Tag: reportedly

  • Angelo State Reportedly Banning Pride Flags, Pronouns

    Angelo State Reportedly Banning Pride Flags, Pronouns

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | rustamank/iStock/Getty Images

    Employees at Angelo State University in Texas could be fired for displaying a pride flag or discussing any topic that suggests there are more gender identities than male and female.

    Spokespeople for Angelo State have not confirmed or denied details of the policies reportedly discussed at meetings Monday between faculty, staff and institutional leaders. But, local news magazine the Concho Observer reported that the policies would ban discussion of transgender topics or any topics that suggest there are more than two genders.

    The policies would also require instructors to remove information about transgender topics on syllabi and refer to students by their given names only, not any alternative names. Safe space stickers and LGBTQ+ flags would be banned and employees wouldn’t be allowed to include their pronouns in their email signatures.

    News of the policies comes just as Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill on Monday that prohibits people from using the bathroom that differs from their sex assigned at birth in state buildings, including public universities, NBC reported. Institutions that violate this law face fines of up to $125,000.

    The Angelo State policies are the latest in a string of attacks on academic freedom at Texas public universities in recent weeks. Texas A&M University officials terminated a professor, demoted two other faculty members and, as of Thursday, accepted the president’s resignation in response to a viral video that showed a student challenging a professor in class for teaching about gender identity.

    Texas State University fired a newly tenured history professor over comments he made at a socialism conference about a hypothetical overthrow of the government by activists (he has already sued the university in response). And as of this month, faculty senates at some public universities are abolished.

    “What is happening at ASU is part of a larger assault on higher education and marginalized communities across Texas and the nation,” Brian Evans, president of the Texas Conference of the American Association of University Professors, said in a statement. “Moreover, it is an overt attempt to erase individuals of diverse backgrounds and experiences by limiting not only what can be taught but also what ideas students can explore. These policies and this extremist push to censor open inquiry, debate, and discovery is an affront to the U.S. and Texas Constitutions and an assault on the very foundations of our colleges and universities.”

    It is unclear exactly whom the new policies at Angelo State will apply to, and whether there are exceptions, particularly for displays and conversations held in private offices or for conversations outside of the classroom.

    Angelo State spokespeople did not answer any of the questions Inside Higher Ed asked about the new policies, and instead provided the following statement: “Angelo State University is a public institute of higher education and is therefore subject to both state and federal law, executive orders and directives from the President of the United States, and executive orders and directives from the Governor of Texas,” spokesperson Brittney Miller wrote. “As such, Angelo State fully complies with the letter of the law.”

    Miller also sent a link to a Jan. 30 letter from Abbott that said, “All Texas agencies must ensure that agency rules, internal policies, employment practices, and other actions comply with the law and the biological reality that there are only two sexes—male and female,” as well as President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order stating that the United States only recognizes two genders, male and female.

    What type of legal case faculty could bring in response—and whether they may have a case at all—will depend largely on the policy details, said Eugene Volokh, a professor of law emeritus at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law.

    There are no Texas state laws that explicitly prohibit faculty members from discussing LGBTQ+ topics in classrooms. Even Brian Harrison, the Texas state representative who is largely responsible for making the Texas A&M video go viral, said as much during an interview Sept. 13 on a conservative radio show.

    “The governor and lieutenant governor and speaker have been telling everybody for two years now that we passed bans on DEI and transgender indoctrination in public universities,” Harrison said. “The only little problem with that? It’s a complete lie. The bill that was passed to ban DEI explicitly authorizes DEI in the classroom—same thing with transgender indoctrination.” Harrison has introduced several bills to ban these topics, but so far none have been passed.

    The legislation Harrison referred to is Texas Senate Bill 17, which bans diversity, equity and inclusion efforts by public institutions. It was signed into law in 2023 and includes carve-outs for academic instruction, scholarly research and campus guest speakers. Meanwhile, House Bill 229 took effect on Sept. 1 and specifies that the state recognizes two genders. It applies to data collection by government entities only and does not restrict academic instruction or speech.

    Public employers, because they only speak through their employees, can generally tell people what to say as part of their job, Volokh said. “A police department may order police officers to talk in certain ways to their citizens and to not talk in other ways to citizens, right? In fact, we expect the police department to do that,” he said. “The question is whether there’s a specific, special rule that protects the rights of college or university professors.”

