Tag: Targets

  • DOJ targets college access for undocumented students in 6th lawsuit

    DOJ targets college access for undocumented students in 6th lawsuit

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Justice has sued six states over laws that allow in-state tuition rates and scholarships for students regardless of their immigration status. The latest legal challenge was filed Thursday against California for its “California Dream Act.”
    • The lawsuit seeks to enjoin California laws that allow state residents to receive in-state tuition regardless of immigration status. The lawsuits — also filed against Minnesota, Texas, Kentucky, Illinois and Oklahoma — could impact tuition for dual enrollment, adult education, and career and technical education training programs. 
    • “Federal law prohibits aliens illegally present in the United States from receiving in-state tuition benefits that are denied to out-of-state U.S. citizens,” the Justice Department said in its lawsuit, which is challenging the states under the supremacy clause. “There are no exceptions.” 

    Dive Insight:

    The lawsuits come in light of a February executive order prohibiting federal resources for undocumented immigrants and as the U.S. Department of Education has implemented the order to restrict education-related programs. 

    As part of those restrictions, which were part of a coordinated effort across agencies, students could be required to undergo a citizenship and immigration status check to qualify for tuition for dual enrollment and similar early college programs for high-schoolers. 

    According to the Trump administration, that’s “because those programs provide individualized payments or assistance beyond that of a basic public education.” 

    The administration’s implementation of the executive order also restricted Head Start, the federal early childhood education program meant to level the playing field for low-income families, to “American citizens.” That policy change was successfully challenged in court in multiple lawsuits and is currently on pause in states that sued the government.

    However, other program areas impacted by the Education Department’s enforcement of the order are still in effect in some places, including high school students’ eligibility for college-level and career courses.

    “California is illegally discriminating against American students and families by offering exclusive tuition benefits for non-citizens,” said U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi in a Thursday statement, adding that her department “will continue bringing litigation against California until the state ceases its flagrant disregard for federal law.”

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, however, called the DOJ’s efforts “meritless, politically motivated lawsuits.” 

    “Good luck, Trump,” said Marissa Saldivar, Newsom’s spokesperson, in an email to K-12 Dive. “We’ll see you in court.”

    The office maintains that its tuition exemption applies to all residents who meet the criteria, regardless of where they were born, and it is not discriminating against U.S. citizens. 

    Out of the states sued so far, Texas and Oklahoma have complied, with Texas suddenly ending a 24-year-old law within hours of the Justice Department filing a lawsuit in June. 

    Prior to the Justice Department’s lawsuits, 25 states and the District of Columbia allowed in-state tuition for undocumented students, according to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal, which tracks the issue. That number has fallen to 22 in addition to Washington, D.C.

    There are an estimated 620,000 undocumented K-12 students in the United States, with most states home to thousands of such students, according to 2021 data from Fwd.us. 

    According to federal data, nearly 2.5 million high school students were enrolled in at least one dual enrollment course from a college or university in 2022-23.

    Source link

  • Texas targets antifa because Trump said so, I guess

    Texas targets antifa because Trump said so, I guess

    Last week, after President Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memo that targeted groups for heightened federal security based on their ideologies, I wrote:

    A missive from the most powerful man in the world carries so much force that it is, inevitably, a blunt instrument. When the president uses his pen to take aim at anything, it will cause a chilling effect. […] What will the overreactions to this new memo look like?

    Enter Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who issued a press release on October 7 announcing that his office, “building on President Trump’s bold actions,” had “launched undercover investigations into various groups affiliated with left-wing political violence known to be operating in Texas.”

    The release gives three examples of the kind of violence Texas is looking to root out: A shooting at an ICE facility in Dallas, a shooting at an ICE facility in Alvarado, and the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Of those three incidents, two of the attackers — Kirk’s assassin and the Dallas shooter — appear to have been working alone, at least as far as anyone knows today. 

    The Alvarado shooting, which has already led to at least 15 arrests, clearly seems to have involved a coordinated group. Indeed, infiltrating that group might have prevented the attack, which would be a good reason to infiltrate such groups. But that’s not what the press release announces.

    Instead, the attorney general’s announcement shares the same problem as Trump’s memo. Namely, it focuses on targeting an ideology rather than an action. It’s not unlawful to identify as antifa because we don’t criminalize ideologies in this country, for good reason. Freedom means very little if it doesn’t encompass the freedom to hold the ideas many of us believe to be wrong.

    If Texas law enforcement tries to infiltrate every group that identifies as antifa-adjacent, it’s going to be infiltrating a lot of knitting circles, vegan clubs, and faculty groups (including a FIRE client), the vast majority of which would catch the vapors if forced to watch a video of violence, let alone contemplate performing it with their own hands. 

    And even if they had the manpower, it would still be unlawful to target these groups simply for their beliefs. So presumably, law enforcement is going to narrow its scope to focus on a particular kind of antifa-aligned group — the kind that is actively planning to commit violent acts.

    But if law enforcement is capable of identifying which groups want to commit violent acts, then why bring ideology into it?

    The legendary and well-respected law enforcement agencies in the state of Texas would, I am sure, try to stop a far-right terror attack just as soon as they would a far-left terror attack. So what’s the point of targeting an ideology in this press release? 

    It makes the actions that follow constitutionally suspect by suggesting an unconstitutional motive: the targeting of political opponents. There’s no good reason to do it and a really good reason not to do it: If a group is targeted unlawfully, the evidence might be inadmissible, if it is, in fact, engaged in criminal activity.

