Tag: rights

  • For students with disabilities, the Office for Civil Rights is often the last line of defense

    For students with disabilities, the Office for Civil Rights is often the last line of defense

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

    Jennifer Coco is the interim executive director of The Center for Learner Equity.

    The path to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education will have a generational impact — eliminating the safeguards that have ensured all students have access to equitable, inclusive schools since the department’s founding in 1979.

    A headshot of a person. in the background is a bookcase

    Jennifer Coco

    Permission granted by Jennifer Coco

     

    Specifically, the recent threats to consolidate the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights within the U.S. Department of Justice are even more devastating for students at the intersection of race, poverty and disability. This move severs the civil rights lifelines that protect students who are farthest from privilege and opportunity.

    OCR, an office within the Education Department, was established to enforce federal civil rights laws in schools. Notably,OCR provides students with access to individual discrimination investigations and upholds their civil rights in schools when wrongdoing has occurred, such as in instances where they are excluded due a disability, or when required accommodations are not provided.

    And OCR investigations don’t just demand justice for individual students — they can also direct systemic changes in school policy and practice to ensure further injustice doesn’t happen again to any other student in that community.

    As an attorney and advocate for children with disabilities, I’ve spent nearly two decades working to ensure that schools are welcoming places for students and families. One of my first education law experiences was an internship at OCR. I learned from OCR’s experienced education legal experts who deeply understood civil rights law and protecting students’ rights.

    That experience directed the trajectory of my career and cemented my interest in becoming an education civil rights attorney. The regional office I interned at in Chicago 18 years ago no longer exists; its entire staff was fired by the current administration.

    Early in my career as an education civil rights attorney, I also experienced filing a complaint with the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, which led to sweeping districtwide reforms that dramatically improved language access and civil rights protections for multilingual learners and undocumented students. I am an ardent supporter of DOJ’s role in upholding civil rights; my concern about collapsing OCR within the DOJ isn’t out of objection to DOJ’s important role.

    What’s getting lost in the conversation is why Congress originally saw fit to have both the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and the Office for Civil Rights.

    Unlike DOJ, which investigates systemic violations and initiates federal litigation, OCR fields and investigates individual complaints — over 25,000 currently pending, to be exact. OCR is intended to have a strong regional presence, with field offices of attorneys able to investigate and handle a volume of cases in their respective regions. They have a detailed case processing manual with timelines and procedures; every complaint is entitled to a response.

    Indeed, most agencies have an Office for Civil Rights — from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the U.S. Department of Transportation. That’s because the agency-specific context and expertise help protect and uphold our civil rights across the many different functions of our government.

    It also belies 50 years of commonly accepted truth: that every facet of our government should be equipped to uphold our civil rights. The volume of demand, with tens of thousands of cases pending, illustrates that the Department of Justice is not resourced nor staffed to shoulder it all. Nor was that the intention.

    In addition to investigating discrimination complaints, the Education Department’s OCR is also tasked with collecting and reporting the Civil Rights Data Collection. It is the only nationwide comprehensive look at students’ experiences and access to opportunities, broken down by different identities, including disability.

    One in seven American public school students is identified as having a disability, according to the Center for Learner Equity’s recent analyses of the CRDC statistics. Such data helps schools and the public understand how students are accessing educational opportunities or experiencing barriers, based on their race, gender, disability or other criteria.

    Source link

  • The Renters’ Rights Act is a disaster for independent students

    The Renters’ Rights Act is a disaster for independent students

    The Renters’ Rights Act is a transformative piece of legislation set to benefit renters through greater security and lower costs, except for one major blind spot.

    In particular, it may act as a homelessness pipeline for independent students – the status given by Student Finance England to students without external familial support while at university.

    Particularly vulnerable are those who are estranged, without living parents, or are care-leavers.

    The summer gap

    One of the key measures in the Renters’ Rights Act is the replacement of fixed-term tenancies with periodic tenancies, i.e., tenancies will be rolling, not fixed-term.

    This benefits most students, as it means that contracts can be terminated by tenants in May or June when the academic year is over, instead of being trapped in a twelve-month fixed-term contract.

    This creates the first major problem for independent students.

    Independent students rarely live exclusively with others who require year-round accommodation, and for many doing so may not be an option. So, instead of the security of a year-long contract guaranteeing accommodation, the landscape may shift so that most shared student rentals are only available between September and June.

    If independent students do manage to seek one another out and live together, this may seem to be one fix to this issue; it isn’t.

    Another key measure in the Renters’ Rights Act is to end no-fault evictions. However, there is a carve-out for student landlords to be able to evict students on a no-fault basis between June and September, provided they live in a student-only HMO. This is a major issue for students who do not have a home to return to.

    Then, there is the option for independent students to live in university halls. Unfortunately, this isn’t a secure option in many universities either. The Renters’ Rights Act allows purpose-built student accommodation to maintain fixed-term contracts. They are often only available from September to June, with providers utilising their accommodation over summer months for other uses.

    Where twelve-month tenancies are available, many purpose-built student accommodation blocks are significantly more expensive than student house shares.

    An independence tax

    Every option available to independent students is likely to add substantial costs. It seems improbable that student landlords will simply swallow the cost of having two or three fewer months of rental income over the academic year. So, there is a strong incentive for student landlords to up the cost of renting for the September to June period to a similar level to what it currently costs for twelve-month contracts.

    While the Renters’ Rights Act allows tenants to challenge unfair rises in rent, this isn’t a particularly effective measure for student housing; students are an incredibly transient group of tenants who can’t challenge an increase prior to being a tenant.

    All that is before considering the loss of the only cost-free workaround for students without a guarantor – upfront rental payments. Often, independent students have avoided the need for a UK-based guarantor by paying several months of rent in advance.

    However, the Renters’ Rights Act is set to curtail this practice by capping the amount of rent a landlord can request upfront. Without the option to pay upfront, these students will be forced toward private guarantor schemes, which are commercial services that typically charge a non-refundable fee in the region of 10 per cent of annual rent.

    Time for an extended maintenance loan

    Without substantially changing the Renters’ Rights Act to the detriment of most students, there seems to be no easy fix available beyond providing additional financial support for independent students.

    Last year, I called for the government to implement an extended maintenance loan aligned with the uplift available for other students who need year-long maintenance support – those on a “long course” – the name for those on a course which runs longer than thirty weeks and three days.

