Tag: State

  • Black Student Found Hanging From Tree at Delta State

    Black Student Found Hanging From Tree at Delta State

    Demartravion “Trey” Reed was a 21-year-old student at the Mississippi institution.

    Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images

    Delta State University has been rocked by the discovery of a Black student’s body hanging from a tree in the middle of campus on Monday.

    Demartravion “Trey” Reed was a 21-year-old student at the Mississippi institution. Recalling a long, painful history of lynchings, his death has spurred an outpouring of grief and anger across the country.

    The Bolivar County Coroner’s Office said on Monday that a preliminary examination of Reed’s body showed no evidence of foul play, including “any lacerations, contusions, compound fractures, broken bones or injuries consistent with an assault.”

    But Reed’s family members are calling for their own investigation, including an independent autopsy, and have demanded access to video footage that might reveal more details of his death.

    “From the beginning, the family has been seeking transparency in this investigation,” Vanessa J. Jones, an attorney representing the family, told Inside Higher Ed. “Especially after a tragic incident like this occurs, and you’re dealing with a state that has a past history which includes a painful history of racial violence … transparency is paramount.”

    The Reed family’s distrust in the handling of the student’s death was deepened when officials allowed his mother to view her son’s body from the neck up only, Jones said.

    Officers also shared conflicting details of Reed’s death when they first spoke to his family, Jones said. According to Jones, the Grenada County Sheriff’s Department went to Reed’s grandfather’s home on Monday and said Reed was found dead in his dorm room “from an apparent suicide.”

    Prominent civil rights attorney Ben Crump has taken on the family’s case and said in a post on X that he will lead a team of civil rights leaders and organizers in “pursuing transparency for Trey’s family.”

    “We cannot accept vague conclusions when so many questions remain,” he wrote. Crump described Reed as a “young man full of promise and warmth, deeply loved and respected by all who knew him.”

    Lawmakers are also demanding more information.

    “We’ll never have true justice for Trey, because that would mean he would still be with us—but there must be answers,” Massachusetts representative Ayanna Pressley wrote on X.

    Mississippi representative Bennie G. Thompson called for a federal investigation into Reed’s death.

    “It is always a tragedy when a young life is cut short,” Thompson said in a statement. “We must leave no stone unturned in the search for answers. While the details of this case are still emerging, we cannot ignore Mississippi’s painful history of lynching and racial violence against African Americans.”

    Updates From the University

    At a press conference Wednesday, Delta State University president Daniel J. Ennis said Reed’s loss was “devastating” and “the manner of how Trey was discovered has stirred many emotions in this community and many emotions around the state and the nation.”

    Ennis reiterated the coroner’s early conclusions but said he recognized the psychological impact of Reed’s death. “This is not only about facts,” Ennis said. “It’s about emotions and it’s about feelings and the way this loss and how it was discovered affects people’s lives.”

    Ennis, who is white, said he acknowledged his weakness in not being “adequate to speak to the imagery that this incident raises.”

    Delta State serves roughly 2,800 students, about 40 percent of whom are Black. Ennis said the campus has been receiving threatening phone calls and messages since Reed’s death.

    “I can say that my heartbreak is comprehensive, not just for Trey—although it is primarily for Trey—but for the fact that the rest of the world has an impression of Delta State that is so at odds with what I know to be this institution,” which is “the joy and the grace of people living and working together and respecting each other,” he said.

    Mike Peeler, Delta State University chief of police, told the press that Reed’s body was transported to the Mississippi State Medical Examiner’s Office for a full autopsy on Wednesday morning. Authorities expect preliminary autopsy results within 24 to 48 hours. He said DSU Police, the Cleveland Police Department, the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation and the Bolivar County Sheriff’s Office planned to update the public on the findings after first meeting with Reed’s next of kin.

    He told reporters law enforcement officials were reviewing relevant video, but he couldn’t offer any more details. Peeler also said he had no information about Reed’s family being told his death took place in his dorm room.

    He emphasized during the press conference that “this is an isolated incident” and “there are currently no active threats to the campus,” which “remains a safe environment for students, faculty and staff.”

    ‘Heartbroken’ Students

    Nonetheless, the grisly incident has frightened Black students on campus.

    “Hearing that happened to another Black student, it really makes me feel unsafe,” a Delta State student, Stacie Hoskins, told WAPT16.

    The nature of Reed’s death has had an emotional impact on Black students on other campuses as well; some treated it as a foregone conclusion that Reed was killed and issued statements of support to fellow students.

    The Black Student Union at Illinois State University directed students to campus counseling resources, and its executive board said it was “heartbroken by the tragic loss of Trey Reed, whose life was cut short by a horrific act of violence.”

