Tag: threaten

  • How Federal Budget Cuts Threaten Small Colleges—and the Towns That Depend on Them – Edu Alliance Journal

    How Federal Budget Cuts Threaten Small Colleges—and the Towns That Depend on Them – Edu Alliance Journal

    May 19, 2025, by Dean Hoke: In my recent blog series and podcast, Small College America, I’ve highlighted the essential role small colleges play in the fabric of U.S. higher education. These institutions serve as academic homes to students who often desire alternatives to larger universities, and as cultural and economic anchors, especially in rural and small-town America, where, according to IPEDS, 324 private nonprofit colleges operate. Many are deeply embedded in the towns they serve, providing jobs, educational access, cultural life, and long-term economic opportunity.

    Unfortunately, a wave of proposed federal budget cuts may further severely compromise these institutions’ ability to function—and in some cases, survive. Without intervention, the ripple effects could devastate entire communities.

    Understanding the DOE and USDA Budget Cuts

    The proposed reductions to the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) budgets present a two-pronged threat to small colleges, particularly those in rural areas or serving low-income student populations.

    Department of Education (DOE)

    The most significant concerns center on proposed changes to Pell Grants, a vital financial resource for low-income students. One House proposal would redefine full-time enrollment from 12 to 15 credit hours per semester. If enacted, this change would reduce the average Pell Grant by approximately $1,479 for students taking 12 credits. Students enrolled less than half-time could become ineligible entirely.

    Additionally, the Federal Work-Study (FWS) and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG) programs face serious threats. The House Appropriations Subcommittee has proposed eliminating both programs, which together provide over $2 billion annually in aid to low-income students.

    Programs like TRIO and GEAR UP, which support first-generation, low-income, and underrepresented students, have been targeted in previous proposals; however, current budget drafts maintain level funding. Nonetheless, their future remains uncertain as negotiations continue.

    The Title III Strengthening Institutions Program, which funds academic support services, infrastructure, and student retention efforts at under-resourced colleges, received a proposed funding increase in the FY 2024 President’s Budget, though congressional appropriations may differ.

    Department of Agriculture (USDA)

    The USDA’s impact on small colleges, while less direct, is nonetheless critical. Discretionary funding was reduced by more than $380 million in FY 2024, reflecting a general pullback in rural investment.

    Programs like the Community Facilities Direct Loan & Grant Program, which supports broadband access, healthcare facilities, and community infrastructure, were level-funded at $2.8 billion. These investments often benefit rural colleges directly or indirectly by enhancing the communities in which they operate.

    While some funding has been maintained, the broader trend suggests tighter resources for rural development in the years ahead. For small colleges embedded in these communities, the consequences could be substantial: delayed infrastructure upgrades, reduced student access to services, and weakened town-gown partnerships.

    Why Small Colleges Are Particularly Vulnerable

    Small private nonprofit colleges—typically enrolling fewer than 3,000 students—operate on thin margins. Many are tuition-dependent, with over 80% of their operating revenue derived from tuition and fees. They lack the substantial endowments or large alumni donor bases that buoy more prominent institutions during hard times.

    What exacerbates their vulnerability is the student profile they serve. Small colleges disproportionately enroll Pell-eligible, first-generation, and minority students. Reductions in federal financial aid and student support programs have a direct impact on student enrollment and retention. If students can’t afford to enroll—or stay enrolled—colleges see revenue declines, leading to cuts in academic offerings, faculty, and student services.

    Additionally, small colleges are often located in areas experiencing population decline. The so-called “demographic cliff”—a projected 13% drop in the number of high school graduates from 2025 to 2041 will affect 38 states and is expected to hit rural and non-urban regions the hardest. This compounds the enrollment challenges many small colleges are already facing.

    Economic and Social Impact on Rural Towns

    The closure of a small college doesn’t just mean the loss of a school; it signifies a seismic shift in a community’s economic and social structure. Colleges often rank among the top employers in their towns. When a college closes, hundreds of jobs disappear—faculty, staff, groundskeepers, maintenance, food services, IT professionals, and more.

