Tag: rights

  • FIRE-supported Utah legislation secures students’ rights to freely associate on campus

    FIRE-supported Utah legislation secures students’ rights to freely associate on campus

    Yesterday, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox signed into law HB 390, a bill that will strengthen students’ freedom of association at the state’s public colleges and universities. Sponsored by Rep. Karianne Lisonbee and Sen. Keven Stratton, the bill ensures that religious, political, and ideological student organizations can set their own membership and leadership requirements without interference from campus administrators.

    The First Amendment guarantees citizens the right to freely associate with others who share their beliefs — and to not associate with those who don’t. FIRE has consistently opposed policies that force student groups to eliminate belief-based membership criteria to gain official recognition by their college. 

    After all, the members of a group naturally shape its direction, and allowing individuals who fundamentally oppose its mission to vote or hold leadership positions can undermine the group’s very purpose. It makes little sense, for example, to force a Muslim student group to let atheists become voting members or for an environmentalist student group that raises awareness about the threats of climate change to allow climate change skeptics to hold office.

    As we noted in our letter to Utah’s Senate Education Committee, the right to associate freely extends to students at public universities and to the student organizations they form. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this principle, affirming in Healy v. James that public colleges cannot deny official recognition to student organizations solely based on their beliefs or associations. Similarly, in Widmar v. Vincent, the Court ruled that a public university violated the First Amendment by denying a religious student group access to campus facilities because of its religious beliefs.

    Despite these clear precedents, the Supreme Court ruled in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez that universities can implement “all-comers” policies, meaning student organizations must accept any student who wants to join as a member or leader, even if that student openly opposes the group’s core principles. Following the ruling, FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff reaffirmed our commitment to freedom of association, saying, “FIRE will continue to defend the rights of expressive campus organizations to unite around shared beliefs and uphold the principle that College Democrats can be Democrats, College Atheists can be atheists, and College Christians can be Christians.”

    Although Martinez found that all-comers policies are constitutionally permissible when applied uniformly, institutions with such policies have frequently enforced them selectively. For example, some religious organizations have been forced to accept members and leaders who do not share their faith, while secular groups have been allowed to set their own membership and leadership requirements without administrative intervention. This selective enforcement constitutes viewpoint discrimination, undermining the very protections that the First Amendment guarantees.

    HB 390 ensures that Utah’s public universities cannot single out student groups for holding firm to their beliefs. The bill states: 

    An institution may not deny any benefit or privilege that is available to any student organization, or discriminate against, a religious, political, or ideological student organization:

    1. because such student organization is religious, political, or ideological;

    2. on the basis of protected expressive activity engaged in by the student organization or the student organization’s members; or

    3. based on a requirement that a leader of the student organization:

      1. affirm or adhere to the sincerely held beliefs of the student organization;

      2. comply with a standard of conduct the student organization establishes; or

      3. further the mission, purpose, or standards of conduct of the student organization, as these are defined by the student organization.

    With the enactment of this bill into law, Utah joins a growing number of states strengthening First Amendment protections for belief-based organizations on campus. 

    FIRE applauds Rep. Lisonbee and Sen. Stratton, the Utah Legislature, and Gov. Cox for standing up for students’ rights and ensuring true freedom of association in higher education.

    Source link

  • AFT sues Dept. of Education for denying borrowers’ rights (Student Borrower Protection Center)

    AFT sues Dept. of Education for denying borrowers’ rights (Student Borrower Protection Center)

    Yesterday, President Trump signed an executive order ordering the shutdown of the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The order claims to ensure the “uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely,” yet Trump and Secretary Linda McMahon have gutted the arms of ED that make those functions possible. Read our statement on yesterday’s executive order here. Last week, Trump announced a 50 percent reduction in the workforce at the Department. Now he plans to move student loans to the Small Business Administration?!?!

    The Trump Administration is intentionally breaking the student loan system and attacking borrowers and working families with student debt. But we’ve been fighting back.

