Tag: protect

Higher Ed Leaders Rally to Protect DEI Initiatives

Drs. Warren Anderson, Lisa Coleman, and Michael Anthony speaking on the President’s panel at NADOHE.Photos by Tim Trumble In a powerful gathering of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) professionals, university leaders from across the nation shared strategies for protecting critical DEI work on college campuses despite mounting opposition nationwide.

The concluding panel discussion, moderated by Dr. Warren Anderson from Bradley University, featured Dr. Michael D. Anthony, the first African American president of Prairie State College, and Dr. Lisa Coleman, the first female and first Black president of Adler University.

Coleman, who has over three decades of experience in inclusion work, emphasized the importance of strong communications and media representation in defending DEI efforts.

“What I see is the evolution of a diversity equity inclusion field from multiculturalism to liberalism to diversity,” she noted, adding that leaders must determine their own risk tolerance and that of their institutions when navigating these challenges.

Anthony, who leads Prairie State College—both a Predominantly Black Institution and Hispanic-serving Institution about 30 miles from Chicago—highlighted the increasingly polarized context in which DEI work takes place.

“We’ve been under attack around the federal government… with citizens becoming more cynical, hostile, and divided,” he observed, stressing the importance of critical thinking in an era of fast, subjective media.

Following the panel discussion, Dr. Clyde Wilson Pickett, vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at the University of Pittsburgh and board chairman of NADOHE shared a personal story about his great-grandmother that embodied the spirit of responsibility central to DEI work. He recounted how his great-grandmother, just one generation removed from slavery, would pick up garbage along the streets of her neighborhood every day after working a full day as a domestic worker.

Photos by Tim Trumble “She would take two buses out to be a domestic worker . When she got up in the morning at 5:00 AM to catch her first bus, she would walk down one side of the street picking up garbage,” Pickett explained. When he asked her why she did this, she responded, “We have to understand that we have a responsibility for our own and to take care of our own. So, what I’m doing is investing in our community.”

Pickett drew a parallel to current DEI challenges that these frontline administrators are facing. “We have to do some things that we didn’t necessarily cause, but something that we had the responsibility to clean up.”

He reminded attendees of their purpose during these “defining moments” that test values and resilience. “The ultimate measure of a person is not where they stand in moments of comfort and convenience, but where they stand in times of challenge and controversy,” he said, quoting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Pickett urged DEI professionals to stay grounded in their values and purpose. “We have to understand when we face this adversity, we have to return to our why—why do we do what we do? Why we’re committed to what we’re committed to, and who we do it for.”

He said that building connections rather than divisions is crucial in the fight ahead. Over the weekend, the University of Virginia’s Board of Visitors voted to dissolve the college’s Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) and Community Partnerships.

“We know now more than ever, it’s important for us to do so by building bridges and not walls,” he said. “The same individuals who are leaving trash in our communities, who are causing conflict, want us to put up further walls between each other.”

Pickett acknowledged the real challenges and potential for burnout in DEI work but urged professionals to practice self-care. “The work of diversity, equity, and inclusion is real. The burnout is real… And our ability to do this work can be compromised if we do not take care of ourselves.”

The four-day conference, which coincided with International Women’s Day, served as both a celebration of progress and a rallying cry for continued advocacy. Despite growing opposition to DEI initiatives across American campuses, these leaders remain committed to protecting the progress made and supporting the professionals who advance this essential work every day.

“I am leaving more reenergized and confident for the fight ahead,” said one attendee.

Source link

March 8, 2025
States are stepping up to protect and deliver for borrowers. (Student Borrower Protection Center)

Attacks at the federal level on working families make state and local work like this all the more necessary. States can and must step up to create more protections for borrowers!

Keep calm and TAKE ACTION,

Amy Czulada

Outreach & Advocacy Manager

Student Borrower Protection Center

Source link

February 28, 2025
Ducking and covering is no way to protect higher ed

This is one of those times I’m glad I’m in charge of only myself. I can’t imagine the pressure of leading an organization—like a higher ed institution—that is dependent on support from the federal government for its literal day-to-day operations.

Also, I am aware of the old saw about free advice … it’s worth what you pay for it.

Nonetheless, I’m going to venture some advice for institutions experiencing the assault of the opening 10 or so days of the second Trump presidency.