    The courts are largely undecided on that, he added. “It’s being litigated right now in other federal courts. It’s been raised in past cases, and there isn’t really a clear answer,” he said.

    “It’s certainly possible that [professors] may have First Amendment rights to choose to teach what they want to teach, but it’s also possible that boards will also say, ‘No, when you’re on the job and talking to a captive audience of students that the university provided for you … we, the university, get to tell you what to teach.’”

    Other state university systems have implemented similar policies with the opposite effect. For example, the University of California system requires university-issued documents to offer three gender identity options—male, female and nonbinary—and for all university documents and IT systems to include an individual’s “lived name” instead of their legal name. If an individual’s lived name is different from their legal name, their legal name must be kept confidential.

    This article has been updated to correct the Texas Senate bill number.

    Source link

  • ASU Police Reportedly Assisted DHS With Arrest

    ASU Police Reportedly Assisted DHS With Arrest

    Arizona State University police assisted in arranging the violent arrest of a staff member by Department of Homeland Security officials earlier this week, The Phoenix New Times reported.

    The ASU chapter of the National Lawyers Guild alleged in an Instagram post that ASU police officer James Quigley arranged a meeting with a staff member, who was not named, “under the pretense of discussing a ‘concern’ about a social media post.” After a brief meeting, the employee was then arrested by multiple plainclothes Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, according to the group.

    A purported video of the encounter was later posted on X. The video shows several men with badges, one of whom identifies himself as “a special agent with Homeland Security” twisting an individual’s wrist before kneeing him in the back. In the video, the arrested individual, who is the employee in question, according to the post, asks, “What did I do?” as he is arrested.

    The employee was later released, according to the newspaper. 

    In the aftermath of the arrest, the ASU chapter of the National Lawyers Guild called on the university and President Michael Crow to publicly denounce the incident, end all cooperation with ICE and enact policies “to prevent future targeting and harm” to community members.

    “ASU must protest the safety and dignity of its staff and students—not partner with agencies that terrorize them,” the organization wrote online.

    ASU spokesperson Jerry Gonzalez told Inside Higher Ed that the U.S. Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security had questioned an employee after receiving an anonymous tip.

    “In order to remain informed about a matter involving an ASU employee, an ASU police officer accompanied a DHS investigator to a meeting with the employee at a coffee shop off campus,” Gonzalez wrote.

    He confirmed that the employee was later released.

    (This article has been updated with a comment from ASU.)



    Source link

  • Vanderbilt Reportedly Considering a San Francisco Campus

    Vanderbilt Reportedly Considering a San Francisco Campus

    Vanderbilt University is in talks with the city of San Francisco to establish a campus there, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

    A Vanderbilt spokesperson confirmed to the Chronicle that the university—which is based in Nashville, Tenn., but also has satellite campuses in New York City and West Palm Beach, Fla.—has been working with the San Francisco mayor’s office on a plan to gain a foothold in the Bay Area.

    “Vanderbilt is always exploring new opportunities to expand our impact and further our mission,” the spokesperson told the newspaper. “We recognize the long-term global leadership of San Francisco and its ever-growing potential, defined by a vibrant culture, dynamic innovation ecosystem and the talent drawn to its leading technology companies and top-caliber arts and cultural institutions.”

    The spokesperson added that the institution’s aim is “to create unique student experiences, fuel pathbreaking research and foster close connections to the ideas and companies that will lead the next generation of the nation’s economy.”

    San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie has expressed interest in partnering with a university to revitalize the city.

    “Our administration is working every day to create a clean, safe and thriving downtown—one that draws people, businesses and investments back to our city,” Lurie told the Chronicle. “As I said during my campaign, welcoming a world-class university like Vanderbilt to our city would bring new energy and foot traffic downtown, and we will continue working to make that happen.”

    A source told the Chronicle that the mayor has approached a handful of other universities, but the arrangement with Vanderbilt appears to be the “most promising”; city officials have met with university leaders multiple times.

    Source link

  • Trump Reportedly Eyes FAU for Presidential Library

    Trump Reportedly Eyes FAU for Presidential Library

    Could Florida Atlantic University become the home of Donald Trump’s presidential library?

