Tag: rejects

  • N.C. Elections Board Rejects Campus Polling Centers

    N.C. Elections Board Rejects Campus Polling Centers

    Some students protested the decision.

    David Walter Banks/The Washington Post/Getty Images

    Ahead of the 2026 primaries, the North Carolina State Board of Elections rejected a plan Tuesday to open an early-voting center on the Greensboro campus of North Carolina A&T State University, according to NC Newsline. 

    The Republican-controlled board also voted to close the existing early-voting centers at Elon University and Western Carolina University. 

    After the vote, a group of N.C. A&T students who traveled to Raleigh for the board meeting gathered in the boardroom, protesting the decision. But Francis De Luca, chair of the board, threatened to call the cops if they didn’t leave, according to the news outlet. 

    De Luca, who voted against the early-voting sites, said he’s not in favor of them for numerous reasons. “There’s no parking,” he said. “They may set aside parking; if it’s filled, you’re going to get a ticket. We don’t put sites where there’s no parking anywhere else.”

    But Siobhan Millen, a Democratic member of the board who voted for the voting centers, said the move puts “student voting is in the crosshairs.”

    Without voting sites on campus, students—including many who don’t own cars—will have to travel to off-campus precincts, though some in favor of axing campus polling centers have described them as redundant. Zayveon Davis, a voter engagement leader at N.C. A&T, said the HBCU would provide shuttles to take students to the nearest polling place. 

    Nonetheless, he called the decision “disappointing” and reflective of broader Republican-led efforts to restrict voting access, especially for marginalized communities. 

    “I hope that everybody leaves here knowing that your voice does matter. Your vote does matter,” he told NC Newsline. “And if it didn’t, they wouldn’t be working this hard to take it away.”

    Source link

  • City Club of Cleveland rejects illiberal calls to disinvite speaker

    City Club of Cleveland rejects illiberal calls to disinvite speaker

    The City Club of Cleveland’s creed, written in 1912, begins, “I hail and harbor and hear persons of every belief and party; for within my portals prejudice grows less and bias dwindles.” 

    Over the years, figures as varied as Clarence Darrow, Babe Ruth, George Wallace, Rosa Parks, and every sitting U.S. president from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama have appeared on the City Club’s stage. The day after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy set aside his prepared remarks there and delivered his now-famous speech condemning “the mindless menace of violence.”

    This century-long tradition of hosting “conversations of consequence that help democracy thrive” has cemented the City Club’s reputation as a “citadel of free speech.” The institution is now upholding that tradition by refusing calls to disinvite a controversial speaker.

    Speaker invitation sparks backlash

    In November, the City Club announced it will host a conversation with Aaron Baer, president of the Center for Christian Virtue. City Club CEO Dan Moulthrop is set to moderate the event, which includes an unscreened audience question-and-answer period.

    The announcement triggered immediate calls to cancel the event from critics of CCV’s views and advocacy on LGBT issues. The City Club’s Facebook page was flooded with complaints. “We don’t support those who give hate groups platforms,” read one. “Promoting hate speech should never be the goal. Do better,” read another. 

    Central to the backlash is the Southern Poverty Law Center’s designation of CCV as an “anti-LGBTQ+ hate group.” The label appears to stem in part from the organization’s role in advancing an Ohio law banning medical treatments intended to assist minors with gender transition and excluding transgender girls and women from women’s K-12 and college sports.

    “We’re not canceling, and we have never had any intention of canceling this.” 

    The controversy escalated last week when a coalition of organizations and individuals penned an open letter urging the City Club to “cancel or modify this forum in a way that does not platform” an SPLC-designated hate group. Failing outright cancellation, the letter called for an external moderator “trained in navigating civil rights or constitutional issues” and “capable of challenging extremist claims.” 

    The City Club stays true to its mission

    Moulthrop’s response to the pushback was unequivocal: 

    We’re not canceling, and we have never had any intention of canceling this. We’re gonna continue to do what we always do, and have done for 113 years, which is convene conversations of consequence that help democracy thrive and do that with the leadership of relevant organizations who are shaping our communities.

    That’s exactly the right response from an institution dedicated to free speech and civic dialogue.