    When I wrote for Wonkhe to launch the campaign for an extended maintenance loan, I predicted that the government would make good on their promise of grants primarily to benefit the Department for Education’s public relations department. This prediction has come true – the government reintroduced grants for the poorest students, on specific courses.

    Unfortunately, this isn’t the progressive silver bullet it sounds like. It means that those students on those courses eligible for grants will repay less in the future. This benefit only materialises if, at some point in the future, their income is of an adequate level to be able to repay their loan in full – which is predicted to be about half of borrowers by the government.

    It’s a nice middle-earner’s income bonus in middle-age for a small number of students. While a step in the right direction and not to be scorned, it’s not the radical progressive reform it’s touted as. It changes nothing for the students struggling to cover basic living costs and, for example, being forced to live at home during their degree, which is around one-third of undergraduates according to UCAS, the highest level ever recorded – and not an option for independent students.

    There were some incremental improvements for care-leavers last year, who are no longer to be means assessed if entering higher education after the age of twenty-five. Indeed, the government is making progress on strengthening support for care-leavers.

    Ensuring more robust implementation of care-leaver “Pathway Plans” – a statutory duty which means local authorities must support care-leavers up to the age of twenty-five – would go a long way to helping this specific group with additional costs due to the aforementioned issues, too.

    A new barrier to be broken

    So, the Renters’ Rights Act, which I should be clear that I largely support and will myself benefit from, has a blind spot. It’s one I’ve raised, and multiple supportive MPs have raised, too.Independent students, particularly care-leavers, estranged students, and students with no living parents, already have a much higher attrition rate and a large attainment gap.

    This blind spot may lead to homelessness and act as a further deterrent for this group to access higher education and reach their full potential.You could say it is a barrier to opportunity, hoisted up by a government committed to breaking all the other barriers down.

    If the government is serious about its “Barriers to Opportunity” mission, it cannot allow a housing reform to become a homelessness pipeline for the very students who have already overcome the most to get to university.

    Source link

  • What the Employment Rights Act 2025 means for higher education

    What the Employment Rights Act 2025 means for higher education

    After months of parliamentary back-and-forth, the Bill finally made it onto the statute books just before Christmas. For universities, the implications are wide-ranging, and the clock is ticking on compliance.

    The Act is the centrepiece of the government’s “Plan to Make Work Pay”, promising a shake-up of employment rights, union access, and labour market enforcement. For the sector, where workforce structures and contractual arrangements are particularly complex, these reforms need to be considered carefully. In this article, we have focused on a rundown of five things universities need to know now.

    Unfair dismissal: the bar just got lower and compensation higher. From 2027, staff will only need six months’ service (down from two years) to claim unfair dismissal and the maximum cap on compensation is going. That means universities could face much bigger payouts if things go wrong. Universities should review probation policies, equip managers to proactively manage performance during probation and avoid extended probation periods, where possible, to reduce the legal risk.

    Zero-hours and casual contracts: new rules, new risk. Think visiting lecturers, exam invigilators, and a lot of student-facing roles. The Act introduces rights to request guaranteed hours, proper notice of shifts, and compensation for cancellations. If you rely heavily on a casual workforce, generally or in certain areas, now’s the time to audit those contracts and review use, although these measures won’t be brought into effect until 2027.

    Trade union access: expect more structured dialogue. With effect from 18 February 2026, the Act lowers the threshold for a valid industrial action ballot and shortens the notice period unions must give before taking action (14 to 10 days). It also extends the mandate for action from 6 to 12 months. This means it will be easier and quicker for unions to secure a mandate for strikes or other industrial action. Universities should expect a more agile approach from unions and be ready to respond to potential disruption with robust contingency planning and clear communication. It may be prudent to review recognition agreements, including the dispute resolution procedures, to seek to mitigate any negative impact.

    Sexual harassment: from October 2026, the Act will require universities to take “all” reasonable steps, not just “reasonable steps”, to prevent sexual harassment of staff, with regulations to follow on what this means in practice. At the same time, employers will become liable for harassment of staff by third parties (such as students, visitors, or contractors) across all protected characteristics, unless they can show they took all reasonable steps to prevent it.

    Disclosures of sexual harassment will be explicitly protected under whistleblowing law, and most confidentiality clauses (NDAs) that seek to prevent staff from raising or disclosing allegations of discrimination or harassment will be void. For universities, these changes raise the bar for prevention, policy, and training and align closely with the Office for Students’ E6 condition of registration, which already requires robust systems to prevent and respond to harassment and sexual misconduct affecting students.

    “Fire and rehire”: also from October 2026, dismissing and re-engaging staff to force through changes to pay, hours, leave, or benefits will be automatically unfair unless the university can prove it’s facing severe financial trouble. If you’re planning a restructure or harmonising terms from October onwards, you’ll also need to follow the revised statutory Code of Practice and have your business case watertight.

    If I were you

    Universities are already navigating a maze of employment models, from permanent academics, fixed-term researchers to casual student workers. These reforms demand a proactive approach to ensure legal compliance but also to maintain staff morale and institutional reputation.

    If you are a university leader, now is a good time to make it part of your new year’s resolution to audit your casual contracts – zero-hours, fixed-term, and casual roles all need additional scrutiny to ensure they meet new legal minimums. It would also be a good time to review probation and dismissal policies and manager compliance, as the shorter qualifying period and uncapped compensation change the risk calculus.

    Most institutions are in communication with their local unions, but now would be a good time to talk to your unions specifically about the changes, as early engagement can help manage expectations and smooth the path to compliance.

    While many in England may have recently reviewed institutional harassment policies as part of recent regulatory changes from the Office for Students, it is important to review sexual harassment policies and ensure managers know what is changing, how they can ensure compliance and to keep an eye out for new regulations.

    As much of the sector faces significant financial challenges, additional restructuring plans may be in play for the upcoming academic year. If this is the case, it is essential you review your plans in light of additional legislation around contract changes, particularly around “fire and rehire”. This is already somewhat of a legal minefield, but the constraints on employers will be far more stringent from October onwards.

    And, if nothing else, you and your colleagues must keep good records. Documentation is your best defence if challenged.

    Ultimately, the Employment Rights Act 2025 isn’t just another HR update and universities must not treat it as one. Instead, it marks a cultural shift towards greater job security and worker voice. For universities, the challenge is to balance compliance with the need for flexibility to meet the complex needs of an institution in an evolving sector. Get ahead of the curve, and you can turn these changes into an opportunity to strengthen staff engagement and institutional resilience.

