Tag: policies

Trump student visa policies pose outsized risk to speciality colleges

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

A loss of international students due to restrictive federal policies could disproportionately harm small private colleges that have specialized focuses or are affiliated with Christian churches, according to a recent report from the Brookings Institution.

Many public institutions that charge much higher tuition for international and out-of-state students could also face serious financial hits, said the report’s author, Dick Startz, an economics professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

In his analysis, Startz looked at the common traits of colleges where international students made up at least 30% of enrollment. He found that all of those colleges were private, tended to be small, and have a special focus like business or arts.

They were also disproportionately Christian colleges. According to the report, Christian institutions represent 34.3% of colleges and universities where international students comprise more than 30% of total enrollment.

“Perhaps the importance of international students to Christian schools should not be so surprising,” the report said. “Many Christian schools are affiliated with evangelical beliefs, spreading their faith globally.”

Many small private and religious colleges in the U.S. have closed in recent years amid enrollment losses. For such institutions, a sudden loss of 30% of their student population could be a “disaster,” the report warned.

“The majority of schools will see very little effect,” said Startz. “But there are a small number of schools — private schools that are not very large — and 30% of their budget could disappear. It could be devastating.”

In June, the U.S. Department of State reopened consular interviews for foreign students looking to apply or renew their student visas after freezing the process the month prior. The State Department, however, now requires those students to unlock their social media accounts so consular officers can review whether they consider their posts hostile to the U.S. or to its culture and founding principles, The Associated Press reported.

International students who were previously in the country with active visas are less likely to be affected, said Startz. But first-year students, new graduate students, or some students who need to renew their visas will be impacted, he said.

It’s unclear how much those policies will affect international student enrollment or when colleges may start seeing significant impacts, said Startz. But some major colleges and university systems are already beginning to report a major drop in international student enrollment.

Over the summer, NASFSA: Association of International Educators projected international enrollment at U.S. colleges could decline by as much as 150,000 students this semester if the federal government did not start ramping up efforts to issue visas.

International freshmen enrollment at elite institutions like Princeton University and Columbia University remained steady heading into fall, The New York Times reported. However, other institutions, such as the University at Buffalo, are reportedly experiencing significant declines in international student enrollment, NPR reported.

Affecting the economy, affecting colleges

Volatility in international student levels could affect nearly every college in the country that enrolls foreign students, the Brookings report stated. But not every college — even the ones with large foreign student enrollments — would be affected equally.

Colleges such as the University of California, Santa Barbara — where international students make up 9% of enrollment — could face serious financial threats. That’s because those students pay triple the tuition paid by in-state students at UC Santa Barbara, the report stated.

Institutions such as New York University, Northeastern University and Arizona State University also enroll a lot of international students — but compared to their total student population, it’s “not overwhelmingly high,” said Startz.

And prestigious institutions could probably fill those students’ slots regardless, he said.

A loss in international enrollment could also impact the economies of college towns — hurting landlords and local businesses like pizza shops and bars, said Startz.

Democratic-leaning states, such as Massachusetts, could be disproportionately affected economically, the report stated. But there could also be repercussions for the U.S. in general, as many international students eventually work at high-tech firms and in university labs conducting major medical and science research, Startz added.

International students often attend U.S. colleges because they want to be taught in English, said Startz. As such, the U.S. might lose many of those students to Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and Singapore, he said.

That could affect the U.S. politically. International students often return home with a positive view of America and Americans and go on to help lead their country in politics or business, Startz said. That includes prime ministers, such as the heads of Canada, Singapore and Botswana, he said.

“There’s certainly a concern that we’re just making students feel unwelcome,” said Startz. “If they choose either not to come or they come and actually have a bad experience, way down the road that’s a really bad thing.”

Source link

September 19, 2025
Kamehameha Schools’ Admission Policies May Face Legal Challenge – The 74

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

A conservative mainland group whose lawsuit against Harvard University ended affirmative action in college admissions is now building support in Hawaiʻi to take on Kamehameha Schools’ policies that give preference to Native Hawaiian students.

Students for Fair Admissions, based in Virginia, recently launched the website KamehamehaNotFair.org. It says that the admission preference “is so strong that it is essentially impossible for a non-Native Hawaiian student to be admitted to Kamehameha.”

“We believe that focus on ancestry, rather than merit or need, is neither fair nor legal, and we are committed to ending Kamehameha’s unlawful admissions policies in court,” the website says.

Kamehameha’s Board of Trustees and CEO Jack Wong said in a written statement that the school expected the policy would be challenged. The institution — a private school established through the estate of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop to educate Hawaiians — successfully defended its admission policy in a series of lawsuits in the early 2000s. The trustees and Wong promised to do so again.

“We are confident that our policy aligns with established law, and we will prevail,” the statement said.

The campaign also drew criticism from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, established in the late 1970s for the betterment of Native Hawaiians. OHA’s Board of Trustees called it an “attack on the right of Native Hawaiians to care for our own, on our own terms.”