    The only reason to bring ideology into it, as far as I can tell, is the inspiration of the president’s memo. A blunt instrument, indeed.

    Source link

  • Trump Targets Nevada at Reno’s Undocumented Student Supports

    Trump Targets Nevada at Reno’s Undocumented Student Supports

    Brian Sandoval, former Republican governor and president of University of Nevada at Reno, is standing up for the university’s undocumented student support program, despite threats of an investigation from the federal government.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Cheriss May/NurPhoto/Getty Images | Brycia James/iStock/Getty Images 

    Centers and programs for undocumented students are caught in a politically precarious moment after the Department of Justice called for an investigation of the University of Nevada at Reno’s undocumented student services. Immigrant students’ advocates say the move marks an escalation in the Trump administration’s ongoing crackdown on higher ed benefits for these students. And they worry campus programs supporting undocumented students might pre-emptively scale back or close altogether.

    In a letter late last month, DOJ officials directed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to investigate the Nevada university over UndocuPack, its support program for undocumented students.

    According to the letter, the DOJ had received reports of the university’s “efforts to assist illegal immigrants” by providing referrals to on- and off-campus resources, student aid, and academic and career support, including helping students find “career opportunities that do not require applicants to provide a Social Security Number.”

    “We are referring this matter to the Department of Education to investigate whether UNR is using taxpayer funds [to] subsidize or promote illegal immigration,” the letter read.

    The U.S. Department of Education did not respond to a request for comment; Inside Higher Ed received an automatic out-of-office message citing the government shutdown.

    But UNR is pushing back. Brian Sandoval, a former Republican governor of Nevada and the university’s first Hispanic president, responded with a forceful defense of the program.

    He stressed to students and staff that the UndocuPack program offers supports to all students, regardless of citizenship status, and uses no federal funds. He also emphasized that several state-funded scholarships don’t take immigration or residency status into account; the university doesn’t dole out state or federal aid to anyone ineligible.

    “The University has remained in compliance with federal and state law, as well as the Nevada and United States Constitutions regarding adherence to federal and state eligibility requirements for undocumented students for federal aid and scholarships,” Sandoval wrote. “In addition, we have made good, and will continue to make good on our commitment in ensuring a respectful, supportive, and welcoming environment on our campus where all our students have access to the tools they need for success.”

    He said the university plans to respond to the proposed investigation “through the appropriate legal channels.”

    A ‘Test Case’

    The threat to UNR brings fresh worries for undocumented students’ advocates, who say it’s the latest in a string of federal efforts to curb public higher ed benefits for such students.

    The Justice Department has already sued five states over policies allowing undocumented students to pay in-state tuition, successfully quashing state laws in Texas and Oklahoma after their attorneys general swiftly sided with the federal government. Over the summer, the Education Department announced it would investigate five universities for offering scholarships intended for undocumented students, claiming such programs violated civil rights law. The department also ended Clinton-era guidance that allowed undocumented students to participate in adult and career and technical education programs in response to Trump’s February executive order demanding that “no taxpayer-funded benefits go to unqualified aliens.”

    Diego Sánchez, director of policy and strategy at the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, said going after UNR’s UndocuPack program is “part of a broader effort by the administration to intimidate colleges and universities that seek to serve undocumented students.” But it also takes the campaign a step further, “targeting any form of campus support for undocumented students,” including academic and career services. “It’s definitely a pattern of escalating attacks via different avenues of law.”

    The DOJ’s letter cites the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which bars undocumented immigrants from many public benefits, but Sánchez maintains that “no court has ever interpreted PRWORA to bar universities from offering support offices, mentoring resource centers for undocumented students.”

    Those kinds of supports for undocumented students exist at colleges and universities across the country. A 2020 study found at least 59 undocumented student resource centers on campuses nationwide, mostly in California but also in other states including Arizona, Colorado, Florida, New Jersey, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Washington.

    Sánchez worries that colleges and universities could modify or scrap perfectly lawful programs out of fear after seeing the DOJ chide UNR for such common supports. He also expects the Trump administration to target more programs like UndocuPack.

    UNR feels like “a test case,” he said.

    Gaby Pacheco, president and CEO of TheDream.US, a scholarship provider for undocumented students, said other colleges and universities with undocumented student supports are already weighing what to do in response to the developments in Nevada.

    “Do we duck and hide and lay low so that we don’t get picked on, or do we stand together with others and potentially become a target of this? It’s a question that a lot of people and institutions … are asking themselves,” Pacheco said.

    She worries canceling or minimizing undocumented student support programs will send those students a message—“that they don’t belong.” And she doesn’t believe trying to lie low or scale back programs will deflect federal attention.

    “This is just month nine into this administration. We still have a full three more years to go,” she said. And the administration seems like it plans to “continue full force until, in essence, there are no policies left where undocumented students have access to higher education.”

    Source link

  • Trump’s ‘domestic terrorism’ memo chillingly targets people by ideology

    Trump’s ‘domestic terrorism’ memo chillingly targets people by ideology

    On Thursday, the White House published a presidential memo — technically, a national security presidential memorandum — outlining its upcoming efforts to combat political violence.

    In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, a heightened attention to political violence makes sense. But this memo doesn’t focus on actual violence. It includes frequent references to constitutionally protected speech and ideas. 