    On Tuesday night, the 1.8 million-member AFT sued ED for denying borrowers’ access to affordable loan payments and blocking progress towards Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)—in violation of federal law.

    Three weeks ago, federal education officials eliminated access to Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans by removing the application from ED’s website and secretly ordering student loan servicers to halt processing all applications. These IDR plans provide millions of borrowers the right to tie their monthly payment to their income and family size, giving them the option to make loan payments they can afford.

    IDR plans are also the only way for public service workers to benefit from PSLF—a critical lifeline for teachers, nurses, first responders, and millions of other public service workers across the country.

    SBPC Executive Director Mike Pierce’s statement:

    Source link

  • On Mahmoud Khalil | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    On Mahmoud Khalil | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    First Amendment lawyer
    Marc Randazza     and immigration lawyer
    Jeffrey Rubin     join the show to discuss the arrest,
    detention, and possible deportation of green card holder Mahmoud
    Khalil.

    Timestamps:

    00:00 Intro

    00:53 Latest updates on Khalil

    02:51 First Amendment implications

    06:08 Legal perspectives on deportation

    11:54 Chilling effects on free expression

    21:06 Constitutional rights for non-citizens

    24:03 The intersection of free speech and immigration
    law

    27:02 Broader implication of immigration policies

    37:51 Outro

    Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and
    get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and
    more. 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].

    Show notes:

    – “We will be
    revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in
    America so they can be deported.    ” Secretary of State Marco
    Rubio via X (2025)

    – “‘ICE proudly
    apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a radical foreign
    Pro-Hamas student on the campus of @Columbia University. This is
    the first arrest of many to come.    ‘ President Donald J.
    Trump” The White House via X (2025)

    – “WATCH: White
    House downplays stock market declines as ‘a snapshot’    ” PBS
    NewsHour (2025)

    – “Secretary
    Rubio’s remarks to the press    ” U.S. Department of State
    (2025)

    – “Mahmoud
    Khalil. Notice to appear.    ” Habeeb Habeeb via X (2025)

    Source link

  • Office for Civil Rights Commences Title VI Investigations Against 45 Universities

    Office for Civil Rights Commences Title VI Investigations Against 45 Universities

    On March 14, the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that it had opened Title VI investigations into 45 universities. In a news release, ED noted that these investigations follow a Feb. 14 Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) signed by Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights. According to the ED release, the DCL — sent to all educational institutions that receive federal funding — reiterated that schools were obligated “to end the use of racial preferences and stereotypes in education programs and activities.”

    Among the universities being investigated are both public and private institutions that include Clemson University, Cornell University, Duke University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Arkansas-Fayetteville, the University of California-Berkeley and the University of Kentucky.

    An article from the Courier Journal reported that University of Kentucky spokesperson Lindsey Piercy said, “We have not received any official notification of this review. However, the university complies with both the constitution and Title VI. Our graduate programs are open to all qualified applicants. We will continue to monitor and review this issue, cooperate with any official inquiries and, as always, comply with the law.”

    Montana State University-Bozeman (MSU) is also among the 45 institutions under investigation. MSU vice president for communications Tracy Ellig released a statement which reads in part: “MSU strictly adheres to all federal and state laws in the hiring of its faculty and staff. … Montana State University strictly adheres to all applicable laws with regard to its students. MSU has well-established processes and procedures in place to investigate any claim of discrimination by students, faculty, staff or the public.”

    The ED press release noted that the investigations were prompted by these institutions having partnered with The PhD Project, an organization founded in 1994 with the goal of creating more role models leading business classrooms. It endeavors to improve diversity in the business world by encouraging people from underrepresented backgrounds to attain doctoral degrees in business. ED asserted that The PhD Project “limits eligibility based on the race of participants.”

    The PhD Project issued the following statement: “For the last 30 years, The PhD Project has worked to expand the pool of workplace talent by developing business school faculty who inspire, mentor, and support tomorrow’s leaders. Our vision is to create a broader talent pipeline of current and future business leaders who are committed to excellence and to each other, through networking, mentorship, and unique events. This year, we have opened our membership application to anyone who shares that vision. The PhD Project was founded with the goal of providing more role models in the front of business classrooms, which remains our goal today.”