“These attacks are not new — but they are escalating,” the trustees said in a written statement. “They aim to dismantle the hard-won protections that enable our people to heal, rise, and chart our future.”

Several groups have tried and failed in the past to overturn Kamehameha’s admissions policy. Federal courts, siding with Kamehameha, have ruled that giving preference to Native Hawaiians helps alleviate historical injustices they faced after the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893.

In the 2006 decision upholding Kamehameha Schools’ admissions policy, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel pointed to longstanding challenges Native Hawaiian students have faced in schools.

“It is clear that a manifest imbalance exists in the K-12 educational arena in the state of Hawaiʻi, with Native Hawaiians falling at the bottom of the spectrum in almost all areas of educational progress and success,” Judge Susan Graber wrote in the majority opinion.

These disparities persist. Just over a third of Native Hawaiian students in public schools were proficient in reading in 2024, compared to 52% of students statewide. Less than a quarter of Native Hawaiian students were proficient in math.

The state education department has also fallen short of providing families with adequate access to Hawaiian language immersion programs, according to two lawsuits filed against the department this summer. The Hawaiian immersion programs are open to all students, not just those of Hawaiian ancestry.

Moses Haia III, a lawyer and former director of the Native Hawaiian Legal Corp., said that improving outcomes for Hawaiian students is Kamehameha’s primary reason for existing. He said this new challenge appears to be based on ignorance of Hawaiʻi’s history.

“Ultimately, what I see is these people being uneducated,” Haia said of the mainland group. “Not knowing the history of Hawaiʻi, not knowing the reasons for Kamehameha’s existence, and just once again trying to push Hawaiians into this box… and wanting to be on top.”

Past Challenges

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that private schools can’t discriminate based on race in a case called Runyon v. McCrary, which involved Black school students trying to gain admission to private schools that had yet to integrate non-white students.

An anonymous student sued Kamehameha in 2003, invoking the 1976 ruling and alleging that the school’s policy of giving preference to Hawaiian children was discriminatory. The case eventually landed in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A majority of the appeals court judges sided with Kamehameha. They used a part of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits discrimination in the workplace as a legal framework for looking at the admissions policy.

Judge Graber wrote that a preference for Native Hawaiian students “serves a legitimate remedial purpose by addressing the socioeconomic and educational disadvantages facing Native Hawaiians, producing Native Hawaiian leadership for community involvement, and revitalizing Native Hawaiian culture, thereby remedying current manifest imbalances resulting from the influx of western civilization.”

But it was a narrow victory for Kamehameha, an 8-to-7 vote. Dissenting judges wrote that admitting mostly Hawaiian students didn’t create a diverse student body; others said that the policy was clearly discriminatory.

The anonymous student appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But Kamehameha entered a $7 million settlement with the student and their mother before the court decided whether to take up the case.

While the settlement safeguarded the admission policy from a ruling by the nation’s highest court it also meant lawyers punted the issue.

Another group of anonymous students challenged the admissions policy a few years later and again took that case to the Supreme Court. But the court declined to take up that case in 2011.

Students for Fair Admissions previously brought two landmark cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, arguing that the two schools’ race-conscious admissions policies discriminated against Asian American and white applicants. The Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that colleges cannot use race as a factor in their admissions, although the decision didn’t specify what this could mean for K-12 schools.

Last fall, the number of Black students enrolled at both universities fell, although some researchers cautioned that colleges might not see the full impact of the Supreme Court ruling until a few admissions cycles have passed.

The challenge to Kamehameha Schools’ admissions policies comes amid national pushback on efforts to promote diversity in schools. In February, the U.S. Department of Education said any colleges and K-12 schools using race-based practices in hiring and admissions could lose federal funding, although a court subsequently prevented the department from enforcing those requirements.

Kamehameha receives no funding from the federal government, according to its tax filings. The school, which is the state’s largest private landowner, has assets valued at about $15 billion.

This story was originally published on Honolulu Civil Beat.

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

Source link

September 6, 2025
Phones, devices, and the limits of control: Rethinking school device policies

Key points:

By now, it’s no secret that phones are a problem in classrooms. A growing body of research and an even louder chorus of educators point to the same conclusion: students are distracted, they’re disengaged, and their learning is suffering. What’s less clear is how to solve this issue.

Of late, school districts across the country are drawing firmer lines. From Portland, Maine to Conroe, Texas and Springdale, Arkansas, administrators are implementing “bell-to-bell” phone bans, prohibiting access from the first bell to the last. Many are turning to physical tools like pouches and smart lockers, which lock away devices for the duration of the day, to enforce these rules. The logic is straightforward: take the phones away, and you eliminate the distraction.

In many ways, it works. Schools report fewer behavioral issues, more focused classrooms, and an overall sense of calm returning to hallways once buzzing with digital noise. But as these policies scale, the limitations are becoming more apparent.