    Moulthrop told me the City Club’s mission “necessarily means making the platform available to diverse points of view and people with political influence — people who, if they’re not shaping policy, they have the ear of people who are.” So it made sense to book Baer for the Friday Forum, a “luncheon program devoted to significant national and regional concerns.” The event description notes that under Baer’s leadership, CCV “has emerged as one of the most influential nonprofit advocacy organizations in the state of Ohio, notching legislative victories on school choice and building coalitions with state government leaders.”

    The City Club is not endorsing Baer’s views any more than it has endorsed the views of other speakers it has hosted. It is allowing attendees to engage with ideas that, for better or worse, have gained purchase in society. Notably, the executive director of the LGBT Community Center of Greater Cleveland, who criticized the event by arguing that free speech “should never be used to legitimize rhetoric that undermines the safety, dignity, and well-being” of LGBT people, was herself a City Club speaker just two months ago.

    This is hardly the first time the City Club has weathered such controversy. In 1923, after socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debs was invited to speak, prominent business leaders resigned their memberships in protest. More recently, the announcement of a forum featuring President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski provoked outrage. 

    In an era when cancellation demands are widespread and too often successful, the City Club’s refusal to yield is a welcome affirmation of the values of free speech and open discourse. FIRE’s Campus Deplatforming Database has recorded 1,824 attempts to disinvite speakers or cancel controversial performances, screenings, or exhibits on campus since 1998. Nearly half (847) succeeded. And the pace has accelerated sharply in recent years. This year alone has seen 151 attempts, about two-thirds (98) of which were successful. 

    Deplatforming is unwise

    This trend comes at a cost. As FIRE President Greg Lukianoff often argues, we are not better off knowing less about what people think or why they think it. That point has even more force when it comes to someone like Baer, who wields significant influence over policies affecting a state’s 11.9 million residents. 

    “Whether you agree or disagree with these individuals, a chance to hear directly from them, rather than just about them in the media or from a researcher, is the kind of thing that makes democracy work better,” Moulthrop told The Buckeye Flame last month. In a fuller response he later shared with me, he added, “It’s a chance for speakers to understand how their ideas are heard and felt and it’s a chance for audiences to understand where different political philosophies and beliefs are born.”

    Deplatforming attempts often rest on the flawed assumption that giving someone a platform inevitably makes their ideas more popular. But if the ideas are truly indefensible, exposing them to scrutiny may have the opposite effect. To that end, Baer will face questions from Moulthrop and from audience members who are unlikely to be uniformly supportive. The alternative is for him to speak only in ideologically friendly spaces where his views go unchallenged and perhaps harden further. 

    Baer’s critics should also consider that attempts to silence speakers often backfire by bringing them more attention. Before this controversy, I had no idea who Baer was. Media coverage of the dispute will only increase public curiosity about him and CCV. The Streisand effect strikes again.

    Meanwhile, the targeted speaker obtains a rhetorical advantage. He can cast himself as a victim of suppression at the hands of intolerant critics who can’t refute his ideas on the merits. 

    Free speech is more than the First Amendment

    When private institutions resist deplatforming demands in the name of free speech, critics often retort that it’s not a free speech issue because the First Amendment restrains only government action. That response misunderstands what sustains free speech in practice. Constitutional protection is indispensable. But culture matters too.

    If silencing and punishment, rather than persuasion and criticism, gain wide acceptance as righteous responses to objectionable speech — the logic that justifies those practices may soon be turned against legal protections for free speech as well.

    True, the First Amendment does not require private forums to facilitate the free exchange of ideas. It also doesn’t compel private universities to uphold free speech and academic freedom in the pursuit of knowledge, publishers to offer readers a wide range of perspectives and information, or private businesses to exercise restraint when faced with calls to fire an employee whose political opinion offended an online mob. But these norms and institutions sustain a healthy culture of free expression. They create conditions in which free speech can flourish and reinforce related values like curiosity, intellectual humility, and engagement with different points of view. 

    And if we abandon these norms — if silencing and punishment, rather than persuasion and criticism, gain wide acceptance as righteous responses to objectionable speech — the logic that justifies those practices may soon be turned against legal protections for free speech as well.

    In standing its ground, the City Club of Cleveland has done more than defend a single event. It has defended the broader cultural foundations on which free speech depends.

    Source link

  • Arizona Rejects Compact, Others Leave Options Open

    Arizona Rejects Compact, Others Leave Options Open

    The University of Arizona is the latest institution to reject an offer to sign on to the Trump administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” issuing its response on the same day feedback on the proposal was due.