    North Carolina A&T University’s NAACP chapter posted on Instagram that Reed “could have been any of us. Any Black student. Any campus.”

    “Our education is under attack. Our sanity is under attack. Our very existence is under attack,” the chapter said. “We refuse to stay silent. Black lives matter. Black students matter. Always.”



    Source link

  • Texas State Fires Professor Accused of Inciting Violence

    Texas State Fires Professor Accused of Inciting Violence

    Alter at Texas State is the second Texas professor fired this week.

    Mikala Compton/Austin American-Statesman/Getty Images

    Texas State University fired a professor Wednesday after he was accused of inciting violence during a speech at a socialist conference, The Texas Tribune reported. 

    In a video posted on X, associate professor of history Thomas Alter can be seen giving a speech over Zoom to attendees of the Revolutionary Socialism Conference. “Without organization, how can anyone expect to overthrow the most bloodthirsty, profit-driven mad organization in the history of the world—that of the U.S. government,” he said in the clip, which was circulated online by a YouTuber who infiltrated and recorded the event.

    Texas State president Kelly Damphousse said in a statement Wednesday that the university reviewed the comments, which he said “amounted to serious professional and personal misconduct.”

    “As a result, I have determined that his actions are incompatible with their responsibilities as a faculty member at Texas State University,” he added. “Effective immediately, his employment with Texas State University has been terminated.”

    The video clip shared on social media was spliced and cut together. In the full version of his speech, which is posted on YouTube, Alter discusses the various tactics of different socialist groups. 

    “Another strain of anarchism gaining ground recently is that of insurrectionary anarchism,” Alter said in his speech. “Primarily coming out of those that were involved in the Cop City protest. These groups, individuals have grown rightfully frustrated with symbolic protests that do not disrupt the normal functioning of government and business. They call for more direct action and shutting down the military-industrial complex and preventing ICE from kidnapping members of their communities. Many insurrectionary anarchists are serving jail time, lost jobs and face expulsion from school. They have truly put their bodies on the line. While their actions are laudable, it should be asked, what purpose do they serve? As anarchists, these insurrectionists explicitly reject the formation of a revolutionary party capable of leading the working class to power. Without organization, how can anyone expect to overthrow the most bloodthirsty, profit-driven mad organization in the history of the world—that of the U.S. government.”

    Alter didn’t respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    He is the second Texas professor to be fired from their post this week. On Tuesday, Texas A&M officials fired Melissa McCoul, a senior lecturer, and removed two faculty members from their administrative roles after a student complained that the material McCoul taught in a summer course violated President Donald Trump’s executive orders.

    Source link

  • Florida State Center Focuses on Greek Life Wellness

    Florida State Center Focuses on Greek Life Wellness

    Florida State University is home to over 50 fraternity and sorority chapters, with total Greek membership over 6,800—about 23 percent of the undergraduate population. Fraternity and Sorority Life (FSL) students are generally representative of the student population’s demographics, but they’re more likely to persist, graduate and land a job after graduation compared to their peers.

    A new center on campus seeks to ensure that Greek organizations promote holistic student development, in part by partnering with student leaders and providing for-credit leadership classes.

    What’s the need: Past grievances with FSL organizations on campus prompted the development of the center to prevent hazing and other harmful practices often associated with Greek life. In 2017, FSU banned all fraternities and sororities following the death of a fraternity pledge. The ban was lifted in 2018 with provisions.

    “The challenge we had was to solve [misconduct] as almost a student success issue, and [we] try to focus on how do we help our students be way more successful, focusing in on their leadership and their wellness and holistic student experience,” said Freddy Juarez, FSU’s director of strategic initiatives and fraternity and sorority life.

    Now, to maintain good standing, Greek organizations must meet a variety of standards, including that members fulfill mandatory volunteer hours and sustain minimum GPAs. The university also maintains a publicly available scorecard on campus chapters to provide transparency into FSL activities, including philanthropic efforts and past disciplinary charges.

    The Center for Fraternity and Sorority Organizational Wellness launched in fall 2024 as an extension of these efforts, with the goal of identifying best practices in the field.

    “What are those markers that we can identify early on so that we can intervene with the right intervention that will stop them from going down that path of not being a ‘well’ organization?” Juarez said. “We’re trying to figure out what are all these components and pieces as we start to bring on national research agendas.”

    FSL students are also embedded throughout campus as tour guides, student government members and orientation leaders, so providing them with leadership training has far-reaching effects on the campus culture, Juarez said.

    How it works: The center engages FSL organizations in a variety of ways. Juarez and Brittany Devies, director of the Center for Fraternity and Sorority Wellness, meet with chapter leaders regularly to discuss governance, risk management, recruitment and new member education, among other topics.