But students, as always, find ways around the rules. They’ll bring second phones to school or slip their device in undetected–and more. Teachers, already stretched thin, are now tasked with enforcement, turning minor infractions into disciplinary incidents.

Some parents and students are also pushing back, arguing that all-day bans are too rigid, especially when phones serve as lifelines for communication, medical needs, or even digital learning. In Middletown, Connecticut, students reportedly became emotional just days after a new ban took effect, citing the abrupt change in routine and lack of trust.

The bigger question is this: Are we trying to eliminate phones, or are we trying to teach responsible use?

That distinction matters. While it’s clear that phone misuse is widespread and the intent behind bans is to restore focus and reduce anxiety, blanket prohibitions risk sending the wrong message. Instead of fostering digital maturity, they can suggest that young people are incapable of self-regulation. And in doing so, they may sidestep an important opportunity: using school as a place to practice responsible tech habits, not just prohibit them.

This is especially critical given the scope of the problem. A recent study by Fluid Focus found that students spend five to six hours a day on their phones during school hours. Two-thirds said it had a negative impact on their academic performance. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 77 percent of school leaders believe phones hurt learning. The data is hard to ignore.

But managing distraction isn’t just about removal. It’s also about design. Schools that treat device policy as an infrastructure issue, rather than a disciplinary one, are beginning to implement more structured approaches.

Some are turning to smart locker systems that provide centralized, secure phone storage while offering greater flexibility: configurable access windows, charging capabilities, and even low admin options to help keep teachers teaching. These systems don’t “solve” the phone problem, but they do help schools move beyond the extremes of all-or-nothing.

And let’s not forget equity. Not all students come to school with the same tech, support systems, or charging access. A punitive model that assumes all students have smartphones (or can afford to lose access to them) risks deepening existing divides. Structured storage systems can help level the playing field, offering secure and consistent access to tech tools without relying on personal privilege or penalizing students for systemic gaps.

That said, infrastructure alone isn’t the answer. Any solution needs to be accompanied by clear communication, transparent expectations, and intentional alignment with school culture. Schools must engage students, parents, and teachers in conversations about what responsible phone use actually looks like and must be willing to revise policies based on feedback. Too often, well-meaning bans are rolled out with minimal explanation, creating confusion and resistance that undermine their effectiveness.

Nor should we idealize “focus” as the only metric of success. Mental health, autonomy, connection, and trust all play a role in creating school environments where students thrive. If students feel overly surveilled or infantilized, they’re unlikely to engage meaningfully with the values behind the policy. The goal should not be control for its own sake, it should be cultivating habits that carry into life beyond the classroom.

The ubiquity of smartphones is undeniable. While phones are here to stay, the classroom represents one of the few environments where young people can learn how to use them wisely, or not at all. That makes schools not just sites of instruction, but laboratories for digital maturity.

The danger isn’t that we’ll do too little. It’s that we’ll settle for solutions that are too simplistic or too focused on optics, instead of focusing not on outcomes.

We need more than bans. We need balance. That means moving past reactionary policies and toward systems that respect both the realities of modern life and the capacity of young people to grow. It means crafting strategies that support teachers without overburdening them, that protect focus without sacrificing fairness, and that reflect not just what we’re trying to prevent, but what we hope to build.

The real goal shouldn’t be to simply get phones out of kids’ hands. It should be to help them learn when to put them down on their own.

Emily Smith, HonestWaves

Emily Smith is the founder of HonestWaves, a California-based company that designs and suppliesphone charging solutions, including smart lockers and charging stations, for businesses and public spaces.

Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

Source link

September 2, 2025
Trump Administration’s Higher Education Policies Drive Sharp Decline in College Graduate Support

The Trump administration’s aggressive stance toward higher education institutions is contributing to a precipitous drop in support among college-educated voters, with new polling data revealing the president’s approval rating among graduates has fallen to historic lows.

President Donald J. TrumpAccording to Gallup polling, Trump’s approval rating among college graduates plummeted from 34% in June to just 28% by August, with disapproval climbing to 70%. This represents a concerning trend for Republicans as they look toward the 2026 midterm elections, particularly given the growing influence of college-educated voters in key suburban swing districts.

The administration’s education policies have taken aim at what Trump characterizes as liberal bias and antisemitism on college campuses. Harvard University has faced the most severe federal intervention, with the White House canceling approximately $100 million in federal contracts and freezing $3.2 billion in research funding. The administration has also moved to block international student enrollment and threatened to revoke the institution’s tax-exempt status while demanding sweeping reforms to admissions processes and curricular oversight.

Similar measures have been enacted against Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Cornell University over issues ranging from pro-Palestinian campus activism to policies regarding transgender athletes in women’s sports. Harvard officials have characterized these interventions as an unprecedented assault on academic freedom and institutional autonomy.

The crackdown has generated significant campus unrest and drawn comparisons to Cold War-era loyalty investigations, raising questions about the federal government’s appropriate role in higher education governance.

