Local lawmakers walked out of a meeting with University of Pennsylvania officials on Tuesday due to what they said was insufficient support for diversity, equity and inclusion, WHYY reported.
Pennsylvania state senator Art Haywood and state representative Napoleon Nelson, both Democrats, reportedly walked out of the meeting after a Penn official referred to diversity as a “lightning rod.”
The meeting, which included several elected state and city officials, became contentious, with lawmakers pressing Penn to hold its ground against the Trump administration’s executive actions on DEI, according to WHYY.
Penn has since removed webpages about its DEI initiatives and updated its nondiscrimination policies, despite swirling legal questions and a nationwide injunction handed down last week that blocked the Trump administration’s plans to crack down on college DEI efforts.
University officials denied backtracking on Penn’s commitment to DEI, according to lawmakers’ accounts of the meeting.
A university spokesperson told the Philadelphia radio station that Penn remains “committed to nondiscrimination in all of our operations and policies” and said the institution appreciated the concerns raised.
Lawmakers indicated that they would continue to press Penn on its commitment to DEI; several provided fiery statements to WHYY casting the university’s response as weak.
“Penn has made a cowardly move, rushing to heed dog-whistle demands from a feckless federal leadership and dismantle their programs that welcome students and workers from an expansive range of backgrounds,” state senator Nikil Saval, a Democrat, told the radio station.
The chair of the Australian Universities Accord is to lead the yet-to-be-established Australian Tertiary Education Commission, Education Minister Jason Clare revealed on Wednesday night.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Below is a statement from FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh on the restraining order against the Clarksdale Press Register:
The city of Clarksdale, Mississippi, thinks it knows better than the Founders. Clarksdale asked a court to order a local newspaper to remove an editorial asking why the city was not being more transparent about a proposed tax increase. As a result of the city’s lawsuit, a court ordered the Clarksdale Press Register to delete the online editorial.
That’s unconstitutional. In the United States, the government can’t determine what opinions may be shared in the public square. A free society does not permit governments to sue newspapers for publishing editorials.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting First Amendment rights, is exploring all options to aid The Press Register in defending these core expressive rights.
From JD Vance’s free speech critique of Europe to the
Trump administration barring the Associated Press from the Oval
Office, free speech news is buzzing. General Counsel Ronnie London
and Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere unpack the latest
developments.
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
01:49 JD Vance’s speech in Europe
13:27 Margaret Brennan’s comment on the Holocaust
15:13 Weimar fallacy
17:36 Trump admin v. Associated Press
21:33 DEI executive order
27:39 Trump’s lawsuits targeting the media
28:54 FIRE defending Iowa pollster Ann Selzer
32:29 Concerns about the FCC under Brendan Carr
44:09 2004 Super Bowl and the FCC
46:25 FCC’s history of using the “Section 230
threat”
49:14 Newsguard and the FCC
54:48 Elon Musk and doxxing
59:44 Foreigners and the First Amendment
01:05:19 Outro
Enjoy listening to our podcast? Donate to FIRE today and
get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and
more. If you became a FIRE Member
through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to
Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected].
A widening gulf has opened between the Trump administration and the Associated Press.
Which gulf?
Precisely.
On Tuesday, the AP said the White House blocked one of its reporters from attending an event in the Oval Office because the outlet continues to use the name Gulf of Mexico in its reporting. This, despite President Donald Trump’s recent executive order renaming it the Gulf of America.
After Trump signed that order, the AP announced it would continue referring to the gulf by its original name “while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen.” It did so in part because the gulf borders other countries that don’t recognize the name change. (The AP did update its Stylebook to reflect Trump’s separate decision to revert the name of North America’s highest mountain, which President Obama changed to the native moniker Denali, to Mount McKinley because that “area lies solely in the United States.”)
In a Wednesday briefing, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed the AP’s allegations:
I was very up front in my briefing on day one that if we feel that there are lies being pushed by outlets in this room, we are going to hold those lies accountable. And it is a fact that the body of water off the coast of Louisiana is called the Gulf of America.