    “We’re doing training and helping them navigate these complex issues, because these students are managing multimillion-dollar budgets and facilities that cost multimillion dollars. Our largest chapter is 320 members; that is a lot to manage,” Juarez said.

    The center also houses a 12-credit leadership studies certificate exclusively for FSL members in the Anne Spencer Daves College of Education, Health and Human Sciences, which is taught by FSL staff members.

    The courses focus on leadership contexts broadly but also provide developmental opportunities for students interested in being leaders in their Greek organization. Some of the courses also fulfill general elective and graduation requirements, aiding in degree completion.

    Approximately 50 students are currently enrolled in the certificate program; next semester they hope to increase that number to 200, Devies said. “Our students are seeing the direct impacts of that on career readiness,” Devies said, referencing another goal of the center.

    Staff also consult other institutions on the lessons they learned from revamping FSL requirements over the past few years, including the importance of data collection and how to partner with chapter leaders.

    What’s next: FSU doesn’t have one definition of organizational wellness, Juarez said, but the university is conducting research on positive outcomes from FSL organizations to understand how they can aid in students’ career outcomes, graduation and persistence rates.

    “We believe that our organizations could be vehicles that are instrumental in student success,” Juarez said. “We’re seeing that with early numbers if you compare our fraternity and sorority students to our non–fraternity or sorority students.”

    Positive career outcomes for members have become a top priority at FSU, so establishing stronger partnerships with the campus career center is a growing focus. FSL added a new staff member specifically to liaise with career services.

    FSL is also creating a six-week study abroad experience for students in the leadership certificate program based in Florence, Italy, to help them apply leadership principles beyond the campus environment, Devies said.

    If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

    Source link

  • Higher Education on the Frontlines of a Failing State

    Higher Education on the Frontlines of a Failing State

    Universities have long been bastions of freedom, democracy, and truth. Today, they find themselves operating in a nation where these ideals are increasingly under siege—not by foreign adversaries, but by policies emanating from the highest levels of government.

    The Department of War: A Symbolic Shift with Real Consequences

    On September 5, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order rebranding the U.S. Department of Defense as the “Department of War,” aiming to restore the title used prior to 1949. This move, while symbolic, reflects a broader ideological shift towards an aggressive, militaristic stance. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, appointed in January 2025, has been a vocal proponent of this change, asserting that the new name conveys a stronger message of readiness and resolve. 

    Critics argue that this rebranding prioritizes optics over substance, with concerns over potential high costs and effectiveness. Pentagon officials acknowledged the financial burden but have yet to release precise cost estimates. 

    Economic Instability and Global Alienation

    Domestically, the administration’s economic policies have led to rising unemployment, inflation, and slowing job growth. A recent weak jobs report showing a gain of only 22,000 jobs prompted Democrats to criticize President Trump’s handling of the economy, linking these issues to his tariffs and other controversial actions. 

    Internationally, Trump’s policies have strained relationships with key allies. Countries like Japan, South Korea, and several European nations have expressed concerns over U.S. trade practices and foreign policy decisions, leading to a reevaluation of longstanding alliances. 

    Authoritarian Alliances and Human Rights Concerns

    The administration’s foreign policy has also seen a shift towards aligning with authoritarian leaders. Leaked draft reports indicate plans to eliminate or downplay accounts of prisoner abuse, corruption, and LGBTQ+ discrimination in countries like El Salvador, Israel, and Russia, raising concerns about the U.S.’s commitment to human rights. 

    Immigration Policies and Humanitarian Impact

    On the domestic front, the administration’s immigration policies have led to the deportation of hundreds of thousands of individuals, including those with Temporary Protected Status. Critics argue that these actions undermine the nation’s moral authority and have a devastating impact on affected families. 

    The Role of Higher Education

    In this turbulent landscape, higher education institutions find themselves at a crossroads. Universities are traditionally places where freedom, democracy, and truth are upheld and taught. However, as the nation drifts away from these principles, universities are increasingly tasked with defending them.

    Faculty and students are stepping into roles as defenders of civic values, ethical scholarship, and truth-telling. But without robust support from government and society, universities alone cannot sustain the principles of freedom and democracy that once underpinned the nation.

    The current moment is a test: Can American higher education continue to serve as a bastion of truth and civic responsibility in an era where the country’s own policies increasingly contradict those ideals? Or will universities be compelled to adapt to a world where freedom, democracy, and truth are optional, not foundational?

    The stakes could not be higher.