The polling data reflects broader dissatisfaction with the administration’s educational approach. Only 26% of college graduates approve of Trump’s handling of education policy, while 71% disapprove. A separate AP-NORC survey from May found that 56% of Americans nationwide disapprove of the president’s higher education agenda.

However, the policies resonate strongly within Trump’s Republican base, with roughly 80% of Republicans approving his higher education approach—a higher approval rate than his economic policies garner. About 60% of Republicans express significant concern about perceived liberal bias on college campuses, aligning with the administration’s framing of universities as ideologically compromised institutions.

The Republican coalition shows some internal division on enforcement mechanisms, with approximately half supporting federal funding cuts for non-compliant institutions while a quarter oppose such measures and another quarter remain undecided.

While political controversies dominate headlines, economic concerns remain the primary driver of public opinion on higher education. Sixty percent of Americans express deep concern about college costs, a bipartisan worry that transcends ideological divisions around campus politics.

Current data from the College Board and Bankrate show average annual costs of $29,910 for in-state public university students, $49,080 for out-of-state students, and approximately $61,990 for private nonprofit institutions when including room, board, and additional expenses. Financial aid reduces these figures to average net prices of $20,800 at public universities and $36,150 at private colleges.

These costs reflect decades of sustained increases. EducationData.org reports that public in-state college costs have risen from $2,489 in 1963 to $89,556 in 2022-23 (adjusted for inflation). Over the past decade alone, in-state public tuition has increased by nearly 58%, while out-of-state and private tuition have risen by 30% and 27% respectively.

The economic pressures extend beyond college costs to post-graduation employment prospects. While overall unemployment among adults with bachelor’s degrees remains low at 2.3%, recent graduates face significant challenges. Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that only 69.6% of bachelor’s degree recipients aged 20-29 were employed in late 2024, with unemployment among 23-27-year-olds reaching nearly 6%—substantially above the 4.2% national average.

These employment difficulties contribute to broader economic anxiety, with 39% of college graduates describing national economic conditions as “poor” and 64% reporting job search struggles.

The confluence of political and economic pressures creates a challenging landscape for Republicans heading into the 2026 midterms. College-educated voters represent a growing and increasingly decisive demographic, particularly in suburban areas that often determine control of swing seats.

Source link

September 1, 2025
The resumption of student loan payments means students will need new policies — and our help

After a three-year pause prompted by the pandemic, the clock on student loan repayments suddenly started ticking again in September 2023, and forbearance ended last September. For millions of borrowers like Shauntee Russell, the resumption of payments marked a harsh return to financial reality.

Russell, a single mother of three from Chicago, had received $127,000 in student loan forgiveness through the SAVE program, and had experienced profound relief at having that $632 monthly payment lifted from her shoulders. SAVE exemplified both the transformative power of debt relief and the urgent need to continue this fight — but now SAVE has been suspended.

Such setbacks cannot be the end of our story, as I document in my forthcoming book. The resumption of loan payments, while painful, must serve as a rallying cry rather than a surrender. We stand at a critical juncture. The Supreme Court’s devastating blow to former President Biden’s initial forgiveness plan and the ongoing legal challenges to programs like SAVE have left 45 million borrowers in a state of financial limbo. The fundamental inequities of our higher education system have never been more apparent.

Black students graduate with nearly 50 percent more debt than their white counterparts, while women hold roughly two-thirds of all outstanding student debt — a staggering $1.5 trillion that continues to grow. These aren’t just statistics; they represent systemic barriers that prevent entire communities from achieving economic mobility.

Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.

The students I interviewed while reporting on this crisis reveal the human cost of inaction. They include Maria Sanchez, a nursing student in St. Louis who skips meals to save money and can only access textbooks through library loans.

Then there is Robert Carroll, who gave up his dorm room in Cleveland and now alternates between friends’ couches just to stay in school.

These students represent the millions who are working multiple jobs, sacrificing basic needs and seeing their dreams deferred under the weight of financial pressure.

Yet what strikes me most is their resilience and determination. Despite these overwhelming obstacles, these students persist, driven by the same belief that motivated civil rights leaders like Congressman Adam Clayton Powell Jr. — that education is the pathway to economic empowerment and social justice.

The current political landscape, with Donald J. Trump’s return to the presidency and a Republican-controlled Congress, presents unprecedented challenges. Plans to dismantle key borrower protections and efforts to eliminate the Department of Education signal a dark period ahead for student debt relief.

But history teaches us that progress often comes through sustained grassroots organizing and innovative policy solutions at multiple levels of government and society.

State governments have an opportunity to fill the federal void through programs like Massachusetts’ Student Loan Borrower Bill of Rights and Maine’s Student Loan Repayment Tax Credit.

Universities must step up with institutional relief programs, as my own institution, Trinity Washington University, did when it settled $1.8 million in student balances during the pandemic.

The Black church, which has long understood the connection between education and liberation, continues to provide crucial support through scholarship programs. Organizations like the United Negro College Fund, the Thurgood Marshall College Fund and the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education remain vital pillars in making higher education accessible.