Opinions may differ on exactly what is happening, but I’m convinced that New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie is correct in saying, “Donald Trump is waging war on the American system of government.”

If you believe this is true, there’s no room for accommodation. Ending democratic governance leaves no room for the kind of higher education that has made the U.S. the envy of the world.

You’ve got to resist, all of it, actively, with as much countering force as possible. An administration that without notice “pauses” NIH and NSF activities, that even stops disbursement through the Office of Management and Budget, is not merely reorienting the government around the new president’s priorities. It seems clear they either intend to destroy or hobble higher education to make it a vassal state.

I’ve got myself thinking of a couple of dynamics that I think are important to recognize in the moment.

One is the problem of “institutional awe,” which I draw from the term “vocational awe,” coined by Fobazi Ettarh from observing the work of librarians such as herself. She calls vocational awe “the set of ideas, values and assumptions librarians have about themselves and the profession that result in notions that libraries as institutions are inherently good, sacred notions, and therefore beyond critique.”

Ettarh identifies vocational awe as a route to self-exploitation as librarians are called upon to sacrifice their own well-being in order to preserve the operations of the library itself.

“Institutional awe” is a bit different, and something perpetrated not by the laborers, but by leadership, where it’s judged that the continued operation of the institution is of the utmost importance, no matter the sacrifices required by the individual stakeholders, or the damage to the underlying mission of the institution.

Under institutional awe, as long as the doors remain open, anything goes.

There are already some worrying signs of this mentality in terms of some pre-emptive compliance with merely perceived threats from the Trump administration. In some cases, these moves appear to be motivated by a desire for administrations to use Trump policy as a rationale for either seizing more control or silencing dissent that’s causing them headaches. I do not want to think uncharitably of some of the leaders of the nation’s higher education institutions, but “Trump made me do it” appears to be a handy rationale for dodging responsibility.

In other cases, I think we’re looking at rank cowardice, as in Northeastern University’s decision to purge any public-facing information that even references diversity, equity and inclusion. I suppose this suggests that Northeastern was not particularly committed to these things, as they are setting a land speed record for “obeying in advance.”

The other big-picture caution I have is something I wrote about recently, to remember that there is always something next, and decisions you make in the present shape what that next thing is going to be.

It seems clear to me that higher ed institutions are going to be fundamentally different both because of the efforts of Trump and some red state governors to make them over to something that must express fealty to their preferred vision, and simply because we’ve reached an endpoint regarding a prior vision of postsecondary education as something that should be accessible to all.

A long-standing belief of many conservatives, that too many people go to college—and by too many people they mean women and minority students—that has been simmering under the surface for decades has now come into the open as overt attempts to, in the words of Victor Ray, “resegregate America” under the guise of challenging diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

I understand the urge to treat what’s going on as perhaps elevated but still normal government functioning in line with what happens during any transition from one party to the other holding the White House. Members of the Democratic Party themselves seem to be acting according to this view.

But how much evidence is necessary to recognize that this is a delusion and that pre-emptive appeasement or ducking and covering while hoping the blows land elsewhere is not going to work?

While public trust in higher education has declined in recent years—mostly along partisan lines—it does not follow that most Americans would like to see the important work of teaching and research be utterly destroyed.

As much as possible, institutions should act in solidarity with each other, considering an attack on one institution an attack on all, given that your institution will be next at some point.

In the words of Alexander Hamilton, as imagined by Lin-Manuel Miranda, “If you stand for nothing, what will you fall for?”

Source link

January 30, 2025
We need new ways to protect academic freedom (opinion)

Katherine Franke, formerly a law professor at Columbia University, is just the latest of many academics who have found themselves in hot water because of something they said outside the classroom. Others have been fired or resigned under pressure for what they posted online or said in other off-campus venues.

In each of those cases, the “offending party” invoked academic freedom or freedom of speech as a defense to pressures brought on them, or procedures initiated against them, by university administrators. The traditional discourse of academic freedom or free speech on campus has focused on threats from inside the academy of the kind that led Franke and others to leave their positions.

Today, threats to academic freedom and free speech are being mounted from the outside by governments or advocacy groups intent on policing colleges and universities and exposing what they see as a suffocating orthodoxy. As Darrell M. West wrote in 2022, “In recent years, we have seen a number of cases where political leaders upset about criticism have challenged professors and sought to intimidate them into silence.”