    Sources:

    Source link

  • The State of Postsecondary Education in Canada, 2025

    The State of Postsecondary Education in Canada, 2025

    Hi all. Today, HESA is releasing the eighth edition of The State of Postsecondary Education in Canada, co-authored by myself and HESA’s Jiwoo Jeon and Janet Balfour. Many thanks to our partners – Pearson, Studiosity, Duolingo, Capio, Element451 and Riipen – for supporting this year’s edition.

    You probably don’t need to actually read this year’s edition to know that the state of postsecondary education in Canada is a bit perilous. And the reason for this, quite simply, is that public funding for higher education has been stagnant for well over a decade now.

    At one level, of course, it is possible to look at public funding in Canada and proclaim that nothing is wrong. As Figure 1 shows, public spending on higher education has stayed relatively constant over the past fifteen years in inflation-adjusted dollars. Individual provinces may have seen swings up or down in their spending, but collectively the ten provinces have spent a collective $20 billion/year or so on higher education since about 2011-12 (excluding transfer payments from the federal government), and the federal government has spent about $10 billion/year. 

    Figure 1: Federal and Provincial Own-Source Expenditures in Respect of PSE Institutions, Canada, in $2023, 2007-08 to 2023-24, in Billions

    So, at one level it is possible to shrug off the problem.  But that requires eliminating a lot of context.  Let’s see how Canadian funding looks when we put it into various types of contexts.

    If we describe public funding in per-student terms, as in Figure 2, what you see is a mixed picture. Total public funding per full-time equivalent domestic student has dropped by about 6% since 2009, and for university students by about 15%. Complicating this figure is the fact that per-student funding for college students has risen somewhat, however, this is due not to extra funding but rather to a very significant drop in the number of domestic students enrolled in colleges. Whether this is due to a reduction of interest in college programs among Canadians, or a deliberate move away from Canadian to international students on the part of colleges is difficult to answer, but in either event, the rise in funding per college student is a function of fewer students rather than more funding.

    Figure 2: Per-student Spending by Sector, Canada, in $2023, 2007-08 to 2023-24

    If we describe public funding as a percentage of the country’s economy, the picture looks significantly worse. Prior to the recession of 2008-09, public funding on postsecondary education was about 1.3% of GDP, which was substantially above the level seen across other industrialized countries (about 1.0%, according to the OECD). Briefly, that number popped up during the Great Recession, partly because spending increased but also partly because GDP stagnated. Since then, however, spending has stayed constant while GDP has grown. The result is that public spending on postsecondary has fallen to the OECD average of 1% – and the financial advantage our system once held over competitor nations has largely disappeared.

    Figure 3: Public Spending on Postsecondary Education as a Percentage of GDP, in $2023, 2007-08 to 2023-24

    We can also look at these figures in per-inhabitant terms. There was a point in the late 00s where Canada had about 33 million inhabitants and public sources spent $30 billion per year on postsecondary education. Fifteen years and seven million new inhabitants later, we’re still spending $30 billion per year.  That results in a 21% reduction in spending on universities and colleges per inhabitant from public sources, as shown in Figure 4. In Figure 5, we look at postsecondary spending as a percentage of government budgets.  Again, we see a case of spending on postsecondary institutions falling consistently because overall government expenditure is rising quickly. In the past fifteen years, aggregate provincial spending on postsecondary has fallen as a percentage of total provincial expenditures from 5.4% to just 3.3%; for federal spending it has fallen from 1.6% to just 1%.

    Figure 4: Public Spending on Post-Secondary Education Institutions Per Inhabitant, in $2023, 2007-08 to 2023-24

    Figure 5: Public Spending on Postsecondary Education Institutions as a Percentage of Total Government Spending, Federal and Provincial Governments, in $2023, 2007-08 to 2023-24

    In other words: we have been able – just — to keep our public investments in higher education level with inflation.  But we have only been able to do so because our population is larger, and our economy has grown over the last fifteen years, and we can do so with less relative effort.  Had we kept up funding on a domestic per-student level with where it was in the immediate aftermath of the Great Financial crisis, post-secondary education system would have an extra $2.1 billion. If we had kept funding on postsecondary education level with overall population growth we would have invested another $7.3 billion.  If we’d had funding for postsecondary institutions level with GDP growth we would have invested another $13.6 billion. And if we had kept it level with the overall growth in program spending, we would have invested another $19.1 billion. So, depending on the measure chosen, we are anywhere from $2-20 billion short of where we would be had we kept our spending levels of the late 00s/early 10s.

    But, you say, isn’t this true everywhere? And aren’t we at least better than the United States?

    It is certainly true that Canada is in a pattern that would seem familiar both to residents of Australia and the United Kingdom. These three countries have all followed roughly the same path over the past decade and a half, combining stagnant public funding with slightly growing domestic numbers, paid for by an absolute free-for-all with respect to international students paying market tuition rates. All three countries looked like they had made a good deal at least for as long as the international student boom lasted.

