Tag: Spotlight

  • Senate Republicans Spotlight Campus Antisemitism at Hearing

    Senate Republicans Spotlight Campus Antisemitism at Hearing

    Nearly a year after pro-Palestinian encampments sprang up on college campuses across the country—and with them, increased reports of antisemitism—Senate Republicans are saying university leaders need to crack down on campus conduct or be placed “on notice.”

    Although the House Republicans have spent more than a year investigating campus antisemitism, the hearing, held Thursday on Capitol Hill, was the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee’s first strike at the issue since it became a top priority after Oct. 7, 2023.

    The two-hour discussion didn’t break much new ground, aside from giving members of the GOP a chance to highlight the changes President Trump has made since taking office and to promote several related pieces of legislation. Democrats largely used their time to criticize the Trump administration and the plan to shut down the Education Department.

    Last Congress, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce held multiple hearings, blaming diversity, equity and inclusion for what they saw as “the scourge of antisemitism on campus.” They grilled the presidents of elite institutions, subpoenaed universities for documents and lambasted higher ed over all for its handling of protests. Ultimately, they concluded that university leaders made “shocking concessions” to protesters; intentionally declined to support Jewish students, faculty and staff; and failed to impose meaningful discipline, among other findings.

    But up until this year, Republicans had limited options to enact legislation that they say would address campus antisemitism. Up until the start of the year, Democrats controlled the Senate and the White House. That meant that no matter what acts of alleged discrimination the committee tried to highlight or what bills it tried to pass, their efforts were almost always dead in the water. But now, with Donald Trump as president and Republicans controlling the House and Senate, the HELP Committee chair, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, and his fellow Republicans hold the power. And they were sure to make it known.

    “With President Trump in office and a Republican majority in Congress, the time of failed leadership is over,” Cassidy said in his opening remarks. “Universities have been put on notice: Failing to protect a student’s civil rights will no longer be tolerated.”

    Cassidy and multiple of his Republican counterparts promoted the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which would require colleges to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism when conducting civil rights investigations. He also pushed the Protecting Students on Campus Act, which would require institutions to provide students with information about how to file an antisemitism complaint. (Cassidy is lead sponsor of the Protecting Students on Campus Act.)

    The witnesses who testified Thursday included rabbis, researchers and Jewish student advocates. As was the case with the hearing over all, they largely echoed comments about campus antisemitism made at previous hearings. The three speakers selected by Republicans believed that the protests were not driven by students but faculty members and outside forces who were trying to demonize the definition of Zionist. The two selected by Democrats said colleges must focus on maintaining free speech while responding to antisemitism and all forms of discrimination.

    Meanwhile, lawmakers from both parties wanted to talk about the actions of President Trump since he took office in January.

    Republicans praised his decision to strip Columbia University of $400 million in federal funding, saying it was high time to hold the Ivy League institution—an epicenter of campus protests—accountable. (Columbia said last week that it agreed to sweeping demands from the Trump administration, though the funds haven’t been restored.)

    The Department of Education has also sent out letters warning more than 60 colleges and universities that they could be the next to face “potential enforcement actions” if they don’t comply with civil rights laws and crack down on antisemitism.

    “The days of a tepid response or toothless resolution agreements are over,” said Sen. Ashley Moody, a Florida Republican. “Universities have now been put on notice, and I don’t think there’s any question that there’s been a change in the tenor on how we will protect the rights of Jewish students on our campus.”

    The conservatives also used the hearing as a chance to tie allegedly antisemitic protests to concerns about foreign influence on higher education and promote legislation that increases federal oversight of foreign gifts and student visas. On Thursday, the House passed a bill that would increase disclosure requirements for foreign gifts and contracts.

    Republicans embraced a report from the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, which found that American colleges and universities have received more than $3 billion in unreported gifts from Qatar. According to the report, colleges that received undocumented gifts saw a significant increase in incidents of antisemitism compared to those that did not. The report argues, essentially, that the gifts are a use of “soft power” to encourage antisemitic views on campus.

    Charles Small, founding director and president of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, was one of the witnesses at the hearing, and he urged lawmakers to increase their oversight of what gifts are allowed.

    “I don’t think it’s wrong to question foreign funding in universities and colleges and whether foreign nations are trying to persuade or influence or brainwash our children. Do you think that they want us to be more pro-American … is that why they’re giving hundreds of millions of dollars to our universities?” Moody said.

    But Sen. Roger Marshall, a Kansas Republican, defended the gifts, saying Qatar played a critical role in the release of Americans held hostage by Hamas.

