Tag: Response

  • James Goodale on Trump: ‘He’d sue everybody . . . in the media business’ and their ‘response has been pathetic’ — First Amendment News 460

    James Goodale on Trump: ‘He’d sue everybody . . . in the media business’ and their ‘response has been pathetic’ — First Amendment News 460

    Recently, on a WBUR public radio program with Willis Ryder Arnold and Deborah Becker, author and leading First Amendment attorney James Goodale had some things to say about Donald Trump’s attempts to intimidate the press.

    First a bit about the man. From the Wikipedia entry on Goodale:

    James Goodale

    James Goodale is the former vice president and general counsel for The New York Times and, later, the Times’ vice chairman. He is the author of “Fighting for the Press: The Inside Story of the Pentagon Papers and Other Battles.”

    Goodale represented The New York Times in four of its United States Supreme Court cases, including Branzburg v. Hayes, in which the Times intervened on behalf of its reporter Earl Caldwell. The other cases were New York Times v. Sullivan, New York Times Co. v. United States (the Pentagon Papers case), and New York Times Co. v. Tasini. 

    He has been called “the father of the reporter’s privilege” in the Hastings Law Journal because of his interpretation of the Branzburg case.

    And now on to Goodale’s comments on WBUR regarding Trump: 

    So, if you’re not going to fight for your creativity, you’re not going to have a company left. And that applies not only to newspapers, but obviously movies, too. And let me say also, finally, that if you don’t fight, what Trump is going to do, he’s going to go from media company to media company with quasi true cases and pick up money. He’s just on a . . . bribery trail. And I say that from some experience here in New York City, which is exactly what he did before he ran for president. He’d sue everybody who was in the media business and drive them nuts, and the cases would finally go away.

    But guess what? It cost the media company some bucks to defend it.

    [. . .]

    I believe that once the press starts making settlements where it has no real basis, in my humble opinion, for making them, it undercuts that whole role, and more importantly, I think it encourages someone like Trump to keep on doing it.

    Similarly, in an exchange with Trevor Timm for The Freedom of the Press Foundation on Feb. 12, Goodale had this to say:

    If CBS decides to settle [the “60 Minutes” lawsuit], it will be an absolute disaster for the press. It would be one more domino falling down, handing Trump an undeserved victory against the press. . . . [ABC’s] cowardly settling its case in which George Stephanopoulos said “rape” instead of “sexual abuse,” but since then, Facebook has settled Trump’s even more outlandish suit, and for what? CBS should be standing up and fighting Trump. If I’m them, I’m not letting Trump make me look foolish. Because if it happens, there will be no end. Trump will bring lawsuits against every part of the media, and it will put pressure on everyone else to settle.

    Let me make clear that the lawsuit is a bunch of nonsense. Trump’s legal theory doesn’t exist anywhere in the law, and so not only is the settlement bad in terms of putting the onus on everyone else to settle, but the entire premise of the lawsuit is ridiculous. News outlets are allowed to edit interviews! Hard to believe it even has to be said.

    [ . . . ]

    The suit is from Mars. To my knowledge, I’ve never seen a suit brought like this one where editing is being criticized as constituting consumer fraud. It has no basis in law as far as I’m concerned, and what’s going to happen — if, in fact, the case is settled — is there will be more consumer fraud cases every time the media edits an interview, not only with Trump, but other politicians. And the First Amendment will suffer.

    [ . . . ] 

    [And] the response by the press as we speak has been pathetic. There’s no spokesperson for the press who is out there leading the charge and coordinating a united front with all the news outlets on the same page.

    Related

    Revenge Storm: ‘Chill all the Lawyers’

    “Under my watch, the partisan weaponization of the Department of Justice will end. America must have one tier of justice for all.” — Pamela Bondi (Confirmation hearing for U.S. Attorney General, Jan. 15)

    “There are a lot of people in the FBI and also in the DOJ who despise Donald Trump, despise us, don’t want to be there. We will find them. Because you have to believe in transparency, you have to believe in honesty, you have to do the right thing. We’re gonna root them out and they will no longer be employed.” — Pamela Bondi (March 3)


    WATCH VIDEO: Trump Signs Anti-Weaponization Executive Order: ‘The Deranged Jack Smith Signing!’

    The administration is acting in ways that will necessarily chill a growing number of lawyers from participating in any litigation against the federal government, regardless of who the client is. That, in turn, will make it harder for many clients adverse to the Trump administration to find lawyers to represent them — such that at least some cases either won’t be brought at all or won’t be brought by the lawyers best situated to bring them.

    [ . . . ]

    [W]hat the Trump administration is doing is far more than just bad behavior; it’s a direct threat to the rule of law—almost as much as defying court orders would be.

    Related

    Executive Watch

    President Donald Trump and his ally Elon Musk portray themselves as near-absolutists when it comes to free speech, engaged in an epic fight to let Americans speak openly again after years of enduring liberal efforts to shut down conservative voices. 