    The public university is under consideration and is willing to hand over free land to entice Trump to establish his presidential library there, The Wall Street Journal reported last week. Located in Boca Raton, FAU is about a half hour drive from Trump’s private golf club Mar-a-Lago.

    Land owned by Miami Dade College has also been considered, according to The Miami Herald.

    The Wall Street Journal noted that proximity is part of the appeal of choosing FAU. Additionally, the university is reportedly willing to offer a 100-year land lease at no cost, though the deal isn’t done yet.

    FAU is currently led by Adam Hasner, a former Republican state lawmaker.

    Trump is known for spending significant time at Mar-a-Lago, which seems to have convinced local legislators that the Sunshine State is the likely destination for his presidential library. Earlier this year Florida lawmakers passed a bill that limits local control over the planning and construction of presidential libraries, deferring such powers to the state. The bill’s sponsor, a Republican state senator, argued that Florida should “roll out the welcome mat” for Trump’s library and offer “maximum flexibility.”

    Source link

  • Federal agency reportedly texts survey to professors asking if they’re Jewish or Israeli

    Federal agency reportedly texts survey to professors asking if they’re Jewish or Israeli

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Faculty members of Columbia University and Columbia-affiliated Barnard College received text messages from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asking them to complete a survey inquiring about whether they are Jewish or Israeli, multiple news outlets reported April 23.
    • According to a screenshot of a message posted by CNN, EEOC said responses to the survey would be kept confidential “to the extent allowed by law.” The screenshot said EEOC was conducting an inquiry into Barnard College and that, should the agency find that the college violated laws enforced by EEOC, some of the information of respondents may be disclosed.
    • In an email to HR Dive, EEOC declined to confirm that it had sent the messages. Columbia, in a separate email, declined to confirm that employees had received messages from EEOC.

    Dive Insight:

    Federal officials have scrutinized Columbia following a series of on-campus protests in 2024. In August of that year, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., and former chairwoman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, issued several subpoenas to Columbia leaders as part of an investigation into antisemitism at the university and whether the protests had created a hostile environment in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    Last month, EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas issued a statement in which she pledged to hold universities and colleges accountable for workplace antisemitism. Lucas’ statement did not name any specific institutions, but it did cite “disruptive and violent protests in violation of campus policies” as an example of severe or pervasive antisemitic conduct that could violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

    “Under the guise of promoting free speech, many universities have actually become a haven for antisemitic conduct, often in violation of the universities’ own time, place, and manner policies, as well as civil rights law,” Lucas said in the March 5 statement.

    EEOC did not confirm whether messages sent to Columbia and Barnard faculty were part of an ongoing investigation into either institution. “Per federal law, we cannot comment on investigations, nor can we confirm or deny the existence of an investigation,” the agency said.

    Similarly, Columbia declined to comment on a pending investigation, but a university official said Columbia had told staff that it gave “affected employees notice that the University was required to provide certain information in compliance with a subpoena. The University did not provide the information voluntarily.”

    Columbia did not respond to a request for comment on whether it had advised staff not to respond to EEOC’s messages.

    News of the inquiry drew criticism from one of EEOC’s administrative judges, Karen Ortiz, who sent an all-staff email directed to EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas.

    Ortiz wrote that Lucas should consider resigning; in an interview with HR Dive, she said the email was in response to news of the text messages and other recent agency actions, including its decision to abandon gender-identity discrimination litigation and halting some claims processing. She said the survey arguably was not within Lucas’ authority to send and could be understood as an attempt to intimidate Columbia and Barnard.

    “It’s a complete overreach,” Ortiz said of the survey.

    Source link

  • Medical Journals Now Reportedly Under Government Scrutiny

    Medical Journals Now Reportedly Under Government Scrutiny

    The Trump administration now appears to be targeting medical journals, questioning at least three different publications about how they represent “competing viewpoints” and assess the influence of funding organizations like the National Institutes of Health on submitted papers, MedPage Today reported.

    Republican activist Edward Martin Jr., who is currently serving as interim U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., sent a letter to CHEST Journal and at least two other unnamed publications earlier this month demanding answers to a series of questions about their processes and practices.