    Consider Mount Pleasant, Iowa, where the closure of Iowa Wesleyan University in 2023 cost the local economy an estimated $55 million annually. Businesses that relied on student and faculty patronage—restaurants, barbershops, bookstores, and even landlords—felt the immediate impact. Community organizations lost vital volunteers. Town officials were left scrambling to figure out what to do with a sprawling, empty campus in the heart of their city.

    Colleges also provide cultural enrichment that is often otherwise absent in small towns. Lectures, concerts, art exhibitions, and sporting events bring together diverse groups and add vibrancy to the local culture. Many offer healthcare clinics, counseling centers, or continuing education for adults—services that disappear with a campus closure.

    USDA investments in these communities are often tied to colleges, whether in the form of shared infrastructure, grant-funded development projects, or broadband expansions to support online learning. As these federal investments diminish, so too does a town’s ability to attract and retain both residents and employers.

    Real-Life Implications and Stories

    The headlines tell one story, but the real impact is felt in the lives of students, faculty, and the surrounding communities.

    Presentation College in Aberdeen, South Dakota, ceased operations on October 31, 2023, after citing unsustainable financial and enrollment challenges. Hundreds of students, many drawn to its affordability, rural location, and nursing programs, were forced to reconsider their futures. The college quickly arranged teach-out agreements with over 30 institutions, including Northern State University and St. Ambrose University, which offered pathways for students to complete their degrees. The Presentation Sisters, the founding order, are now seeking a buyer for the campus aligned with their values, while local officials explore transforming the site into a technical education hub to continue serving the community.

    Birmingham-Southern College in Alabama, a 168-year-old institution, closed its doors on May 31, 2024, after a $30 million state-backed loan request was ultimately rejected despite initial legislative support. The college had a $128 million annual economic impact on Birmingham and maintained partnerships with K–12 schools, correctional institutions, and nonprofits. The closure triggered the transfer of over 150 students to nearby colleges like Samford University, but left faculty, staff, and the broader community facing economic and cultural losses. A proposed sale of the campus to Miles College fell through, leaving the site’s future in limbo.

    Even college leaders who have weathered the past decade worry they’re nearing a breaking point. Rachel Burns of the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) has tracked dozens of recent closures and warns that many institutions remain at serious risk, despite their best efforts. “They just can’t rebound enrollment,” she says, noting that pandemic aid only temporarily masked deeper structural vulnerabilities.

    Potential Closures and Projections

    College closures are accelerating across the United States. According to the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO), 467 institutions closed between 2004 and 2020—over 20% of them private, nonprofit four-year colleges. Since 2020, at least 75 more nonprofit colleges have shut down, and many experts believe this pace is quickening.

    A 2023 analysis by EY-Parthenon warned that 1 in 10 four-year institutions—roughly 200 to 230 colleges—are currently in financial jeopardy. These schools are often small, private, rural, and tuition-dependent, serving large numbers of first-generation and Pell-eligible students. Even a modest drop of 5–10% in tuition revenue can be catastrophic for colleges already operating on razor-thin margins.

    Compounding the challenge, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia released a 2024 predictive model forecasting that as many as 80 additional colleges could close by 2034 under sustained enrollment decline driven by demographic shifts. This figure accounts for closures only—not mergers—and spans public, private nonprofit, and for-profit sectors.

    Layered onto these economic and demographic vulnerabilities are the potential impacts of proposed federal education funding cuts. The Trump administration’s FY 2026 budget blueprint once again targets student aid programs, proposing the elimination or severe reduction of subsidized student loans, TRIO, GEAR UP, Federal Work-Study, and the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (SEOG). Although similar proposals from Trump’s first term (FY 2018–2021) were rejected by Congress, the renewed push signals ongoing political pressure to curtail support for low-income and first-generation students.