We have seen this act before, and the record of universities is not pretty.

During the 1940s and 1950s, an anticommunist crusade swept the nation, and universities were prime targets. In that period, “faculty and staff at institutions of higher learning across the country experienced increased scrutiny from college administrators and trustees, as well as Congress and the FBI, for their speech, their academic work, and their political activities.”

And many universities put up no resistance.

Today, some believe, as Nina Jankowicz puts it, that we are entering “an era of real censorship the likes of which the United States has never seen. How will universities respond?”

If academic freedom and freedom of expression are to be meaningful, colleges and universities must not only resist the temptation to punish or purge people whose speech they and others may find offensive; they must provide new protections against external threats, especially when it comes to extramural speech by members of their faculties.

They must become active protectors and allies of faculty who are targeted.

As has long been recognized, academic freedom and free speech are not identical. In 2007, Rachel Levinson, then the AAUP senior counsel, wrote, “It can … be difficult to explain the distinction between ‘academic freedom’ and ‘free speech rights under the First Amendment’—two related but analytically distinct legal concepts.”

Levinson explained, “Academic freedom … addresses rights within the educational contexts of teaching, learning, and research both in and outside the classroom.” Free speech requires that there be no regulation of expression on “all sorts of topics and in all sorts of settings.”

Ten years after Levinson, Stanley Fish made a splash when he argued, “Freedom of speech is not an academic value.” As Fish explained, “Accuracy of speech is an academic value … [because of] the goal of academic inquiry: getting a matter of fact right.” Free speech, in contrast, means “something like a Hyde Park corner or a town-hall meeting where people take turns offering their opinions on pressing social matters.”

But as Keith Whittington observes, the boundaries that Levinson and Fish think can be drawn between academic freedom and free speech are not always recognized, even by organizations like the AAUP. “In its foundational 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure,” Whittington writes, “the AAUP asserted that academic freedom consists of three elements: freedom of research, freedom of teaching, and ‘freedom of extramural utterance and action.’”

In 1940, Whittington explains, “the organization reemphasized its position that ‘when they speak or write as citizens,’ professors ‘should be free from institutional censorship or discipline.’”

Like the AAUP, Whittington opposes “institutional censorship” for extramural speech. That is crucially important.

But in the era in which academics now live and work, is it enough?

We know that academics report a decrease in their sense of academic freedom. A fall 2024 survey by Inside Higher Ed found that 49 percent of professors experienced a decline over the prior year in their sense of academic freedom as it pertains to extramural speech.

To foster academic freedom and free speech on campus or in the world beyond the campus, colleges and universities need to move from merely tolerating the expression of unpopular ideas to a more affirmative stance in which they take responsibility for fostering it. It is not enough to tell faculty that the university will respect academic freedom and free expression if they are afraid to exercise those very rights.

Faculty may be fearful that saying the “wrong” thing will result in being ostracized or shunned. John Stuart Mill, one of the great advocates for free expression, warned about what he called “the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling.” That tyranny could chill the expression of unpopular ideas.

In 1952, during the McCarthy era, Supreme Court justice Felix Frankfurter also worried about efforts to intimidate academics that had “an unmistakable tendency to chill that free play of the spirit which all teachers ought especially to cultivate and practice.”

Beyond the campus, faculty may rightly fear that if they say things that offend powerful people or government officials, they will be quickly caught up in an online frenzy or will be targeted. If they think their academic institutions will not have their back, they may choose the safety of silence over the risk of saying what they think.

Whittington gets it right when he argues that “Colleges and universities should encourage faculty to bring their expertise to bear on matters of public concern and express their informed judgments to public audiences when doing so might be relevant to ongoing public debates.” The public interest is served when we “design institutions and practices that facilitate the diffusion of that knowledge.”

Those institutions and practices need to be adapted to the political environment in which we live. That is why it is so important that colleges and universities examine their policies and practices and develop new ways of supporting their faculty if extramural speech gets them in trouble. This may mean providing financial resources as well as making public statements in defense of those faculty members.

Colleges and universities should also consider making their legal counsel available to offer advice and representation and using whatever political influence they wield on behalf of a faculty member who is under attack.