    Democrats, on the other hand, repeatedly argued that rather than working to combat antisemitism and other forms of discrimination, President Trump and Secretary McMahon are making the problem worse by seeking to close the Department of Education and slashing its capacity. McMahon recently laid off half of the staff at the Office for Civil Rights and closed many regional offices—a move that experts said will only worsen the agency’s backlog of complaints and reduce enforcement.

    Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington State, said OCR is America’s front line of defense against discrimination. So if the goal is to combat antisemitism, there should be more support and resources distributed to the OCR, not less, she added.

    “It’s like saying if you want to fight fires, you should support the fire department. Well, I hate to tell you all, Trump is axing the fire department,” she said. “It’s as straightforward as it gets.”

    Source link

  • 60 Minutes and Vice President Vance put Europe’s worrying speech restrictions into the spotlight

    60 Minutes and Vice President Vance put Europe’s worrying speech restrictions into the spotlight

    Free speech in Europe is under debate at the moment, and for good reason. For anyone who is concerned about the preservation of free expression on a global scale, the restrictions on speech — including online speech — in countries like the United Kingdom and Germany in recent years have been alarming. 

    I’ve long written about international threats to free expression at FIRE — including in our newsletter, the Free Speech Dispatch — to help Americans better understand the broader state of speech, and how our First Amendment fits into the global stage. The current spotlight on speech restrictions abroad should once again remind us of the value of protecting our rights here at home. 

    Policing the ‘limits’ of Germany’s speech

    A CBS 60 Minutes segment that aired over the weekend is particularly disturbing, both because of the extent to which Germany polices speech and the casual disregard the prosecutors interviewed showed toward freedom of expression. 

    One of the prosecutors, when asked how targets respond to raids — sometimes conducted pre-dawn — of their homes and electronics, said that they are surprised to discover that they have committed a crime. “You have free speech as well, ” Dr. Matthäus Fink said, “but it also has its limits.” 

    Indeed it does, online and off. Just look at how German police and prosecutors have responded to speech that has the potential to offend in recent years. 

    A 64-year-old man is facing charges not just for alleged antisemitic posts, but also for calling a German politician a “professional idiot.” An American writer living in Germany may be sentenced to years in prison for satirically using a swastika to criticize the country’s COVID policies. Berlin police literally cut off the power to a pro-Palestinian conference because of “the potential for hate speech.” Then they shut down a pro-Palestinian protest because they couldn’t be sure if Irish protesters were saying something hateful in a foreign language — better censored than sorry. And what of the arrests of people who share, even unknowingly, a fake quote, because “the accused bears the risk of spreading a false quote without checking it”? Or of the man whose home was raided at dawn for tweeting at a local politician, “You are such a penis”?

    And it’s not only Germany that targets insults of politicians. Just yesterday, news broke that a musician from the band Placebo has been charged with defamation for “contempt of the institutions” after calling Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni a “piece of shit, fascist, racist” during a 2023 music festival.

    Free speech is under threat in Europe, whether it’s online speech, blasphemy, or public protests.

    In case you thought arrests over insults were a fluke, the prosecutors featured by 60 Minutes are here to assure you: That’s the intention, not a byproduct. When interviewer Sharyn Alfonsi asked, “Is it a crime to insult somebody in public?,” all three confirmed it was, with Fink suggesting punishment for online insult could be even more severe “because in internet, it stays there.” Reposts, too, can be criminal. 

    Fink went on to defend prosecutorial action against the man who called a politician a “penis,” suggesting this and similar crass language has “nothing to do with … political discussions or a contribution to a discussion.” The notion that prosecutors should use the power of the state to shape the civility of political discourse should alarm anyone concerned about the state of expression in Germany and online.

    Vance criticizes European leaders’ speech policing

    Last week, Vice President JD Vance gave a much-discussed speech about “shared values” at the Munich Security Conference. In it, Vance took European leadership to task over censorship of conservative and religious speech, particularly in the UK. “Free speech, I fear, is in retreat,” Vance said. 

    The speech prompted pushback from European officials who objected to Vance’s diagnosis. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds, for example, said in response to Vance’s discussion of religious speech, “let’s be clear, we don’t have blasphemy laws in the UK.”

    That isn’t so clear at all. 

    In just the past few months alone, the UK managed to have multiple blasphemy controversies. (Not to mention the UK’s many other recent free speech woes covered in FIRE’s Free Speech Dispatch, which are too numerous to discuss in full here.) 