    OCR is also investigating six universities that have allegedly awarded race-based scholarships, which it asserts is not allowed, and one university that allegedly administers a program that “segregates students on the basis of race.” Among those schools are Grand Valley State University, Ithaca College and the University of Tulsa School of Medicine.

    “The Department is working to reorient civil rights enforcement to ensure all students are protected from illegal discrimination,” noted U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Students must be assessed according to merit and accomplishment, not prejudiced by the color of their skin.”

    Kelly Benjamin, media and communications strategist for the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), noted that AAUP was a plaintiff in a case for which the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has granted a preliminary nationwide injunction on parts of two executive orders issued by President Donald J. Trump that sought to end diversity, equity and inclusion policies and programs among federal government grantees and contractors, which includes most colleges and universities.

    “Unfortunately, the Office of Civil Rights within the Education Department has…intensified the clamp down on speech and expression related to race and identity, and they’ve moved beyond censorship into a true weaponization of federal civil rights law,” said Benjamin. “It’s fundamentally at odds with what the mission of higher education should be, which is the search for knowledge that serves the common good.

    “They’re trying to remake higher education into their own agenda, where they can control not only who has access to higher education but what is taught in the classroom, what can be researched, what can be written about,” he added. “It’s an assault on the very core mission of higher education.”

    The defendants, which include President Trump and ED, filed for a stay of the injunction pending appeal, which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted. “Having reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion, and the parties’ briefing, we agree with the government that it has satisfied the factors for a stay under Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009).” Entered at the direction of Chief Judge Albert Diaz, with the concurrence of Judge Pamela Harris and Judge Allison Rushing.

    EdTrust issued a statement from Augustus Mays, vice president of partnerships and engagement,  condemning the investigations. He noted: “By using federal investigations as a weapon to intimidate institutions committed to racial equity, the Trump administration is not only undermining the fundamental mission of higher education but is also jeopardizing student success. These attacks are grounded in a false narrative that DEI initiatives are about exclusion. The reality is the opposite: these programs are designed to expand access, increase opportunity, and strengthen institutions by ensuring that all students, particularly underserved students, can thrive.”

    Source link

  • Trump administration silent on Muslim students’ civil rights

    Trump administration silent on Muslim students’ civil rights

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

    Millions in cuts to federal funding. Letters from the highest education official in the country expressing disappointment. Enforcement directives to immediately address a “backlog” of antisemitism complaints. 

    The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has taken sudden and unprecedented actions in the past month highlighting its desire to protect Jewish students from discrimination. At the same time, no such imperative has been evident in investigations into or statements on Islamophobia on school or campus grounds.

    “This administration appears to be focused solely on responses to antisemitic incidents on campus,” said Jackie Gharapour Wernz, an education civil rights attorney who worked at OCR under the Obama and the first Trump administrations. “But schools need to be focused on both.” 

    ‘Lip service’ to protecting all as Muslim students are targeted

    The same civil rights law that protects Jewish students from antisemitism — Title VI of the Civil Rights Act — also protects Muslim students from Islamophobia. 

    Under the Biden administration, and especially in light of the Israel-Hamas war protests after Oct. 7, 2023, the Education Department repeatedly expressed to schools that they must protect Jewish, Muslim, Palestinian and Israeli students equally. 

    “Jewish students, Israeli students, Muslim students, Arab students, Palestinian students, and all other students who reside within our school communities have the right to learn in our nation’s schools free from discrimination,” Catherine Lhamon, assistant secretary for civil rights for the Education Department under the Biden administration, warned in a Dear Colleague letter in November 2023. 

    The Biden administration issued the letter amid what it called an “alarming rise” in both antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents at schools.

    Conversely, the Trump Education Department has made at least five announcements related to ending antisemitism in schools — none of which also expressed protections for students of Muslim, Arab or Palestinian backgrounds. 