    While some universities have rejected the compact outright, Arizona president Suresh Garimella announced the decision in a message to the campus community that sent mixed signals. “The university has not agreed to the terms outlined in the draft proposal,” Garimella wrote. He emphasized the need to preserve “principles like academic freedom, merit-based research funding, and institutional independence.”

    At the same time, he said that some of the compact’s provisions “deserve thoughtful consideration as our national higher education system could benefit from reforms that have been much too slow to develop,” noting that many were already in place at Arizona. He added that the federal government said it was “seeking constructive dialogue rather than a definitive written response.”

    Indeed, in a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon, Garimella indicated an openness to further engagement. “We have much common ground with the ideas your administration is advancing on changes that would benefit American higher education and our nation at large,” he wrote.

    Still, he took issue with the administration’s promise of giving signatories preferential treatment in research funding. “A federal research funding system based on anything other than merit would weaken the world’s preeminent engine for innovation, advancement of technology, and solutions to many of our nation’s most profound challenges,” he wrote to McMahon. “We seek no special treatment and believe in our ability to compete for federally funded research strictly on merit.”

    Arizona was one of nine universities the Trump administration reached out to on Oct. 1 offering preferential treatment for federal research funding if they agreed to a compact that would overhaul admissions and hiring, cap international enrollment at 15 percent, revise academic offerings, suppress criticism of conservatives, freeze tuition for five years, and more.

    Amid some rejections from the original nine, the federal government sent additional invitations earlier this month.

    Institutions initially invited to join were Brown University, Dartmouth College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Arizona, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, University of Texas at Austin, the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University. Invitations were later sent to Arizona State University, the University of Kansas and Washington University in St. Louis.

    Six of the original invitees have declined to sign: MIT was the first to reject the compact, followed by Brown, Dartmouth, Penn, USC and Virginia.

    The Trump administration has since opened the compact to any institution that wishes to join.

    As of Monday, none of the invited institutions had agreed to the deal, despite a recent push from the White House, which included a meeting with several universities last week. Institutions have until Nov. 21 to make a final decision about whether to sign, according to a letter McMahon sent with the proposal.

    Washington University in St. Louis officials indicated Monday they remain open to the idea.

    Chancellor Andrew Martin announced that the university would provide feedback, or, as he put it, “participate in a conversation about the future of higher education” with the Trump administration. Martin emphasized the importance of having “a seat at the table” for such discussions but said those talks did not equate to signing the compact.

    “It’s important for you to know that our participation in this dialogue does not mean we have endorsed or signed on to the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education presented to us for feedback by the federal administration. We have not done that. In addition, this decision was not made to advantage ourselves or gain any type of preferential benefit,” Martin wrote. “We firmly believe meaningful progress will best be achieved through open, ongoing dialogue.”

    An Arizona State spokesperson also left open the option to join the compact, writing to Inside Higher Ed by email, “ASU has long been a voice for change in higher education and as President Trump’s team seeks new and innovative approaches to serve the needs of the country, ASU has engaged in dialogue and offered ideas about how to do so.”

    Vanderbilt chancellor Daniel Diermeier noted in an email to the campus community that the university intended to offer feedback on the proposal.

    “Despite reporting to the contrary, we have not been asked to accept or reject the draft compact,” Diermeier wrote. “Rather, we have been asked to provide feedback and comments as part of an ongoing dialogue, and that is our intention.”

    But other universities stayed silent on the day of the initial deadline.

    University of Texas system officials initially announced they were “honored” that the flagship was invited to join, but Austin officials did not have an update on where that invitation stands. Kansas did not respond to requests for comment.

    Source link

  • University of Pennsylvania rejects Trump’s higher education compact

    University of Pennsylvania rejects Trump’s higher education compact

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

    The University of Pennsylvania on Thursday became the third institution to publicly reject the Trump administration’s sweeping higher education compact that promises priority for federal research funding in exchange for policy changes. 

    In an online message, Penn President J. Larry Jameson said he informed the U.S. Department of Education that the university “respectfully declines” to sign the compact. 

    “At Penn, we are committed to merit-based achievement and accountability. The long-standing partnership between American higher education and the federal government has greatly benefited society and our nation. Shared goals and investment in talent and ideas will turn possibility into progress,” he said. 