    To assess the potential impact of these policy shifts, a policy stress test was applied to both the Philadelphia Fed model and the historical closure trend. The analysis suggests that if these cuts were enacted, an additional 50 to 70 closures could occur by 2034.

    • Philadelphia Fed model baseline: 80 projected closures
    • With policy cuts: Up to 130 closures
    • Historical average trend (2020–2024): ~14 closures/year
    • 10-year projection (status quo): ~140 closures
    • With policy cuts: Up to 210 closures

    In short, depending on the scenario, anywhere from 130 to 210 additional college closures may occur by 2034. Institutions most at risk are those that serve the very populations these federal programs are designed to support. Without intervention—through policy, partnerships, or funding—the number of closures could rise sharply in the years ahead.

    These scenario-based projections are summarized in the chart below.

    Why Should Congress Care

    According to the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), a private, nonprofit college or university is located in 395 of the 435 congressional districts. These institutions are not only centers of learning but also powerful economic engines that generate:

    1. $591.5 billion in national economic impact
    2. $77.6 billion in combined local, state, and federal tax revenue
    3. 3.4 million jobs supported or sustained
    4. 1.1 million people are directly employed in private nonprofit higher education
    5. 1.1 million graduates are entering the workforce each year

    As such, the fate of small private colleges is not just a higher education issue—it is a national economic and workforce development issue that should command bipartisan attention.

    Strategies for Resilience and Policy Recommendations

    There are clear, actionable strategies to reduce the risk of widespread college closures:

    • Consortium and shared governance models: Small colleges can boost efficiency and sustainability by sharing administrative functions, faculty, academic programs, technology infrastructure, and enrollment services. This allows institutions to reduce operational costs while maintaining their distinct missions and brands. In some cases, these arrangements evolve into formal mergers. An emerging example is the Coalition for the Common Good, a new model of mission-aligned institutions that maintain individual identities but operate under shared governance. This structure offers long-term financial stability without sacrificing institutional purpose or community impact.
    • Strategic partnerships: Collaborations with community colleges, online education providers, regional employers, and nonprofit organizations can expand reach, enhance curricular offerings, and improve student outcomes. These partnerships can support 2+2 transfer pipelines, workforce-aligned certificate programs, and hybrid learning models that meet the needs of adult learners and working professionals, often underserved by traditional residential colleges.
    • State action: States should establish stabilization grant programs and offer targeted incentive funding to support mergers, consortium participation, and regional collaboration. Policies that protect institutional access in rural and underserved areas are especially urgent, as closures can leave entire regions without viable higher education options. States can also play a role in convening institutions to plan for shared services and long-term viability.
    • Federal investment: Continued and expanded funding for Pell Grants, TRIO, SEOG, Title III and V, and USDA rural development programs is essential to sustaining the institutions that serve low-income, first-generation, and rural students. These investments should be treated as critical infrastructure, not discretionary spending, given their role in expanding educational equity, enhancing workforce readiness, and promoting rural economic development. Consistent federal support can help stabilize small colleges and enable long-term planning.

    College leaders, local governments, and community groups must advocate in unison. The conversation should move beyond institutional survival to one of community survival. As the saying goes, when a college dies, the town begins to die with it.

    Conclusion

    Small colleges are not expendable. They are vital threads in the educational, economic, and cultural fabric of America, especially in rural and underserved communities. The proposed federal budget cuts across the Departments of Education and Agriculture represent a direct threat not only to these institutions but to the communities that depend on them.

    If policymakers fail to act, the consequences will be widespread and enduring. The domino effect is real: reduced funding leads to fewer students, tighter budgets, staff layoffs, program cuts, and eventually, campus closures. And when those campuses close, entire towns are left to absorb the fallout—economically, socially, and spiritually.

    We have a choice. We can invest in the future of small colleges and the communities they anchor, or we can stand by as they vanish—along with the promise they hold for millions of students and the towns they call home.