    “They are centering Jewish students or others who are experiencing antisemitic behaviors, and they’re very clearly going after Palestinian and or Muslim students, as in the example at Columbia [University],” said Brett Sokolow, a Title VI and Title IX education civil rights expert who often works with school district administrators seeking to comply with federal regulations. “So while there’s some lip service to protecting all, I think the [Title VI] enforcement tool is going to be used primarily to the benefit of those who are experiencing antisemitism.” 

    Last week, the Trump administration cut $400 million in funding to Columbia University over what it called “inaction” in harassment of Jewish students, and warned of more cancellations to follow. Referring to anti-Israel protests that erupted on campuses over the Israel-Hamas war, the Education Department said “any college or university that allows illegal protests and repeatedly fails to protect students from anti-Semitic harassment on campus will be subject to the loss of federal funding.” 

    “This is only the beginning,” said Leo Terrell, senior counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights and head of the federal Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, in a joint March 7 statement with the Education Department. 

    Just a few days later, Trump vehemently supported Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s arrest of prominent Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, saying the move was the first of “many to come.” Khalil, a legal permanent resident of the United States and recent Columbia graduate, helped lead campus protests opposing the war in Gaza. 

    Addressing a ‘backlog’ of antisemitism complaints

    Israel-Hamas war protests erupted on higher education and K-12 campuses under the Biden administration. 

    As part of its broader effort to crack down on Title VI after Oct. 7, 2023, the Education Department’s OCR opened civil rights investigations into complaints of both Islamophobia and antisemitism. Its caseload had gotten so unwieldy that Lhamon and then-Education Secretary Miguel Cardona pleaded at the time with Congress for more funding to support investigative staff and address the high number of complaints. 

    Source link

  • The government wants to financially bludgeon those seeking to defend constitutional rights

    The government wants to financially bludgeon those seeking to defend constitutional rights

    A new White House directive to heads of executive departments and agencies threatens to make it prohibitively expensive for Americans to defend the Constitution in court. The memo “directs” the departments and agencies to “demand” that courts make those seeking injunctions against federal actions “cover the costs … incurred if the Government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined.”

    The move could not be more transparent in attempting to scare off potential litigants challenging executive orders or other federal actions of questionable constitutionality.

    The White House deems this necessary because “activist organizations” are supposedly “inserting themselves into the executive policy making process” and have “obtained sweeping injunctions.” The administration claims Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates security bonds for all preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders to protect against the prospect of a later judicial ruling that the defendant was improperly enjoined.

    But this is misleading. That literal reading of the rule may make sense in the mine-run of private disputes, like claims in commercial contexts. But courts have long recognized exceptions for public-interest litigation, especially when it comes to those seeking to protect constitutional rights. In other words, “activist groups” like FIRE and the clients we proudly defend.

    Our free speech protections safeguard us from government incursion, they do not extend “rights” — that is, protection — to government actors.

    It’s bad enough Rule 65 already exempts “the United States, its officers, and its agencies” from the bond requirement if they win a preliminary injunction, and that the feds also avoid the obligation the Civil Rights Act imposes on state actors to pay attorney fees if a party sues to correct a constitutional violation and wins. But to insist on payment by a party challenging the constitutionality of government action — after that party has shown likelihood of succeeding on the claim, as is required for a preliminary injunction — clearly seeks to buck the case law on public interest litigation. In the name of disincentivizing challenges to constitutionally suspect federal action, no less. 

    And that’s just wrong — the government should not be in the business of financially punishing those who seek to vindicate their constitutional rights, or of erecting extra barriers to being able to do so. 

    FIRE made the same point in our recent friend-of-the-court brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in U.S. News v. Chiu. In that case, San Francisco’s city attorney took issue with U.S. News’ annual hospital rankings and launched a “false advertising” investigation that included subpoenas demanding, among other things, that the publisher disclose its ranking methodology and supporting documents. 