Without those things, academics may be “free from” the kind of university action that led Franke to leave Columbia but still not be “free to” use their academic freedom and right of free expression for the benefit of their students, their professions and the society at large.

Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College.

Source link

January 29, 2025
FIRE to Congress: More work needed to protect free speech on college campuses

What is the state of free speech on college campuses? More students now support shouting down speakers. Several institutions faced external pressure from government entities to punish constitutionally protected speech. And the number of “red light” institutions — those with policies that significantly restrict free speech — rose for the second year in a row, reversing a 15-year trend of decreasing percentages of red light schools, according to FIRE research.

These are just a few of the concerns shared by FIRE’s Lead Counsel for Government Affairs Tyler Coward, who joined lawmakers, alumni groups, students, and stakeholders last week in a discussion on the importance of improving freedom of expression on campus.

Rep. Greg Murphy led the roundtable, along with Rep. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and Rep. Burgess Owens.

But the picture on campus isn’t all bad news. Tyler highlighted some positive developments, including: an increase in “green light” institutions — schools with written policies that do not seriously threaten student expression — along with commitments to institutional neutrality, and “more and more institutions are voluntarily abandoning their requirements that faculty and students submit so-called DEI statements for admission, application, promotion, and tenure review.”

Tyler noted the passage of the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act in the House. The bill requires public institutions of higher education to “ensure their free speech policies align with Supreme Court precedent that protects students’ rights — regardless of their ideology or viewpoint.” Furthermore, crucial Title IX litigation has resulted in the Biden rules being enjoined in 26 states due to concerns over due process and free speech.

Lastly, Tyler highlighted areas of concern drawn from FIRE’s surveys of students and faculty on campus, including the impact of student encampment protests on free expression on college campuses.

WATCH VIDEO: FIRE Lead Counsel for Government Affairs Tyler Coward delivers remarks at Rep. Greg Murphy’s 4th Annual Campus Free Speech Roundtable on Dec. 11, 2024.

Students across the political spectrum are facing backlash or threats of censorship for voicing their opinions. Jasmyn Jordan, an undergraduate student at University of Iowa and the National Chairwoman of Young Americans for Freedom, shared personal experiences of censorship YAF members have faced on campus due to their political beliefs. Gabby Dankanich, also from YAF, provided additional examples, including the Clovis Community College case. At Clovis, the administration ordered the removal of flyers YAF students posted citing a policy against “inappropriate or offensive language or themes.” (FIRE helped secure a permanent injunction on behalf of the students. Additionally, Clovis’s community college district will have to pay the students a total of $330,000 in damages and attorney’s fees.)

VICTORY: California college that censored conservative students must pay $330,000, adopt new speech-protective policy, and train staff

Press Release

Federal court orders Clovis and three other community colleges to stop discriminating against student-group speech based on viewpoint.

Read More

Conservative students aren’t the only ones facing challenges in expressing their ideas on campus. Kenny Xu, executive director of Davidsonians for Free Speech and Discourse, emphasized that free speech is not a partisan issue. Citing FIRE data, he noted that 70% of students feel at least somewhat uncomfortable publicly disagreeing with a professor in class. “I can assure you that 70% of students are not conservatives,” he remarked. Kyle Beltramini from the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, reinforced this point. Sharing findings from ACTA’s own research, he emphasized that “this is not a problem faced by a single group of students but rather an experience shared across the ideological spectrum.”

The roundtable identified faculty as a critical part of the solution, though they acknowledged faculty members often fear speaking up. FIRE’s recent survey of over 6,000 faculty across 55 U.S. colleges and universities supports this claim. According to the results, “35% of faculty say they recently toned down their writing for fear of controversy, compared to 9% who said the same during the McCarthy era.”

While this data underscores the challenges faculty face, it also points to a broader issue within higher education. Institutions, Tyler said, have a dual obligation to “ensure that speech rights are protected” and that “students remain free from harassment based on a protected characteristic.” Institutions did not get this balance right this year. But, ACTA’s Kyle Beltramini noted the positive development that these longstanding issues have finally migrated into the public consciousness: “By and large, policy makers and the public have been unaware of the vast censorial machines that colleges and universities have been building up to police free speech, enforce censorship, and maintain ideological hegemony in the name of protecting and supporting their students,” he stated. This moment presents an opportunity to provide constructive feedback to institutions to hopefully address these shortcomings.