The standoff continues — and has escalated beyond Oval Office events. Last night, the White House blocked the AP from an open press conference featuring Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
FIRE issued a statement condemning the administration’s actions, which have drawn criticism from press freedom groups, pundits, and politicians across the political spectrum.
In a letter to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, AP Executive Editor Julie Pace called the administration’s actions “viewpoint discrimination based on a news organization’s editorial choices and a clear violation of the First Amendment.”
She’s right.
To be sure, the First Amendment does not require the White House to open its doors to the media or hold press conferences. Nor does the president have to do a one-on-one interview with CNN just because he did one with Fox News. But courtdecisionsspanningdecades make clear that once the government grants media access, it has to play by constitutional rules.
That doesn’t mean the White House has to allow every reporter in the world into the Oval Office or briefing room. Space constraints obviously make that impossible, and not every journalist will manage to secure a press pass. But the reason for denying access matters. When the government shuts out journalists explicitly because it dislikes their reporting or political views, that violates the First Amendment.
As one federal court proclaimed, “Neither the courts nor any other branch of the government can be allowed to affect the content or tenor of the news by choreographing which news organizations have access to relevant information.”
And because denying press access involves the potential deprivation of First Amendment rights, any decision about who’s in or out must also satisfy due process. That means the government must establish clear, impartial criteria and procedures, and reporters must receive notice of why they were denied access and have a fair opportunity to challenge that decision.
The AP — a major news agency that produces and distributes reports to thousands of newspapers, radio stations, and TV broadcasters around the world — has had long-standing access to the White House. It is now losing that access because its exercise of editorial discretion doesn’t align with the administration’s preferred messaging.
That’s viewpoint discrimination, and it’s unconstitutional.
This isn’t the first time the White House has sent a journalist packing for reporting critically, asking tough questions, or failing to toe the government line. During Trump’s first term, the White House suspended CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s press pass after he interrogated the president about his views on immigration. After the network sued, a federal court ordered the administration to restore Acosta’s pass.
But court decisions spanning decades make clear that once the government grants media access, it has to play by constitutional rules.
Democratic administrations have also unacceptably targeted disfavored outlets for exclusion. The Obama administration tried to exclude Fox News from a press pool because of displeasure with its coverage. Obama’s deputy press secretary Josh Earnest said at the time, “We’ve demonstrated our willingness and ability to exclude Fox News from significant interviews.”
Similar attacks on press freedom happen at all levels of government. In 2022, FIRE filed an amicus curiae — “friend of the court” — brief in a First Amendment lawsuit challenging vague and arbitrary press pass rules that Arizona elections officials used to block a Gateway Pundit journalist from press conferences. The officials didn’t like the conservative journalist’s political views or negative coverage, including his “inflammatory and/or accusatory language.” After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit initially ruled in favor of The Gateway Pundit, the outlet received a $175,000 settlement.
The current spat over naming conventions for a body of water may seem trivial. But it sends a chilling message to all journalists that White House access hinges on whether the president approves of their reporting. Left unchecked, such a precedent opens the door to broader efforts to manipulate public discourse and undermine press freedom. What other “lies” might the Trump administration hold media outlets “accountable” for? Could scrutiny of its immigration policies, economic performance, or claims about election integrity be next?
The characterization of the AP’s editorial style choice as a “lie” shows the danger of empowering the state to police mis- or disinformation. The Chinese government might say the same about anyone who calls a certain territory “Taiwan” instead of the “Republic of China” or “Chinese Taipei.” To a government official with a misinformation hammer, every deviation from official messaging looks like a nail. We saw enough misguided attempts to police “misinformation” during the Biden administration. Let’s leave that behind.
In an executive order signed the same day as the one renaming the gulf, Trump promised to “ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.” That’s a good policy, and the administration should stick to it — the First Amendment requires no less.
Any government attempt to control the flow of information strikes a blow at the First Amendment. A free press performs a vital democratic function — gathering, curating, and delivering information, which we can then evaluate for ourselves. Without the Fourth Estate acting as a crucial check on government power, we’ll know less about what our elected officials are up to, and face greater difficulty holding them accountable.