    While there are quite a few pieces of this order that set off alarm bells, a few of the phrases struck me as especially troubling. Here they are. 

    ‘anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity’

    The memo says: 

    There are common recurrent motivations and indicia uniting this pattern of violent and terroristic activities under the umbrella of self-described “anti-fascism.” [ . . . ] Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.

    This is the most troubling passage in the memo, and there’s stiff competition for that title. This is the White House directly identifying beliefs, pointing the finger at them, and saying, “These are the suspicious people we need to watch.” In America, we shouldn’t target people for their ideologies. We should target them for their actions, full stop. 

    Recent Democratic administrations have engaged in the same guilt-by-association tactics. During the Obama administration, the IRS targeted nonprofit groups with the words “Tea Party” or “Patriots” in their names, identifying groups by ideology and punishing them by subjecting them to extra processes. And its explanation was that this was just a “shortcut” — other organizations with similar profiles had violated IRS rules, so they jumped to targeting groups that used similar words.

    In 2023, the FBI distributed an internal memo linking “ethnically motivated violent extremists” to traditional Catholic ideology, a call for viewpoint-based targeting that was only exposed by a whistleblower and oversight from Congress. In 2022, an internal FBI memo linked the Gadsden flag and other patriotic symbols to violent extremism. And while such links do exist, and it makes sense for law enforcement to identify them, it also risks sweeping up ordinary Americans.

    A man carries a Gadsden flag at a Proud Boys rally in Portland, Oregon, 2019.

    It may well be that some people who engage in politically motivated violence have anti-American beliefs, oppose the traditional family, or dislike organized religion. They should be prosecuted. And if there’s evidence of conspiracy or concrete steps toward violence, that may warrant an investigation. But we cannot start investigating other people simply because they happen to share those beliefs. Doing so would open the door to investigations of any political movement or ideology if any one of its adherents happened to engage in violence. 

    ‘…designation as a ‘domestic terrorist organization’’

    The memo also says:

    [T]he Attorney General may recommend that any group or entity whose members are engaged in activities meeting the definition of “domestic terrorism” in 18 U.S.C. 2331(5) merits designation as a “domestic terrorist organization.”

    Designating something a domestic terrorist organization sounds like a parallel to the process we use for identifying foreign terrorist organizations (FTO). That process was created by Congress in a statute. Being designated as an FTO triggers a number of legal effects, enabling the government to seize assets, revoke visas, bar entry of non-citizens, and prosecute people who provide any direct help to the organization. Congress has the ability to block or revoke FTO designation, and organizations themselves are entitled to judicial review of the decision to include them on a list.

    There is no such process for designating a domestic terrorist organization. In fact, the “domestic terrorist organization” definition proposed here has no legal safeguards and no clear significance. It’s completely made up. It seems an organization so designated will receive extra scrutiny from the federal government until it pleases the attorney general to remove them from the list. Donors, speakers, employees, and members of these organizations will all have their speech chilled for as long as the executive branch sees fit. 

    It’s hard not to compare this to the Hollywood blacklist during McCarthyism. There were, in fact, real Russian spies elsewhere in America, many of them motivated by their ideological commitment to communism. Some of them were passing nuclear secrets to our rival in the middle of a nuclear arms race, the stakes of which were, potentially, catastrophic beyond all human imagination. Many people on the blacklist did have ties to communism or communist sympathies, as well. But putting people on a list because the government didn’t like their politics violated the freedoms we claimed to be protecting. 

    ‘…politically motivated terrorist acts such as organized doxing…’

    “Organized doxing” is a strange phrase. 

    Doxing (or doxxing) is generally defined as publishing private information that makes someone online personally identifiable. It’s also legal in most places, as long as the information was lawfully obtained and isn’t otherwise part of harassment or incitement efforts. Whether you think that’s bad or not, I don’t know that organizing the effort makes it worse. If someone posts your personal information online, your first question isn’t likely to be, “How many people were involved and what was their political purpose?”

    However distasteful it might be in context, doxing is protected speech unless it violates some other existing law. After all, doxing describes much of the basic activity of news media, where otherwise unknown information is found and published, and frequently, that information is personally identifiable. That’s especially true when the “doxing” the government is upset about is information related to public employees in the course of their duties, such as the location of ICE agents.

    A missive from the most powerful man in the world carries so much force that it is, inevitably, a blunt instrument. When the president uses his pen to take aim at anything, it will cause a chilling effect.

    The administration itself has arguably been encouraging coordinated doxing efforts to identify people who said cruel things in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. When the vice president calls on the public to contact the employers of people who made unkind statements, and there have been groups soliciting submissions of those statements to catalog them, it would take exceptional care on the part of any future participants to avoid their efforts turning into doxing. 

    If organized doxing is a politically motivated terrorist act when an NGO encourages it, but it’s legal when the White House encourages it, the current administration should remember that it will be leaving that loaded gun on the desk of the next president — who may define “permissible doxing” much differently. 

    ‘Investigate institutional and individual funders, and officers and employees of organizations…’

    The memo directs that the National Joint Terrorism Task Force and its local offices shall investigate “institutional and individual funders, and officers and employees of organizations, that are responsible for, sponsor, or otherwise aid and abet the principal actors engaging in” political violence, intimidation, or obstruction of the rule of law. 