    References

    • U.S. Department of Education, FY 2025 Budget Summary and Justifications
    • National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA), Analysis of Proposed Pell Grant and Campus-Based Aid Reductions
    • State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) and Higher Ed Dive, Data on College Closures and Institutional Viability Trends
    • Fitch Ratings, Reports on Financial Pressures in U.S. Higher Education Institutions
    • Iowa Public Radio and The Hechinger Report, Case Studies on Rural College Closures and Community Impact
    • Council for Opportunity in Education (COE), Statements and Data on TRIO Program Reach and Effectiveness
    • Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Predictive Modeling of U.S. College Closures (2024)
    • EY-Parthenon, 2023 Report on Financial Vulnerability Among Four-Year Institutions
    • U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Development and Community Facilities Loan & Grant Program Summaries
    • Interviews and commentary from institutional leaders, TRIO program directors, and SHEEO policy staff
    • Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Data on Enrollment, Institution Type, and Geographic Distribution

    Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean is the Executive Producer and co-host for the podcast series Small College America. 

    Source link

  • Revoking Harvard’s tax-exempt status will threaten all nonprofits

    Revoking Harvard’s tax-exempt status will threaten all nonprofits

    After several recent statements by President Trump suggesting that Harvard University should lose its tax-exempt status because of what he called “political, ideological, and terrorist inspired” ideas being expressed on the Cambridge campus, the IRS has reportedly begun to consider removing Harvard’s tax exemption. Coming on the heels of its recent freeze of over $2 billion in federal funding to Harvard, such a decision displays an alarming willingness to use the levers of government specifically to suppress dissenting political viewpoints in higher education.​

    In posts to TRUTH Social on April 15 and 16, Trump explained his reasoning for targeting Harvard’s tax exemption. In addition to “pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?’,” Trump opined that Harvard had “lost its way” by hiring former Mayors Bill de Blasio and Lori Lightfoot to teach classes, “hiring almost all woke, Radical Left, idiots,” and declining to fire former President Claudine Gay from her faculty as well as her leadership position after plagiarism allegations, and generally for Harvard being a “JOKE” that teaches “Hate and Stupidity” and is unworthy of federal funding.

    Using the IRS as a tool for political retribution undermines the agency’s impartiality and jeopardizes the foundational principle of equal justice under law.

    One need not consider the merits of these complaints to recognize that they are, at their core, complaints about the viewpoints expressed by Harvard as an institution and by individual members of its community. As such, targeting Harvard for these viewpoints is viewpoint discrimination prohibited by the First Amendment. As a unanimous Supreme Court reminded us just last year in NRA v. Vullo, “A government official can share her views freely and criticize particular beliefs, and she can do so forcefully in the hopes of persuading others to follow her lead. . . . What she cannot do, however, is use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.”

    Threatening to strip a university of its tax-exempt status based on its expression — or that of faculty, staff, or students — sets a dangerous precedent. The Internal Revenue Code grants tax-exempt status to educational institutions that operate for the public good, without engaging in substantial political or lobbying activities, and very broadly construes the notion of the public good precisely because it is not intended to serve as referee for the intense social and political debates key to politics in a liberal democracy. Past efforts to weaponize the agency against political opponents, from President Nixon’s desire to audit those on his “enemies list” to the targeting of conservative nonprofit groups for excessive scrutiny under President Obama, have been near-universally condemned. Using the IRS as a tool for political retribution undermines the agency’s impartiality and jeopardizes the foundational principle of equal justice under law.

    Many who support Trump set aside the president’s ideological justifications for removing Harvard’s tax-exempt status. They instead argue the targeting is justified because of the college’s alleged acts of discrimination, both with regard to allegations of anti-Semitism on its campus and the Supreme Court’s 2023 finding in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that its admissions program was racially discriminatory. They point to the Court’s 1983 decision in Bob Jones University v. United States, in which it upheld the IRS’s decision to strip that university’s tax exemption because of its rules banning interracial dating and marriage.

