Australians go to the polls this Saturday to choose the next government. The Australian Labor Party, the Liberal-National Coalition and the Australian Greens have a variety of different policies for education in the funding, content and management spaces.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Survey: Trump Policies Push 75% of Scientists to Consider Leaving U.S.
kathryn.palmer…
Tue, 04/01/2025 – 03:00 AM
Succeeding Justin Trudeau as Canada’s 24th Prime Minister, Carney’s swearing-in ceremony was conducted by governor general Mary Simon at Rideau Hall in Ottawa.
Carney’s appointment as Canada’s leader comes at a time when the country is navigating through an increasingly tumultuous relationship with its closest neighbour and ally, the United States.
Canada’s ties with the US have worsened after President Donald Trump imposed steep tariffs on Canadian goods and floated the idea of integrating Canada into the US, sparking strong backlash.
Considered a political newcomer, who played significant roles as the governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England between 2008 to 2020, Carney is known for having a tough stance on immigration.
Calling Canada’s immigration policy “failures of executions”, Carney stated that Canada has taken in more people than its economy has been able to handle.
“I think what happened in the last few years is we didn’t live up to our values on immigration,” he said at a Cardus event – a Christian non-partisan think tank – in November last year, according to Canadian media reports.
“We had much higher levels of foreign workers, students and new Canadians coming in than we could absorb, that we have housing for, that we have health care for, that we have social services for, that we have opportunities for. And so we’re letting down the people that we let in, quite frankly.”
Carney’s statement suggests that he will uphold the Canadian federal government’s plan to reduce immigration targets over the next three years.
Recently, the federal government announced a shift in its immigration strategy, cutting the number of newcomers by 21% – from approximately 500,000 in 2024 to 395,000 in 2025 and 380,000 in 2026.
In its race to reduce temporary residency numbers and overall inflow of immigrants, international students in Canada have faced the brunt of policy changes in the country.
Canada has imposed more caps on study permits, eliminated fast-track study permit processing, increased PGWP eligibility and English proficiency requirements, in an effort to “align its immigration planning with capacity”.
Over the past year, policy restrictions have already had a significant impact in Canada, with the total number of study permits processed by the IRCC expected to be 39% lower than in 2023.
A former international student himself, Carney is expected to continue with restrictive policies on the cohort, as he previously blamed Canadian provinces for “underfunding higher education”, which pushed institutions to rely on international students.
“Do we value higher education in this country or not? Well, if we value higher education, maybe we should start funding our universities,” stated Carney.
“On the foreign student side, it’s more on provincial policy, on squeezing universities, in a sense.”
Daljit Nirman, an immigration lawyer based in Ottawa and founder, Nirman’s Law, believes aggressive student recruitment has contributed to housing shortages, an oversaturated job market, and increased strain on health care, making effective newcomer integration in Canada more difficult.
“Given Carney’s stance and these recent policy changes, it is likely that Canada will continue implementing stricter controls on international student admissions during his tenure,” Nirman told The PIE News.
“This measured approach aims to preserve the benefits of international education while ensuring that Canada’s infrastructure can effectively support those who choose to study and settle in the country.”
According to Priyanka Roy, senior recruitment advisor at York University, while Carney’s stance on immigration may appear stricter, it will ultimately result in a more “balanced approach.”
“While it may seem like a tougher stance on immigration, we believe that Prime Minister Carney’s stance is to create a balanced approach to immigration, ensuring that international student enrolment aligns with Canada’s economic capacity and does not place undue pressure on local infrastructure,” Roy told The PIE News.
“York is proactively adapting by offering sustainable solutions, such as a four-year housing guarantee, on-campus job opportunities, and co-op programs; provisions that help our international students integrate into Canadian life while maintaining a balanced and healthy relationship with the local community.”
Prime Minister Carney’s leadership presents a valuable opportunity to rebuild stronger ties between India and Canada, fostering an environment of trust and collaboration
Priyanka Roy, York University
The former banker, who won the Liberal Party race by 86% of the votes, also acknowledged immigration’s role in contributing to Canada’s economic future.