    To aid or abet criminal conduct requires knowledge of the conduct. To the extent officers and employees of organizations are knowingly breaking the law, I’d like to think that law enforcement is investigating them anyway. It’s been a few decades since I took criminal law, but I’m pretty sure “investigate people who know they’re breaking the law” was on the first page of the outline. Same with people who are “responsible for” it. 

    So what this memo is adding, then, is to investigate “institutional and individual funders” who “sponsor” the organizations that aid the principal actors engaged in political violence. That reading is also reflected in a call for the use of financial surveillance tools. It’s also consistent with a Justice Department push to investigate a group tied to billionaire investor and Democratic megadonor George Soros.

    If there is evidence that a donor was knowingly funding violence, they should be investigated, but the administration hasn’t actually shown such evidence. They simply assert there is a vast conspiracy on the left — going all the way up to its highest echelons — to fund and foment political violence, and so a sprawling investigation of the president’s ideological and political opponents is justified. 

    We have already seen orders like this get misused

    A missive from the most powerful man in the world carries so much force that it is, inevitably, a blunt instrument. When the president uses his pen to take aim at anything, it will cause a chilling effect.

    For example, when President Trump issued an executive order on gender ideology that prohibited federal funding to programs that suggest gender is a spectrum, Texas A&M cancelled an annual drag show and the National Endowment for the Arts reviewed applications for their consistency with the order. Neither of these outcomes were obvious on the face of the order. 

    What will the overreactions to this new memo look like? Donors ending their support because they don’t want to risk an investigation? Groups being denied bank loans or leases because they’re on a government list with no way to appeal that determination? Activists going underground because they want to challenge an orthodoxy, hiding their opinions from the places where they would otherwise be challenged in the marketplace of ideas? 

    If this is the plan to save American values, what’s the plan to destroy them look like?

    Source link

  • Texas A&M President Steps Down After Political Campaign Targets Academic Freedom

    Texas A&M President Steps Down After Political Campaign Targets Academic Freedom

    Texas A&M University President Dr. Mark A. Welsh III announced his resignation Thursday following intense political pressure from state Republican leaders over a viral confrontation involving gender content in a children’s literature course—the latest in a series of incidents that underscore the mounting challenges facing academic freedom and diversity efforts at public universities across Texas.

    Welsh’s departure came just over a week after state Rep. Brian Harrison amplified a video on social media showing a student confronting Professor Melissa McCoul about course content. Despite initially defending McCoul’s academic freedom, Welsh terminated the professor the following day under pressure from Harrison and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.

    The incident represents part of a broader Republican-led campaign to exert political control over university curricula, faculty hiring, and campus speech—efforts that education advocates warn are undermining the foundational principles of higher education.

    Welsh’s tenure, which began in 2023, was marked by repeated clashes with state political leaders over diversity and inclusion initiatives. In January, Gov. Greg Abbott threatened Welsh’s position after the university’s business school planned to participate in a conference aimed at recruiting Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous graduate students. Under pressure, Welsh withdrew the university from the conference entirely.

    The pattern reflects what faculty and higher education experts describe as an escalating assault on academic autonomy.

    Despite strong support from faculty and students, Welsh’s position became untenable under sustained political attack. On last Wednesday, the university’s Executive Committee of Distinguished Professors—composed of 12 faculty members holding the institution’s highest academic honor—sent a letter urging regents to retain Welsh.

    “All members of this Committee write this letter collectively to strongly urge you to retain President Mark Welsh in the wake of recent events,” the faculty letter stated.

    Student leaders also rallied behind Welsh, with dozens of current and former student government representatives praising his “steadfast love and stewardship for our University” and expressing “faith and confidence in his leadership.”

    However, these expressions of campus support proved insufficient against external political pressure.

    Welch’s predecessor, M. Katherine Banks, had resigned following the botched hiring of journalism professor Kathleen McElroy, whose employment offer was undermined after regents expressed concerns about her work on diversity, equity, and inclusion.

     

     

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : College Prospects, College Targets

    Higher Education Inquirer : College Prospects, College Targets

    In the old American dreambook, a “college prospect” was a young person with ambition and promise—a student looking for a campus where they could grow intellectually, socially, and economically. But in today’s reality, “prospect” is an industry term, a sales category. In enrollment management suites across the country, prospective students aren’t just applicants; they’re targets.

    [Image from Brown University, August 2025)

    Higher education—whether elite, public, or for-profit—now runs on sophisticated marketing pipelines. The same predictive analytics used by corporations, political campaigns, and even law enforcement are deployed to track, segment, and convert students into paying customers. Colleges buy and sell student data from standardized test companies, online lead generators, and high school surveys. They follow “prospects” through their clicks, their campus visits, their FAFSA submissions—nudging them toward a deposit with personalized emails, algorithmically timed text messages, and calculated financial aid offers.

    This is not about education first. It’s about yield rates, tuition revenue, and net tuition per student. For working-class families, first-generation students, and those from marginalized backgrounds, this targeting can be especially dangerous. The glossy brochures and “student success” slogans conceal the hard realities: inflated tuition, debt burdens that can last decades, and career outcomes far less rosy than advertised.

    The for-profit sector perfected this playbook. Schools like Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, and the Art Institutes honed high-pressure recruiting scripts, built massive lead databases, and saturated social media feeds with ads promising quick career training and big paydays. When many of these institutions collapsed under federal scrutiny, their tactics didn’t disappear—they spread. Today, public universities and elite private schools use their own version of the same system, dressed up in more respectable branding.