    However, the Court emphasized in that case that revoking tax-exempt status is a “sensitive” decision that should be made only when there is “no doubt” that an organization violates fundamental and longstanding federal policy, emphasizing policy agreement among all branches of government. Federal attention to Bob Jones University’s tax-exempt status spanned four different presidential administrations and left the public no reason to think the grounds for revocation were pretextual. Today, by contrast, the president is explicitly targeting a university specifically for its expression and ideological reasons.

    In the more than four decades since the Bob Jones decision, it appears that no college or university has ever faced the loss of their tax exempt status over race discrimination. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have instead addressed such allegations according to the regulations implementing Title VI, which require that the government first attempt to voluntarily resolve complaints and only allows resolution through financial penalties or “other means authorized by law” after those efforts have failed, followed by formal notice and a waiting period.

    FIRE staunchly opposes any governmental attempt to coerce educational institutions into ideological conformity. But the stakes here extend far beyond campus. Trump’s threat to revoke Harvard’s 501(c)(3) status doesn’t just endanger academic freedom — it sets a dangerous precedent for all nonprofits whose speech may fall out of favor with those in power. Institutions across the ideological and cultural spectrum may suddenly find themselves in the crosshairs, from the Heritage Foundation to the Center for American Progress, from Planned Parenthood to the National Right to Life Committee, from your local church to the animal shelter — and, yes, even FIRE.

    Turning the tax code into a weapon against disfavored viewpoints is a dangerous departure from our nation’s core values. President Trump and many in his administration have echoed this view over the years, and for good reason. They should not now abandon it on the altar of political expediency.

    Source link

  • Mental Health and Financial Barriers Threaten College Student Success (TimelyCare)

    Mental Health and Financial Barriers Threaten College Student Success (TimelyCare)

    Seven in 10 students have considered taking a break or dropping out.

    FORT WORTH, Texas, March 12, 2025
    /PRNewswire/ — Mental health struggles and financial pressures are
    jeopardizing college students’ ability to complete their education,
    according to a new study by TimelyCare, higher education’s most trusted virtual health and well-being provider,

    “Many students are slipping through the cracks due to unmet financial, academic, and emotional needs.”

    The
    survey, which gathered responses from 740 students attending two- and
    four-year colleges across the U.S., exposes significant barriers to
    student success and calls for specific action by educational
    institutions to address pressing concerns.

    Key Findings:

    Students at Risk of Stopping – More than half (53%) of current
    college and university students said they had considered taking a break
    from school, and 17% considered dropping out and not returning.

    Financial Strain – Nearly one-third (31%) of respondents cited
    financial strain as a primary reason for considering withdrawal.
    Additionally, a significant portion of students reported relying on a
    combination of financial aid, scholarships, and part-time or full-time
    work to cover costs.

    Success Barriers – An overwhelming 95% identified at least one
    obstacle impacting their success. Mental health (53%) and finances
    (49%) were the top challenges, followed by physical health (33%),
    academics (28%) and social belonging (26%).

    Gaps in Support Access – While 90% of students had used at
    least one school-provided resource such as academic advising, tutoring,
    or mental health counseling, issues like lack of awareness, inconvenient
    office hours, and inaccessible locations kept many from getting the
    needed help.

    Success Defined
    Students identified GPA, gaining knowledge,
    and graduating or completing their coursework as their top measures of
    success in line with a 2024 survey. Interestingly, non-traditional students placed graduating and gaining knowledge above GPA.

    “This study makes it crystal clear that many students are slipping
    through the cracks due to unmet financial, academic, and emotional
    needs,” said Nicole Guerrero Trevino,
    PhD, Vice President for Student Success, TimelyCare. “Our institutions
    must rise to the occasion to ensure no student is left behind.”

    What Can Be Done?
    In an open-ended question, students identified several ways institutions can better support their success, including:

    Promoting Awareness of Resources: Students called for more
    accessible and transparent communication about resources like tutoring,
    counseling, and career services.
    “Make a comprehensive list of all resources in one place.”
    “Talk about these services more openly. I didn’t know they existed when I needed them.”