    But since taking office, the president has mounted what critics call his own sweeping attack on freedom of expression. Some of it aims to stamp out diversity, equity and inclusion and what he terms “radical gender ideology.” Some of it is aimed at media organizations whose language he dislikes. In other cases, the attacks target opponents who have spoken sharply about the administration.

    Together, critics — and in some cases, judges — have said Trump’s efforts have gone beyond shaping the message of the federal government to threaten the First Amendment rights of private groups and individuals.

    New report on state threats to free speech advocacy and donor privacy

    Hurt feelings from the campaign trail fuel retaliatory disclosure demands across the U.S.

    Legislative and regulatory proposals in as many as 34 states pose a potential threat to the privacy and free speech rights of donors to the nonprofit community, a new report finds. People United for Privacy Foundation (PUFPF), a national privacy rights advocacy group, warns that state officials are increasingly targeting the ability of nonprofit supporters to maintain their privacy as political polarization rises.

    “After a bruising campaign season, many politicians are out for revenge against the groups and donors that dared to criticize them. These efforts reach far beyond traditional political committees to target nonprofits that discuss elected officials’ voting records or advocate on policy issues. Forcing nonprofits to publish their supporters’ names and home addresses is an intimidation tactic that chills free speech and violates personal privacy,” said PUFPF Vice President Matt Nese, a co-author of the report.

    The report, “2025 State Threats to Donor Privacy and Nonprofit Advocacy,” analyzes current and past legislation, regulatory proposals, and statements by public officials to catalog potential threats to donor privacy in state legislative sessions occurring across the country.

    Forthcoming book on how foreign authoritarian influence undermines freedom and integrity within American higher education

    Sarah McLaughlin

    Sarah McLaughlin

    A revealing exposé on how foreign authoritarian influence is undermining freedom and integrity within American higher education institutions.

    In an era of globalized education, where ideals of freedom and inquiry should thrive, an alarming trend has emerged: foreign authoritarian regimes infiltrating American academia. In Authoritarians in the Academy, Sarah McLaughlin exposes how higher education institutions, long considered bastions of free thought, are compromising their values for financial gain and global partnerships. 

    This groundbreaking investigation reveals the subtle yet sweeping influence of authoritarian governments. Universities leaders are allowing censorship to flourish on campus, putting pressure on faculty, and silencing international student voices, all in the name of appeasing foreign powers. McLaughlin exposes the troubling reality where university leaders prioritize expansion and profit over the principles of free expression. The book describes incidents in classrooms where professors hesitate to discuss controversial topics and in boardrooms where administrators weigh the costs of offending oppressive regimes. McLaughlin offers a sobering look at how the compromises made in American academia reflect broader societal patterns seen in industries like tech, sports, and entertainment. 

    Meticulously researched and unapologetically candid, Authoritarians in the Academy is an essential read for anyone who believes in the transformative power of education and the necessity of safeguarding it from the creeping tide of authoritarianism.

    Sarah McLaughlin is a senior scholar of global expression at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    Nadine Strossen on ‘The Weimar Fallacy’

    FIRE Senior Fellow and former ACLU President Nadine Strossen discusses what is commonly known as The Weimar Fallacy: The idea that, if only the Weimar Republic in Germany had tamped down on Nazis and anti-Semitic speech, Hitler’s rise and the horrors of the Holocaust could have been averted.

    As the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, Nadine knows just how ugly anti-Semitism can be — but censorship only makes it worse.

    The truth is, there were many hate speech laws in Weimar Germany, and they were strongly enforced against the Nazis — including Hitler himself.

    Not only did those hate speech laws help the Nazis gain power, they also helped the Nazis censor anyone who challenged it.


    WATCH VIDEO: Would “hate speech” laws have stopped the Nazis?

    NAACP-LDF’s Janai Nelson on racism and book banning

    LDF Associate Director-Counsel Janai Nelson speaks on the legal challenges to banned books, LDF’s legacy of using the law in order to transform society, and why progress toward racial justice requires we tell the truth about our nation’s history.


    WATCH VIDEO: Banned Books Week: Janai Nelson on Ideas & Action

    New Book by Gene Policinski traces history of First Amendment

    First amendment, threats and defenses have, for much of the past 100 years, largely focused on protecting individual speech, the right of any one of us to express ourselves without interference or punishment by the government. But there is an increasing danger to our core freedoms from systemic challenges, which often involve other issues or circumstances, but which carry a First Amendment impact, if not wallop. – Gene Policinski

    Photo of Gene Policinski and Kevin Goldberg on Feb. 26, 2025

    Gene Policinski (left) and Kevin Goldberg at Freedom Forum on Feb. 26, 2025. (Credit: Ron Collins)

    This fast-paced history of the First Amendment will engage students, educators, scholars and other fans of our nation’s most fundamental freedoms.

    In “The First Amendment in the 21st Century,” Gene Policinski, Freedom Forum senior fellow for the First Amendment and past First Amendment Center president, traces the history of the First Amendment through its winding social and legal paths as it has intertwined with world events and cultural change.