    At the top end of the prestige ladder, “targets” have a different profile. Elite schools scout “development prospects”—wealthy families whose applications are accompanied by the potential for multimillion-dollar gifts. The student is both a potential enrollee and a future donor pipeline. Recruitment here is less about financial aid and more about legacy admissions, networking dinners, and quiet tours with the president.

    What all this targeting has in common is an imbalance of information. Colleges know almost everything about their prospects—income bands, likely majors, ability to pay—while students and families often have only the marketing copy and a sticker price. In this environment, independent, transparent information is a rare form of defense.

    That’s where tools like TuitionFit and the CollegeViability app come in—not as recruitment aids, but as counterintelligence for families.

    • TuitionFit collects and shares real financial aid offers from students across the country. This allows families to see what schools are actually charging students with similar academic and financial profiles—not just the “average” cost schools advertise. By revealing the hidden discounting game, TuitionFit helps families avoid overpaying and resist the psychological pressure of “limited-time offers” from admissions officers.

    • The CollegeViability app compiles public financial data from the U.S. Department of Education and other sources to create an at-a-glance picture of an institution’s fiscal health. It tracks enrollment trends, tuition dependency, debt loads, and other risk factors—warning signs that a college might be on the verge of closing or slashing programs. Families who use it can see trouble coming long before the next headline about a sudden campus shutdown.

    These are not small benefits. Every year, thousands of students are lured into institutions that overpromise and underdeliver. Some are blindsided by mid-program closures. Others graduate into underemployment with six figures of debt. Without tools like TuitionFit and CollegeViability, many would walk into these situations blind.

    The troubling truth is that higher education’s recruitment machine treats students the same way a corporate sales funnel treats customers—and sometimes the way a military intelligence operation treats enemy assets. Prospects are acquired, qualified, engaged, and converted. They are ranked by “propensity to enroll,” courted by carefully timed contact, and celebrated in quarterly revenue reports.

    The people making the targeting decisions rarely bear the costs of a bad outcome. If a student drops out with debt and no degree, it’s a personal tragedy, not a liability on the college’s balance sheet. If a school shutters with no warning, students and their families are left scrambling while administrators move on to new posts elsewhere.

    College should be more than a precision-marketed capture. It should be a transparent, good-faith exchange where both sides have access to the same essential facts. Right now, that balance doesn’t exist—and the gap is being exploited.

    Families who want to survive the recruitment gauntlet must treat it for what it is: a sales process backed by data analytics, designed to maximize institutional revenue, not student outcomes. That means using every independent resource available, asking hard questions, and refusing to be rushed into decisions.

    In the end, the difference between being a college prospect and a college target might be whether you’re armed with real information—or just hope.

    Sources:

    • The Century Foundation, College Admissions and the Business of Enrollment Management

    • U.S. Senate HELP Committee, For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success

    • The Hechinger Report, How Colleges Use Big Data to Target Students

    • TuitionFit, About

    • CollegeViability, Institutional Health Indicators

    Source link

  • Justice Department targets ‘unlawful’ DEI in hiring, training

    Justice Department targets ‘unlawful’ DEI in hiring, training

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

    The U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday released a sweeping guidance document that could impact school district hiring and training practices, as well as the programming available to students. 

    In some situations, districts could be exposed to legal liability by asking job applicants how their “cultural background informs their teaching,” using recruitment strategies targeting candidates from specific geographic areas or racial backgrounds, and asking job candidates to describe how they overcame obstacles, according to the memo from U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi. 

    Such diversity, equity and inclusion practices could amount to “illegal discrimination,” said Bondi in a statement on Wednesday. “This guidance will ensure we are serving the American people and not ideological agendas.” 

    The DOJ memo contains examples of practices it lists as “unlawful” and says could lead to federal funding being revoked, as well as a list of recommendations, which it says are not mandatory, to avoid “legal pitfalls.”

    The guidance issued to all federal agencies also says the following actions could expose federally funded institutions, including school districts,to legal liability based on race, ethnicity or sex-based discrimination: 

    • Providing teacher training that “all white people are inherently privileged” or training on “toxic masculinity.” 
    • Providing areas, such as lounges, that are primarily meant to provide “safe spaces” for traditionally underserved groups. 
    • Using demographically driven criteria “to increase participation by specific racial or sex-based groups” in programs and opportunities. 
    • Asking employees, including teachers, during training sessions to “confess” to personal biases or privileges based on a protected characteristic.

    Instead, school districts and other federally funded institutions should provide opportunities to all races and sex-based groups without regard to their protected characteristics or demographic goals, instead focusing on “universally applicable criteria” such as academic merit or financial hardship, the Justice Department memo said. 

    The guidance could impact districts’ efforts to make education more equitable, such as by diversifying the teacher pool through Black educator pipelines, training teachers on implicit and explicit biases, and creating academic or enrichment programs to increase engagement from minority student groups. 

    The directive is in line with the Trump administration’s push to pare back diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, including through the U.S. Department of Education. In recent months, the Education Department has increasingly collaborated with the Department of Justice to enforce civil rights laws, often seeking to protect Asian and White students. 

    The guidance from the Justice Department illustrates the major shift in how both agencies under President Donald Trump approach enforcement of civil rights laws, with officials now targeting programs that were often launched to fight systemic discrimination.