    But take a look at our biggest competitor, the United States. During the financial crisis of 2008-9, funding for postsecondary institutions tumbled by over 10%.  But then, in just the eight years between 2012 and 2020, funding for higher education grew by a third – from about $150B (US) per year to over $200B/year. In fact, for all we hear about cuts to funding under Trump (not all of which may come true, as at the time of writing the Senate seems quite intent at least on reversing the billions of proposed cuts to the National Institutes of Health), even if all the proposed cuts were to come through, total US spending on  higher education would be roughly 20% higher than it was in 2008-09, while Canada’s would be more or less unchanged. And of course, in the United States domestic enrolments are falling, meaning that in per- student terms, the gap is even more substantial. 

    Figure 6: Indexed Real Public Spending on Postsecondary Institutions, Canada vs. US, 2011-12 to 2023-24 (2011-12 = 100)

    In sum: Canada is not alone in seeing significant falls in higher education spending, but few countries have seen declines in quite as an across-the-board fashion, for quite as long, as we have. Canada began the 2010s with one of the best-funded tertiary education systems in the world, but, quite simply, governments of every stripe at both the federal and provincial levels have been systematically squandering that advantage for the past 15 years. We had a genuine lead in something, an advantage over the rest of the world. But now it is gone.

    So much for the past: what about the future?  Well, it depends a bit on where you stand.  The federal Liberals came back to power on a platform which was the least science-friendly since 1988. They promised money for postsecondary education, but most of it was either for apprenticeship grant programs which they themselves had deemed poor value for money just last year, or for programs to switch apprenticeship training from public colleges to union-led training centres – as crass a piece of cash-for-union endorsements as one can imagine. (The only saving grace? The losing Conservatives promised the unions even larger bribes). What they promised for science, for direct transfers to public universities and colleges, was a pittance in comparison.

    Moreover, following the election, in the face of a set of tariff threats from the Trump Administration, the federal and provincial governments united in a program of “nation-building” which revolved entirely around the notion that national salvation was to be found in programs which “produced more goods” and “gets them to markets” (i.e. non-US markets, meaning ports) more quickly. The idea that the country might pivot to services, to a more knowledge-intensive economy in which university and college research efforts might be seen as useful, was apparently not even considered. Rather, the country rushed head-first into the familiar – but in the long-term disastrous – role being hewers of wood and drawers of water.

    Now, hewing wood and drawing water has traditionally been Canada’s lot, and one could argue that historically have not fared so very badly by focusing on this core competence. But it is worth remembering the Biblical origin of this phrase, in the book of Joshua. A group of Canaanites known as the Gibeonites had not been entirely truthful when signing a treaty with the returning Israelites; claiming to be a nomadic people rather than a settled one (which would have led to them being exterminated).  When the Israelites discovered the deception, many wanted the Gibeonites killed; instead, Joshua decided that they should hew wood and draw water for the Israelites instead. That is to say, they fell into bondage. The political analogies in today’s Trumpian world should be obvious.

    To return to higher education: things look pretty bleak. Investment is falling. Governments are unwilling either to spend more on higher education, or to permit institutions to generate money on their own through tuition fees. Their idea of economic growth is, at best, out of the 1960s: sell more natural resources to foreigners. The idea of making our way in the world as a knowledge or science powerhouse, a spirit that infused policymaking at both the federal and provincial level in the early 2000s, has simply disappeared. Colleges might see some boosts in funding over the coming years for vocational programming, although it’s likely that they will need to scrap with private-sector unions for the money; the likelihood is that universities will see real decreases in funding. The fate of the promised increase in research spending in the 2024 budget seems especially at-risk.

    The path to a better Canada does not lie in becoming better hewers of wood and drawers of water.  It lies in developing new industries based on cutting-edge knowledge and science. Spending on postsecondary students, on its own, does not guarantee that these new industries will come into existence.  But the absence of spending on postsecondary education certainly guarantees that they will not.

    The country has a choice to make. And right now, we seem to be choosing poorly.

    Source link

  • Ohio State Restricts Decorations in Public Dorm Spaces

    Ohio State Restricts Decorations in Public Dorm Spaces

    Ohio State University has advised resident advisers to restrict all dorm floor and common room decor—as well as welcome programming for incoming students—to “Ohio State spirit themes” to avoid offending or alienating students. That means motifs like “retro video games and SpongeBob” motifs, which one outraged former RA on Reddit said they decorated with, won’t be allowed. 

    The move comes partly in response to SB1, a higher ed law Ohio passed in March that prohibits DEI, requires institutions to “demonstrate intellectual diversity” and mandates institutional neutrality on “controversial” subjects such as climate change, electoral politics, foreign policy, immigration, marriage and abortion.