    Tailoring Support for Non-Traditional and First-Generation Students: Develop
    targeted programs and policies, such as childcare options and
    evening/online classes, to support students balancing multiple roles.
    “Offer different hours for people who work full time during regular work hours.”

    Engaging Faculty and Staff: Train educators and advisors to proactively identify struggling students and provide personalized support.
    “Make
    it feel more normal that all students are impacted in some way and
    encourage all students to look into getting the help they need. It still
    feels almost taboo to seek out help in most situations.”

    Expanding Mental Health and Financial Well-Being Resources: Increase
    counseling availability, destigmatize mental health challenges, and
    offer virtual and flexible options for access. Streamline communication
    about scholarships, grants, and emergency funding while providing robust
    financial literacy resources.
    “Give access to virtual services or anonymous services”

    TimelyCare virtual success coaching
    supplements on-campus academic preparedness, career readiness, and
    financial wellness support with an integrated 1:1 care and coaching
    model.

    A complete list of questions and responses from the February 2025 survey may be found here. Click here to download a related infographic.

    About TimelyCare
    TimelyCare
    is the most trusted virtual health and well-being solution for learning
    communities, offering personalized, clinically proven care that fosters
    student success and delivers life-changing outcomes. With an unmatched
    range of service options on one seamless, easy-to-access platform,
    including mental health counseling, on-demand emotional support, medical
    care, psychiatric care, health coaching, success coaching, basic needs
    assistance, faculty and staff guidance, peer support and self-guided
    wellness tools, we extend the efforts of 400+ campus wellness teams,
    ensuring millions of students have direct, anytime access to our
    culturally competent and diverse care providers. Recognized as a
    Princeton Review Top 5 Need to Know Organization for Mental Health
    Awareness, TimelyCare drives measurable and meaningful improvements in
    depression and anxiety, empowering every student on their wellness
    journey while strengthening learning environments.

    Source link

  • Trump administration’s reasons for detaining Mahmoud Khalil threaten free speech

    Trump administration’s reasons for detaining Mahmoud Khalil threaten free speech

    It’s been three days since the government arrested and detained Mahmoud Khalil for deportation. This afternoon, the administration finally stated the basis for its actions. Its explanation threatens the free speech of millions of people.

    Yesterday, an administration official told The Free Press, “The allegation here is not that [Khalil] was breaking the law.” This was confirmed today by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who announced Khalil is being targeted under a law that she characterized as allowing the secretary of state to personally deem individuals “adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States of America.”

    Leavitt said Khalil “sid[ed] with terrorists,” “organized group protests” that “disrupted college campus classes and harassed Jewish American students and made them feel unsafe,” and distributed “pro-Hamas propaganda.” She also said the Department of Homeland Security is trying to track down “other individuals who have engaged in pro-Hamas activity” at Columbia University.

    The law Leavitt appears to be citing requires the secretary of state to have “reasonable ground to believe” the person’s “presence or activities in the United States . . . would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”

    The administration is wielding this standard — deportation for people whose activities could cause “serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States” — to arrest and detain an individual graduate student. In explaining how he met this standard, the administration did not allege Khalil committed a crime. But it did explicitly cite the content of his speech,  characterizing it as “anti-American” and “pro-Hamas.” Protesting government policy is protected by the First Amendment, as is rhetorical support for a terrorist group (if not directly coordinated with it, which the government has not alleged here).

    Disrupting college classes and harassing students is not protected expression, to be sure, and Leavitt stated that Khalil organized protests that may have done so. But the administration has not detailed Khalil’s specific actions with respect to those protests, so it remains unclear whether Khalil himself violated any campus rules against discriminatory harassment. Whether any such violation justifies detention and deportation is a separate question. In either adjudication, Khalil must be afforded due process. 

    There are millions of people lawfully present in the United States without citizenship. The administration’s actions will cause them to self-censor rather than risk government retaliation. Lawful permanent residents and students on visas will fear a knock on the door simply for speaking their minds. 