The beauty of this country’s ideologically diverse media landscape is that if you distrust a particular source, countless others are available offering different information and perspectives. Preserving this rich information ecosystem demands constant vigilance against any threats to free speech and a free press, regardless of who the target is. The alternative — no matter what name you give it — is censorship.
At the University of Texas at Dallas, a new independent newspaper is bearing witness to an authoritarian streak undermining student rights on campus. Last week, The Retrograde published its first print edition — cementing its status as the successor to The Mercury, the historic student newspaper that administrators silenced last spring for expressing dissenting opinions.
The new paper’s name — a reference to the astrological phenomenon of “Mercury in retrograde” — also references student journalists’ perception that the university is “going in reverse” on important issues like free speech.
“We are seeing the school backslide and we want to make sure that each step backwards is criticized and documented,” said Gregorio Olivares Gutierrez, former editor-in-chief of The Mercury and current editor of The Retrograde.
Concerns about academic freedom on college campuses spurred an interest in journalism for Gutierrez, a UT Dallas sophomore studying political science and philosophy. In an interview with FIRE, Gutierrez explained that he joined The Mercury in October 2023, “mainly because I was hearing a lot of commotion around the removal of DEI from the classroom.”
Although Senate Bill 17 — which Texas passed in 2023 to ban DEI offices, training, and statements at public universities — included exceptions for teaching and research, headlines revealed in November 2024 that administrators were, in fact, subjecting teaching and research to “intense scrutiny” under the law.
As Gutierrez tells it, he saw warning signs at the University of North Texas, UT Dallas’ closest neighbor in the statewide system, where administrators unilaterally removed references to concepts like diversity and critical race theory from course titles and syllabi. “Despite these being higher-ed concepts, you couldn’t even talk about them,” Gutierrez said. FIRE wrote a letter to North Texas on Dec. 6, 2024, urging administrators “to refrain from unlawfully ordering changes to faculty’s pedagogical material as part of UNT’s overreaching compliance with state law.”
We are seeing the school backslide and we want to make sure that each step backwards is criticized and documented.
At UT Dallas, Gutierrez describes the emergence of a similar climate, where faculty “are scared that what they’re going to say isn’t allowed or that it will get them in trouble,” or might be “a mark against them” in tenure review.
Gutierrez says The Mercury was a watchdog not just at UT Dallas, but within the statewide system.
Retrograde editor Gregorio Olivares Gutierrez
“Anytime [Governor] Greg Abbott wants to crack down on higher ed,” Gutierrez told FIRE, “he usually starts with UT Austin, and then the other presidents in the UT system will either . . . do the same themselves or . . . get the consequences thrown their way.” And these changes affect UT Dallas. As Gutierrez explains it, “if there’s something’s going on in one Texas school, it’s very likely that our administration is going to like what they see and try to incorporate that into our campus policy.”
It was exactly this watchdog role that got Gutierrez and The Mercury into trouble. Last spring, after a police crackdown on First Amendment-protected protests at UT Austin, Gutierrez recalls asking, “If encampments form at UT Dallas, what will we do? How do we protect our student journalists if there are police there? Can we make sure that we’re not getting arrested while doing this important coverage?”
The Mercury’s journalists were not arrested by the state troopers that UT Dallas deployed to break up pro-Palestinian protests, but the newspaper’s relationship with the administration deteriorated after its coverage criticized the university for quashing peaceful protests. In the end, administrators forced Gutierrez out, firing him as editor-in-chief and then firing more staff when they went on strike in protest. To make it worse, administrators completed these terminations without following official policy on the removal of editors — denying due process to Gutierrez and his colleagues.
It would have been very easy for us to just roll over and let the campus administration do whatever they wanted with the student newspaper. But that would be a failure on our part to do proper journalism. It would be a huge dereliction of our duty as student journalists.
Over a thousand people signed The Mercury’s solidarity petition after Gutierrez was fired. Not only that, as Gutierrez recounted to FIRE, “The student government passed multiple resolutions denouncing the actions from campus administration and then supporting our new endeavors with The Retrograde, officially recognizing it as the student newspaper. And the faculty’s academic senate has also been in support of us. They passed a resolution, which was just like — We’ll support the student government’s decision.”