    He explores how this history shows today’s potential for a First Amendment renaissance even amid new technological challenges.

    Deeply researched and clearly written, “The First Amendment in the 21st Century” reconciles the past and the present and opines on the future of our First Amendment freedoms — from the courtroom to the chat room.

    New scholarly article: First Amendment Right to Affirmative Action

    In the wake of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, affirmative action proponents should pursue a First Amendment approach. Private universities, which are speaking associations that express themselves through the collective speech of faculty and students, may be able to assert an expressive association right, based on Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, to choose their faculty and students. This theory has been recently strengthened by 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.

    I discuss various complexities and counterarguments: (1) Race is not different from sex or sexual orientation for purposes of the doctrine. (2) The market context may not matter, especially after 303 Creative. (3) The conditional-federal-funding context does give the government more power than a simple regulatory context; the government will still be able to induce race-neutrality by the threat of withdrawing federal funds, but the unconstitutional conditions doctrine precludes draconian penalties such as withdrawing all funds from the entire institution based only on affirmative action in some units. (4) This theory doesn’t apply to public institutions.

     

    I also explore the potential flexibilities of this theory, based on recent litigation. The scope of the Boy Scouts exception might vary based on (1) what counts as substantial interference with expressive organizations, (2) what counts as a compelling governmental interest, and, most importantly, (3) what it takes for activity to be expressive.

    More in the news

    2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases

    Cases decided

    • Villarreal v. Alaniz (Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
    • Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
    • TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)

    Review granted

    Pending petitions

    Petitions denied

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 459: “Alex Kozinski on JD Vance’s censorship speech”

    This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.

    Source link

  • Higher ed botched response to anti-DEI guidance (opinion)

    Higher ed botched response to anti-DEI guidance (opinion)

    While much of the now-infamous Valentine’s Day Dear Colleague letter from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights was vague and void of specific information, the following sentence was crystal clear:

    “The Department intends to take appropriate measures to assess compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations based on the understanding embodied in this letter beginning no later than 14 days from today’s date, including antidiscrimination requirements that are a condition of receiving federal funding.”

    Despite the letter’s clear language to the contrary, higher education leaders and the media (including the higher ed press) did the math and declared Feb. 28 “deadline day” for diversity, equity and inclusion programs in higher education. “Deadline day,” read one story. “The clock is running out,” claimed another. An Associated Press story ran with the lead “Schools and colleges across the U.S. face a Friday deadline to end diversity programs or risk having their federal money pulled.” What ensued was a self-made crisis characterized by spirited debates and ill-advised anticipatory compliance with the yet-to-be-announced changes to enforcement of Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Seasoned veterans knew better. The most likely “next step” indicated by the department was presumed to be further communication from OCR about the “measures to assess compliance” that were promised in the letter.

    And that is exactly what happened. On March 1, the department issued a press release and FAQ document elaborating on the Dear Colleague letter. The FAQ elaborates on the new administration’s intention to use a novel and expansive interpretation of the 2023 Supreme Court decision in SFFA v. Harvard, an admissions case in which Chief Justice John Roberts opined that diversity-related goals within higher education can be “commendable” and “plainly worthy.” It answers questions about how the department will receive complaints. In short, the department did exactly what it stated it would do within the 14-day timeline. The so-called deadline was a chimera, an artifact of the confusion and fear created by the letter’s politically charged context and lack of specificity.

    While it leaves many key questions unanswered, the FAQ does favorably settle several unclear points raised by the Dear Colleague letter.

    Question 8 asks, “Are Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs unlawful under SFFA?” The answer is no. Only if those programs discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin do they violate the law. The answer further clarifies what we have known all along: “Whether a policy or program violates Title VI does not depend on the use of specific terminology such as ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion.’” The department declares in unambiguous language that it cannot deem certain words “illegal,” nor are phrases such as “diversity,” “equity,” “inclusion” or “belonging” a violation of nondiscrimination obligations.

    Question 9 asks, “Does this mean that students, teachers, and school employees may not discuss topics related to race or DEI under Title VI?” Again, the answer is no. Only if those classroom discussions create “hostile environments through race-based policies and stereotypes” do they violate the law. The answer makes clear, “Nothing in Title VI, its implementing regulations, or the Dear Colleague Letter requires or authorizes a school to restrict any rights otherwise protected by the First Amendment.”

    The 14-day window between the Dear Colleague letter and the FAQ did not pass without some productive and inspirational advocacy. Notably, Paulette Granberry Russell and the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education won a significant legal victory in federal district court, achieving a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement activities and the withdrawal of funding based on anti-DEI executive orders.

    The American Council on Education submitted a persuasive letter to OCR—signed by 71 national higher education organizations—requesting that the Dear Colleague letter be rescinded and that the department engage with the higher education community to ensure a clear understanding of the legal obligations of colleges and universities—a rare example of higher education speaking with one voice on this topic.