    If constitutionally protected speech may render someone deportable by the secretary of state, the administration has free rein to arrest and detain any non-citizen whose speech the government dislikes. The inherent vagueness of the “adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests” standard does not provide notice as to what speech is or is not prohibited. The administration’s use of it will foster a culture of self-censorship and fear. 

    This is America. We don’t throw people in detention centers because of their politics. Doing so betrays our national commitment to freedom of speech.

    FIRE social media post about the government’s detention of Mahmoud Khalil, March 10, 2025.

    Source link

  • Govs. DeSantis, Hochul threaten academic freedom with political interference

    Govs. DeSantis, Hochul threaten academic freedom with political interference

    It’s no secret that politicians are getting more involved in higher education. And while some level of involvement with how colleges and universities operate is appropriate given the amount of taxpayer money spent on campuses, nobody should be surprised to learn that greater political involvement can pose academic freedom risks.

    Last Monday, for example, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced the creation of Florida’s own Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE), named after the Trump Administration’s Elon Musk-led initiative to cut federal spending. The Florida task force is to conduct “a deep dive into all facets of college and university operations and spending and make recommendations to the Board of Governors and State Board of Education to eliminate any wasteful spending.”

    There are viewpoint-based decisions that governors and legislatures have to make about colleges as part of the political and appropriations process. But the more granular those decisions, the more they threaten to substitute academic judgment with political judgment.

    During his live announcement, DeSantis expanded on what he called “the DOGE-ing of our state university system,” saying it would include “examining courses, programming, and staff” with an aim towards helping students gain “meaningful employment.” But the governor also, troublingly, made clear that he’s continuing to take aim at a particular set of viewpoints:

    [S]ome of the ideological studies stuff, we just want to prune that and get that out, and we want to make sure that these universities are really serving the classical mission of what a university should be. And that’s not to impose ideology.

    Politicians have long complained about taxpayer money spent on what they see as frivolous academic pursuits — the proverbial degree in “underwater basket weaving” — but what DeSantis posits goes further. This task force won’t simply be focused on (say) eliminating majors that offer no real job prospects. Rather, it will seek out courses involving “ideological studies stuff,” presumably by reviewing course descriptions or syllabi, that in the task force’s view is not worth teaching. 

    That’s not just an invitation to viewpoint discrimination — it’s an explicit mandate.

    It’s not hard to see how this could threaten academic freedom by pressuring faculty members to substitute state-level politics for their academic judgment. 

    For example, let’s say the University of Florida’s Chinese Studies department decides that, to understand contemporary China, students need to take a class on Marxist-Leninist political thought. It’s easy to see how this could be relevant given that China is a Communist country. It’s also easy to see how an outside agency like Florida DOGE might view this as an effort to propagandize students into Marxism.

    What’s the likely result?

    • Most obviously, the department might decide to avoid conflict with the government by eliminating the class altogether despite believing it was needed, therefore impoverishing students’ education.
    • Even if it did decide to require the class, the department is likely to pressure its instructor not to include things that look pro-Marxist, regardless of whether the professor thinks it would be the best material for the course. That poorly serves students and limits a professor’s ability to engage in the intellectual pursuit of teaching, to boot.
    • Finally, even if the department were to offer the class without compromising on content, its instructor will most certainly feel “in the crosshairs,” restricted from following his or her academic conscience lest he or she get the class eliminated through an incautious word.

    Colleges should not be immune from investigations into waste and abuse. And there are viewpoint-based decisions that governors and legislatures have to make about colleges as part of the political and appropriations process. But the more granular those decisions, the more they threaten to substitute academic judgment with political judgment. It remains to be seen whether this is how Florida DOGE will actually operate, but the governor’s remarks create plenty of cause for concern.

    Lest there be any doubt that governors of any party are capable of interfering in isolated academic decisions if given the opportunity, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (no friend of DeSantis) last Tuesday ordered the immediate removal of a CUNY-Hunter College job posting for a professor of Palestinian Studies. Hochul also ordered “a thorough review of the position to ensure that antisemitic theories are not promoted in the classroom.”