    In April, the Education Department announced a Title VI investigation into Chicago Public Schools over allegations from the conservative group Defending Education that the district’s “Black Students Success Plan” implemented in 2023-24 discriminated against students based on race. 

    In May, the department announced another Title VI investigation into Fairfax County Public Schools over a 2020 revision to the admissions policy at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. That policy dropped standardized testing requirements and instead used a holistic review process, which the Education Department said harms Asian American students. 

    In 2024-25, the highly selective magnet school was 61% Asian and 21% White, with Black and Hispanic students making up less than 10% of the student population each.

    The guidance from the Trump administration and the Education Department investigations come after concerns from civil rights groups that recent federal policy changes, along with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, would set back educational equity efforts even outside of race-conscious admissions. 

    Scholarship availability, teacher pipelines and student affinity groups were among the top areas beyond college access that advocates were concerned could be impacted in the wake of that ruling.

    Source link

  • Faculty Are Latest Targets of Higher Ed’s AI-ification

    Faculty Are Latest Targets of Higher Ed’s AI-ification

    LLM-enabled assignments will allow faculty to evaluate student interactions with a custom chat bot, Instructure says.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Dougall_Photography and gazanfer/iStock/Getty Images

    Last week, Instructure, which owns the widely used learning management system Canvas, announced a partnership with OpenAI to integrate into the platform native AI tools and agents, including those that help with grading, scheduling, generating rubrics and summarizing discussion posts.

    The two companies, which have not disclosed the value of the deal, are also working together to embed large language models into Canvas through a feature called IgniteAI. It will work with an institution’s existing enterprise subscription to LLMs such as Anthropic’s Claude or OpenAI’s ChatGPT, allowing instructors to create custom LLM-enabled assignments. They’ll be able to tell the model how to interact with students—and even evaluate those interactions—and what it should look for to assess student learning. According to Instructure, any student information submitted through Canvas will remain private and won’t be shared with OpenAI.

    Steve Daly, CEO of Instructure, touted Canvas’s AI push as “a significant step forward for the education community as we continuously amplify the learning experience and improve student outcomes.” But many faculty aren’t convinced that integrating AI into every facet of teaching and learning is the answer to improving the function and value of higher education.

    “Our first job is to help faculty understand how students are using AI and how it’s changing the nature of thinking and work. The tools will be secondary,” said José Antonio Bowen, senior fellow at the American Association of Colleges and Universities and co-author of the book Teaching With AI: A Practical Guide to a New Era of Human Learning. “The LMS might make it easier, but giving people a couple of extra buttons isn’t going to substitute for training faculty to build AI into their assignments in the right way—where students use AI but are still learning.”

    The AI-ification of Canvas is just one of the latest examples of the technology’s infiltration of higher education amid predictions that the technology will reshape and shrink the job market for new college graduates.

    Earlier this year, the California State University system announced a partnership with a slate of tech companies—including Microsoft, OpenAI and Google—to give all students and faculty access to AI-powered tools, in part to equip students with the AI skills employers say they want. In April, Anthropic unveiled Claude for Education, which it designed specifically for college students. One day later, OpenAI gave college students free access to ChatGPT Plus through finals. Soon after, Ohio State University launched an initiative aimed at making every graduate AI “fluent” by 2029. And this week, OpenAI released Study Mode, a version of ChatGPT designed for college students that acts as a tutor rather than an answer generator.

    Faculty Unsurprised, Skeptical

    Few faculty were surprised by the Canvas-OpenAI partnership announcement, though many are reserving judgment until they see how the first year of using it works in practice.

    “It was only a matter of time before something like this happened with one of the major learning management systems,” said Derek Bruff, associate director of the Center for Teaching Excellence at the University of Virginia. “Some of the use cases they’ve talked about make sense to me and others make less sense.”

    Having Canvas provide a summary of students’ discussion posts could be a helpful time saver, especially for a larger class, though it doesn’t seem like “a game-changer,” he said. But he’s less sure that using the chat bot to evaluate student interactions, as Instructure suggests, could provide faculty with useful learning metrics.

    “If students know that their interactions with the chat bot are going to be evaluated by the chat bot and then perhaps scored and graded by the instructor, now you’re in a testing environment and student behavior is going to change,” Bruff said. “You’re not going to get the same kind of insight into student questions or perspective, because they’re going to self-censor.”

    Faculty, including the thousands who work for the more than 40 percent of higher ed institutions across North America that use Canvas, will have the option to use some or all of these new tools, which Instructure says it won’t charge extra for.

    Those who choose to use it run the risk of “digital reification,” or “locking faculty and students into particular tools and systems that may not be the best fit for their educational goals,” Kathryn Conrad, an English professor at the University of Kansas who researches culture and technology, said in an email. “What works best for student learning is challenge, care and attention from human teachers. Drivers from outside of education are pushing yet another technological solution. We need investment in people.”

    But as higher education budgets keep shrinking, faculty workloads are growing—and so is the temptation to use AI to help alleviate it.

    “I worry about the people who are living out of their car, teaching at three institutions, trying to make ends meet. Why wouldn’t they take advantage of a system like Canvas to help with their grading?” said Lew Ludwig, a math professor and former director of the Center for Learning and Teaching at Denison University. “All of a sudden AI is going to be grading the work if we’re not careful.”