    So U.S. News challenged the subpoenas in court as retaliation against its protected speech. But the city attorney sought to dismiss the case as a meritless “strategic lawsuit against public participation” (SLAPP) under California’s anti-SLAPP law and sought attorney fees, as the statute allows for prevailing defendants. Troublingly, the court bought it, dismissing the case and ordering U.S. News to pay. 

    Just one problem: Anti-SLAPP laws protect defendants from frivolous lawsuits alleging defamation or similar claims that are designed not necessarily to prevail, but to silence or punish the exercise of free speech rights. And state actors operating in official roles do not exercise free speech rights at all, but rather, government powers, as the Sixth Circuit recently reaffirmed. Our free speech protections safeguard us from government incursion, they do not extend “rights” — that is, protection — to government actors, which is who wield the powers from which protection is needed. Exactly like those the city attorney wielded in subpoenaing U.S. News.

    That’s why, when U.S. News appealed, FIRE’s  brief argued the district court was wrong to award fees in granting the city attorney’s anti-SLAPP motion. Giving government officials anti-SLAPP protection serves only to chill people from challenging unconstitutional and illegal government actions, thus threatening the very rights that anti-SLAPP laws seek to protect. 

    The White House’s new directive suffers from the same chilling problem. If agencies insist that courts make people put up or shut up by having to cover potentially ruinous federal governmental costs if they preliminarily succeed in challenging unconstitutional behavior, then naturally fewer plaintiffs (and organizations that represent them) will be willing and able to vindicate First Amendment rights in court. 

    That would leave all of us less free. 

    Source link

  • Education Dept. allows some civil rights inquiries to restart

    Education Dept. allows some civil rights inquiries to restart

    After pausing most civil rights investigations, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights is resuming some inquiries, but only those related to disability-based discrimination, according to a memo obtained by ProPublica.

    Those involving race or gender will remain on hold, the nonprofit news organization reported.

    The investigation freeze, which had been in place for a month, forbade OCR staffers from pursuing discrimination complaints that had been submitted by thousands of students at schools and colleges across the country. In fiscal year 2024, the office received 22,687 complaints—37 percent of which alleged discrimination based on disability.

    “I am lifting the pause on the processing of complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. Effective immediately, please process complaints that allege only disability-based discrimination,” Craig Trainor, the office’s acting director, wrote the internal memo that was sent to employees, most of whom are attorneys.

    A spokesperson for the department declined to respond to ProPublica’s request for comment.

    Source link

  • Ed Secretary Nominee Signals Major Shake-Up for DEI, Civil Rights

    Ed Secretary Nominee Signals Major Shake-Up for DEI, Civil Rights

    In a Senate confirmation hearing that has sent ripples through the higher education community, Education Secretary nominee Linda McMahon acknowledgedLinda McMahon President Trump’s directive to potentially dissolve the Department of Education, while facing pointed questions about diversity initiatives and civil rights protections in education.

    During last Thursday’s hearing before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), McMahon addressed concerns about the administration’s stance on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in educational institutions. When pressed by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) about Trump’s executive order banning DEI programs, McMahon stopped short of providing clear guidance on the future of student cultural organizations and ethnicity-based clubs on campuses.

    The hearing revealed mounting concerns about student data privacy and program funding. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) highlighted that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has already gained access to “highly sensitive student data” and has begun withholding congressionally approved funding meant to support schools and students.

    Democratic senators expressed particular concern about the potential dismantling of the Education Department and its impact on civil rights enforcement and disability services in higher education. When questioned about relocating the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to the Department of Health and Human Services, McMahon defended the potential move by citing declining performance scores despite nearly a trillion dollars in spending since the department’s establishment in 1980.

    McMahon did make several commitments during the hearing, including a pledge to maintain the Pell Grant program, which provides crucial financial aid to millions of college students. She also addressed the issue of antisemitism on college campuses, though specific plans for addressing this concern were not detailed.

    The hearing, which was interrupted multiple times by protesters advocating for public schools and trans students’ rights, highlighted the complex challenges facing the department. McMahon acknowledged that any significant changes to the department’s structure would require congressional approval, despite the president’s stated desire to eliminate it through executive action.