    Key dates for your diary

    18 February 2026

    • Simplifying industrial action notices and ballot papers
    • Increasing mandate period and reducing required notice period for industrial acton
    • Protections against dismissal and detriment for taking industrial action

    6 April 2026

    • Whistleblowing protection for sexual harassment disclosures
    • Collective redundancy protective award increase from 90 days gross pay to 180 days
    • (Expected) Repeal of the 50% threshold for industrial action ballots to revert to simple majority voting

    1 October 2026

    • “All reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment and prevent third party harassment
    • Trade union statutory access rights

    1 January 2027

    • Six month qualifying period for unfair dismissal and removal of compensation cap

    During 2027 (exact date to be determined)

    • Zero-hours and casual contract protections (guaranteed hours, notice, compensation)

    Some provisions are subject to further regulations or transitional arrangements. Check the latest government guidance for updates.

    Source link

  • A royal Paine | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    A royal Paine | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    This essay was originally published in The Dispatch on Jan. 9, 2026.


    Accounts differ, but sometime between late November and the middle of December 1774, a terribly sick man was carried off a ship in colonial Philadelphia. Riddled with typhus, the middle-aged Brit was too weak to walk after his long voyage from London. But in his pocket were life preservers, notes of introduction from none other than Philadelphia’s favorite son, Benjamin Franklin, in London lobbying on behalf of the colonies.

    The bearer Mr Thomas Pain is very well recommended to me as an ingenious worthy young man. He goes to Pennsylvania with a view of settling there . . . If you can put him in a way of obtaining employment as a clerk, or assistant tutor in a school, or assistant surveyor, (of all which I think him very capable,) so that he may procure a subsistence at least, till he can make acquaintance and obtain a knowledge of the country, you will do well.

    If the British had any idea of who this Thomas Pain would become — he wouldn’t add the “e” until later — they may never have let him set sail to the New World to begin with. In little more than a year, this impoverished 37-year-old, who had known only heartache and failure in Britain, would find his voice as a successful editor and journalist in America’s largest city. And with his newfound purpose and confidence, he would write one of the great world-changing pieces of political propaganda ever published and help birth a free and independent United States of America.


    On Jan. 10, 1776, Thomas Paine unleashed Common Sense on the colonial public. In an economical 47 pages, which he wrote in the fall of 1775, Paine’s anonymous pamphlet articulated in plain English the rising sentiment that there could be no reconciliation with the mother country. Brimming with rage after the outbreak of hostilities at Lexington and Concord — “No man was a warmer wisher for reconciliation than myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April 1775” — Paine argued for complete independence from Great Britain and attacked hereditary monarchy with a populist and democratic fire.

    King George III, according to Paine, was “an inveterate enemy of liberty” with a “thirst for arbitrary power.” But Paine didn’t just attack this king — he attacked hereditary monarchy in all its perniciousness and absurdity. He told his fellow colonists of how absolute power corrupted absolutely, tracing the rise of monarchy not to “an honorable origin,” but to one “principal ruffian of some restless gang” who made himself “chief among plunderers.” He wrote of how an accident of birth could mean a child ascending to the crown or a king “worn out with age and infirmity” remaining on the throne, exposing the public “to every miscreant, who can tamper successfully with the follies either of age or infancy.” With his acid pen, Paine appealed to the intelligence of anyone who could believe a mortal was “born to reign” and delivered one of the pithiest lines against monarchy ever: “One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion.”

    Sometimes Paine’s arguments for independence were practical. “There is something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island,” he wrote, noting how ridiculous it was to petition a government 3,000 miles away that didn’t know, much less care, about the colonists. Paine declared now was the time to strike. Otherwise, like cowards, colonial men would be “leaving the sword to our children.” And for those who thought reconciliation still possible, he had nothing but scorn: “But if you have, and still can shake hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy the name of husband, father, friend, or lover.”

    But Paine went farther than just arguing for independence — he wrote of a social revolution, too. “We have it in our power to begin the world over again” didn’t just mean breaking from England. It meant representative democracy. It meant the rule of law. It meant respect for common people. “Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God,” Paine wrote, “than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.”

    Maybe Paine had the temerity to write such stirring and nakedly seditious words because he had nothing to lose — aside from his life, of course. Before coming to America, Paine was a failed corset maker and excise officer with minimal formal education whose first wife died in childbirth, along with their child. He had to sell his belongings to avoid debtor’s prison before skipping London for Philadelphia. As eminent historian of the American Revolution Bernard Bailyn wrote, “One had to be a fool or a fanatic in early January 1776 to advocate American independence.”

    Paine’s brazenness was rewarded. Common Sense immediately became a blockbuster. The first run of 1,000 pamphlets sold out in days — the author known only as an “Englishman” on its cover. After a dispute with the original publisher, Paine paid for another run of 6,000 himself, priced it to undercut the first publisher, included his responses to loyalist criticism in the new edition, and forswore all royalties, donating the proceeds to Gen. George Washington’s Continental Army. Known as the Bradford edition, the author’s name was displayed clearly: “Thomas Paine.” The now-39-year-old failure from Thetford, England, had stepped out of obscurity and into history.

    The impact of Common Sense cannot be overstated. Within three months, printers sold 120,000 copies — a runaway bestseller in a population of 2.5 million colonists. Those who could not read had it read aloud to them. It wasn’t just popular, it was persuasive — to both commoners and the colonial rebel elite. A fan from Connecticut gushed that Paine had “declared the sentiments of millions.” He continued, “The doctrine of Independence hath been in times past, greatly disgustful; we abhorred the principle. It is now become our delightful theme and commands our purest affections.” Another reader from Massachusetts declared, “Nothing else is now talked of, and I know not what can be done by Great Britain to prevent it.”

    But Paine went farther than just arguing for independence — he wrote of a social revolution, too. “We have it in our power to begin the world over again” didn’t just mean breaking from England. It meant representative democracy. It meant the rule of law. It meant respect for common people.