    But that realization could push students to rely more and more on generative AI to complete their coursework without fully grasping the material—and give cash-strapped administrators another justification to increase faculty workloads. Such scenarios run the risk of further devaluing a higher education system that’s already facing scrutiny from lawmakers and consumers.

    “Students are starting to graduate into a new economy, where just having a piece of paper hanging on their wall isn’t going to mean as much anymore, especially if they leaned heavily on AI to achieve that piece of paper,” Ludwig said. “We have to make sure our assignments are impactful and meaningful and that our students understand why in some instances we may not want them to use AI.”

    Despite Instructure’s claims that this new version of Canvas will enhance the learning process in the age of AI, a recent survey by the American Association of University Professors shows that most faculty don’t believe AI tools are making their jobs easier; 69 percent said it hurts student success.

    Britt Paris, co-author of the report and associate professor of library and information science at Rutgers University, said she doesn’t expect that to change with the introduction of an AI-powered LMS.

    “In the history of educational technology there has never been an instance of large-scale … data-intensive corporate learning infrastructure that has met the needs of learners,” she said. “This is because people are nuanced in how they learn. The goal with these technologies is to make money, not [to] support people’s unique learning, teaching and working styles.”

    Source link

  • New Congressional Bill Targets College Sports Funding, Could Impact Campus Diversity Programs

    New Congressional Bill Targets College Sports Funding, Could Impact Campus Diversity Programs

    A bipartisan House bill introduced last Thursday aims to reshape college athletics by limiting how universities can fund sports programs while offering the NCAA limited antitrust protections—changes that could significantly affect institutional priorities and student access.

    The SCORE Act, backed by seven Republicans and two Democrats, faces uncertain prospects despite bipartisan support. While the House appears receptive, the bill would require at least seven Democratic votes in the Senate, where passage remains unlikely.

    The legislation addresses three key NCAA priorities: antitrust protections, federal preemption of state name-image-likeness (NIL) laws, and provisions preventing student-athletes from becoming university employees. These changes come as colleges navigate the fallout from a $2.78 billion settlement requiring institutions to compensate athletes directly.

    The bill’s prohibition on using student fees to support athletics could force difficult budget decisions at universities nationwide. This restriction strikes at proposed funding mechanisms as schools scramble to find up to $20.5 million annually for athlete compensation.

    Several institutions have already announced fee increases that would be affected. Clemson University implemented a $150 per-semester “athletic fee” this fall, while Fresno State approved $495 in additional yearly fees, with half designated for athletics. Such fees disproportionately impact students from lower-income backgrounds who already face rising educational costs.

    The financial pressures extend beyond student fees. Tennessee has introduced “talent fees” for season-ticket holders, Arkansas has raised concession prices, and numerous schools are seeking increased booster contributions—all reflecting the growing financial demands of competitive athletics.

    The legislation includes provisions aimed at protecting Olympic sports programs, which some fear could be eliminated as resources shift toward revenue-generating football and basketball. Schools with coaches earning over $250,000 would be required to offer at least 16 sports programs, mirroring existing NCAA Division I FBS requirements.

    This mandate could help preserve opportunities for student-athletes in traditionally underrepresented sports, many of which provide crucial scholarship pathways for diverse student populations. However, critics question whether this protection is sufficient given the magnitude of financial pressures facing athletic departments.

    The bill’s broader implications for Title IX compliance and gender equity in athletics remain unclear, as institutions balance new athlete compensation requirements with existing obligations to provide equal opportunities for male and female student-athletes.

     

    Source link

  • After Texas, DOJ Targets Kentucky’s In-State Tuition Policy

    After Texas, DOJ Targets Kentucky’s In-State Tuition Policy

    Undocumented students and immigrant advocacy organizations are still reeling after Texas, earlier this month, swiftly sided with a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit against its policy of permitting in-state tuition for undocumented students. The two-decade-old law, which Republican state lawmakers had recently tried and failed to quash, was dismantled within a matter of hours in a move some critics called collusive.

    Now the DOJ is employing the same strategy all over again—this time in Kentucky. The department filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on Tuesday challenging the in-state tuition policy for undocumented students. The lawsuit, which names Democratic governor Andy Beshear, Commissioner of Education Robbie Fletcher and the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, takes issue with a policy that allows graduates of Kentucky high schools who live in the state, regardless of citizenship, to access in-state tuition benefits.

    “No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens,” U.S. attorney general Pamela Bondi said in a statement. “The Department of Justice just won on this exact issue in Texas, and we look forward to fighting in Kentucky to protect the rights of American citizens.”

    Beshear is trying to distance himself from the legal battle. Crystal Staley, communications director for the governor’s office, said in a statement that the office hasn’t been served with a lawsuit, nor did it receive advance notice or hold prior conversations with the department about the regulation. She emphasized that the in-state tuition policy was established by the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education more than a decade ago.

    “Under Kentucky law, CPE is independent, has sole authority to determine student residency requirements for the purposes of in-state tuition, and controls its own regulations,” Staley wrote. “The Governor has no authority to alter CPE’s regulations and should not be a party to the lawsuit.”

    The Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education also only became aware of the lawsuit Wednesday morning and reported that afternoon that it had not yet been served legal documents.

    “Our staff General Counsel is reviewing pertinent federal laws and state regulations at this time to determine next steps,” Melissa Young, the council’s communications senior fellow, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed.