    The rest of the frenetic activity in this two-week time span was less productive. Despite many thoughtful suggestions to the contrary, some colleges and universities hastily undertook “audits” and website “scrubbing” of programming they thought might possibly be covered in the OCR’s forthcoming communications. A careful review of the FAQ document is likely to reveal that much of this was an unnecessary overreaction.

    From my perspective, the most harmful occurrence was an unproductive debate over institutional responses to the letter. Most of these took the shape of a false dichotomy between courage and cowardice. In my estimation, the institutions that stayed the course and waited for guidance from OCR were not courageous, but rather prudent. Conversely, the institutions that moved to action were not universally motivated by fear or cowardice, but rather by institution-specific realities of board governance, state and local politics, and individual risk assessments. At the end of the day, it was context and not courage or cowardice that motivated institutions.

    With a published methodology for compliance assessment now communicated, the department has answered a few of the lingering questions outlined on Valentine’s Day. Most notably, the FAQ provides a clear statement on how the Dear Colleague letter will be enforced.

    The answer to Question 14 clarifies that the department will use existing case-processing procedure—which includes due process for institutions and the possibility of a voluntary resolution agreement—and links to a newly revised Case Processing Manual. It is now the job of institutions that are committed to building “inclusive and diverse campus communities”—as the ACE letter penned by Ted Mitchell so eloquently states—to prepare a spirited defense of their programming by demonstrating that their efforts do not violate federal civil rights law.

    Steve Robinson is president of Lansing Community College.

    Source link

  • A legislative solution to student suicide prevention: advocating for opt-out consent in response to student welfare concerns

    A legislative solution to student suicide prevention: advocating for opt-out consent in response to student welfare concerns

    Authored by Dr Emma Roberts, Head of Law at the University of Salford.

    The loss of a student to suicide is a profound and heartbreaking tragedy, leaving families and loved ones devastated, while exposing critical gaps in the support systems within higher education. Each death is not only a personal tragedy but also a systemic failure, underscoring the urgent need for higher education institutions to strengthen their safeguarding frameworks.

    Recent government data revealed that 5.7% of home students disclosed a mental health condition to their university in 2021/22, a significant rise from under 1% in 2010/11. Despite this growing awareness of mental health challenges, the higher education sector is grappling with the alarming persistence of student suicides.

    The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported a rate of 3.0 deaths per 100,000 students in England and Wales in the academic year ending 2020, equating to 64 lives lost. Behind each statistic lies a grieving family, unanswered questions and the haunting possibility that more could have been done. These statistics force universities to confront uncomfortable truths about their ability to support vulnerable students.

    The time for piecemeal solutions has passed. To confront this crisis, bold and systemic reforms are required. One such reform – the introduction of an opt-out consent system for welfare contact – has the potential to transform how universities respond to students in crisis.

    An opt-out consent model

    At present, universities typically rely on opt-in systems, where students are asked to nominate a contact to be informed in emergencies. This has come to be known as the Bristol consent model. Where this system exists, they are not always invoked when students face severe mental health challenges. The reluctance often stems from concerns about breaching confidentiality laws and the fear of legal repercussions. This hesitancy can result in critical delays in involving a student’s support network at the time when their wellbeing may be most at risk, leaving universities unable to provide timely, life-saving interventions. Moreover, evidence suggests that many students, particularly those experiencing mental health challenges, fail to engage with these systems, leaving institutions unable to notify loved ones when serious concerns arise.

    Not all universities have such a system in place. And some universities, while they may have a ‘nominated person’ process, lack the infrastructure to appropriately engage the mechanism of connecting with the emergency contact when most needed.

    An opt-out consent model would reverse this default, automatically enrolling students into a system where a trusted individual – such as a parent, guardian or chosen contact – can be notified if their wellbeing raises grave concerns. Inspired by England and Wales’ opt-out system for organ donation, this approach would prioritise safeguarding without undermining student autonomy.

    Confidentiality must be balanced with the need to protect life. An opt-out model offers precisely this balance, creating a proactive safety net that supports students while respecting their independence.

    Legislative provision

    For such a system to succeed, it must be underpinned by robust legislation and practical safeguards. Key measures would include:

    1. Comprehensive communication: universities must clearly explain the purpose and operation of the opt-out system during student onboarding, ensuring that individuals are fully informed of their rights and options.
    2. Defined triggers: criteria for invoking welfare contact must be transparent and consistently applied. This might include extended absences, concerning behavioural patterns or explicit threats of harm.
    3. Regular reviews: students should have opportunities to update or withdraw their consent throughout their studies, ensuring the system remains flexible and respectful of changing personal circumstances.
    4. Privacy protections: institutions must share only essential information with the nominated contact, ensuring the student’s broader confidentiality is preserved.
    5. Staff training: university staff, including academic and professional services personnel, must receive regular training on recognising signs of mental health crises, navigating confidentiality boundaries and ensuring compliance with the opt-out system’s requirements. This training would help ensure interventions are timely, appropriate and aligned with legal and institutional standards.
    6. Reporting and auditing: universities should implement robust reporting and auditing mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of the opt-out system. This should include maintaining records of instances where welfare contact was invoked, monitoring outcomes and conducting periodic audits to identify gaps or areas for improvement. Transparent reporting would not only enhance accountability but also foster trust among stakeholders.