Still, individual, institutional and state efforts, while necessary, are not sufficient. We need comprehensive federal action that treats student debt as what it truly is: a civil rights issue and a moral imperative. The magnitude of the crisis — it affects Americans across every congressional district — creates unique opportunities for bipartisan coalition building.

Smart advocates are already reframing the narrative by replacing partisan talking points with economic arguments that resonate across ideological lines: workforce development, entrepreneurship and American competitiveness on the world stage.

When student debt prevents nurses from serving rural communities, teachers from working in underserved schools and young entrepreneurs from starting businesses, it becomes an economic drag that affects everyone.

Related: How Trump is changing higher education: The view from 4 campuses

The path to federal action may require creative approaches — perhaps through tax policy, regulatory changes or targeted relief for specific professions — but the political mathematics of 45 million impacted voters ultimately makes comprehensive action not just morally necessary, but politically inevitable.

Student debt relief is not about handouts — it’s about honoring the promise that education should be a ladder up, not an anchor weighing down entire generations; it’s about ensuring that Shauntee Russell’s relief becomes the norm, not the exception. The fight is far from over.

The young activists I met at the March on Washington 60th anniversary understood something profound: Their debt is not their fault, but their fight is their responsibility. They carry forward the legacy of those who came before them who believed that access to education should not depend on one’s family wealth, and that crushing debt should not be the price of pursuing knowledge.

The arc of history still bends toward justice — but in this era of political resistance, we must be prepared to bend it ourselves through sustained organizing, innovative policy solutions and an unwavering commitment to the principle that education is a right, not a privilege reserved for the wealthy.

The resumption of payments is not the end of this story. It’s the beginning of the next chapter in our fight for educational equity and economic justice. And this chapter, like those before it, will be written by the voices of the millions who refuse to let debt define their destiny.

Jamal Watson is a professor and associate dean of graduate studies at Trinity Washington University and an editor at Diverse Issues In Higher Education.

Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

This story about student loan payments was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

Join us today.

Source link

August 25, 2025
Federal Agency Finds George Mason University Violated Civil Rights Law Through DEI Policies

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has determined that George Mason University violated federal civil rights law by using race as a factor in hiring and promotion decisions, the agency announced on Friday.

The finding concluded that GMU violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin in federally funded education programs. The university now has 10 days to accept a proposed resolution agreement or risk losing federal funding.

Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor said President Gregory Washington led “a university-wide campaign to implement unlawful DEI policies that intentionally discriminate on the basis of race.”

“You can’t make this up,” Trainor said in a statement, noting that Washington had previously called for removing “racist vestiges” from campus in 2020.

The investigation, launched in July 2025, stemmed from complaints filed by multiple GMU professors who alleged the university adopted preferential treatment policies for faculty from “underrepresented groups” between 2020 and the present.

Federal investigators said that they found several problematic practices. As recently as fall 2024, they argue that the university’s website stated it “may choose to waive the competitive search process when there is an opportunity to hire a candidate who strategically advances the institutional commitment to diversity and inclusion.”

The current Faculty Handbook also requires approval from the “Office of Access, Compliance, and Community” – previously called the “Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” until GMU renamed it in March 2025 – before extending job offers.

One high-level administrator told investigators that Washington “created an atmosphere of surveillance” regarding hiring decisions related to diversity objectives.

Under the proposed resolution agreement, Washington must personally issue a statement and apology to the university community, acknowledging the discriminatory practices. The university must also revise hiring policies, conduct annual training, and remove any provisions encouraging racial preferences.

GMU must post the presidential statement prominently on its website and remove any contradictory materials. The university would also be required to maintain compliance records and designate a coordinator to work with federal officials.

George Mason University, located in Fairfax, Virginia, enrolls approximately 39,000 students and receives federal funding that could be at risk if the violations are not resolved.

George Mason officials said that they are reviewing the specific resolution steps proposed by the Department of Education.

“We will continue to respond fully and cooperatively to all inquiries from the Department of Education, the Department of Justice and the U.S. House of Representatives and evaluate the evidence that comes to light,” the university said in a statement. “Our sole focus is our fiduciary duty to serve the best interests of the University and the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia.”

Source link

August 22, 2025
Justice Department threatens federal funding for colleges over DEI policies
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- The U.S. Department of Justice released guidance Wednesday that threatens to strip grant funding from colleges and other federally funded institutions over what the agency deems unlawful diversity, equity and inclusion practices.
- The agency’s memo targets a sweeping set of practices, including offering race-based scholarship programs, allowing transgender women to access bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity and having identity-based lounges or study spaces on campus — even if they are open to all.
- But the nine-page memo goes a step further, saying even neutral criteria — such as recruitment strategies targeting certain regions — could be deemed unlawful if the Justice Department determines they are chosen because of their demographic composition.
Dive Insight:

The Justice Department’s memo comes after a federal judge temporarily blocked similar guidance from the U.S. Department of Education that broadly targeted diversity, equity and inclusion programs at federally funded colleges and K-12 schools. The order came in response to a lawsuit that alleged the guidance “radically upends” federal antidiscrimination laws.