    “SB1 was certainly a factor, but our goal is to create an open and welcoming environment for all students … including in our residence halls, as we build community throughout our spaces and programming,” Dave Isaacs, OSU communications and media relations manager, said in a statement shared with Inside Higher Ed. “And this was discussed with RAs during their orientation for the position.”

    Move-in activities are also required to be Buckeye-themed, including “necklace making and mug decorating,” the statement said.

    Students took to Reddit to pan the new decorating rules, with one commenter posting, “SB1 and university leadership has sucked the life out of literally everything.”

    “There were no comments supporting Ohio State’s decision,” the student newspaper, The Lantern, noted. “However, one user called on students to protest the state and national government over these decisions, rather than Ohio State’s administration.”

    Source link

  • Utah State University to face state audit amid concerns about former leader’s spending

    Utah State University to face state audit amid concerns about former leader’s spending

    Dive Brief:

    • Utah State University will undergo a state audit following an initial review that found “concerns about USU’s governance, leadership, and culture of policy noncompliance.” 
    • At a Tuesday meeting, the state Legislature’s audit subcommittee voted unanimously to conduct a deeper review of the university, which will look at governance and procurement processes, particularly in the president’s office.
    • The review comes amid reporting that Elizabeth Cantwell, the university’s former president, spent heavily on office remodeling and transportation during her tenure before departing earlier this year.

    Dive Insight:

    State legislative auditors raised issues with both spending practices and oversight controls at the highest levels of Utah State. 

    Under the heading of “leadership concerns,” they pointed to institutional purchase card transactions that “significantly increased” during the past two years compared to the preceding half decade. 

    Those increases occurred during the tenure of Cantwell, who was appointed president in 2023 and stepped down unexpectedly earlier this year to serve as president of Washington State University. 

    Alan Smith, dean of Utah State’s college of education and human services, is serving as interim president while the institution searches for a permanent leader. 

    This March, shortly after the announcement of Cantwell’s departure, Cache Valley Daily obtained public records of heavy spending during her tenure. The report noted a $285,000 office remodel that included more than $184,000 in furniture costs, over $800 in spending on mirrors and a $750 bidet toilet.

    It also detailed several vehicles Cantwell used for transportation during her time at Utah State, including a new Toyota SUV and a $30,000 electric vehicle. 

    Auditors flagged purchase card spending during the past two years that “may be concerning due to the nature of the purchases, the dollar amounts involved, and the level of oversight.”

    They also noted “issues with the amount spent on presidential motor vehicle assets in the last two years being almost triple the amount for the five years before.”

    The review also raised concerns about how Utah State’s leaders acquired goods and services from third parties. Specifically, they found that some executive staff committed the university to contracts over $52,000 — and up to $430,000 — before completing the purchasing process. 

    Their report recommended a review of procurement policies, controls over open purchase orders, and spending and assets in the Utah State president’s office, as well as an evaluation of whether “governance and leadership at USU have the appropriate structure, tools, processes, culture, structure, and personnel in place to ensure success.”

    On Tuesday,  state lawmakers on the audit subcommittee called for a deep investigation of the university’s spending. 

    “I love Utah State. It’s a big part of my district, it employs a lot of people in my district,” one member told audit staff during the meeting. “But I have serious concerns about what is happening at Utah State right now, and so whatever latitude you feel that you need, I like to be part of authorizing that —  as deep as you can go.”

    Tessa White, chair of the university’s trustee board, voiced support for the state audit at the meeting. 

    “We welcome the audit,” White said. “There are areas that we are aware of and taking aggressive steps to remedy. We hope that by the time that your audit is done, we will have a whole list of things completed that will give you greater confidence in the school.”

    Procurement policies and processes have come under fire at other public institutions as politicians and auditors home in on their spending practices. 

    Early this year, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham called for Western New Mexico University’s entire board of regents to resign after an auditing report surfaced spending by leadership that showed “a concerning lack of compliance with established university policies.”

    A state audit late last year of the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities system found several financial transactions that violated institutional policies or lacked adequate documentation. That included some $19,000 in spending on food over two years by Chancellor Terrence Cheng. 

    In 2024, a state audit of University of Maryland Global Campus raised issues with leadership oversight of a spinoff nonprofit, pointing to — among other issues — a $25.7 million IT project that ended without a viable product.