    Writing to Washington, Gen. Charles Lee believed it would “give the coup-de-grace to Great Britain.” Washington, in turn, would write in an April 1776 letter that the pamphlet was “working a powerful change there in the Minds of many Men” in Virginia. Maybe the best evidence of Thomas Paine’s outsized impact on the founding comes from none other than John Adams. It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that Paine lived rent-free in the irascible and petty Founding Father’s head. The more hierarchical-minded Adams detested Paine and his democratic principles. By the end of his life, Adams described the pamphlet as “a poor, ignorant, malicious, short-sighted, Crapulous Mass.” Yet Adams would also write, “Without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain.” Always worried about his legacy, an exasperated John Adams admitted to Thomas Jefferson in an 1819 letter: “History is to ascribe the American Revolution to Thomas Pain.”

    Historian Jill Lepore puts it bluntly: “Common Sense made it possible to declare independence.” Less than six months later, the Second Continental Congress officially separated from Great Britain — the road to independence paved by Paine’s pen.


    If we were to stop at Common Sense, that work alone should have cemented Paine’s place beside Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin in the nation’s true pantheon of Founding Fathers. But when American patriots needed another jolt in defense of the Cause, he wielded his pen again to save the infant nation from being strangled in its crib.

    The months after independence were a military disaster. Washington and his army were on the run, abandoning New York City and retreating across New Jersey. Morale withered. Desertions spiked. Enlistment contracts were on the verge of expiring. Congress evacuated Philadelphia for Baltimore. The stench of defeat was everywhere.

    After Congress declared independence, Paine enlisted, eventually becoming an aide to Gen. Nathanael Greene. But Paine was no military man; he was a writer and journalist. With the war almost over before it ever began, Paine started to write the first of his 13 Crisis essays — one for each colony — which were rousing defenses of the Cause to keep morale up and public opinion behind the war.

    The first American Crisis hit Philadelphia streets a week before Christmas 1776, signed “Common Sense.” Paine once again gave the work away for free to keep the costs down, with printers rushing out 18,000 copies. Washington, now camping just north of British-occupied Trenton on the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware, obtained a copy. The commander-in-chief ordered Paine’s words read to the remaining troops, freezing and ill-provisioned, as they prepared for their Christmas crossing of the river — a Hail Mary if there ever was one to save the Cause. It began:

    These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.

    On the morning of Dec. 26, the inspired Continental Army routed the Hessian mercenaries hired by the British to augment the redcoats. According to historian Harvey Kaye, author of Thomas Paine and the Promise of America, the first Crisis “served both to recruit militiamen back to their units and to persuade locals to volunteer aid and assistance.”

    Disaster averted. The war continued.


    If you walk through the visitor’s center in Washington’s Crossing, Pennsylvania, you’ll naturally be surrounded by art and exhibits celebrating the genius and heroism of Gen. Washington and his mythical nighttime crossing of the Delaware. But off in a corner next to the bathrooms, almost as an afterthought, sits a small sculpture of Thomas Paine, emblazoned with arguably his most famous line: “These are the times that try men’s souls.”

    Time hasn’t proven kind to the radical British expat. “Thomas Paine is, at best, a lesser Founder,” Lepore notes in her wry fashion. “In the comic-book version of history that serves as our national heritage, where the Founding Fathers are like the Hanna-Barbera Super Friends, Paine is Aquaman to Washington’s Superman and Jefferson’s Batman.”

    The reasons are many.

    Temperamental and argumentative in person, Paine could be difficult to like. Historians of Paine have speculated that he suffered serious bouts of depression and may have been bipolar. As Franklin’s daughter Sarah Bache would write to him in France from Philadelphia in 1781:

    There never was a man less beloved in a place than Payne is in this, having at different times disputed with everybody, the most rational thing he could have done would have been to have died the instant he had finished his Common Sense, for he ever again will have it in his power to leave the World with so much credit.

    It also didn’t help that he was a nobody before emigrating to America — flotsam and jetsam from the Old World washing on the New World’s shores. Paine was common rabble to the well-born members of America’s founding generation.

    His later writings from Europe, particularly The Rights of Man and The Age of Reason, however, would make him despised. In The Rights of Man, Paine took up the cause of the French Revolution. It was a full-throated defense of humanity’s natural rights and democratic republicanism against Edmund Burke’s conservative denunciation of the revolution in his Reflections on the Revolution in France. Then to hit the trifecta, Paine published The Age of Reason, a rationalist attack on all organized religions, punctuated by his declaration: “My own mind is my own church.” Benjamin Franklin told him not to publish it, writing, “He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.” Paine did it anyway. Franklin was proven correct — its publication destroyed whatever reputation he had left.

    The Age of Reason would end Paine’s friendship with Samuel Adams, who asked him contemptuously: “Do you think that your pen … can unchristianize the mass of our citizens?” Even Teddy Roosevelt would get in on the hate generations later, calling Paine “a filthy little atheist.” (Paine, similar to other Founding Fathers like Jefferson, was a deist.)

    John Adams, ever ready to pounce on his enemy, summarized the elite’s disdain for Paine and all his free-thinking mischief in an 1805 letter. “For such a mongrel between pigs and puppy, begotten by a wild boar on a bitch wolf, never before in any age of the world was suffered by the poltroonery of mankind to run through such a career of mischief. Call it then the Age of Paine.”

    He didn’t mean it as a compliment.

    Paine remains in the popular wilderness 250 years after the publication of Common Sense. No monument graces his name in Washington, D.C., or Philadelphia. No movie or limited series tells his story. The writers of HBO’s John Adams leave him out entirely — the Rodney Dangerfield of the American Revolution. But if that 37-year-old immigrant never had set sail for Philadelphia in the fall of 1774, we might not be here at all.

    Source link

  • Student Civil Rights Took Center Stage in 2025. Here’s What’s on the Horizon – The 74

    Student Civil Rights Took Center Stage in 2025. Here’s What’s on the Horizon – The 74

    School (in)Security is our biweekly briefing on the latest school safety news, vetted by Mark KeierleberSubscribe here.

    Happy 2026 — and just like that, we’re more than a quarter of the way through this century. For news about school safety and students’ civil rights, 2025 was one for the history books — unless, of course, they get banned. 

    A bid to close the Education Department. Hundreds of thousands of deportations. A free-speech crackdown. And much, much more. 

    With the new year now underway, I figured I’d look back to highlight some of the largest news stories in the School (in)Security universe in 2025 that could see major developments over the next 12 months. 