Emphasising the need for productivity and a growing labour force, Carney has previously highlighted that Canada’s growing labour force is “going to largely come through new young Canadians”.
With immigration poised to be a key issue, rebuilding ties with India – one of Canada’s largest sources of migrants – will be crucial for the prime minister-designate.
Having already expressed a willingness to mend relations following a major diplomatic crisis, Carney’s efforts to indulge in discussions with India could spell good news for Indian students eyeing Canada as a study destination.
“Prime Minister Carney’s leadership presents a valuable opportunity to rebuild stronger ties between India and Canada, fostering an environment of trust and collaboration,” stated Roy.
“As diplomatic relations improve, we are confident that more Indian students will continue to view Canada as an attractive destination for higher education and realign their preference for higher education in Canada.”
DETROIT, Feb. 6, 2025 — The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression today urged 20 Michigan cities and towns — including Grand Rapids, Saginaw, and several around Detroit — to reform public comment policies that unconstitutionally censor their citizens.
“Public office doesn’t come with the power to muzzle the people you serve,” said FIRE Director of Public Advocacy Aaron Terr. “These cities should immediately repeal their unconstitutional public comment rules to avoid being dragged into court. Otherwise they won’t just be violating the First Amendment — they’ll be writing checks to the constituents they tried to silence.”
The First Amendment and recent court rulings affirm citizens’ right to criticize government officials and otherwise speak their minds during the public comment periods of city council meetings. Rules that unduly restrict this right are illegal, undemocratic, and prevalent in Michigan.
Local governments can impose reasonable, well-defined, viewpoint-neutral restrictions on public comments at their meetings. They can, for example, prohibit genuinely disruptive conduct — such as speaking out of turn or making true threats. But the rules in these 20 towns go too far, banning large swaths of protected speech. Many bar “personal attacks” on government officials, some are plain bizarre, and all are unconstitutional.
Similar rules have not fared well in court. In 2018, a man was ejected from an Ohio school board meeting after criticizing the board for suppressing opposition to pro-gun views. He sued and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit — which has jurisdiction over the Great Lakes State — sided with him. Its decision invalidated bans on “antagonistic,” “abusive,” and “personally directed” public comments at local government meetings.
Four years later, FIRE put those principles to work when we represented several Eastpointe, MI, residents in their suit against the city and its mayor. Then-Mayor Monique Owens used a rule barring comments directed at city council members as justification to shout down and silence four constituents who tried to criticize her during public-comment periods. Last year, Eastpointe reached a settlement with the residents that required the city to stop enforcing the unconstitutional rule, pay each plaintiff $17,910, and pay additional attorneys’ fees.
When municipal bodies fail to respect constituents’ First Amendment rights, they can expect to hear from FIRE.
FIRE is happy to help local governments bring their public comment policies into compliance with the First Amendment, free of charge. In 2023, FIRE successfully worked with Bay City, MI, to eliminate its unconstitutional restrictions on public comments that were “derogatory,” “vulgar,” or “demeaning” to city officials or employees.
“The First Amendment doesn’t protect politicians’ egos,” Terr said. “It protects the public’s right to hold them accountable.”
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.
CONTACT
Jack Whitten, Communications Campaign Specialist, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org
Republicans have railed against diversity and inclusion programming on college campuses for years, with state lawmakers enacting 14 pieces of legislation that restrict or bar DEI since 2023, according to a tally from The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Federal lawmakers have likewise targeted DEI programs at colleges in hearings and proposed bills. With Trump’s flurry of recent executive orders, however, the newly sworn-in president has made clear that his administration will ramp up the fight against DEI at the federal level.
“Institutions of higher education have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion,’” the order states.
Jeremy Young, director of state and higher education policy at PEN America, a free expression organization, voiced concerns about the executive order.
“It launches a series of investigations into universities for merely having a DEI office or promoting DEI, diversity work on their campus,” Young said. “That, to us, is a pretty straightforward violation of the intellectual freedom of a university to promote ideas of all kinds on its campus.”