    Lessons from the organ donation model

    The opt-out system for organ donation introduced in both Wales and England demonstrates the effectiveness of reframing consent to drive societal benefit. Following its implementation, public trust was maintained and the number of registered organ donors increased. A similar approach in higher education could establish a proactive baseline for safeguarding without coercing students into participation.

    Addressing legal and cultural barriers

    A common barrier to implementing such reforms is the fear of overstepping legal boundaries. Currently, universities are hesitant to breach confidentiality, even in critical situations, for fear of breaching trust and privacy and prompting litigation. Enshrining the opt-out system in law to include the key measures listed above would provide institutions with the clarity and confidence to act decisively, ensuring consistency across the sector. Culturally, universities must address potential scepticism by engaging students, staff and families in dialogue about the system’s goals and safeguards.

    The need for legislative action

    To ensure the successful implementation of an opt-out consent system, decisive actions are required from both the government and higher education institutions. The government must take the lead by legislating the introduction of this system, creating a consistent, sector-wide approach to safeguarding student wellbeing. Without legislative action, universities will remain hesitant, lacking the legal clarity and confidence needed to adopt such a bold model.

    Legislation is the only way to ensure every student, regardless of where they study, receives the same high standard of protection, ending the current postcode lottery in safeguarding practices across the sector.

    A call for collective action

    Universities, however, must not wait idly for legislation to take shape. They have a moral obligation to begin addressing the gaps in their welfare notification systems now. By expanding or introducing opt-in systems as an interim measure, institutions can begin closing these gaps, gathering critical data and refining their practices in readiness for a sector-wide transition.

    Universities should unite under sector bodies to lobby the government for legislative reform, demonstrating their collective commitment to safeguarding students. Furthermore, institutions must engage their communities – students, staff and families – in a transparent dialogue about the benefits and safeguards of the opt-out model, ensuring a broad base of understanding and support for its eventual implementation.

    This dual approach of immediate institutional action paired with long-term legislative reform represents a pragmatic and proactive path forward. Universities can begin saving lives today while laying the groundwork for a robust, consistent and legally supported safeguarding framework for the future.

    Setting a New Standard for Student Safeguarding

    The rising mental health crisis among students demands more than institutional goodwill – it requires systemic change. While the suicide rate among higher education students is lower than in the general population, this should not be a cause for complacency. Each loss is a profound tragedy and a clear signal that systemic improvements are urgently needed to save lives. Higher education institutions have a duty to prioritise student wellbeing and must ensure that their environments offer the highest standards of safety and support. An opt-out consent system for welfare contact is not a panacea, but it represents a critical step towards creating safer and more supportive university environments.

    The higher education sector has long recognised the importance of student wellbeing, yet its current frameworks remain fragmented and reactive. This proposal is both bold and achievable. It aligns with societal trends towards proactive safeguarding, reflects a compassionate approach to student welfare and offers a legally sound mechanism to prevent future tragedies.

    The loss of 64 students to suicide in a single academic year is a stark reminder that the status quo is failing. By adopting an opt-out consent system, universities can create a culture of care that saves lives, supports grieving families and fulfils their duty to protect students.

    The time to act is now. With legislative backing and sector-wide commitment, this reform could become a cornerstone of a more compassionate and effective national response to student suicide prevention.

    Source link

  • Universities need a ‘Trump response plan’

    Universities need a ‘Trump response plan’

    Hi, everyone. This week I’m bringing you a dispatch from the Higher Education Climate Leadership Summit, hosted by the group Second Nature, where the Trump administration’s efforts to undo environmental action were very much top of mind. Thanks for reading. — Caroline Preston

    WASHINGTON — Federal dollars for clean energy are disappearing. Environmental offices across the federal government are being dismantled. Universities are facing decisions about whether to scrub the words “climate change” from their projects in order to keep them funded.

    Only a few weeks into Donald Trump’s second term, his attacks on climate action are already hindering universities’ efforts to curb their carbon emissions and minimize their harm to the planet, according to speakers at a conference I attended earlier this week hosted by the nonprofit group Second Nature.

    Going forward, every higher ed institution needs “a Trump response plan,” said Gregory Washington, president of George Mason University, in Fairfax, Virginia.

    Hundreds of college sustainability officers, university presidents, clean energy engineers, environmental researchers and others gathered for the event at a hotel blocks from the White House, where Trump has signed orders to “unleash” fossil fuels, sought to freeze clean energy funding, and overseen the removal of language on climate change from government websites.

    Some takeaways from the conference:

    Related: Want to read more about how climate change is shaping education? Subscribe to our free newsletter.

    Universities need a plan to navigate the Trump administration. Colleges and universities should form rapid response teams to confront political threats, speakers said, and also find safety in numbers and advocate through coalitions. Institutions may also have to pick their battles and let some work go, said Washington. “They have a playbook,” said Shalanda Baker, the University of Michigan’s vice provost for sustainability and climate action, referring to the political actors trying to undo diversity, equity and inclusion, environmental justice and related work. “Let’s create a playbook — and let’s continue the work.”