    Trump’s immigration crackdown breaches the schoolhouse gate

    In an unprecedented response to President Donald Trump’s ongoing immigration crackdown and its impact on education, Minneapolis Public Schools shut down all of its schools for two days this week. The announcement came after immigration authorities reportedly tear-gassed students and arrested staff outside a high school. The Department of Homeland Security denied using tear gas.

    The encounter occurred just hours after a federal agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, who a DHS officer shot dead in her car.

    Students, families and K-12 schools throughout the country have felt the significant and far-reaching effects of the administration’s militarized mission on U.S. soil, which has resulted in more than half a million deportations.

    Student enrollment plunged after the Trump administration eliminated a longstanding policy against conducting raids at schools, churches and other “sensitive locations.” In limited but unprecedented ways, immigration agents acted on the policy change. In Florida, the Pinellas County school district applied to assist ICE in arresting immigrants — only to quickly backtrack as controversy ensued.  

    While agents have conducted “wellness checks” on unaccompanied minors across the country, including through visits to schools, thousands of children have been detained and are reportedly being held “as long as possible to increase the likelihood of deporting them.”

    Through it all, school communities across the country have banded together, my colleague Jo Napolitano reported, to send a clear message: “Not on our watch.”

    Looking forward: The sheer number of agents deployed to Minneapolis, a reported 2,000, and the violence and death that resulted could point to a willingness by the administration to double down on its targeting of cities and schools in the coming year.

    Sign-up for the School (in)Security newsletter.

    Get the most critical news and information about students’ rights, safety and well-being delivered straight to your inbox.

    DEI became a four-letter word

    Following a presidential campaign that centered on anti-immigrant and anti-transgender rhetoric, Trump made good on a promise with an order barring diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in schools. And, about as quickly, federal courts clapped back. In April, federal judges blocked the Education Department’s effort to withhold federal money from schools that didn’t pledge to carry out the Trump administration’s interpretation of anti-discrimination laws. 

    In December, the Department of Health and Human Services released a set of sweeping regulations designed to block gender-affirming care for minors, a move that advocates warned puts lives at risk. Iowa, meanwhile, became the first state in the country to strip discrimination protections from transgender and nonbinary people.

    Perhaps most consequential is the Trump administration’s efforts to decimate the Education Department — and its Office for Civil Rights, where thousands of unresolved investigations alleging discrimination in schools based on race and gender were left to languish.

    Expect an even smaller federal presence in school civil rights issues moving forward. In December, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced an order rescinding a 50-year-old rule that held schools responsible for neutral policies that negatively affect students of a certain race or nationality.

    Looking ahead: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments next week over whether conservative states can ban transgender students from competing on school sports teams that align with their gender identity.

    PowerSchool is breached — and millions of documents are leaked

    After PowerSchool became the target of a massive cyberattack in late 2024, Massachusetts teenager Matthew Lane was sentenced to prison for carrying out a failed get-rich-quick scheme that led to perhaps the largest student data breach in history. Now that Lane has had his day in court, attention has pivoted back to PowerSchool’s culpability in the breach. 

    The company has faced lawsuits from dozens of students, parents and school districts over allegations it failed to put adequate safeguards in place to protect troves of sensitive student data.

    In a separate complaint, Texas filed suit against the company, charging it deceived its customers about the strength of its cyber protections. 

    “If Big Tech thinks they can profit off managing children’s data while cutting corners on security, they are dead wrong,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a media release. “Parents should never have to worry that the information they provide to enroll their children in school could be stolen and misused.”

    The rise of artificial intelligence — and efforts to keep it contained

    Kids fell in love with AI-powered chatbots last year. No, really. As students turned to AI for help with their homework, for fun and to find romantic partnerships, skeptics warned that young people could grow socially and emotionally disconnected from the humans in their lives. Several lawsuits accused chatbots of leading kids down dark paths — even to suicide.

    On Wednesday, Character.AI and tech giant Google agreed to settle lawsuits filed by parents who said their children harmed themselves after using the startup’s chatbot. 

    Keep your eyes peeled: Bipartisan legislation proposed late last year could require chatbot users to verify their age — and force teens to break up with their digital companions.

    The murder of conservative pundit and operative Charlie Kirk was met with swift backlash as K-12 teachers, professors and college students were disciplined for social media posts celebrating his death. As the Trump administration vowed vengeance on Kirk’s critics, First Amendment protections for students were left on even shakier ground.

    Meanwhile, in Texas, Gov. Greg Abbot announced an initiative to launch Turning Point USA chapters at all high schools in the state — and warned educators of “meaningful disciplinary action” if they didn’t fall in line.

    Add to the mix federal efforts to silence pro-Palestinian college student activists. In September, a federal judge ruled a Trump administration effort to arrest and deport international students based on their pro-Palestinian advocacy was a blatant First Amendment violation.

    What happens next will play out in the courts: On Tuesday, the American Federation of Teachers filed a federal First Amendment lawsuit against the Texas Education Agency alleging it violated the free speech rights of educators in the wake of Kirk’s death.


    Emotional Support

    Sinead contemplates what’s to come in 2026 from her perch.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • As Justice Department priorities shift, concerns about protection of students’ civil rights escalate

    As Justice Department priorities shift, concerns about protection of students’ civil rights escalate

    by Sarah Butrymowicz, The Hechinger Report
    December 14, 2025

    The 10-year-old was dragged down a school hallway by two school staffers. A camera captured him being forced into a small, empty room with a single paper-covered window. 

    The staffers shut the door in his face. Alone, the boy curled into a ball on the floor. When school employees returned more than 10 minutes later, blood from his face smeared the floor.

    Maryland state lawmakers were shown this video in 2017 by Leslie Seid Margolis, a lawyer with the advocacy group Disability Rights Maryland. She’d spent 15 years advocating for a ban on the practice known as seclusion, in which children, typically those with disabilities, are involuntarily isolated and confined, often after emotional outbursts. 

    Even after seeing the video, no legislators were willing to go as far as a ban. Nor were they when Margolis tried again a few years later.

    In 2021, however, the federal Justice Department concluded an investigation into a Maryland school district and found more than 7,000 cases of unnecessary restraint and seclusion in a two-and-a-half-year period. 

    Four months later, Maryland lawmakers passed a bill prohibiting seclusion in the state’s public schools, with nearly unanimous support.

    “I can’t really overstate the impact that Justice can have,” said Margolis. “They have this authority that is really helpful to those of us who are on the ground doing this work.”

    Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education. 

    Within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division is a small office devoted to educational issues, including seclusion, as well as desegregation and racial harassment. The division intentionally chooses cases with potential for high impact and actively monitors places it has investigated to ensure they’re following through with changes. When the Educational Opportunities Section acts, educators and policymakers take notice.

    Now, however, the Trump administration is wielding the power of the Justice Department in new and, some say, extreme ways. Hundreds of career staffers, including most of those who worked on education cases, have resigned. The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights also has been decimated, largely through layoffs. The two offices traditionally have worked closely together to enforce civil rights protections for students. The result is a potentially lasting shift in how the nation’s top law enforcement agency handles issues that affect public school students, including millions who have disabilities. 

    “There are those who would say that this is an aberration, and that when it’s over, things will go back to the way they were,” said Frederick Lawrence, a lecturer at Georgetown Law and former assistant U.S. attorney under President Ronald Reagan. “My experience is that the river only flows in one direction, and things never go back to the way they were.”

    Related: Tracking Trump: His actions to dismantle the Education Department, and more

    The Justice Department’s lawyers historically have worked on a few dozen education cases at once, concentrating on combating sexual harassment, racial discrimination against Black and Latino students, restraint and seclusion, and failure to provide adequate services to English learners. 

    In the last 11 months, however, the agency has sued over and opened investigations into concerns about antisemitism, transgender policies and bias against white people at schools. It sued at least six states for offering discounted tuition to undocumented immigrants and pressured the president of the University of Virginia to resign as part of an investigation into the school’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies. And it joined other federal departments to form a special Title IX investigations team to protect students from what the administration called the “pernicious effects of gender ideology in school programs and activities.”  

    As the Educational Opportunity Section’s mission shifted, it shrunk in size. In January, before President Donald Trump took office, about 40 lawyers tackled education issues. In the spring, the U.S. Senate confirmed Harmeet Dhillon as leader of the Civil Rights Division. Dhillon founded the conservative Center for American Liberty, which describes itself as “defending civil liberties of Americans left behind by civil rights legacy organizations.”

    After her confirmation, staff who werent political appointees began resigning en masse, concerned Dhillon would promote only the administration’s agenda. 

    By June, no more than five of the 40 lawyers were left, according to former employees. Some new staff have been hired or reassigned to the section, but the head count remains well below usual. It’s far from enough to sustain the typical workload, said Shaheena Simons, who was chief of the Educational Opportunities Section until she resigned in April. “There’s just no way the division can function with that level of staffing. It’s just impossible,” said Simons, who took over the section in 2016. “The investigations aren’t going to happen. Remedies aren’t going to be sought.” 

    Department officials responded to a list of questions from The Hechinger Report about changes to their handling of student civil rights protection with “no comment.” 

    The Department of Justice, including its educational work, has always been somewhat subject to White House interests, said Neal McCluskey, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom. During President Joe Biden’s term, for example, the agency pursued allegations of discrimination against transgender students, reflecting administration priorities. 

    McCluskey added, though, that the Trump administration is more aggressive in how it is pursuing its goals and is bypassing typical protocols, noting that in many cases “it’s like they’ve already decided the outcome.”  

    Related: Which schools and colleges are being investigated by the Trump administration?

    An investigation into allegations of antisemitism at the University of California, Los Angeles, for instance, took just 81 days before the department concluded the school had violated federal law. DOJ investigations typically have taken years, not months, to complete. 

    Lawrence, who also serves as president of the Phi Beta Kappa honor society, said he could not speak to specific investigations, but the UCLA timeline “does suggest a rather accelerated process.”

    A federal judge recently ruled that the administration could not use the findings from its UCLA investigation as a reason to fine the university $1.2 billion, which if paid would have unlocked frozen federal research funding. She wrote that the administration was using a playbook “of initiating civil rights investigations of preeminent universities to justify cutting off federal funding.” 

    As new investigations are opened, older ones remain unresolved, including one of practices in Colorado’s Douglas County Public Schools.

    In 2022, Disability Law Colorado submitted a complaint to the Justice Department about the district’s use of seclusion, as well as restraint, where school employees physically restrict a student’s movement.

    The following year, three other families sued the school system, alleging racial discrimination against their children. The students were repeatedly called monkeys and the N-word, threatened with lynchings and “made by teachers to argue the benefits of Jim Crow laws,” according to the complaint.

    Related: Red school boards in a blue state asked Trump for help — and got it

    The Department of Justice decided to investigate both issues. Four staffers were assigned to the restraint and seclusion investigation, said Emily Harvey, co-legal director at Disability Law Colorado.  

    As part of the inquiry, Justice officials visited the district twice. The second time was during the final week of Biden’s presidency. 

    After that visit, Douglas County didn’t hear anything about the investigation from the Trump administration until a mid-May email. “Good morning,” it read. “We are having some staffing changes.”

    The email, which The Hechinger Report obtained through a public records request, said that going forward, the district could contact two staffers on the restraint and seclusion case. The racial harassment case would be reduced to only one employee until another Justice staffer returned from leave in the fall. 

    One Douglas County parent, who asked her name be withheld because she is afraid of retaliation from the district, said that although she knew the investigation could take a couple of years, the longer it goes without a resolution, the more children could be harmed. 

    “The justice system is just moving so incredibly slow,” she said. 

    The parent said she knows of dozens of families who have dealt with restraint and seclusion issues in the district. Her own son, she said, was secluded in kindergarten. “He was scared of the person who put him in there. He kept saying, ‘I can’t go back,’” she said. “I never envisioned, until my son was secluded, a world where the school would not care about my child.” 

    When Harvey, of Disability Law Colorado, first contacted the Department of Justice, she hoped for statewide reform. She wanted to see a ban on seclusion, like Margolis had helped secure in Maryland, and for the state to commit to more accurate tracking of use of restraints. The way Colorado law is written, restraints must be recorded only if they last more than a minute. Douglas County, the second largest in the state with 62,000 students, reported 582 restraints to the Colorado Department of Education in the 2023-24 school year. The number of shorter-term restraints, however, is unknown. 

    “We believe this is an arbitrary distinction,” Harvey said. “My hope was that the Department of Justice would potentially weigh in on that as a violation” of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    Related: How Trump 2.0 upended education research and statistics in one year

    Douglas County school administrators said in a statement to The Hechinger Report that their “focus is on taking care of each and every one of our students” and that they take all concerns seriously. 