For the student journalists behind The Mercury, the administration’s attempt to silence them marked the beginning of a new chapter for independent student expression.
Gutierrez told FIRE that The Retrograde is working to get 501(c)(3) status and is currently registered as a nonprofit in the state of Texas. This move would give the newspaper full control over its operations — unlike The Mercury, which was beholden to administrators and faculty on the university-sponsored Student Media Oversight Board.
The first issue of The Retrograde independent student newspaper at UT Dallas published on Jan. 21, 2025.
But this new era of editorial freedom has not come without challenges. Gutierrez told FIRE that although “we do what we want as student journalists and we don’t have to fear campus reprisal when it comes to our actions, the administration has been very insistent that they don’t want this structure to exist at all.” While The Retrograde is free from direct retaliation, the university has engaged in what Gutierrez calls a “subtle form of censorship” by directing inquiries to PR officials, ensuring that the official university response is the only one that gets heard.
Administrators at UT Dallas have a lengthy history of suppressing transparency and keeping student voices under their control. During Gutierrez’s freshman year, he recalls a cat torturer being exposed in a front page article in The Mercury as an employee of the university. Although the investigation was thorough and newsworthy, Gutierrez says, “The university didn’t like that we were talking about it . . . They were like, oh, we’re dealing with this internally, so you don’t need to make it public.” And in the spring of 2020, when the paper covered a series of suicides on campus, administrators allegedly removed copies of the paper from campus kiosks.
For Gutierrez, reporting on matters of public concern is often a question of safety.
“Students want to know that the people at the testing center [like the cat torturer] might not all be the safest individuals in that very specific circumstance,” he says, “and yet campus administrators don’t talk about stuff like that.”
Despite these challenges, Gutierrez believes student journalists have a sacred obligation to uphold the freedoms promised by the Constitution. “It would have been very easy for us to just roll over and let the campus administration do whatever they wanted with the student newspaper. But that would be a failure on our part to do proper journalism. It would be a huge dereliction of our duty as student journalists,” he added, “to allow this huge infringement upon the First Amendment to occur on campus.”
FIRE to University of Texas at Dallas: Stop censoring the student press
News
Join FIRE in demanding UT Dallas compensate journalists, protect student media from interference.
Gutierrez credits FIRE, the Student Press Law Center, and the Society of Professional Journalists for stepping in with support, resources, and advice. He encourages other student journalists to reach out to these groups if censorship comes their way.
“I think it’s really important for student journalists facing censorship to reach out to others, work together and fight back against the current regime of censorship that a lot of universities are so fond of,” he concluded.
The Retrograde’s plans to hold UT Dallas administrators accountable are as ambitious as ever. After the May 1, 2024 police raid on a peaceful protest at UT Dallas, Gutierrez and his fellow journalists filed a public records request.
“Right now, we’re working through over 1,500 pages of emails that we’ve gotten from our FOIA request,” said Gutierrez, “and a lot of the information in there is damning.”
You can take action to remind President Richard Benson that UT Dallas is a public institution that must abide by the First Amendment and uphold freedom of the press, even when the administration disagrees with student reporting. As Gutierrez says, “I hope it will shame our university administrators into acting normally for once.”
The University of Texas at Dallas has a troubling history of trying to silence students. Now those students are fighting back.
Today, the editors of The Retrograde published their first print edition, marking a triumphant return for journalism on campus in the face of administrative efforts to quash student press.
Headlines above the fold of the first issue of The Retrograde, a new independent student newspaper at UT Dallas.
Why call the newspaper The Retrograde? Because it’s replacing the former student newspaper, The Mercury, which ran into trouble when it covered the pro-Palestinian encampments on campus and shed light on UT Dallas’s use of state troopers (the same force that broke up UT Austin’s encampment just one week prior) and other efforts to quash even peaceful protest. As student journalists reported, their relationship with the administration subsequently deteriorated. University officials demoted the newspaper’s advisor and even removed copies of the paper from newsstands. At the center of this interference were Lydia Lum, director of student media, and Jenni Huffenberger, senior director of marketing and student media, whose titles reflect the university’s resistance to editorial freedom.