    Climate action is shifting. With a federal government hostile to climate action, higher ed can focus on making change alongside state and local governments instead. Universities can also partner with different types of organizations — health care systems, cultural institutions, businesses and others — to make progress. They might also consider forming alliances with institutions overseas.

    Debates are raging about whether to avoid “trigger words” like “climate change.” Some speakers, including George Mason’s Washington, talked about how, with certain audiences, universities should avoid language that the administration objects to, including “climate change” and “zero carbon.” “It has to be about saying the right things to the right people so you can salvage and maintain the programs you have and continue to move forward on your mission,” he said. Others disagreed, arguing that changing the language in a proposal wouldn’t stop government staff from investigating the work programs actually do. “We have a clock over our heads. We need to stand in the work, and call it what it is, which is that we are trying to avert catastrophic climate change,” said Baker of the University of Michigan.

    The threats are very real, not hypothetical. Dana R. Fisher, director of the Center for Environment, Community and Equity at American University, talked about how she was told in the last few days by people reviewing a government-funded project that unless she changed its focus from climate action to disaster recovery, it might not have a future. She noted that the American Climate Corps, a Biden-era program to deploy people into jobs related to fighting climate change, blinked out of existence after Trump took office. “We need to be realistic about what persistence and resistance looks like in channels like these if external forces will be shutting our work down,” said Fisher. She added, “The question I have for all of you is what are our universities going to do to protect us? Do I change the entirety of my website? What do I do about all the people funded for these grants who are now at risk of losing their jobs and their health care?”

    Universities are complicit in climate change. Several speakers noted that universities have done far too little for too long on climate change, and their financial ties to fossil fuel companies are one reason. Jennie Stephens, professor of climate justice at the National University of Ireland Maynooth, said that universities’ complicity in climate change was one reason why she left U.S. academia for an institution overseas. “The fossil fuel industry and profit-seeking interests have captured academia,” she said, adding that as a result there aren’t research centers designed to help society move away from fossil fuels. She added, “We need to reclaim and restructure these institutions for bigger change.”

    Related: How universities can become ‘living labs’ for climate action

    Students are tired of university inaction. “A lot of students are frustrated right now,” said Sydney Collins, a 2023 graduate of the University of Connecticut who is now a sustainability coordinator there. “A lot of students say it’s been bad and we’ve been terrified and you haven’t been listening. … And how dare you look at us now and say there’s nothing we can do. You haven’t been doing that work previously.” Fisher, of American University, said that anxiety, not anger, can motivate people to action, and that many people were outraged right now. To make change, she said, people need to think about “insider” and “outsider” strategies, and how students can sometimes be effective “outsider” voices pushing universities to change.

    Still, campus climate action has accelerated, even in red states. The event celebrated higher education institutions that have had success in reducing their emissions and fighting climate change. Among those recognized was Central Community College in Hastings, Nebraska. One of its seven centers and campuses runs entirely on wind energy, another entirely on solar. In 2019, the college started a wind, solar and battery storage program to prepare students for jobs in those industries. The program has a 100 percent job placement rate, with students graduating into jobs that typically pay between $28 to $32 an hour, according to Taylor Schneider, the college’s energy technology instructor. Ben Newton, the college’s environmental sustainability director, said the college has had success in maintaining support for the program even in a state where opposition to wind energy is widespread because people see the financial and employment benefits. Newton said he’s accustomed to tailoring his messages for different audiences — for example, describing the specifics of climate science in a sustainability class he teaches and focusing more on resilience in the face of extreme weather events with administrators and others.

    Higher ed needs new ways of measuring climate action. Second Nature, which encourages universities to make commitments to carbon neutrality, has been working to update those commitments to take into account different areas of work (like governance and education) and establish that neutrality is a milestone not an end point. That’s a step in the right direction, say some observers. “I don’t think it takes a lot of thought in the climate space to realize we can’t solve the climate crisis by paying everyone else to reduce their emissions,” said Alexander Barron, an associate professor of environmental science and policy at Smith College, who has argued that under the existing climate commitment model universities rely too heavily on purchasing offsets to meet their climate goals. 

    Going beyond neutrality requires all-in approaches. University officials talked about their strategies for moving beyond net neutrality and further reducing carbon emissions. Tavey Capps, executive director of climate and sustainability at Duke University, described the university’s efforts to ensure that all 10 of its schools — the divinity school, the law school, the business school and others — are engaged in and committed to climate action. Aaron Durnbaugh, director of sustainability with Loyola University of Chicago, talked about how climate action aligned with the Jesuit institution’s social justice mission. “We’re thinking about how we can ensure that more money goes back into communities,” he said, noting that the university had had some success by partnering on a solar project that provided unionized jobs for residents of nearby counties. “What does a Catholic heat pump look like? What does an equitable electric vehicle purchase look like?”

