
In August, UConn required the incoming class of 2028 to pledge allegiance not simply to patient care, but to support diversity, equity, and inclusion. The revised oath, which was finalized in 2022, includes a promise to “actively support policies that promote social justice and specifically work to dismantle policies that perpetuate inequities, exclusion, discrimination and racism.”
This practice is a grave affront to students’ free speech rights. In January, FIRE called the medical school to confirm that the oath is mandatory; an admissions staff member told us it was. We are asking them to confirm this in writing.
As a public university, UConn is strictly bound by the First Amendment and cannot compel students to voice beliefs they do not hold. Public institutions have every right to use educational measures to try to address biases they believe stymie the healthcare system. But forcing students to pledge themselves to DEI policies — or any other ideological construct — with which they may disagree is First Amendment malpractice. This is no different than forcing students to pledge their allegiance to a political figure or the American flag.
When we raised concerns in 2022 about the University of Minnesota Medical School’s oath, which includes affirming that the school is on indigenous land and a vow to fight “white supremacy,” the university confirmed that students were not obligated to recite it.
In the 1943 landmark case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court declared that students could not be made to salute the American flag, saying, “if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
Justice Jackson, writing for the majority, emphasized that the First Amendment protects the individual’s “sphere of intellect and spirit” from governmental or institutional control. Just as UConn cannot force its medical students to express support for socialized medicine or vaccination mandates, it cannot compel them to pledge fealty to its preferred set of political principles.
After FIRE criticized the medical school for appearing to force students to profess political views, the university affirmed the oath was not required.
More broadly, these nebulous commitments could become de facto professionalism standards, and students could face punishment for failing to uphold them. (After all, they took an oath.) What, exactly, must a medical student do to “support policies that promote social justice”? If a student disagrees with UConn’s definition of “social justice” or chooses not to promote it in the prescribed way, could she be dismissed for violating her oath?
FIRE has repeatedly seen administrators of professional programs — including medicine, dentistry, law, and mortuary science — deploy ambiguous and arbitrarily defined “professionalism” standards to punish students for otherwise protected speech.
UConn isn’t alone in making such changes to the Hippocratic Oath. Other prestigious medical schools, including those at Harvard, Columbia, Washington University, Pitt Med, and the Icahn School of Medicine, have adopted similar oaths in recent years. However, not all schools compel students to recite such oaths. When we raised concerns in 2022 about the University of Minnesota Medical School’s oath, which includes affirming that the school is on indigenous land and a vow to fight “white supremacy,” the university confirmed that students were not obligated to recite it. That’s the very least UConn could do to make clear that it puts medical education — and the law — ahead of politics.