    Jameson also provided the agency feedback, as requested by the Trump administration, “highlighting areas of existing alignment as well as substantive concerns.” But he did not expand on why the university rejected the compact in his message. Penn did not provide more information about the concerns he mentioned in responding to a request for comment Thursday.

    The Ivy League institution follows the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Brown University in rejecting the administration’s offer. Those institutions raised concerns that the proposed compact would infringe on their independence and freedom. 

    The compact’s wide-ranging terms include freezing tuition for five years, placing caps on international enrollment, changing or eliminating campus units that “purposefully punish” and “belittle” conservative viewpoints, and requiring undergraduate applicants to take standardized tests. 

    Although federal officials initially invited nine high-profile institutions to sign the compact, President Donald Trump appeared to extend that invitation to all colleges in a recent social media post. Neither the White House nor the U.S. Education Department immediately responded to a request for comment Thursday. 

    Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro praised Penn’s move in a statement Thursday, saying the university “made the right decision to maintain its full academic independence and integrity.”

    “The Trump Administration’s dangerous demands would limit freedom of speech, the freedom to learn, and the freedom to engage in constructive debate and dialogue on campuses across the country,” Shapiro said.

    As governor, Shapiro is a nonvoting member of Penn’s board, but he has wielded that influence at the private university as few of his predecessors have, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education. 

    He said Thursday that he had “engaged closely with university leaders” on the Trump administration’s compact.

    Shapiro isn’t the only Democratic lawmaker in Pennsylvania who has raised concerns about the compact. Two state representatives have also moved to bar colleges that receive state funding from signing the proposed agreement.

    Penn’s rejection of the compact comes after the university cut a deal with the Trump administration earlier this year to restore some $175 million in suspended research funding. Federal officials had cut off the funding over Penn’s prior policies allowing transgender women to compete in women’s sports. 

    Under that deal, struck in July, Penn agreed to adopt the Trump administration’s interpretation of Title IX, the civil rights law barring federally funded institutions from discriminating on the basis of sex. 

    The university also agreed to award athletic titles to cisgender women on Penn’s swimming team who had lost to transgender women, according to the Education Department. And the university said it would send personal apology letters to affected cisgender women.

    Source link

  • Brown University Rejects Trump’s Higher Ed Compact

    Brown University Rejects Trump’s Higher Ed Compact

    Brown settled with the Trump administration earlier this year, but the compact doesn’t offer the same protections, the university president wrote in her rejection of the deal.

    Wolterk/iStock/Getty Images

    Citing multiple concerns, Brown University on Wednesday rejected an invitation to join the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” that the Trump administration proposed.

    The compact, initially sent to nine institutions, would require universities to make a number of far-reaching changes, including suppressing criticism of conservatives on campus. Of the original nine, Brown is now the second to reject the deal after the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    The administration has promised preferential treatment on federal funding for those that sign on, though the document itself doesn’t detail those benefits. Higher ed experts and observers have warned against signing, arguing that it threatens institutional independence and give the federal government much more power over universities.

    Following MIT’s rejection, the Trump administration said the compact was open to all colleges. But of the original nine invitees, there are no takers so far, though officials at the University of Texas system have indicated they view the proposal favorably. The system’s flagship in Austin was part of the nine.

    “President Trump is committed to restoring academic excellence and common sense at our higher education institutions,” White House spokesperson Liz Huston said in a statement. “Any university that joins this historic effort will help to positively shape America’s future.”

    Brown president Christina Paxson released her response to federal officials Wednesday, arguing that while Brown agreed with some of the aims of the proposal—such as keeping tuition costs down and maintaining a vibrant exchange of ideas across the ideological spectrum—other issues, including academic freedom concerns, prompted the university to reject the compact.

    She also pointed to the settlement Brown and the Trump administration reached in July to restore more than $500 million in frozen federal research funding amid an investigation into alleged campus antisemitism. She noted that the agreement “reflects similar principles” to the compact. But while the settlement did not wade into campus curriculum or programs, the compact would impose much greater restrictions on academic offerings for signatories.

    “In return for Brown signing the July agreement, the federal government restored the University’s research funding and permanently closed three pending investigations into shared ancestry discrimination and race discrimination. But most important, Brown’s existing agreement with the federal government expressly affirms the government’s lack of authority to dictate our curriculum or the content of academic speech—a principle that is not reflected in the Compact,” Paxson wrote.