    As of Wednesday evening, no new developments in the case had taken place, but Kentucky attorney general Russell Coleman, a Republican, indicated in a statement to Inside Higher Ed that his office planned to support the lawsuit.

    “Preserving in-state tuition for our citizens at the commonwealth’s premier public universities is important to fostering Kentuckians’ potential and encouraging a vibrant state economy,” Coleman said in the statement. “Our Office will support the Trump Administration’s efforts to uphold federal law in Kentucky.”

    As in Texas, a group of Republican lawmakers proposed legislation earlier this year to prevent noncitizens in Kentucky from qualifying as residents and accessing in-state tuition benefits. But the bill didn’t proceed further.

    The new lawsuit heightens fears among undocumented students’ advocates that the Trump administration could target in-state tuition policies across the country, which help undocumented students in 23 states and D.C. pay for college when they can’t access federal financial aid. Advocates also worry the Trump administration could continue to sue red states to secure policy wins desired by both Republican state lawmakers and the federal government. (In Kentucky, Republicans control the attorney general’s office and the State Legislature.)

    Monica Andrade, director of state policy and legal strategy at the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education, predicted after the Texas lawsuit, “This might only be the beginning, and there might be future actions that extend beyond Texas.”

    Now she worries she’s been proven right.

    Pushback in Texas

    The move in Kentucky comes as undocumented students and civil rights organizations are fighting back in Texas.

    The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, a Latino civil rights organization, filed a motion on behalf of undocumented students in Texas to intervene in the DOJ lawsuit. The motion argues that the speed at which Texas and the DOJ came to an agreement and the judge closed the case provided no opportunity for a hearing or for the public to weigh in.

    “Our federal courts are public agencies,” said Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel at MALDEF. “They’re supposed to undertake their work in the public eye. The two parties and the court did all of this behind closed doors in one afternoon, without setting a public hearing … That is a complete abuse of the judicial system.”

    “To come up with a consent judgment like that, they had to have been planning this for weeks,” he said. “Every Texan should be offended if something their legislators passed and then never repealed was so easily killed by the attorney general acting in collusion with the Department of Justice.”

    MALDEF is representing unnamed affected students, including three DACA recipients: a third-year biomedical science student at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley who is planning to pursue medical school, a student earning a master’s in higher education at University of Houston who was planning to apply to Ph.D. programs and a master’s student in clinical mental health counseling at the University of North Texas.

    “She cannot afford to pay out-of-state tuition and will likely be forced to drop out of her program,” the motion says of one student.

    The goal is for the student group to become a party in the lawsuit so that it can appeal the decision. Texas and the federal government have until early July to oppose MALDEF’s motion to intervene, but if the judge denies an intervention, MALDEF could appeal that decision as well.

    Andrade said that what MALDEF is doing could possibly be replicated in other states if the DOJ challenges more in-state tuition laws, though some states might face different challenges that require different approaches. For example, Republican lawmakers in Arizona included a provision in their House budget, approved June 12 by the House Appropriations Committee, that colleges can’t use public money to reduce tuition for noncitizens, The Arizona Capitol Times reported. Some cited the Texas lawsuit.

    The Presidents’ Alliance is in “close coordination with legal, with advocacy and institutional partners to explore—whether it’s immediate or longer-term—actions that we can take” to prepare for different kinds of attacks, Andrade said. “Folks in the states where we’re having conversations, their laws comport with federal law. But given everything that’s been going on, that doesn’t mean that folks should not be preparing for any type of challenge.”

    The organization is also trying to advise Texas undocumented students who are “scrambling,” in the absence of any state guidance to higher ed institutions as to when the tuition rate change goes into effect and to whom the shift applies. It’s unclear, for example, whether students with DACA or Temporary Protected Status are included.

    “We’re telling students to continue to take their classes and do not make any drastic changes based on this,” Andrade said.

    TheDream.US, a scholarship provider for undocumented students, is also gearing up to help Texas students find more affordable programs if they can’t pay their colleges’ out-of-state tuition prices. MALDEF predicted some students’ costs would increase up to 800 percent—in some cases, from $50 to $450 per credit hour.

    Gaby Pacheco, president and CEO of TheDream.US, said the organization is prioritizing helping students connect with online programs, because many live in Texas border towns, where commuting to a more distant college could require having to cross immigration control checkpoints.

    In the meantime, Texas institutions and students are embroiled in “confusion and uncertainty and chaos” as they await more information, she said.

    Daniel I. Morales, an associate professor of law and Dwight Olds Chair at University of Houston Law Center, said what happened in Texas is the latest example of a national trend: the “absolute erasure” of state and local issues in favor of the administration’s priorities.

    Morales said two decades ago, Texas’s in-state tuition policy was born out of Republican governor Rick Perry’s recognition of “the reality locally in Texas, that we have an enormous undocumented population that is enormously productive if given the opportunity to go to college,” which benefits the state economy. But now, state lawmakers fear risking their career trajectories if they don’t prioritize partisan national interests, he said.

    He doesn’t know what’s going to happen in Kentucky. But if it goes the way of Texas and the attorney general files a joint motion with the DOJ, civil rights organizations such as MALDEF would have to be the ones to fight it, with students as the plaintiffs, he said.

    “Students, if they don’t have the resources to pay out-of-state tuition, they don’t have the resources to litigate, either,” at least not on their own, he said. “There’s very little recourse.”

    Source link