    While many in attendance were reeling at the pace of the Trump administration’s anti-clean energy blitz, they also noted that there would be more to come. “They are just getting started,” said Fisher of American University.

    “We have to stand in this moment,” said the University of Michigan’s Baker. “We have to be the tip of the spear and be courageous. I have a good job, but I’m willing to put myself out there.”

    She added: “There are no safe harbors.” 

    Contact editor Caroline Preston at 212-870-8965 or [email protected]

    This story about climate action was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter on climate and education.

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

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • A Response to ‘Online Degrees Out of Reach’

    A Response to ‘Online Degrees Out of Reach’

    A Response to ‘Online Degrees Out of Reach’

    Susan H. Greenberg

    Mon, 01/13/2025 – 03:00 PM

    An ed-tech consultant writes that a recent article about online completion rates “shows a disturbing disregard for the complexities of education outcomes.”

    Byline(s)

    Letters to the Editor

    Source link

  • Elements of an Initial Response – GlobalHigherEd

    Elements of an Initial Response – GlobalHigherEd

    Editor’s note: this guest entry, also posted on Inside Higher Ed, has been kindly developed by Sejal Parmar, Assistant Professor at the Department of Legal Studies and a core faculty member of the Center for Media, Data and Society at the School of Public Policy at the Central European University (CEU) in Budapest. The photographs are (c) Daniel Vegel, Zoltan Tuba / CEU. Dr. Parmar was previously Senior Legal Officer at ARTICLE 19. She has also been a postdoctoral fellow at New York University Law School and a visiting scholar at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. Her main field of expertise and research is international and European human rights law, particularly on freedom of expression. Dr. Parmar’s entry provides us with a number of important insights on how and why CEU is defending itself after being dragged into an ideological struggle not of the university’s making, as well as reminding us that what happens to CEU should matter to everyone concerned about the future of higher education, knowledge production, and human rights. Kris Olds

    ~~~~~~~

    Defending Central European University and Academic Freedom: Elements of an Initial Response

    Sejal Parmar, Central European University

    CEU’s new “N15” building in Nádros street.

    The Central European University (“CEU”) “in a single week has become the most important global symbol of academic freedom in the world.” So observed CEU’s President and Rector Michael Ignatieff on 4 April, the day amendments to Hungary’s Act on National Higher Education (“Lex CEU”), which were only tabled on 28 March, were adopted by the Hungarian Parliament. Signed into law by Hungary’s President just a week later, on 10 April, these amendments “make it impossible for the University to continue its operations as an institution of higher education in Budapest, CEU’s home for 25 years.” CEU’s fight to remain “at home” has prompted a tsunami of statements from across the world and a spectacular popular movement, mobilising some of the largest demonstrations the country has seen since the fall of communism; as many as 80,000 people marched in Budapest on 9 April. CEU has been propelled into the global limelight through numerous opinion pieces, editorials, academic blogs, papers, social media posts and the hashtag #IstandwithCEU. Ironically, the university, which hosted the “Frontiers of Democracy” initiative in recent years and has long offered courses on international human rights advocacy, has necessarily been galvanised into taking on the forces of “illiberal democracy” for the sake of its own freedom.

    An emblem and catalyst

    Under the terms of Lex CEU, CEU is required to offer academic programmes in New York at pointless and unbearable financial cost. CEU currently awards both Hungarian and American accredited degrees, without having a campus in the US, thanks to its dual legal identity and accreditation in New York as “CEU”, and in Hungary as “Közép-európai Egyetem” (“KEE”). Contesting the legislation as an attack on its academic freedom and institutional autonomy, CEU is currently pursuing “all legal remedies” whilst calling on the government to show “mutual good will” by initiating negotiations towards finding a “lawful and long-term solution that would ensure [the university’s] academic freedom and institutional integrity.”

    The attack on CEU’s freedom as a university may be unprecedented in the history of the EU, but it is not unique. Just in the past year, Russian authorities have revoked the license of the European University in St Petersburg, the Turkish government has forced the shutdown of fifteen institutions after the failed July 2016 coup attempt, and campuses in Pakistan and Afghanistan have been subjected to violent attacks, resulting in scores of deaths. As a legislative assault on a Hungarian institution of critical inquiry and “public watchdog”, it is also not unique and may have even been predicted. It is part of a broader political offensive on democratic institutions by Hungary’s Fidesz government, led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, which has over the years targeted independent media, the Constitutional Court and foreign-funded NGOs, whilst treating “the very concept [of] human rights as a sort of public enemy”. Little wonder that Timothy Garton Ash has urged that Europe’s “appeasement [of Hungary] has to stop”.

    CEU’s case exposes both the erosion of academic freedom around the world, and deepening challenges to democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Hungary and in the EU generally. It should, accordingly, catalyse a deeper interest in threats to academic freedom – which is protected by Article 19 ICCPR, Articles 15 and 13 ICESCR, Article 10 ECHR and Article 13 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – both intrinsically and as manifestations of the shrinking of civic space. Until now, this fundamental freedom has been neglected by most intergovernmental bodies, NGOs and scholars, for whom it might have seemed a marginal or esoteric subject.