    A White House official said that the settlement was aimed at “rectifying past harm and discrimination,” whereas the compact is more “forward looking.”

    Paxson also echoed concerns raised by MIT president Sally Kornbluth—who wrote in her letter to the Education Department that “scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone”—and other higher ed groups such as the Association of American Universities, of which Brown is a member.

    Paxson wrote, “A fundamental part of academic excellence is awarding research funding on the merits of the research being proposed.”

    ”The cover letter describing the compact contemplates funding research on criteria other than the soundness and likely impact of research, which would ultimately damage the health and prosperity of Americans,” she added. “Our current agreement with the federal government—beyond restoring Brown’s research funding from the National Institutes of Health—affirms the University’s ability to compete fairly for new research grants in the future, a doctrine of fairness and a commitment to excellence that aligns with our values.”

    The Department of Education did not respond to a request for comment.

    Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors, celebrated the decision on social media and in a statement, highlighting efforts by Brown employees to push back against the compact, including a campus protest last week that called on administrators to reject the deal.

    Both the national AAUP and Brown’s AAUP chapter have spoken out against the compact, and faculty at other universities along with students have also urged their leaders to reject the compact.

    “By declining to compromise its core mission, Brown University has affirmed that no amount of federal inducement is worth surrendering the freedom to question, explore, and dissent,” Wolfson said in the statement. “In rejecting the Compact, Brown stands as a bulwark for higher education’s sacred commitment to academic freedom and institutional self-governance.”

    Source link

  • MIT rejects Trump’s preferential funding offer

    MIT rejects Trump’s preferential funding offer

    MIT president Saly Kornbluth said the agreement went against freedom of expression and the university’s independence, and that it was “fundamentally” inconsistent with MIT’s “core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone”. 

    Last week, the Trump administration sent a compact to nine US colleges laying out sweeping demands including capping international enrolments, banning the use of race or sex in hiring and freezing tuition for five years. In return, schools that signed on would receive competitive advantages from the government.  

    In a letter to US education secretary Linda McMahon, Kornbluth said: “We must hear facts and opinions we don’t like – and engage respectfully with those whom we disagree.” 

    Under the terms of the compact, signatories must abolish university units that “punish” or “belittle” conservative ideas, and all college employees “must abstain in their official capacity from actions or speech related to politics”.  

    If adopted by the institutions, it would set a 15% cap on international undergraduate students including a 5% limit for any given country. It also stipulates that universities must hand over international student information, including discipline records, upon the request of the government.  

    MIT is the first of the nine institutions to officially respond to the administration before the October 20 deadline. Stakeholders said the White House is likely aiming to expand the compact if institutions engage.  

    The day after it was sent, the University of Texas swiftly announced it was “honoured” to be a part of Trump’s proposal, though the remaining institutions were notably quiet on the agreement, which has received strong pushback from faculty leadership and administrators. 

    Faculty senates at the University of Virginia and the University of Arizona voted to oppose the compact with overwhelming majorities, while Dartmouth College president said in a statement she was “deeply committed” to the university’s values and would always defend its “fierce independence”.  

    In Tennessee, academic and workers unions have called on Vanderbilt University to reject what they called “Trump’s Fascist Compact”, with a petition from Graduate Workers United garnering almost 1,000 signatures as of October 8.  

    Elsewhere, California governor Gavin Newsom quickly responded saying: “California universities that bend to the will of Donald Trump and sign this insane ‘compact’ will lose billions in state funding – IMMEDIATELY.”

    “California will not bankroll schools that sign away academic freedom,” he wrote on October 2, sending a clear sign to the University of Southern California (USC), the only Californian college to receive the proposal so far.  

    Alongside MIT, the compact demands were thrust upon: Vanderbilt University, Dartmouth College, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas, the University of Arizona, Brown University and the University of Virginia. 

    California universities that bend to the will of Donald Trump and sign this insane ‘compact’ will lose billions in state funding – IMMEDIATELY

    Gavin Newsom, Governor of California

    While it remains unclear how the recipients were chosen, stakeholders have noted that the list includes high prestige universities as well as public flagships, likely to generate maximum sectoral and media impact.  

    “The compact forces all nine institutions to reveal their positions; it sets the narrative for media reporting and public discussion of the points in the compact; and starts a public sorting of university responses to these policy priorities,” Boston College professor Chris Glass told The PIE News. 