    In November, the Advertising Standards Authority banned comedian Fern Brady from using an advertisement for her stand-up tour that depicted Brady as the Virgin Mary because it could cause “serious offence” to Christians. Then Member of Parliament Tahir Ali called on Prime Minister Keir Starmer to create “measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions” — also known as a blasphemy law.

    And early this month, Greater Manchester Police arrested a man “on suspicion of a racially aggravated public order offence” for publicly burning a Quran. An assistant chief constable said police “made a swift arrest at the time and recognise the right people have for freedom of expression, but when this crosses into intimidation to cause harm or distress we will always look to take action when it is reported to us.” 

    Harm? Distress? These concepts are vast enough to fit the entirety of Big Ben. It is, as writer Kenan Malik puts it, “a form of blasphemy restriction but in secular garb.”

    Labour Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner is also establishing a council to create an official government definition of Islamophobia. Depending on the council’s ultimate definition, and whether and how it is used by government agencies to respond to Islamophobia, it could implicate UK citizens’ ability to speak freely about important religious issues. (As FIRE has written repeatedly in the context of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism in the U.S., codification of these definitions into official policy can risk punishment or chilling of protected speech about political and religious matters.) 

    Outside of the UK, Europe’s restrictions on blasphemy are growing — and show no signs of stopping. Indeed, the Manchester man arrested for burning a Quran did so in response to the Jan. 29 assassination in Sweden of Iraqi refugee Salwan Momika, known for his well-publicized and controversial public Quran burnings. Just after Momika’s killing, a Swedish court found Salwan Najem, another Iraqi refugee who burned Qurans with Momika, guilty of incitement against an ethnic group. Momika faced similar charges, which were only dropped upon his death.

    The United Nations Human Rights Council encourages these kinds of prosecutions, passing a 2023 resolution advising countries to “address, prevent and prosecute acts and advocacy of religious hatred.” Denmark did so, enacting a law criminalizing desecration of holy texts later that year. 

    Vance’s support of speech abroad is undermined by Trump admin’s early censorship efforts

    Free speech is under threat in Europe, whether it’s online speech, blasphemy, or public protests. But it simply isn’t possible to square Vance’s criticism of European censorship with the recent actions of the administration in which he serves.

    In his speech, Vance said “there is a new sheriff in town” and “under Donald Trump’s leadership, we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer them in the public square.” Vance also objected to “shutting down media.” 

    Has Vance checked in on what the sheriff is doing? 

    The president is directly targeting people for their speech, which frustrates the United States’ ability to credibly — and rightfully — advocate for free speech on the world stage. Take, for example, the White House’s decision last week to indefinitely bar the Associated Press from spaces including the Oval Office and Air Force One over its failure to adopt the government-preferred term “Gulf of America.” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that the White House was punishing what it deems misinformation, saying that “if we feel that there are lies being pushed by outlets in this room, we are going to hold those lies accountable.” In his speech, Vance criticized the Biden administration for “threaten[ing] and bull[ying]” private companies into censoring “so-called misinformation.”

    Vance, however, is aware of the AP decision — and supports it. In response to journalist Mehdi Hasan’s post asking Vance if he’d seen the ban, he wrote yesterday afternoon: “Yes dummy. I think there’s a difference between not giving a reporter a seat in the WH press briefing room and jailing people for dissenting views. The latter is a threat to free speech, the former is not. Hope that helps!”

    That’s rationalizing censorship. 

    He’s right that banning a journalist from press events isn’t the same as imprisoning them. Obviously some punishments are worse than others, but any punishment based on a journalist’s viewpoint is a free speech violation. As my colleague Aaron Terr explained last week, explicitly barring a news outlet on the basis of viewpoint — and its failure to adopt the state’s preferred terminology — is a serious threat to free speech, one Americans should oppose regardless of who is in the Oval Office.

    Vance also said in Munich, “Speaking up and expressing opinions isn’t election interference.” He’s right. There is perhaps no one who needs to hear that message more than President Donald Trump, who praised Vance’s speech but is nevertheless suing Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer for her polling in the 2024 election — calling it “election interference.” (FIRE represents Selzer.) 

    FIRE’s defense of pollster J. Ann Selzer against Donald Trump’s lawsuit is First Amendment 101

    News

    A polling miss isn’t ‘consumer fraud’ or ‘election interference’ — it’s just a prediction and is protected by the First Amendment.


    Read More

    Another member of the Trump administration, Elon Musk, separately called this weekend for journalists at 60 Minutes to receive “a long prison sentence” for “deliberate deception to interfere with the last election,” referring to the journalists’ editing of an interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, not the segment on Germany’s online speech policing. Instead, hours later, he shared a clip of that segment with the caption, “Thank the Lord that America has freedom of speech!”