The conflict between the paper and the administration came to a head when Lum called for a meeting of the Student Media Oversight Board, a university body which has the power to remove student leaders, accusing The Mercury’s editor-in-chief, Gregorio Olivares Gutierrez, of violating student media bylaws by having another form of employment, exceeding printing costs, and “bypassing advisor involvement.” Yet rather than follow those same bylaws, which offer detailed instructions for removing a student editor, Lum told board members from other student media outlets not to attend the meeting. A short-handed board then voted to oust Gutierrez. Adding insult to injury, Huffenberger unilaterally denied Gutierrez’s appeal, again ignoring the bylaws, which require the full board to consider any termination appeals.
The student journalists of The Retrograde have shown incredible spirit. With your help, we can ensure their efforts — and the rights of all student journalists — are respected.
In response, The Mercury’s staff went on strike, demanding Gutierrez’s reinstatement. To help in that effort, FIRE and the Student Press Law Center joined forces to pen a Nov. 12, 2024 letter calling for UT Dallas to honor the rights of the student journalists. We also asked them to pay the students the money they earned for the time they worked prior to the strike.
UT Dallas refused to listen. Instead of embracing freedom of the press, the administration doubled down on censorship, ignoring both the students’ and our calls for justice.
FIRE took out a full page ad in support of The Retrograde at UT Dallas.
In our letter, we argued that the university’s firing of Gutierrez was in retaliation for The Mercury’s unflattering coverage of the way administrators had handled the encampments. This is not even the first time UT Dallas has chosen censorship as the “best solution;” look no further than in late 2023 when they removed the “Spirit Rocks” students used to express themselves. Unfortunately, the university ignored both the students’ exhortations and FIRE’s demands, leaving UT Dallas without its newspaper.
But FIRE’s Student Press Freedom Initiative is here to make sure censorship never gets the last word.
Students established The Retrograde, a fully independent newspaper. Without university resources, they have had to crowdfund and source their own equipment, working spaces, a new website, and everything else necessary to provide quality student-led journalism to the UT Dallas community. They succeeded, and FIRE is proud to support their efforts, placing a full-page ad in this week’s inaugural issue of The Retrograde.
The fight for press freedom at UT Dallas is far from over — but we need your help to make a difference.
Demand accountability from UT Dallas. The student journalists of The Retrograde have shown incredible spirit. With your help, we can ensure their efforts — and the rights of all student journalists — are respected.
Johns Hopkins University Press/MIT Press/University Press of Kentucky/Duke University Press/Princeton University Press/University of Minnesota Press/University of California Press
More catalogs from university presses started arriving almost immediately after the last roundup of spring titles appeared—and in going through them, a couple of topical clusters of books struck me as notable. Here is a quick overview. Quoted passages come from material provided by the publishers.
What do ant colonies, online subcultures, the publishing industry and the device you are using to read this all have in common? Each is, in some sense, a network embedded in still wider networks. They, like myriad other phenomena, can be depicted in geometric diagrams in which the components of a system (“vertices”) are connected by lines (“edges”) representing interactions or relationships.
Researchers across many disciplines understand how systems and processes can be conceptualized as networks. The lay public, on the whole, does not. Anthony Bonato’s Dots and Lines: Hidden Networks in Social Media, AI, and Nature (Hopkins University Press, May) aims to bring nonspecialist readers up to speed on elements of the network perspective. Everything from “Bitcoin transactions to neural connections” and “political landscapes to climate patterns” can be mapped via dots and lines. The author’s use of demotic labels seems well-advised, given that “Vertices and Edges” seems much less commercially viable as a title.
Some networks make it a priority to remain diagrammable, of course. Isak Ladegaard’s Open Secrecy: How Technology Empowers the Digital Underworld (University of California Press, May) looks into the “military-grade encryption, rerouting software, and cryptocurrencies” enabling “shadowy groups to organize collective action.” Examples include dark-web markets for illegal drugs, the activities of online hate groups and the efforts of Chinese citizens to remain connected to parts of the internet blocked by the Great Firewall. In each case, those running stealth networks “move through cyberspace like digital nomads, often with law enforcement and other powerful actors on their tails.”