    While McMahon is expected to be confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate, her hearing has raised significant questions about the future of federal oversight of higher education, particularly regarding civil rights enforcement and diversity initiatives. The HELP panel is scheduled to vote on advancing her nomination to the full Senate floor next Thursday.

    “It’s always difficult to downsize, it’s always difficult to restructure and reorganize in any department,” McMahon said during the hearing, addressing concerns about recent administrative leaves and firings at the department. “I think people should always be treated with respect.”

    For the higher education community, the hearing left several crucial questions unanswered, particularly regarding the future of diversity programs and civil rights protections. Sen. Murphy’s exchange about student cultural organizations highlighted the uncertainty facing many campus groups: “That’s pretty chilling. I think schools all around the country are going to hear that,” he noted after McMahon’s noncommittal response about the permissibility of ethnicity-based student clubs under the new DEI restrictions.

    Source link

  • Ohio Northern sues professor for having the audacity to defend his rights in court

    Ohio Northern sues professor for having the audacity to defend his rights in court

    Following Professor Scott Gerber’s vocal opposition to his school’s diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, Ohio Northern University ordered campus police to yank him out of class and march him to the dean, who demanded Gerber’s immediate resignation. A judge decried the school’s apparent “callous disregard for due process,” but because Gerber had the courage to fight back in court, ONU took things even further — filing a federal lawsuit to shut him up.

    But Gerber is not having it. A longtime critic of ONU’s initiatives around DEI, Gerber’s objections made him a target of administrators, who launched an investigation into him in January 2023. From then until his sudden termination, ONU outright refused to disclose the specific accusations against him. When the school finally told Gerber he lacked “collegiality,” FIRE explained to ONU that this charge looked a lot like retaliation for his views on DEI, which would be a stark violation of the university’s commitment to academic freedom. We called on ONU in March, and again in May, to provide Gerber with the specifics of its collegiality concerns, to no avail. 

    Out of work and still wondering what he did wrong, Gerber took ONU to court. His complaint centered on the university’s failure to provide him with the specific grounds for dismissal. This fundamental principle of due process protects the right of the accused to defend themselves. After all, if you don’t know what you’re accused of doing, it’s impossible to prove your innocence. Universities provide due process to ensure accurate disciplinary determinations, especially when a tenured professor’s livelihood hangs in the balance. That’s why an Ohio state court allowed Gerber’s breach of contract claim to proceed, criticizing ONU’s “troubling . . . lack of any detailed determination” of how its allegations “affected his fitness as a faculty member.” 

    That case is now headed to trial. 

    Professor suspended for reasons unknown — even to him 

    News

    Why did Ohio Northern University suspend professor Scott Gerber? We have no idea, and neither does he.


    Read More

    But for defending his rights in state court, ONU sued Gerber in federal court on Jan. 20, claiming Gerber’s “perverted” lawsuit is apparently an “attempt to accomplish . . . personal vendettas” and “unleashing political retribution” against ONU — notwithstanding the state court holding Gerber’s claims warranted proceeding to a jury. ONU’s suit claims Gerber’s “true goal is to manufacture outrage, to influence political retribution, and to extract vengeance against” ONU. According to the lawsuit, Gerber’s attempt to hold the university to its own policies is an unlawful “abuse of process.” 

    Disturbingly, the crux of ONU’s complaint rests on Gerber’s protected speech. The university faults Gerber for expressing accurate information about his ordeal in the Wall Street Journal and through a press release published by his attorneys at America First Legal, maligned by ONU as a “manufactured narrative” designed to “manufacture outrage.” Yet Gerber and America First Legal cite the university’s own words and policies to make his case, which a state court has allowed to proceed by rejecting ONU’s efforts to dismiss his claims.

    The irony of ONU refusing to provide Gerber with the bare minimum of process before summarily terminating him, then launching a whole federal lawsuit instead to get him to stop fighting, is palpable.