    Elected officials should press their colleagues around the world to stand by the values of free expression. Vance’s articulation of those rights is necessary. But being effective requires credibility. That’s why FIRE believes our commitment to nonpartisanship, and our dedication to defending the right to speak regardless of preference or popularity, is our most important value. 

    If we undermine these freedoms at home, it’s harder to advocate them abroad to an already skeptical body politic. 

    Source link

  • Author Spotlight: Q&A With Reed Wicander of Physical Geology, 1e

    Author Spotlight: Q&A With Reed Wicander of Physical Geology, 1e

    Reading Time: 4 minutes

    Tell us a little bit about yourself and your background (current title, professional milestones, professional history, education, research works, hobbies, etc.)

    I am currently an Adjunct Professor in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, where I conduct research on various aspects of Paleozoic palynology, specifically the study of acritarchs. I am also a Professor Emeritus of Geology at Central Michigan University, where I taught undergraduate classes in physical geology, historical geology, prehistoric life and invertebrate paleontology for 39 years.

    I earned my B.S. degree in geology from San Diego State University in 1969 and my Ph.D. from UCLA in 1973. I was also a Postdoctoral Fellow at UCLA in 1976.

    I have published 61 professional papers, 34 geology textbooks of six different titles, including subsequent editions and given numerous presentations at professional meetings. I am currently involved in writing the fourth edition of “Geology: Earth in Perspective.”

    I was the recipient of the Central Michigan University Outstanding Teaching Award and the President’s Award for Research and Creative Activity.

    What was your driving force behind the creation of Physical Geology: Investigating Earth, and what aspects of this first edition are you most passionate about?

    The driving force behind the creation of “Physical Geology: Investigating Earth” was to write a geology textbook in an easy-to-read style with current examples and stunning photographs, connecting students to geology in the world around them. Having taught geology to undergraduates for 39 years, I’m aware of what students find interesting in an introductory science course, especially if they’re taking it to fulfill their general education requirements. This text illustrates why geology is an exciting and ever-changing science with direct links to all of us.

    In addition to covering the various topics of geology, this text integrates the current and relevant issues of climate change and environmental concerns throughout the book in a balanced approach, while emphasizing how these issues affect all of us.

    Physical geology encompasses such a vast array of topics and locations. In what ways does your textbook offer something truly unique and differentiating to the field?

    Besides the usual coverage of topics, this text offers several features in a visually engaging and text-friendly format to help students understand the topics covered and relate them to current events:

    • Virtual Field Trips, available in Cengage’s online learning platform, MindTap, offer students immersive, interactive experiences that take them beyond the classroom to some of the most iconic geological locations in the United States. These locations include Yosemite to study igneous rocks, Capitol Reef to examine sedimentary rocks and Hawaii to compare volcanoes, just to name just a few.

      • Virtual Field Trips feature a variety of media including video, high-quality animations and images, and GigaPan photography that allows students to zoom to a location up close, often closer than if they were physically there. Here’s an example of one such image where students can view the Grand Canyon to explore geologic time up close.

    • Concept Visualizations Animations are specifically designed to help students understand geological concepts in a visual format, such as Bowen’s reaction series and the formation of unconformities, two concepts that many students find challenging to understand from text and illustrations alone.
    • High-resolution photos have been chosen to highlight the visual nature of geology, particularly recent geologic events, contributing to the currency and relevancy of the examples discussed, as well as reinforcing the global nature of geology.

    Given the ever-evolving nature of geology and the earth itself, how does your text discuss the complexities of current events and modern issues to remain relevant and impactful for students, and what are they?

    Each chapter has been written to clarify the geologic concepts and topics covered to emphasize the understanding of the underlying principles and processes of geology.

    Geology in the Spotlight is a feature found in 16 of the 18 chapters and focuses on current issues in geology as they apply globally, and with an emphasis on natural resources, energy issues, environmental concerns and effects of a changing climate. Examples include Windmills and Wind Power, Glaciers and Global Warming, Engineering and Geology, Hydraulic Fracturing: Pros and Cons and Rare-Earth Elements and Critical Minerals as Geopolitical Weapons.

    Text, figure and table data reflect the most current published source information from internationally recognized and reputable institutions.

    How do you see this text deepening students’ understanding and fostering a more active engagement with its core concepts?