The guidance from the Justice Department illustrates the major shift in how the agency under President Donald Trump approaches enforcement of civil rights laws, with officials now targeting programs that were often actually launched to fight systemic discrimination.

Earlier this month, the National Urban League declared a “state of emergency” for antidiscrimination policies, calling the Trump administration’s overhaul of the Justice Department’s enforcement priorities “an existential threat” to civil rights laws, according to The Associated Press.

Like the Education Department’s blocked guidance, the Justice Department’s new memo warns that government officials could pull federal funding from institutions that don’t comply. That threat comes at the same time the agency has ramped up investigations into colleges over their diversity initiatives and their responses to antisemitism on campus.

The DOJ memo contains examples of practices it lists as “unlawful” and says could lead to federal funding being revoked, as well as a list of recommendations, which it says are not mandatory, to avoid “legal pitfalls.”

“This Department of Justice will not stand by while recipients of federal funds engage in illegal discrimination,” U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a Wednesday statement. “This guidance will ensure we are serving the American people and not ideological agendas.”

As examples of unlawful practices, the agency highlighted race-based scholarships or programs, including mentorship programs or leadership initiatives reserved for members of certain racial groups.

The memo could upend admissions. It recommends colleges end programs “designed to achieve discriminatory outcomes” even if they have “facially neutral” criteria, such as targeting scholarships to certain regions to increase enrollment or participation among certain racial groups.

“Instead, use universally applicable criteria, such as academic merit or financial hardship, applied without regard to protected characteristics or demographic goals,” the memo said.

The memo also takes aim at what it describes as “unlawful proxies” for race and sex. As an example, the memo calls out universities that ask job applicants “to demonstrate ‘cultural competence,’ ‘lived experience,’ or ‘cross-cultural skills’ in ways that effectively evaluate candidates’ racial or ethnic backgrounds rather than objective qualifications.”

The Justice Department also flagged diversity statements — which typically ask job or graduate student candidates to explain their experience and commitment to diversity and inclusion initiatives — as potentially unlawful if they advantage “those who discuss experiences intrinsically tied to protected characteristics.” The memo said the same of asking for statements from applicants about “obstacles they have overcome,” a common essay prompt for college applications.

State lawmakers have likewise targeted diversity statements, with many outlawing public colleges from requiring them in job or admission applications.

The memo also said failing to “maintain sex-separated athletic competitions and intimate spaces” could violate federal law. The Justice Department’s examples of those violations include allowing transgender women to use bathrooms, showers, locker rooms and dormitories designated for women, as well as allowing them to compete in women’s athletic events.

And it mentions college lounges or other spaces designated for specific groups, such as a “BIPOC-only study lounge.”

“Even if access is technically open to all, the identity-based focus creates a perception of segregation and may foster a hostile environment,” the memo stated. “This extends to any resource allocation — such as study spaces, computer labs, or event venues — that segregates access based on protected characteristics, even if intended to create ‘safe spaces.’”

It also takes aim at diversity training, giving the example of requiring teachers at K-12 schools to complete a DEI training that includes statements such as “all white people are inherently privileged” or touching on “toxic masculinity.”

The memo says such trainings could violate civil rights laws “if they create a hostile environment or impose penalties for dissent in ways that result in discriminatory treatment.”
Source link
July 31, 2025
The Case for Miscarriage Leave Policies (opinion)

Miscarriage leave policies are a blind spot on many college campuses, one that urgently needs to be addressed.

For me, losing my unborn child to miscarriage exposed an uncomfortable truth about the academy. While we are encouraged to, and should be expected to, show compassion and care for our students who endure unimaginable life circumstances, there is little to no formal infrastructure in place to support the inevitable suffering of faculty.

In the wake of my unexpected miscarriage and subsequent related surgery, I was profoundly struggling. I found out at nine weeks of gestation that I’d experienced what’s called a missed miscarriage, and what followed were weeks of mental and physical pain. Despite the traumatic nature of these events, I returned to work and continued with lesson preparation, grading and responding to emails as quickly as humanly possible, given the circumstances.

It is not surprising I felt compelled to quickly return to work. A persistent problem in higher education is that many faculty members, staff and administrators are spread impossibly thin, leading to compassion fatigue and burnout in the face of heavy teaching loads, mentoring and service expectations, and publishing quotas. This problem is exacerbated for women, minorities, contingent faculty and marginalized groups in the academy.

Contrast this to how we seek, rightly, to treat our students. A pedagogy of care centers on human connection and empathy to guide and support students who are struggling. It creates a culture and climate of care for students that extends beyond the classroom. For instance, students who experience miscarriage during the academic semester are protected under Title IX. This means we provide our students who have miscarriages with the proper support and grieving time so as not to derail their semesters. On my campus, if a student is going through a mental health crisis or a loss like a miscarriage, we are advised to send them to the counseling center, where they can be provided with one-on-one counseling sessions and proper resources to help with their care.