    “It has been brought to my attention that more and more journals and publications like CHEST Journal are conceding that they are partisans in various scientific debates—that is, that they have a position for which they are advocating either due to advertisement (under postal code) or sponsorship (under relevant fraud regulations),” Martin wrote. “The public has certain expectations and you have certain responsibilities.”

    The letter then requested answers by May 2 to questions including “Do you accept articles or essays from competing viewpoints?“ and “How do you handle allegations that authors of works in your journals may have misled their readers?”

    “I am also interested to know if publishers, journals, and organizations with which you work are adjusting their method of acceptance of competing viewpoints,” Martin wrote. “Are there new norms being developed and offered?”

    CHEST is a peer-reviewed journal published by the American College of Chest Physicians that produces articles on such subjects as pulmonary hypertension, lung cancer and obstructive sleep apnea.

    Martin’s letter “should send a chill down the spine of scientists and physicians,” Adam Gaffney, a pulmonary and critical care physician who has published in CHEST, told MedPage Today. “It is yet another example of the Trump administration’s effort to control academic inquiry and stifle scientific discourse—an administration, it warrants mentioning, that has embraced medical misinformation and pseudoscience to reckless effect. Journal editors should join together and publicly renounce this as yet more thinly guised anti-science political blackmail.”

    JT Morris, a senior supervising attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told MedPage Today that the First Amendment clearly protects CHEST’s independence.

    “A publication’s editorial decisions are none of the government’s business, whether it’s a newspaper or a medical journal,” he said. “Like with any bully, the best response is to stand up to them—and that includes officials who try to intimidate Americans into parroting the government’s view. The First Amendment packs a powerful punch, and it has these medical journals’ backs.”

    Source link

  • Trump reportedly set to order dismantling of Education Dept.

    Trump reportedly set to order dismantling of Education Dept.

    This story will be updated.

    President Donald Trump is planning to sign an executive order directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps” to close the agency, The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets reported.

    The president’s order—scheduled to be signed at 2 p.m. in the Oval Office—is the first step in carrying out his controversial campaign promise to abolish the 45-year-old department. A draft of the order provided to Inside Higher Ed criticizes the department for spending “more than $1 trillion without producing virtually any improvement in student reading and mathematics scores.” Trump’s press secretary called reports about the order “fake news.”

    Education advocates have already shown staunch opposition to the executive action. The American Federation of Teachers, a key higher ed union, was one of the first groups to pipe up when the news broke Wednesday evening, calling the order a government attempt to “abdicate its responsibility to all children, students and working families.”

    “The Department of Education, and the laws it is supposed to execute, has one major purpose: to level the playing field and fill opportunity gaps to help every child in America succeed,” union president Randi Weingarten said in a statement. “No one likes bureaucracy, and everyone’s in favor of more efficiency, so let’s find ways to accomplish that. But don’t use a ‘war on woke’ to attack the children living in poverty and the children with disabilities, in order to pay for vouchers and tax cuts for billionaires.”

    The president and his allies have promoted the idea of dismantling the agency since the early days of his 2024 campaign, saying the department has grown too big and interferes in matters best left to local and state authorities. They also argue the agency’s existence violates the Constitution (because the document doesn’t mention education) and is a prime example of federal bloat and excess.

    Read More on Trump’s Plans to Break Up the Department

    Such an order has been rumored for weeks, and higher education officials have been nervously waiting for the shoe to drop since McMahon was confirmed by the Senate Monday afternoon. But the secretary backed plans to break up or diminish the department at her confirmation last month, and shortly after taking office, she wrote to agency staff about their “momentous final mission,” which includes overhauling the agency and eliminating “bureaucratic bloat.” She never did directly use the words “dismantle” or “abolish” but pledged to “send education back to the states.”

    “As I’ve learned many times throughout my career, disruption leads to innovation and gets results,” she wrote. “We must start thinking about our final mission at the department as an overhaul—a last chance to restore the culture of liberty and excellence that made American education great.”

    Eliminating the Education Department and sending key programs such as the Office for Civil Rights to other agencies was a key part of the conservative blueprint Project 2025’s plans to reshape education policy in America. But recent public opinion polls have found support for keeping the agency.