    Source link

  • State Department has revoked over 6,000 student visas this year

    State Department has revoked over 6,000 student visas this year

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

    Dive Brief: 

    • The U.S. Department of State has so far revoked over 6,000 international student visas in 2025 over allegations that the students had overstayed their visas or broken laws, an agency spokesperson said via email Tuesday. 
    • The spokesperson attributed about 4,000 of the visa revocations to law violations, such as alleged support for terrorism, assault, driving under the influence, and burglary. 
    • The Trump administration’s attacks on international students have contributed uncertainty to the higher education landscape. International enrollment could plummet by 150,000 students this fall, which would amount to a 15% overall decline, according to a recent analysis from NAFSA: Association of International Educators. 

    Dive Insight: 

    The State Department’s news, which was first reported by Fox News, suggests that the Trump administration is continuing to use an arsenal of tactics against international students, including revoking their visas over claims they support terrorist groups. 

    Those allegations have been at the heart of several high-profile cases where the Trump administration has sought to deport international students or green card holders. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, for instance, claimed that Tufts University doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk had engaged in activities “in support of Hamas” when the administration detained her and sought her deportation in March. 

    However, the State Department had determined days before she was detained that the government lacked evidence that she had made public statements in support of a terrorist group, The Washington Post reported in April. 

    In a May court ruling, a federal judge said the only specific reason DHS cited to justify Öztürk’s detention was her co-byline on a student newspaper op-ed. The piece criticized Tufts’ administration over its response to student government resolutions for the institution to divest from Israel and “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide.”

    Öztürk, who has not been charged with a crime, was released in May while her case proceeds. 

    The State Department spokesperson said the agency has revoked roughly 200 to 300 student visas over terrorism-related claims. The spokesperson said the actions were taken under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that bars people from receiving visas if they have engaged in or support terrorist activities. 

    The spokesperson did not immediately reply to questions asking for further details about the terrorism-related allegations or whether the students who faced visa revocations were convicted of the alleged crimes. 

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration earlier this month over its use of the Immigration and Nationality Act to attempt to deport student visa holders. The complaint alleges that the federal government has infringed on students’ First Amendment and due process rights by using the statute to target their speech. 

    The Trump administration has taken other actions to tighten international student enrollment as well. For one, a State Department policy announced June 18 requires student visa applicants to make their social media accounts public so government agents can review them.

    Consular officers have been asked to review the profiles for “hostile attitudes” toward the U.S. — a vague mandate that “creates significant discretionary power in visa determinations that will no doubt lead to inconsistencies in implementation,” according to a June post from NAFSA.

    Source link

  • Stanford says no to state student aid, yes to legacy and donor admissions

    Stanford says no to state student aid, yes to legacy and donor admissions

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

     Dive Brief:

    • Stanford University will continue to consider applicants’ connections to alumni and donors when accepting its incoming fall 2026 undergraduate class, despite a new California law meant to curb the practice.
    • Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law banning private nonprofit colleges that receive state-funded student aid from practicing legacy and donor admissions. Those who violate the rule, effective Sept. 1, must provide extensive demographic data on their newly enrolled students and the admissions rates of those with legacy or donor ties compared to those without.
    • Stanford will no longer accept funding from state student aid programs “in order to comply with recent California legislation,” it said last month. Instead, the university will use its own scholarship funding to make up the difference.

    Dive Insight:

    Like many highly selective colleges that offer legacy and donor admissions, Stanford accepts a disproportionate share of its undergraduates from that population. In fall 2023, 13.6% of the university’s admitted undergraduate class had ties to alumni or donors, according to institutional data. Stanford’s overall acceptance rate that year was just under 4%.

    Former California Assemblymember Phil Ting introduced the legislation banning legacy and donor admissions in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling striking down race-conscious admissions.

    But several amendments to the bill significantly defanged it. Ting’s initial language would have cut colleges that violated the ban off from access to the Cal Grant, a program providing financial aid to students from low- and middle-income families. 

    Instead, the version that passed the state house lacked monetary penalties for such institutions, opting for a name-and-shame approach. To that end, the California Department of Justice would publicly list such colleges on its website.

    While lawmakers framed the legislation as a ban, Stanford’s decision to continue using legacy and donor admissions demonstrates the limits of the law’s influence. By turning down state funding, the university can avoid the data reporting penalty and being listed on the state justice department’s website.

    Stanford students who previously received state aid won’t see a difference in the amount of financial aid they receive, and no action by them is required, the university said in a July 29 press release. 

    Admitted students whose family income is below $100,000 don’t pay tuition, room or board at Stanford. For households making less than $150,000 annually, students do not pay tuition. 

    Source link

  • Why FIRE is suing Secretary of State Rubio — and what our critics get wrong about noncitizens’ rights

    Why FIRE is suing Secretary of State Rubio — and what our critics get wrong about noncitizens’ rights

    FIRE is suing Secretary of State Marco Rubio to challenge two federal immigration law provisions that give him unchecked power to revoke legal immigrants’ visas and deport them just for speech protected by the First Amendment.