    Whether MIT’s response emboldens the universities to reject the proposal remains to be seen, but even without the signatures, “the compact creates lasting ripples, as universities, accreditors, and state officials recalibrate for future policy fights,” said Glass.  

    The compact’s international student cap is yet another clear sign of Trump’s anti-immigration stance, though experts have noted that none of the nine universities have undergraduate international student populations that exceed the 15% limit.  

    While U Penn and USC are both close to the threshold with international undergraduate populations around the 14% mark, the universities of Virginia, Arizona and Texas at Austin all enrol less than 6% international undergraduates, according to analysis by Soka University of America professor Ryan Allen. 

    As such, Glass speculated the cap was intended to signal to universities beyond the nine, especially those above the 15% threshold, that they may face future scrutiny. 

    “Just by introducing the cap, the administration sets the terms of debate and sends a strong message – to its base, to all universities in the US, and to prospective international students,” he said.

    As per Allen’s analysis, just 14 of the top 114 US universities have undergraduate international populations that exceed the proposed limit.

    If it is implemented, the impact of the cap by itself might not be significant, “but this is part of an overall message that the US does not want international students … It’s tough to grapple with in the classroom because our students are feeling that message,” said Allen. 

    Typically, international students make up a larger proportion of postgraduate than undergraduate enrolments, though universities rarely disaggregate the two in overall student counts.  

    And yet: “Undergrad admissions are much more contentious and political than grad school. So, the idea that international students are somehow taking seats from Americans is much more salient in that space,” said Allen.  

    Source link

  • MIT Rejects Proposed Federal Compact

    MIT Rejects Proposed Federal Compact

    Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

    Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology has rejected the Trump administration’s proposal to sign on to the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” which would mandate sweeping changes across campus in exchange for preferential treatment on federal funding.

    MIT is the first of the nine universities invited to join the compact to publicly reject the proposal that has ignited fierce pushback from other higher ed leaders, faculty and experts who see the document as a way to strip institutions of their autonomy. The Trump administration also asked Brown University, Dartmouth College, the University of Arizona, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, University of Texas at Austin, the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University to sign. Most have provided vague statements saying that they are reviewing the compact, though Texas officials have expressed some enthusiasm about the offer.

    MIT President Sally Kornbluth announced the move in a Friday morning letter to the campus community, which included a copy of her response to Education Secretary Linda McMahon.

    Kornbluth highlighted in the response to McMahon a number of areas emphasized by the White House in the compact, such as focusing on merit, keeping costs low for students and protecting free expression. 

    “These values and other MIT practices meet or exceed many standards outlined in the document you sent. We freely choose these values because they’re right, and we live by them because they support our mission—work of immense value to the prosperity, competitiveness, health and security of the United States. And of course, MIT abides by the law,” Kornbluth wrote.

    She also noted that MIT disagreed with a number of the demands in the letter, arguing that it “would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution” and that “the premise of the document is inconsistent” with MIT’s belief that funding should be based on merit.

    “In our view, America’s leadership in science and innovation depends on independent thinking and open competition for excellence,” Kornbluth wrote. “In that free marketplace of ideas, the people of MIT gladly compete with the very best, without preferences. Therefore, with respect, we cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education.”

    This is a breaking news article and will be updated.

    Source link

  • Canada rejects nearly two in three study permit applicants 

    Canada rejects nearly two in three study permit applicants 

    Government figures obtained by The PIE show 62% of applicants were refused a study permit from January to July this year, with record-high volumes “raising urgent questions about transparency and application readiness,” said ApplyBoard.  

    Despite a decade of relatively stable approval ratings hovering around 60%, rates have plummeted to 38% so far this year, down from 48% in 2024 following the implementation of Canada’s study permit caps. 

    “It’s clear that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is applying far greater scrutiny to new applications,” Jonathan Sherman, vice president of sales & partnership at BorderPass told The PIE, pointing to a “fundamental shift” in government processing.

     

    Data: IRCC

    Indian students – who comprise 40% of Canada’s international student population – have been hardest hit by soaring refusals, with four out of five Indian students receiving rejections in Q2 2025, according to BorderPass.  

    Stakeholders have pointed to a glimmer of hope in overall approval ratings rising modestly this spring, though without a “dramatic shift,” Canada will only reach one fifth of the government’s international student target for the year, Sherman warned.  