Leif Weatherby’s Language Machines: Cultural AI and the End of Remainder Humanism (University of Minnesota Press, June) offers “a new theory of meaning in language and computation” applicable to the production of texts by artificial intelligence based on large language models.
Generative AI “does not simulate cognition, as widely believed,” he argues, “but rather creates culture” instead of just shuffling together fragments of it. (This is perhaps as good an occasion as any to issue my prediction that 2025 will see the first best-selling novel written by an AI algorithm.)
On an altogether more dire note, Daniel Oberhaus’s The Silicon Shrink: How Artificial Intelligence Made the World an Asylum (MIT Press, February) warns that the use of AI in psychiatry has shown “vanishingly little evidence” of improving patient outcomes. The problem is not one of engineering but of programming: The algorithms incorporate “deeply flawed psychiatric models of mental disorder at unprecedented scale,” posing “significant risks to vulnerable people.”
In old-school psychodynamic therapy, what’s said during the consultation does not leave the room. The author warns that a “psychiatric surveillance economy” is emerging, one “in which the emotions, behavior, and cognition of everyday people are subtly manipulated by psychologically savvy algorithms.”
Doubling down on a strictly defined and vigilantly enforced understanding of sex and gender as binary is high on the MAGA cultural agenda. A few books out this spring insist on the ambiguities and complexities, even so.
Agustín Fuentes offers perhaps the most basic challenge to traditional assumptions with Sex Is a Spectrum: The Biological Limits of the Binary (Princeton University Press, May). Arguing on the basis of recent scientific research, the book “explain[s] why the binary view of the sexes is fundamentally flawed,” with “compelling evidence from the fossil and archaeological record that attests to the diversity of our ancestors’ sexual bonds, gender roles, and family and community structures.”
The ability to survive and thrive in unwelcoming circumstances is a focus of the writings collected in To Belong Here: A New Generation of Queer, Trans, and Two-Spirit Appalachian Writers (University Press of Kentucky, April), edited by Rae Garringer. The term “two-spirit” refers to a nonbinary gender category recognized among some Indigenous peoples in North America. Contributors discuss “themes of erasure, environmentalism, violence, kinship, racism, Indigeneity, queer love, and trans liberation” in Appalachia, exploring “the writers’ resilience in reconciling their complex and often contradictory connections to home.”
Transgender philosophy is covered at some length in an entry recently added to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Talia Mae Bettcher, whose work figures prominently in the entry’s bibliography, continues her work in the field with Beyond Personhood (University of Minnesota Press, March), presenting “a theory of intimacy and distance” that proposes “an entirely new philosophical approach to trans experience, trans oppression, gender dysphoria, and the relationship between gender and identity.”
Engineering and programming enter transgender studies’ already interdisciplinary ambit with Oliver L. Haimson’s Trans Technologies (MIT Press, February), which draws on the author’s “in-depth interviews with more than 100 creators of technology” for trans people, showing “how trans people often must rely on community, technology, and the combination of the two to meet their basic needs and challenges.” From the book’s description and the author’s published articles, it seems that the technology in question tends to be digital: social networks, games, extended reality systems (akin to virtual reality but with additional capacities). The book also considers the factors shaping, and in some cases restricting, innovation in trans tech.
To close this list, there’s The Dream of a Common Movement (Duke University Press, April), a collection of writings by and interviews with Urvashi Vaid (1958–2022) edited by Jyotsna Vaid and Amy Hoffman. Urvashi Vaid was a feminist and a civil rights advocate whose work “over the course of four decades fundamentally shaped the LGBTQ movement.” Her perspective that “the goal of any liberation movement should be transformation, not assimilation” seems compatible with an older principle, which holds that an injury to one is an injury to all.
Scott McLemee is Inside Higher Ed’s “Intellectual Affairs” columnist. He was a contributing editor at Lingua Franca magazine and a senior writer at The Chronicle of Higher Education before joining Inside Higher Ed in 2005.