    Three examples illustrate an active engagement of the core chapter concepts:

    1. Learning Objectives focus on the important concepts discussed in the chapter and are designed to develop critical thinking skills.
    2. Some of the figures contain “Critical Thinking Questions” that are intended to encourage students to apply or analyze the material illustrated in the figure.
    3. At the end of each chapter is a “What Would You Do?” question that is open-ended so students can apply the chapter material learned to a real-life situation.

    With learners from diverse academic backgrounds, how does your text accommodate both those specializing in geology or earth science, and those encountering it through general education?

    This text is designed for an introductory geology course and is focused on understanding the different aspects and specialties of geology and how they relate to each other as part of a continuously dynamic and evolutionary planet.

    For those planning to major in geology, all of the basic concepts and topics of physical geology are covered and provide the foundation for the more specialized courses that follow.

    What do you hope instructors will take away from this textbook that will enhance their teaching?

    Hopefully, instructors will see how the many features of this text, including the spectacular photos, critical thinking skills and MindTap features, like Virtual Field Trips and animations, are all features that will provide the tools to stimulate active learning for the students.

    Lastly, what do you hope is the most significant takeaway students will carry with them after using your text?

    It is our hope that when students finish their physical geology course, they will come to appreciate the many connections between geology and their everyday lives, such as the causes and results of natural disasters like volcanic eruptions, landslides and earthquakes, as well as the less apparent, but equally significant links between geology and economic, social and political issues.

     

    Reed Wicander is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Central Michigan University, where he taught physical geology, historical geology, prehistoric life and invertebrate paleontology. Currently, he is an Adjunct Professor in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Dr. Wicander earned his B.S. degree in geology from San Diego State University and his Ph.D. from UCLA

     

     

    Interested in “Physical Geology: Investigating Earth,” 1e by Reed Wicander and James S. Monroe for your earth sciences course? Check out this first edition now.

    Source link

  • Celebrating Pride Month: Spotlight on Transgender and Nonbinary Employees – CUPA-HR

    Celebrating Pride Month: Spotlight on Transgender and Nonbinary Employees – CUPA-HR

    by Julie Burrell | June 4, 2024

    June is Pride Month, dedicated to celebrating the richness and history of the LGBTQIA+ community. In addition to ensuring regulatory compliance, higher ed HR has an important role to play in creating a truly inclusive campus. A fundamental part of celebrating Pride is actively learning from and listening to this community, especially as the population of LGBTQIA+ employees continues to grow.

    This Pride, CUPA-HR is spotlighting the voices of transgender and nonbinary employees by offering resources to empower HR in improving culture, policies and procedures for this group. Even if significant institutional change is not something you’re in a position to initiate, individual actions can add up. In addition to learning from the below resources, you can network with your colleagues at other institutions to provide support, personally recognize national days of awareness or remembrance, and encourage allyship.

    Inclusion of Transgender and Nonbinary Employees in the Workplace: A Critical Conversation (Watch Now)

    In this webinar, recorded in May, Jon Humiston of Central Michigan University and Aaric Guerriero of the Froedtert Health System explore ways to celebrate and embrace transgender and nonbinary employees.

    They address frequently asked questions about transgender and nonbinary issues, including what terms are commonly used within the LGBTQIA+ community and what happens if you accidentally misgender someone. They also recommend best practices for inclusion, including:

    • Using gender-neutral language. For example, instead of “ladies and gentleman,” Jon suggests “amazing humans,” “everyone,” or “y’all.”
    • Changing paperwork and job descriptions if they mention just two gender pronouns — for example, he or she — to inclusive language like “they.”
    • Sharing your pronouns in your email signature and Zoom profile, so others feel comfortable doing the same.

    Gender-Inclusive HR Strategies: Are You on the Right Track? (Read Now)

    This blog post proposes a framework for higher ed HR practitioners to address their gender inclusion strategies. A checklist of questions will help you audit your efforts on campus, covering: policies and procedures (for example, do you have a name-in-use policy or chosen-name policy that is easy to access and navigate?); programmatic support (e.g., do you have LGBTQIA+ safe-zone training available for all employees?); and visibility (e.g., does your institution have a presence at local LGBTQIA+ pride events?). Reviewing these questions will help you identify gaps in your inclusion efforts.

    Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation in the Workplace (Explore the Toolkit)

    This Knowledge Center toolkit, while not specifically about trans and nonbinary employees, covers legal obligations under Title VII and Title IX and supplies applicable guidelines from the Equal Opportunity and Employment Commission and Office for Civil Rights. Best practices and example policies are also included — for example, on name changes in official forms.



    Source link