    With institutions bracing for severe declines, ApplyBoard analysis has found the most common reason for reason for rejection in 2024 was the perception by IRCC officers that students wouldn’t leave Canada after their studies, cited in over 75% of cases.  

    “While reviewers at IRCC understand that some future students hope to gain work experience in Canada after graduation… the extensive use of this reason last year suggests that many are perceived as having permanent residency as their primary purpose, instead of study,” stated the report. 

    Financial concerns drove three of the top five refusal reasons, after Canada more than doubled its proof-of-funds requirements from $10,000 in 2023 to $20,635 in 2024.  

    Specifically, in 53% of cases, IRCC officers said they were unconvinced that applicants would leave Canada based on financial assets, alongside doubts about insufficient resources for tuition and living expenses.  

    “While new policy caps played a role, our full-year data points to recurring applicant challenges, particularly around financial readiness and immigration intent that are preventable with the right guidance and documentation,” said ApplyBoard.  

    The report highlighted the continuing decline of unspecified reasons for refusal, following IRCC adding officer decision notes to visa refusal letters last month, which was welcomed as a much-needed step in improving transparency.  

    Other reasons for refusal include the purpose of visit being inconsistent with a temporary stay and having no significant family ties outside Canada.  

    The data comes amid a major immigration crackdown in Canada, with temporary resident targets included in the latest Immigration Levels Plan for the first time, which aims to reduce temporary resident volumes to 5% of the population by the end of 2027 – a year later than the previous government’s target.

    Many are perceived as having permanent residency as their primary purpose, instead of study

    ApplyBoard

    Approval rates are also below average for other temporary resident categories, but none so drastically as study permits, with just under half of all visitor visas approved so far this year, compared to a ten-year average of 64%.  

    After more than 18 months of federal policy turbulence, changing eligibility rules have likely contributed to the rise in study permit rejection rates.  

    Pressure to reduce IRCC backlogs and reach ambitious government targets could also be playing a role, according to immigration lawyers speaking to the Toronto Star. 

    As of July 31, over 40% of Canada’s immigration inventory was in backlog, including 56% of visitor visas, 46% of work visas and 23% of study visas, according to official data.  

    Following a swathe of new IRCC officer hires, Sherman said he expected to see improvements in consistency, though “processing backlogs may get worse before they get better,” he warned.  

    Amid the challenges, educators and advisers are doubling down on what applicants and institutions can do to ensure the best chance of success, with ApplyBoard warning that any incomplete or ineligible documentation can be grounds for refusal.  

    Source link

  • GMU President Refuses to Apologize, Rejects OCR Findings

    GMU President Refuses to Apologize, Rejects OCR Findings

    Washington rejected OCR’s demand for a personal apology Monday.

    Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    George Mason University president Gregory Washington has rejected demands by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights that he apologize for alleged discriminatory hiring practices, questioning the findings of an OCR investigation that accused him of implementing “unlawful DEI policies.”

    In a letter to GMU’s board Monday, Washington’s attorney, Douglas F. Gansler, alleged that OCR cut its fact-finding efforts short and only interviewed two university deans before reaching the conclusions the Department of Education published Friday. Gansler wrote that “OCR’s letter contains gross mischaracterizations of statements made by Dr. Washington and outright omissions” related to the university’s DEI practices.

    Gansler also accused OCR of selectively interpreting various remarks by Washington, the first Black president in GMU’s history.

    “To be clear, per OCR’s own findings, no job applicant has been discriminated against by GMU, nor has OCR attempted to name someone who has been discriminated against by GMU in any context. Therefore, it is a legal fiction for OCR to even assert or claim that there has been a Title VI or Title IX violation here,” Gansler wrote in a 10-page letter.

    ED has demanded changes at GMU and a personal apology from Washington.

    “In 2020, University President Gregory Washington called for expunging the so-called ‘racist vestiges’ from GMU’s campus,” Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor said in a statement released by the Department of Education last week. “Without a hint of self awareness, President Washington then waged a university-wide campaign to implement unlawful DEI policies that intentionally discriminate on the basis of race. You can’t make this up.”

    In his letter to the board, Gansler emphasized that under Washington’s leadership, GMU has complied with executive orders that cracked down on DEI programs and practices, pointing to recent changes such as the dissolution of GMU’s DEI office and restricting the use of diversity statements in hiring.