    One survey conducted by the progressive think tank Data for Progress, on behalf of the Student Borrower Protection Center, a left-wing advocacy group, showed that 61 percent of all respondents “somewhat” or “strongly” opposed the idea of eliminating the department. Another poll from Morning Consult, a data-driven insights company, showed that a large chunk of voters—41 percent—actually want to increase funding to the department.

    The order doesn’t mean the department will close tomorrow or even this month, as it calls for the secretary to create a plan to wind down operations. McMahon also told senators during her confirmation that only Congress can shut down the agency altogether.

    Higher Ed Officials Brace for Impact

    As talks about the department’s demise ramped up in recent weeks, lawmakers, student advocacy groups, civil rights organizations and left-leaning think tanks warned how destructive dismantling the department could be.

    Democrats in the House started pushing back on the idea as early as Feb. 10, when they walked directly up to the department’s front doors and demanded a meeting with then–acting education secretary Denise Carter. Denied entry, they argued the department’s existence is key to supporting students with disabilities and making higher education accessible to all.

    That same week, several key senators wrote a letter to the department outlining their “serious concerns” about its actions.

    “We will not stand by and allow the impact that dismantling the Department of Education would have on the nation’s students, parents, borrowers, educators, and communities,” the lawmakers wrote.

    Derrick Johnson, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, put out a statement expressing similar concerns for students of color just minutes after McMahon was confirmed. The NAACP played a key role in the landmark 1954 Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed racial segregation in public schools, and has been a longtime advocate for equality and opportunity in education. He said that protecting the Department of Education is critical, since the agency not only funds public schools, but “enforces essential civil rights laws.”

    “This is an agency we cannot afford to dismantle,” he said.

    On Tuesday morning, EdTrust, a nonprofit policy and advocacy group, said America has reached “a dangerous turning point for public education.”

    “Simply put: If we are truly to reach America’s ‘Golden Age,’ we need to build a better, stronger Department of Education, not tear it down altogether,” the organization wrote in a statement.

    Kevin Carey, vice president of education at New America, a left-leaning think tank, said in a statement that eliminating the department is a “deeply unpopular idea,” citing the organization’s own new polling data.

    The survey found that over all only 26 percent of adults support the department’s closure. And though the Trump administration says it is carrying out the will of the people who elected him to office, barely half of Republicans want closure. Even fewer members of the GOP support the specific consequences of shuttering the department, like moving federal financial aid to an agency with no experience overseeing the program.

    “This is all part of the standard authoritarian playbook for would-be dictators engaged in tearing down democratic institutions,” Carey wrote. Dismantling the department would be “a nihilistic act of civic vandalism, carried out by ideological zealots.”

    Gathering Congressional Support

    But Carey and others also note that, ultimately, the Trump administration lacks the legal authority to actually close the Department of Education, making full abolishment more complicated than the president suggests.

    Shuttering the agency would require 60 votes in the Senate as well as a majority in the House, as the department’s existence is written into statute. And with a 53-seat majority in the Senate, Republicans don’t currently have the votes unless some Democrats back the plan.

    Still, Trump has continued to promote the concept, and red states across the country have backed it. Although the president has not disclosed specific details on how he would try to overcome the political and legal hurdles, higher education policy experts predict he’s likely to leave the skeleton of the department standing while gutting the agency of everything but its statutorily protected duties.

    Conservative groups, most notably the Heritage Foundation, have suggested redistributing responsibilities by moving programs to other agencies. For example, the federal student loan system could be moved to the Treasury, and the Office for Civil Rights could be moved to the Department of Justice.

    Critics of the idea say that such proposals need more specifics that spell out how exactly the plan would work, what programs would stay, which ones would go away and what agencies would take over the department’s responsibilities.

    However, higher ed policy experts from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, say getting rid of the department is “a good idea.” They describe the department as “unconstitutional,” given education is mentioned nowhere in the specific, enumerated powers given to the federal government, and call it “ineffective,” “incompetent,” “expensive” and “unnecessary.”

    The founding fathers chose to exclude dominion over education from the Constitution “because education was believed best left in the hands of parents and civil society—the families and communities closest to the children—and certainly not in a distant national government,” Neal McCluskey, director of Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom, wrote in a policy handbook. “Nearly 60 years of experience with major and, until very recently, constantly expanding federal meddling in K-12 education have proved them right.”

    Source link