FIRE thanks Rep. Murphy for the opportunity to contribute to this vital conversation. We remain committed to working with legislators who share our dedication to fostering a society that values free inquiry and expression.

Alumni are also speaking up, and at the roundtable they shared their perspectives on promoting free speech and intellectual diversity in higher education. Among them was Tom Neale, UVA alumnus and president of The Jefferson Council and the Alumni Free Speech Alliance, who highlighted the importance of connecting with alumni from institutions like Cornell, Davidson, and Princeton, since they’re “all united by their common goal to restore true intellectual diversity and civil discourse in American higher-ed.”

Other participants at the roundtable included members of Speech First, and Princetonians for Free Speech.

So what can be done? Participants proposed several solutions, including passing legislation that prohibits the use of political litmus tests in college admissions, hiring, and promotion decisions. They also suggested integrating First Amendment education into student orientation programs to ensure incoming undergraduates understand their rights and responsibilities on campus. Additionally, they emphasized the importance of developing programs that teach students how to engage constructively in disagreements — rather than resorting to censorship — and to promote curiosity, dissent, talking across lines of difference, and an overall culture of free expression on campus.

FIRE thanks Rep. Murphy for the opportunity to contribute to this vital conversation. We remain committed to working with legislators who share our dedication to fostering a society that values free inquiry and expression.

You can watch the roundtable on Rep. Murphy’s YouTube channel.

Source link

December 19, 2024
Combining AI and Human Expertise to Better Protect K-12 Students Online

Content warning – this article discusses suicidal ideation. If you or someone you know is in crisis, call, text or chat 988 to reach the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, or visit 988lifeline.org for more resources.

AI was one of the major themes of 2024.The discussion frequently revolved around its impact on work, but there are innovative ways it can be used to complement human insight to address significant societal challenges.

For example, suicide was the second leading cause of death for people ages 10-14 (2022) according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This impacts everyone from families to educators. In one small Missouri town, a K-12 Safety Support Specialist was alerted when a student searched, “How much Tylenol does it take to die?” and “What is the best way to kill yourself?” These online searches triggered the school’s student safety tool which uses machine learning to identify harmful content. A specialist was immediately notified and was able to quickly intervene, providing the student with the necessary support to prevent self-harm.

There is an urgent need for effective solutions to protect students from threats like suicide, self-harm, cyberbullying, and exposure to harmful content. A combination of machine learning detection to allow for speed and scale, and human review to allow for context and nuance, is required for a comprehensive K-12 student safety tool. This allows schools to act when needed, as guided by their own Safety Plan. According to Talmage Clubbs, Director of Counseling for Neosho District in Missouri, “Our students know about it [student safety K-12 tool]. We have students purposely typing in keywords so they can be pulled in and talked to about their suicidality, their mental health issues, anything like that because they are struggling, and they just don’t know how else to reach anybody.”

Another example where human intervention is essential is when a machine learning-powered solution flags anatomical text as explicit content, but this might be for legitimate science coursework. Human reviewers can verify educational intent by examining context like student age and subject.

In the 2022-2023 school year, 94% of public schools report providing digital devices, such as laptops or tablets, to students according to the National Center for Education Statistics. This is a 28% growth from the number of devices provided pre-pandemic in middle schools and a 52% growth for elementary school students. As students spend more time online for school, they also use these devices for extracurricular learning and making social connections. However, they also have easier access to inappropriate content online. The challenges of ensuring online safety have become increasingly complex, as more students may seek harmful information or engage in distressing or inappropriate behaviors.

To truly support all students — regardless of their socioeconomic background or technological literacy — in the digital age, solutions must be user-friendly and adaptable to the diverse needs of schools and districts. By collaborating — educators, technology providers like GoGuardian, and policymakers can create a future where AI enhances educational experiences for students, fosters healthy human connection and empathy, and ensures privacy.

This also supports educators in today’s digital world who require innovative safety and security solutions to enable students to thrive physically, mentally, and academically while ensuring their well-being and academic progress. “You can rest well at night, knowing you are changing districts and saving lives,” says Dr. Jim Cummins, Superintendent of Neosho District.

To learn more, visit GoGuardian.com

Source link

December 6, 2024