This same structure of care that has been put in place for our students isn’t in place for faculty. As professor and scholar Maha Bali notes, an authentic pedagogy of care should recognize that faculty also need care, asking institutions to support instructors with policies and structures that allow them to do their jobs well without burning out. Though employees are protected under the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, we don’t always have the same resources on campus for faculty and staff who are struggling with mental health issues as a result of a miscarriage. More campuses should follow the model of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where faculty members can access counseling on campus through the Employee Counseling and Consultation Office.

For women in academia who have endured a miscarriage, the historical silence surrounding the experience lends itself to even greater feelings of isolation and loneliness. It adds to barriers to success and tenure. Between 15 and 20 percent of pregnancies end in miscarriage, but the stigma surrounding it keeps women quiet. I work in a supportive department, where my chair and many of my colleagues never hesitated to provide me with what I needed. However, that is not the case for everyone. Even in my case, there was still a significant amount of logistical work to consider.

When I miscarried, I knew that I’d have to cancel classes because of the physical toll it took on my body and the subsequent recovery from surgery. However, that also meant reorganizing my semester to accommodate my students’ needs. The nature of the academic year leaves little room for flexibility in canceling classes and reorganizing lessons and as such, requires considerable time and effort to do so. This detracted from my ability to grieve and heal, physically and emotionally. During times of loss, faculty shouldn’t have to think twice about mundane details; they should have a clearly outlined miscarriage policy they can turn to so there is no question they are entitled to the leave they need.

Too often on college campuses, there is a lack of visibility and clarity on how faculty can access help. Fair and caring policies, such as a standalone miscarriage policy, provide time and space for faculty members to grieve, while also clearly defining the rights of faculty, staff, and administrators and ensuring consistent treatment when an employee experiences a loss. As Grace Ellen Brannon and Catherine L. Riley suggest in their book chapter, “Missed Realities About Miscarriage in Academia,” such policy or guidance documents typically include “(1) information on how managers can offer practical and emotional support during and after a loss, and (2) managers’ responsibilities when it comes to practical support. They also include (3) other relevant policies, including medical absence and maternity or family leave policies, alongside any relevant mental health or well-being policies.”

In the United Kingdom, the University of Essex has a policy in which a pregnant employee who experiences a miscarriage is eligible for “pregnancy-related” sick leave, with no time limit on sick days one can take for miscarriage leave (partners or others affected are also eligible for “compassionate or special leave”). In addition, the policy outlines resources for department chairs (called line managers in the U.K.) to help them implement these policies for their faculty in the most humane way possible, as well as ideas for how to facilitate a return to work for employees who find it understandably difficult in the aftermath of pregnancy loss.

One promising example in the United States comes from the University of Santa Clara, which has a Reproductive Loss Leave policy, which clearly outlines the time an employee can take off with pay in the event of a reproductive loss, defined as a “failed adoption, failed surrogacy, miscarriage, stillbirth, or an unsuccessful assisted reproduction.” At the University of Arizona, the paid parental leave program allocates two weeks of paid leave in the event of a miscarriage. Outside academe, a growing number of private-sector employees are adding miscarriage leave policies. But these examples still seem to be the exception, not the norm.

Although our institutions may not be fully equipped yet, we can start showing support for our colleagues who have experienced miscarriage in small ways, whether through acts of care on an individual level or the development of formal peer support groups.

Sometimes all we need is to be heard. The sheer act of listening can go a long way, but doesn’t replace the need for structural change. In the aftermath of my loss, one colleague reached out with a simple email, which read in part, “If you ever need to talk, I’m here.” And so, in the depths of my loss, I knocked on his door, walked into his office, and with tears in my eyes, asked, “Can I talk?” We sat, crying with one another about our respective losses and the stress of it all, and I left feeling lighter. I felt lighter because I felt love and care from my colleague.

As bell hooks argues, love is not merely an emotion, but a practice and choice that can transform teaching and learning. I encourage us all to take a step back and listen to each other. I’m certain if you listen closely enough, you’ll hear what your colleagues need, and it’s probably love. Love in the form of small acts of care and open dialogue about miscarriage is a start. Love in the form of miscarriage-specific policies that demonstrate our institutions’ care for us is the end goal. Ultimately, we need policies that acknowledge the material reality of loss, help to reduce the invisible emotional labor of miscarriage by providing short-term teaching relief for affected faculty, and allow us to grieve and heal with dignity.

Alyse Keller Johnson is a writer and associate professor of communication studies at Kingsborough Community College, part of the City University of New York. Her research and writing tackle themes of health, illness, motherhood and grief and can be found at alysekellerjohnson.com.

Source link

July 21, 2025
Alabama Schools to Implement State Approved Anti-Vaping Policies – The 74

Alabama schools are set to implement a new system to prevent vaping by public school students in the coming academic year.