    They have worked with the federal government to set up school visits and interviews during their visits, according to emails from January. 

    Subsequent emails between district and federal officials describe a phone call over the summer and requests for additional documents. Another DOJ employee was included in the messages.

    There are signs that the Justice Department is not abandoning restraint and seclusion work, said Guy Stephens, founder of the national advocacy group Alliance Against Seclusion and Restraint. A webpage about previous cases that was removed after Trump took office has been restored, and in July, the DOJ announced a settlement with a Michigan district over these issues.

    Yet Stephens has concerns. “There are still people very, very dedicated to this work and the mission of this work, but it’s very hard to work in a system that is shifting and reprioritizing,” he said.

    Former DOJ employees worry that it might not only be future investigations that are markedly different. The department has historically monitored places where it has reached agreements that demand corrective action, rewriting them if districts or colleges fail to live up to their promises. It also provides support to achieve the new goals. Now, provisions written into past resolutions might be at odds with Trump administration actions, and oversight of some settlements is ending early.

    Take, for instance, a DOJ investigation into Vermont’s Elmore-Morristown Unified Union School District over allegations of race-based harassment against Black students. Investigators found that the district didn’t have a way to handle harassment or discrimination not targeted at a specific person, according to David Bickford, the school board chairman. 

    As part of a settlement agreement signed two weeks before Trump was inaugurated, the district agreed to provide staff training on implicit bias. A Trump executive order, however, calls for eliminating federal funding for anyone that discusses such a concept in schools. 

    Bickford said that the district has complied with everything the settlement called for, including professional development. 

    The investigation itself, he said, was extremely thorough, and required handing over nearly a thousand pages of documentation. Since then, the district has sent regular reports to the department but has not received any lengthy response or input, Bickford said. He also noted there had been staffing changes in who the district reports to. 

    Related: Federal policies risk worsening an already dire rural teacher shortage

    Justice officials decided to end supervision of a 2023 settlement early following a racial harassment investigation in another Vermont district, Twin Valley. The original plan was to monitor the district for three years. In October 2024, investigators visited the district to check in. In a letter two months later, officials noted that while Twin Valley had made significant progress, they still had several areas of concern, including how the district investigated complaints, as well as “persistent biased language and behavior on the basis of multiple protected classifications; a pervasive culture of sexism; and lack of consistent and effective adult response to biased language and behavior.” 

    Even so, the department was pleased overall with its visit, said Bill Bazyk, superintendent of Windham Southwest Supervisory Union, which includes Twin Valley. “But things certainly sped up after the election,” said Bazyk, who started his job after the case had been settled.

    Throughout the spring, Bayzk and his staff checked in with the department, and in May the district was told oversight of the settlement would end a year early, as Twin Valley had fully complied with the terms. 

    “We were doing all the right things,” Bayzk said, noting that the district’s work on diversity and equity is ongoing. “We took the settlement very seriously.”

    The investigation began in 2021 after the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont filed a complaint. Legal Director Lia Ernst said it is possible that Twin Valley resolved those lingering problems between December and May, stressing that it’s impossible to know from the outside. But still, she said, there is a larger pattern of ambivalence to the Justice Department’s approach to civil rights complaints.  

    “It is disappointing to see that one ending early,” she said. “It is my hope that it is ending early because Twin Valley has made so much progress, but it is my fear that it is ending early because DOJ just doesn’t care.” 

    Contact investigations editor Sarah Butrymowicz at [email protected] or on Signal: @sbutry.04.

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

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/under-trump-protecting-students-civil-rights-looks-very-different/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113866&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/under-trump-protecting-students-civil-rights-looks-very-different/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • Harvard Health and Human Rights Director Stepping Down

    Harvard Health and Human Rights Director Stepping Down

    John Tlumacki/The Boston Globe/Getty Images

    The director of Harvard University’s François-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights will step down in January after seven years at the helm, dean of the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health Andrea Baccarelli announced Tuesday. News of her departure follows months of criticism of the center’s Palestine Program for Health and Human Rights.

    Mary Bassett’s last day as director will be Jan. 9, 2026, after which she will remain a professor of practice in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department. Kari Nadeau, a professor of climate and population studies at Harvard, will serve as interim director. Bassett did not respond to a request for an interview Thursday. A Harvard spokesperson did not answer Inside Higher Ed’s questions about Bassett’s departure, including whether she was asked to step down, and instead pointed to Baccarelli’s message. 

    Baccarelli also announced that the center will shift its primary focus to children’s health.

    “Over the past years, FXB has worked on a wide range of programs within the context of human rights, extending across varied projects, including those related to oppression, poverty, and stigma around the world,” he wrote. “We believe we can accomplish more, and have greater impact, if we go deeper in a primary area of focus.”

    The center’s Palestine Program for Health and Human Rights drew increased scrutiny after Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack in Israel, including from former Harvard president Larry Summers and New York congresswoman Elise Stefanik. In previous years, the program partnered with Birzeit University in the West Bank, but Harvard declined to renew that partnership in the spring. In their April report on antisemitism on campus, Harvard officials detailed complaints from students about the program’s webinars, in which speakers allegedly “presented a demonizing view of Israel and Israelis.”

    “One student told us that the FXB programming created the impression that ‘Israel exists solely to oppress Palestinians, and nothing else,’” the report stated.

    Source link

  • FIRE answers your questions | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    FIRE answers your questions | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    Changes at the Pentagon, Charlie Kirk and cancel
    culture, free speech and misinformation, globalized censorship,
    Indiana University, how to support FIRE, and more!

    Timestamps:

    00:00 Introductions

    02:11 What is the Press Clause, and who does it apply
    to?

    05:53 FIRE’s position on Oklahoma student grading
    incident

    08:50 What does FIRE need from Members besides
    financial support?

    15:59 FIRE’s
    College Free Speech Rankings
    and what they mean

    19:44 What is the latest on the
    Ann Seltzer cases
    ?

    22:08 What is FIRE’s view on the
    Pentagon press room changes
    ?

    24:50 What is the value of small donations? How can
    FIRE supporters volunteer?

    29:21 Indiana University is good at football but

    bad at free speech

    33:46 Are courts trending in a more speech-protective
    direction?