    ONU’s suit is a classic example of abusing the legal system to silence your critics. Such a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP, is a tactic that seeks solely to impose punishing litigation costs on their targets. The lawsuit is the punishment. Gerber must now bear the burden of defending this meritless suit while he prepares for trial in state court.

    Why ‘SLAPP’ lawsuits chill free speech and threaten the First Amendment

    Issue Pages

    You can’t use the legal system to punish people for speech you don’t like.


    Read More

    On a larger note, if nonprofits like FIRE cannot convey truthful information about the cases we litigate without incurring a separate lawsuit, that will imperil a wide array of civil rights advocacy. Defending against an onerous SLAPP puts further strain on the already limited resources dedicated to protecting civil liberties.

    Terminated professors must turn to courts to vindicate their rights as the option of last resort, and the First Amendment protects their right to do so. When universities seek in turn to use courts to bully professors into submission, judges must firmly reject these thinly veiled attempts to achieve censorship by lawsuit. 

    We’ll keep our readers updated. 

    FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members — no matter their views — at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If you’re a faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533). If you’re a college journalist facing censorship or a media law question, call the Student Press Freedom Initiative 24-hour hotline at 717-734-SPFI (7734).

    Source link

  • It’s not too late to fix the Renters’ Rights Bill

    It’s not too late to fix the Renters’ Rights Bill

    • By Calum MacInnes, Chairman of the Student Accredited Private Rental Sector (SAPRS).

    Today, the Renters’ Rights Bill will undergo its Second Reading in the House of Lords. This far-reaching Bill is long overdue. Once it becomes law, it will deliver a much-needed overhaul of private rented sector regulation in England.

    With the Bill, the Labour Government has a huge opportunity to deliver a rental market that is fairer and improves housing quality for the millions of renters in the UK.

    However, at present, the Government is blind to the woes of one particular group of renters: students.

    Students risk being hit by a ‘double whammy’ of increased tuition fees and the financial impact the Renters’ Rights Bill will have, shortening student housing supply even further and making it more expensive.

    The Bill’s passage through the Lords presents a vital opportunity to ensure the Bill delivers an overhaul of the private rented sector. As one of the most vulnerable groups of renters particularly affected by high costs of living, the legislation must consider students and the unique nature of the student private rented sector. The concerns about student welfare in the rental market appear to resonate with the wider public: New research commissioned by SAPRS (Student Accredited Private Rental Sector), a coalition of second- and third-year student accommodation providers across Britain, has found that a majority (66%) of the British public believe that the Government does not care about students.

    They are an important group of voters, in particular for the Labour Party, and the Government risks alienating them. Students will remember, and Keir Starmer might receive payback at the next General Election’s polling station.

    HEPI and higher education organisations like Universities UK have previously rightly warned the legislation threatens the availability, affordability, and quality of student housing as the sector is already at crisis point.

    As part of the Bill, the Government plans to end fixed-term tenancy agreements (FTTAs) ignoring the special case that is student housing. Student housing relies on cyclical FTTAs that have successfully balanced student and landlord needs by aligning with university term times and ensuring landlords have security of tenure each year. By dismantling this model, the Bill risks reducing housing availability, creating uncertainty for students and disrupting the cyclical rental market.

    There is an easy solution, and it is not too late for the Government to listen to the sector and students and to fix the Bill. On the issue of fixed-term tenancies, the Bill must create parity between the student private rental and the purpose-built sector – anything else risks exacerbating the existing crisis.

    Our proposed SAPRS code of conduct would establish standards of conduct and practice for the management of the student private rental distinct from the purpose-built sector, aimed at creating a framework of standards to facilitate effective and fair treatment of students. 

    An exemption along these lines is already included in the Bill for the purpose-built sector; there is no clear reason why the same exemption should not apply to private rentals, and the Government has so far refused to spell out a convincing reason.

    If the Bill is not changed, the Government will miss a vital opportunity to deliver a better deal for students – and risk punishing an important part of its electorate.

    Source link