HB 8, sponsored by Rep. Barbara Drummond D-Mobile, requires the Alabama State Board of Education to create a model policy for local boards of education to adopt by November.

“[Drummond] wanted an anti-vaping law, so we were able to work with her on something that’s not too overwhelming for the districts, but they are all going to have an anti-vaping policy,” State Board of Education Superintendent Eric Mackey told members of the board in a meeting on Tuesday.

Under the proposed policy, students who are caught vaping once will have their parents contacted and students who are caught vaping twice will have to take a state approved vaping awareness, education and prevention class which includes a curriculum created in collaboration with the Drug Education Council.

The topics covered in the proposed curriculum presented to board members include health consequences, peer pressure, nicotine and addiction, resources to quit vaping and common misconceptions about vaping among others.

According to the Children’s of Alabama newsroom, the media branch for the Children’s of Alabama hospital, nearly 20% of high school students in 2023 said they had vaped.

Some board members at Tuesday’s meeting questioned the need for the vaping law.

“As an educator, parent and grandparent, I don’t quite understand the focus on this and bifurcating or separating from the other common concerns in every discipline policy,” said Wayne Reynolds, who represents District 8 on the board. “Why would you separate what you’re doing to a child caught vaping and contacting the parents than any other child in the discipline policy?”

District 1 Representative Jackie Zeigler raised concerns about children moving onto other drugs like Fentanyl and Xylazine or tranq and pushed for broader language in the law to prevent having to add resolutions to add other specific items such as marajuana into the law.

“I don’t think by labeling it does any justice,” she said. “We need to make it broader so these things fit into it so we don’t have to come back and say, ‘now we have [THC] gummies, and now we have vaping.’”

Mackey agreed that the law is more specific than most Alabama Department of Education policies, but because it’s the law they have to follow it and said the board is “being no more restrictive than the law requires.”

Beginning in the 1995 school year, Alabama schools were required to have a policy prohibiting the usage of tobacco on school property and the Code of Alabama Title 16 Chapter 41 states every county and city school system must have drug abuse and education courses in their curriculum.

The Alabama State Board of Education will vote on the model policy for the law next month.

Alabama Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Brian Lyman for questions: [email protected].

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

Source link

July 18, 2025
Moody’s: Trump’s tough international student policies could hit some colleges hard
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- The Trump administration’s restrictive policies for international students present a financial risk for many U.S. colleges by potentially deterring them from enrolling, Moody’s analysts said in a recent report.
- Analysts pointed to visa disruptions, increased scrutiny of social media accounts, changes to deportation rules, and recent travel bans and restrictions to the U.S. from 19 countries. The Trump administration has also created confusion around visas for Chinese students, who account for nearly a quarter of international students.
- While the impact on upcoming academic terms remains unclear, the changing policies are “diminishing the perception of the US as a prime destination for higher education,” the analysts said.
Dive Insight:

Colleges have been bracing for potential revenue and enrollment hits since the second Trump administration quickly struck an aggressive approach to immigration and international students.

When the administration moved to bar Harvard University from enrolling international students, the private institution sought and won a court order temporarily blocking the move the next day.

The ongoing legal spat underscores just how critical international enrollment is for the Ivy League university. In the 2024-25 academic year, Harvard’s roughly 6,800 foreign students made up 27.2% of the university’s total student body.

And just this week, George Washington University cited, among other federal moves, a slowdown in visa processing and President Donald Trump’s travel bans when explaining the need for painful budget measures, including possible layoffs.

International students make up over 20% of enrollment at 11% of the colleges rated by Moody’s. But that figure may understate the financial impact of lower international enrollment.

Foreign students typically pay full tuition and fees at colleges, noted Moody’s analysts Debra Roane, vice president and senior credit officer, and Emily Raimes, associate managing director. And they do so at a time when the ranks of traditional-age college students are projected to decline significantly in the coming years.

“Universities intending to fill the gap with more international students may fall short,” Roane and Raimes said in the report.

The analysts ran a stress test on colleges rated by Moody’s to look at the financial impact of international student enrollment declines. Given a 10% drop in international enrollment, 54 out 392 institutions would suffer a hit to a measure of their operating performance of at least half a percentage point. Seven of those colleges would see those margins decrease by two to eight percentage points.

With a 20% drop in international enrollment, 130 colleges would lose at least half a percentage point from their margins, and 18 among them would lose two to eight points. Those with already low margins could face “significant financial stress,” Roane and Raimes said.

The analysts noted, however, that highly selective colleges or those with considerable financial reserves might “better absorb the impacts by adjusting operations or increasing domestic enrollment.” Other prominent colleges might be able to mitigate international student declines through alternative revenue sources like fundraising and endowment spending.

But others could have a much tougher time. Roane and Raimes pointed to specialty institutions, such as arts colleges — which are already facing a tough environment — whose student bodies can be over 30% international.
Source link
July 11, 2025