    37:05 Charlie Kirk and cancel culture

    39:20 Pro- and anti-Zionist speech and “hostile
    environment” harassment

    43:48 Is “globalize the intifada” incitement?

    45:07 How does FIRE distinguish between free speech
    and misinformation?

    47:54 Can FIRE help supporters start free speech alumni
    groups
    ?

    48:55 Free speech, artificial intelligence, and
    copyright/trademarks

    51:51 The sordid legacy of
    Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

    53:22 Staying hopeful amidst so much hypocrisy

    55:32 Global speech platforms and censorship

    58:14 Differences between FIRE and the ACLU?

    59:34 Does FIRE have a Substack? (The Eternally Radical
    Idea
    , So to
    Speak
    , Expression)

    1:00:03 Closing remarks.

    Joining us:

    • Alisha Glennon, chief operating
      officer

    • Nico Perrino, executive vice
      president

    • Greg Lukianoff, president and
      ceo

    • Will Creeley, legal director

    Become a paid subscriber today to receive invitations
    to future live webinars.

    If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE
    at thefire.org and would
    like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please
    email [email protected].

    Source link

  • ED Calls Civil Rights Workers It’s Trying to Ax Back to Work

    ED Calls Civil Rights Workers It’s Trying to Ax Back to Work

    Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

    The Education Department is calling Office for Civil Rights employees who were fired earlier this year back to work.

    The Trump administration tried to ax half of the Education Department’s OCR staff in March, but it has been paying them not to work since then while it continues to fight litigation contesting its plan. The department says it hasn’t given up on defending that move, but now says it’s “important to refocus OCR’s work and utilize all OCR staff to prioritize OCR’s existing complaint caseload.”

    “In order for OCR to pursue its mission with all available resources, all those individuals currently being compensated by the Department need to meet their employee performance expectations and contribute to the enforcement of existing civil rights complaints,” the department said in Friday emails obtained by Inside Higher Ed. “Utilizing all OCR employees, including those currently on administrative leave, will bolster and refocus efforts on enforcement activities in a way that serves and benefits parents, students, and families.”

    One email gave an employee a Dec. 15 return date, while another said Dec. 29. It’s unclear how many workers will return. Bloomberg reported that the order went out to “more than 260,” while USA Today cited the department as saying “roughly 250,” but the Associated Press said “dozens.” Inside Higher Ed is awaiting clarification from the department.

    Rachel Gittleman, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, which represents department employees, said her union hasn’t been told how many workers in its bargaining unit received the email. She said in a statement Monday that “while we are relieved these public servants are finally being allowed to return to work, Education Secretary Linda McMahon has made clear that she would rather play politics than uphold her responsibility to protect students’ rights.”

    “For more than nine months, hundreds of employees at the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) have been sidelined from the critical work of protecting our nation’s most vulnerable students and families,” Gittleman said. She said the administration’s actions keeping these employees out of work and on leave “wasted more than $40 million in taxpayer funds.”

    “By blocking OCR staff from doing their jobs, Department leadership allowed a massive backlog of civil rights complaints to grow, and now expects these same employees to clean up a crisis entirely of the Department’s own making,” she added.

    Source link

  • FIRE warnings confirmed again | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    FIRE warnings confirmed again | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    A federal court has once again vindicated FIRE’s longstanding concerns with the Trump administration’s unlawful and unconstitutional approach to enforcing Title VI — including combatting antisemitism — in higher education. This time, the smackdown came in a ruling for plaintiffs at the University of California. 

    In a blistering opinion, the court found that the Trump administration has weaponized federal funding and “flouted the requirements of Title VI and Title IX,” all with the goal of “bringing universities to their knees and forcing them to change their ideological tune.”

    In light of this and a similar victory for Harvard in federal court, universities should take note: if they stand up for themselves, their students, and their faculty in court, there’s a strong pathway to victory.

    To avoid future losses in court, the Trump administration must cease its pressure campaign and follow the congressionally mandated procedure for enforcing federal civil rights laws. Failure to do so will only hurt students who have actually experienced discriminatory hostile environments and need serious, lawful federal oversight. The federal government should seek to get things right the first time and not let procedural infirmities and unlawful demands delay civil rights enforcement.

    Unlike the Harvard case, which was brought by university leaders alongside other stakeholders, this suit was filed by associations and labor unions that represent over 100,000 UC employees, faculty, and students. They brought their case after the administration fined the University of California, Los Angeles $1.2 billion and froze further research funding, asserting that UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI.

    UCLA may well have failed to protect some of its Jewish students from unlawful discrimination, and the federal government should ensure that the university is now complying with Title VI. But the court found that the administration’s goals go far beyond the issue of antisemitism, explaining:

    The record shows that Defendants engaged in a concerted policy to use allegations of antisemitism to justify funding cancellations, when their intent is to coerce universities into purging disfavored “left” and “woke” viewpoints from their campuses and replace them with views that the Administration favors.

    This, of course, violates the First Amendment. And the court notes that even if the administration were solely focused on combatting antisemitism, it could not “accomplish that goal by coercing the UC into adopting practices with widespread chilling effects on constitutionally protected speech.”

    Accordingly, the court’s preliminary injunction prohibits federal agencies from withholding funds, “or threatening to do so, to coerce the UC in violation of the First Amendment.” And just to ensure its message is clear, the court provided examples of funding conditions that would violate the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, including:

    • Requiring the UC to make hiring, firing, or funding decisions on the basis of Plaintiffs’ members’ protected speech or freedom of assembly.
    • Requiring the UC to restrict its curriculum, scholarship, or research based on the Defendants’ preferred viewpoints. 
    • Requiring the UC to screen international students based on “anti-Western” or “anti-American” views and/or “socialize” international students to favored “norms.”

    Beyond the First Amendment, the court also found that the administration failed to “follow longstanding, legally-required process that is intended to safeguard against coercive or retaliatory government actions under Title VI and IX.” These procedural failures include denying UCLA a hearing and the opportunity to voluntarily remedy alleged violations, failing to provide a written report to Congress, and failing to limit the scope of funding suspensions to noncompliant entities.

    The federal government has a legal and moral obligation to ensure that schools are protecting students from discrimination, including antisemitism. But it must meet that obligation in ways that uphold the law and the Constitution. Unfortunately, the administration’s strategy has so far failed on both fronts. And ultimately, those hurt most by this failure will be students in need of lawful civil rights enforcement.

    Source link