    Elements of an evolving response

    CEU’s “open society” mission and its “densely international” community make it distinctive. A private and independent institution, CEU derives its funding from a founding endowment, philanthropic gifts, research grants and tuition income. Nonetheless, its response to Lex CEU may be instructive on how a university can defend its own academic freedom today. The strength of CEU’s response so far, led by the Rector and the specially constituted “Response Team”, has rested on four simple elements.

    Leadership and rhetoric

    First and foremost, CEU’s leadership has been calm, resolute and tireless throughout this episode, inspiring great institutional unity, as well as pride and gratitude, across the CEU community. Firmly and eloquently, the Rector has reiterated: “Under all circumstances, CEU will continue its operations,” and, “Budapest is our home … [we] belong here.” Leon Botstein, the wizardlike Chairman of the Board of Trustees and President of Bard College, has promised: “Whatever it takes will be done … we will prevail.” Such words have instilled confidence within CEU, whilst simultaneously reinforcing the university’s ties to Budapest.

    Communications

    CEU’s position has been consistent and clear, and effectively communicated in various ways. In the spirit of transparency, CEU’s senior administration have held regular community forums and press conferences, which have been broadcast live and uploaded onto the university’s You Tube channel. The Rector has given high-profile interviews to international and Hungarian media, and the dedicated CEU site has been regularly updated with detailed information in both English and Hungarian. An official Twitter handle, @StandwithCEU, has been established and a Thunderclap is planned. The Response Team has also quickly refuted false statements concerning the legislation and CEU, including misleading references to CEU as “the Soros university” or “George Soros’s university” by the government and the media. CEU’s position has been conveyed “in a highly sophisticated, professional, and honest way,” setting “the crisis ‘comms’ standard universities worldwide should strive to match,” as Kris Olds, an expert on global higher education put it.

    Constitutional challenge

    tiered classroom, CEU Business School classCEU has quickly set forth a strong legal case contesting the constitutional validity of Lex CEU on both substantive and procedural grounds. The most important claim is that the legislation violates the freedom of academic activities, the freedom of scientific research, learning and teaching, the right to education and the autonomy of higher education institutions, as protected by Hungary’s Fundamental Law. CEU also argues that Lex CEU targets and discriminates against foreign higher education institutions in general, by requiring them to provide programmes in their state of origin, and CEU in particular, by making it impossible for KEE to take over the programmes of CEU and by requiring CEU to change its name; and that it also provides insufficient time for compliance by requiring a binding international agreement between Hungary and the US to be completed within six months of the publication of the law and an agreement between Hungary and the State of New York to be concluded by 1 January 2018.

    Political and public support

    CEU has gathered and been heartened by support from an astonishing array of individuals and organisations – a testament to the networks and energy of its community, and its reputation. In Hungary, this has included backing from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Eötvös Loránd, Corvinus and Andrássy universities; the Ombudsman for educational rights; and former President Solyom. Pledges of solidarity have come from international academia, including: the heads of leading universities in North America and Europe; the International Association of Universities; and many Nobel laureates. Key strategic players have expressed their support and concern about Lex CEU, notably: two senior State Department officials, twelve members of Congress and a former New York governor; European Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans, and European Commissioners Moedas and Navracsics; as well as President Steinmeier of Germany, and France’s Secretary of State for European Affairs, Harlem Desir. Statements urging Hungary to reconsider the legislation have been issued by: former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan; the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, endorsed by two other Special Procedures; the Directors of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the EU Fundamental Rights Agency; and leading NGOs, including Human Rights Watch, Freedom House and Scholars at Risk. Hundreds of writers and thousands of private individuals have sent messages of support, while tens of thousands have signed an online petition to “save” CEU.

    Significance

    CEU's new This episode has already been defining moment for CEU as a community and institution, for it has laid bare its resilience and adeptness, its rootedness in Hungarian society, and its global clout. It may also be a turning point in the fortunes of the Fidesz government, whose attempt to attract votes in advance of the 2018 elections by targeting CEU appear to be grossly misjudged. The university has proven itself to be the government’s most formidable, albeit reluctant, adversary within Hungary yet, thanks to the above-mentioned elements and mass demonstrations. CEU’s case clearly presents an critical test for the EU in showing whether it can meaningfully address the flouting of its common values within an existing Member State: a legal assessment is being carried out by the European Commission; the European Parliament debates the situation on 26 April; and the European Council, under Article 7 TEU, wields the ultimate power to sanction Hungary. The European Peoples’ Party can also expel Fidesz from its ranks, as commentators have argued it should. Given the problems of the Constitutional Court, powerful players in Brussels and Washington DC are now being counted upon. On what terms CEU “prevails” – as it will eventually, I have no doubt – is vitally important for the university. Yet it will also matter enormously as an example and precedent for others, above all academic institutions under the spectre of intimidation and closure around the world.

     



    Source link