At minimum, government investigations could amount to a nuisance, but at maximum, they could lead to lawsuits and actions against colleges, Young added.
Young also said the order is designed to sow division in the higher education sector by targeting colleges with endowments worth $1 billion or more.
“My hope is that higher education institutions will see this attack on a subset of their members as an attack on everyone,” Young said.
Trump’s new order also lacks a clear definition of what it deems as DEI programs or policies, Young said, raising concerns about unconstitutionally vague language.
State bills banning DEI similarly don’t have clear definitions, Young said.
“They become effectively a license to censor,” Young said. “Any government agency looking at them can claim that something is DEI because there is no actual definition in the order.”
Trump’s order directs the nation’s attorney general, in consultation with federal agencies, to propose potential litigation against the private sector to enforce civil rights laws. It also orders agencies to identify “potential regulatory action and sub-regulatory guidance.”
Trump also directed the U.S. education secretary to work with the nation’s attorney general to issue guidance to federally funded colleges within the next 120 days regarding how they can comply with the landmark 2023 Supreme Court decision that struck down race-conscious admissions. Trump’s nominee for education secretary, former World Wrestling Entertainment president and CEO Linda McMahon, is awaiting Senate confirmation hearings for the post.
Tuesday’s executive order comes after he signed several other directives on the first day of his presidency meant to dismantle DEI efforts within the federal workforce.
Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Committee on Education and Workforce, lauded the executive actions against DEI.
“DEI has bloated education budgets while telling students what to think instead of how to think,” Walberg said in a Wednesday statement. “I commend the Trump administration for dismantling DEI.”
Tuesday’s executive order clarifies that instructors at colleges that get federal aid are not prohibited from “advocating for, endorsing, or promoting the unlawful employment or contracting practices prohibited by this order” in their academic courses.
But Young said he hasn’t seen any legislation or executive order claiming to restrict DEI that doesn’t also restrict faculty instruction or roles in some way. “We have come to the conclusion that it may be impossible to do that,” Young said.
Trump’s order also says it does not prevent colleges from engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment.
Young, however, said language like this amounts to a meaningless statement, as the First Amendment supersedes an executive order.
“The problem is that the language plainly does violate the First Amendment, and therefore it’s going to be years before the courts adjudicate it and, meanwhile, people have to live under these executive orders,” Young said.
by CUPA-HR | May 13, 2024
On May 7, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to offer guidance on schools’ responsibilities to prevent and rectify discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, including shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations. The guidance aims to provide examples to institutions to help them carry out their Title VI requirements.
In its letter, OCR explains that it has received an increase in complaints alleging discrimination based on race, color, or national origin at colleges and universities, as well as public reports of such discrimination. While it does not explicitly state that the guidance is in response to reports of antisemitism on campuses and protests regarding the Israel-Hamas war, the department emphasizes in the letter that Title VI’s “protections extend to students and school community members who are or are perceived because of their shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics to be Jewish, Israeli, Muslim, Arab, Sikh, South Asian, Hindu, Palestinian or any other faith or ancestry,” and that “Title VI’s protections against discrimination based on race, color and national origin encompass antisemitism.”
Additionally, the letter addresses First Amendment considerations, as well as two legal frameworks used by OCR and courts to assess whether schools have violated Title VI through discrimination: hostile environment and different treatment. The guidance illustrates nine examples that may prompt OCR to investigate an institution for possible Title VI violations within these two frameworks. Of particular importance for higher ed HR are the instances outlined in the letter when educators and other faculty members might engage in actions constituting harassment under Title VI, as well as schools’ obligations to address such incidents.
As OCR notes, the guidance lacks the authority of law and does not impose obligations on the public or establish new legal standards. Instead, its purpose is to provide clarity to institutions receiving federal financial assistance regarding their requirements under Title VI. CUPA-HR will continue to share resources regarding institutions’ obligations to address discrimination under federal law.