    And yes, we knew full-well we’d get blowback. You don’t exactly file a First Amendment lawsuit against a cabinet member without knowing it will be unpopular with parts of the American public.

    But for nonpartisan free speech defenders, that comes with the job.

    One of our plaintiffs is the student-run paper The Stanford Daily, where writers on student visas are turning down assignments related to the war in Gaza because they fear reporting on it could endanger their immigration status. We are also representing two legal noncitizens who engaged in pro-Palestinian speech and now fear being deported.

    Some of the questions we’ve received have been quite thoughtful. Others, however, are mistaken on the premises. So let’s clear the air.

    Happy to help, Obsequious Deacon. The First Amendment in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights prohibits the government from “abridging the freedom of speech,” without any distinction between citizens and aliens. If the U.S. government is acting against someone on U.S. soil, the Constitution applies.

    Remember, our liberties don’t spring from the kindness of government, but are inherent to each and every individual. The First Amendment presumes there is free speech, and is simply a restriction against government infringement of it. This recognition is what makes the American experiment exceptional and worth defending.

    This has been firmly established by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases. In Bridges v. Wixon (1945), the Court made clear that under the protection of the First Amendment, “Freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country.”

    Or take it from Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who famously disagreed on a lot! Here they discuss how even immigrants not here legally (which isn’t the case in this lawsuit, where the plaintiffs are here on visas) enjoy the protection of the First Amendment.

    Additionally, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the Court said the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to “all persons” in the country, not just citizens. In Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Court struck down a Texas law that denied public education to undocumented children, explaining that undocumented immigrants are still “persons” under the Constitution.

    The same goes for due-process protections. In Wong Wing v. United States (1896), the Court ruled that noncitizens accused of crimes are entitled to Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections, including due process and the right to a jury trial. And in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) and Sessions v. Dimaya (2018), the Court has since affirmed that due process applies to everyone in the United States, including noncitizens.

    E_Strobel X post

    We’ve never been conservative, liberal, or any other political label. We’re nonpartisan defenders of the First Amendment.

    Before we expanded our mission to defend free speech everywhere, we focused on college campuses where censorship, in recent decades, has overwhelmingly come from the left of the speaker. As a result, we often found ourselves challenging liberal administrators and defending the rights of conservative and moderate students, professors, and speakers. But we don’t care about the viewpoint involved. FIRE’s motto is, “If it’s protected, we’ll defend it.”

    As for the claim that we support Hamas, defending someone’s right to speak is not the same as endorsing what they say. Defending the speech of ideological allies and opponents is the foundation of any principled defense of free expression.

    Danster X post

    No. The terms “lawful” and “illegal” are opposites, of course. The “lawfully present noncitizens” mentioned first are legally allowed to be in the country while the “illegal aliens,” by definition, are not. That said, the First Amendment applies to everyone on U.S. soil. This is America, and you shouldn’t have to prove your citizenship before offering an opinion. 

    Think of it this way, would you be comfortable if a Democratic administration deported Canadian Jordan Peterson for his speech or a European student whose Ph.D. research concentrated on proving the Wuhan lab leak theory of Covid’s origins? We hope not.

    Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar X post

    The censorship of noncitizens affects Americans, too. If international students and green-card holders have to censor themselves out of fear, we stand to lose many ideas as a result. Should John Oliver have been forced to censor his criticism of the Iraq War on The Daily Show before he became a U.S. citizen? Should British politician Nigel Farage have been prohibited from criticizing Joe Biden during last year’s Republican National Convention? Of course not, and Americans interested in hearing their perspectives would have been all the worse for it. 

    If you’re having a conversation with someone, you deserve to hear their full opinion, not one sanitized to avoid retaliation from government censors. And if the current administration’s actions don’t worry you, just imagine the other side wielding the same power.

    tedfrank X post

    Bear in mind our lawsuit and this discussion are not about admitting noncitizens, the focus is throwing people who are already here legally out of the country for protected speech. As our preliminary injunction brief explained (check out footnote 7), the law has long distinguished the discretion afforded in determining whom to allow into the country from permissible considerations when attempting to deport someone legally here. Our client The Stanford Daily is suing Rubio because its noncitizen student writers are afraid to practice basic journalism for fear they could be deported. That’s not very American.

    Another problem here is there is not exactly universal agreement on what constitutes “American values.” Quite the contrary, it’s frequently been misused to silence dissent, which is ironic because the most fundamental of American values is to protect dissent in what increasingly seems to be the uniquely American belief that all people should be free to fully speak their minds.

    Source link