    “If the Board entertains OCR’s demand that Dr. Washington personally apologize for promoting unlawful discriminatory practices in hiring, promotion, and tenure processes, it will undermine GMU’s record of compliance. An apology will amount to an admission that the university did something unlawful, opening GMU and the Board up to legal liability for conduct that did not occur under the Board’s watch,” Gansler wrote. He added that admitting to such violations could bring about punitive action from other federal agencies, such as the Department of Justice.

    Washington’s rejection of an apology and dispute over the claims made by OCR comes shortly after speculation that GMU’s Board of Visitors—which includes numerous conservative political figures and activists appointed by Republican Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin—would fire him. Instead, the board gave Washington a raise after a lengthy closed-door meeting earlier this month that brought dozens of protesters out to show their support for the besieged president.

    Asked for a statement, GMU officials referred Inside Higher Ed to Gansler.

    ED did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    Source link

  • Senate committee rejects K-12 grant consolidations in FY 26 bill

    Senate committee rejects K-12 grant consolidations in FY 26 bill

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

    The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday approved a bipartisan fiscal year 2026 K-12 education bill that would prevent the executive branch from removing Title I and special education programs to agencies outside the U.S. Department of Education. The legislation also rejects several other funding reforms proposed by the Trump administration.

    The bill would require timely awarding of formula grants by the Education Department to states and districts. For several weeks in July, the Education Department and the White House’s Office of Management and Budget withheld $6.2 billion in grant funding that states and districts expected access to starting July 1.

    That funding at pre-approved FY 2025 spending levels was released after the Trump administration conducted a “programmatic review” and added “guardrails” to ensure the funds would not violate executive orders or administration policy, a senior administration official at OMB told K-12 Dive in an email July 25.

    Educators, parents, education organizations, and Republican and Democratic lawmakers had pressured the administration to make the funds available, citing that the disruption in funds was causing school program cuts, canceled contracts and staff layoffs. 

    In total, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommends funding the Education Department in FY 26 at $79 billion, according to the bill text. That’s $12.3 billion more than President Donald Trump’s proposal of $66.7 billion. In the current fiscal year, the Education Department is funded at $78.7 billion. 

    “The bill also supports families by investing in education and affordable child care, which promotes financial stability for working parents and benefits our economy,” said Appropriations Committee Chair Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

    The proposed education budget — which was included in funding legislation for the U.S. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and related agencies — passed the committee in a 26-3 vote. 

    “Our bills reject devastating cuts — and reject many of this administration’s absurd proposals — like dismantling the Department of Education,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, in her opening remarks. 

    “We all know President Trump cannot dismantle the Department of Education or ship education programs to other agencies. Authorizing laws prevent that. Appropriations laws prevent that,” Murray said. 

    Trump has said he wants to reduce the size and scope of the federal government and give states and localities more fiscal decision-making authority while reducing bureaucracy. 

    In March, Trump signed an executive order to shutter the Education Department to the “maximum extent appropriate.” Congress, however, would need to approve the closing of the agency.

    Maintaining separate formula grants

    The Trump administration’s budget proposed a new K-12 Simplified Funding Program that would merge 18 current competitive formula funding grant programs into one $2 billion formula grant program. The administration said the SFP would spur innovation and give states more spending flexibility and decision-making power.

    The Senate Appropriation Committee instead rejected that plan by keeping the formula grants separate. The Senate plan would provide a $50 million increase over FY 2025 spending for both Title I-A funding for low-income schools and districts, and for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

    The bill would maintain current spending levels, except for a few reductions, across other K-12 formula and competitive grant programs targeting improvements in teaching and learning, according to a bill summary from Murray’s office. 

    Other notable spending proposals from the Senate Appropriations Committee FY 26 bill include:

    • The Office for Civil Rights would maintain level spending at $140 million.
    • The Institute of Education Sciences would be funded at $793 million, level with the FY 25 budget. 
    • Title I and IDEA would be funded at $18.5 billion and $15.2 billion, respectively. The two grant programs make up the largest share of funding for K-12 at the Education Department.
    • Under the HHS portion of the legislation, the committee recommends increasing funding for the early childhood learning programs Head Start and the Child Care and Community Block grant by $85 million each to $12.4 billion and $8.8 billion, respectively. 

    The Senate Appropriations bill will now be considered by the House and full Senate. FY 26 starts Oct. 1.

    Source link