    The job listing certainly listed plenty of controversial topics, calling for a “historically grounded scholar who takes a critical lens to issues pertaining to Palestine including but not limited to: settler colonialism, genocide, human rights, apartheid, migration, climate and infrastructure devastation, health, race, gender, and sexuality.” Yet the very next sentence stated, “We are open to diverse theoretical and methodological approaches.”

    Critics are unlikely to believe that the job was really open to scholars with diverse approaches to whether, say, Israel is an “apartheid” state. Maybe it was, maybe not. But one can’t make that determination simply based on the language of the listing, and there is no reason to believe that the governor of New York is (or should be expected to be) the best-qualified person to make that call.

    Faculty members are supposed to be hired because they are subject-matter experts who have the ability and knowledge in the field to make informed academic judgments. Readers may recall that Winston Churchill famously opined that democracy is “the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried.” That’s just as true when it comes to academic faculty making academic decisions — like it or not, there are no better alternatives. Even if one believes a particular group of public college faculty is, itself, making decisions that harm higher education, as DeSantis and Hochul both seem to believe, there’s one thing we can know for sure: transferring that job to politicians will only make it worse.

    Source link

  • Baseless SLAPP suits threaten the speech rights of all Americans

    Baseless SLAPP suits threaten the speech rights of all Americans

    This article originally appeared in The Dispatch on Jan. 28, 2025.

    J. Ann Selzer planned to step back from election polling at the end of 2024. She had spent three decades working with The Des Moines Register and other media outlets, earning a reputation as “the best pollster in politics” for her consistent and reliable work. Selzer’s polls had correctly predicted the winner of every presidential race in Iowa since 2008, and she was hoping to end her election-related work with one last accurate survey of public opinion.

    But things turned out differently.

    Selzer’s final poll of the 2024 Iowa electorate, commissioned by The Des Moines Register, found that Vice President Kamala Harris was leading Donald Trump by 3 points. She was wrong. In fact, Trump won the state by more than 13. To her credit, Selzer was quick to own up to the margin between her poll and the eventual outcome. She explained her methodology and released the data she had collected in the process.

    “Polling is a science of estimation, and science has a way of periodically humbling the scientist,” she said in a November 17 farewell column for The Register. “So, I’m humbled, yet always willing to learn from unexpected findings.”

    Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer

    President Donald Trump, however, doesn’t seem to think “humbled” is enough. That same day, Trump took to Truth Social to accuse Selzer of intentionally fabricating her poll and committing possible election fraud. A month later, he sued Selzer and The Register for alleged election interference and violations of the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act.

    It’s difficult to imagine a more thorough and obvious violation of basic First Amendment principles than this lawsuit. Polling the electorate is election participation, not interference—and reporting your findings is protected speech whether your findings turn out to be right or wrong. Iowa’s laws on election “interference” are about conduct such as using a counterfeit ballot or changing someone else’s ballot. This does not and cannot include asking voters questions about their votes.

    Any attempt to punish and chill reporting of unfavorable news or opinion is an affront to the First Amendment. Our rights as Americans, and participants in our democracy, depend on it.

    Trump’s claims of consumer fraud have even less merit. Consumer fraud laws target sellers who make false statements or engage in deception to get you to buy something, like a sleazy car salesman rolling back the odometer on an old sedan. This cannot logically—or legally—apply to a newspaper pollster who makes a wrong prediction.

    Consumer fraud statutes have no place in American politics or in regulating the news. But it has become an increasingly popular tactic to use such laws in misguided efforts to police political speech. For example, a progressive nonprofit tried to use a Washington state consumer protection law in an unsuccessful lawsuit against Fox News over its COVID-19 commentary. And attorneys general on the right used the same, “We’re just punishing falsehoods” theory to target progressive outlets. Both Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton opened investigations into the nonprofit Media Matters for America for allegedly manipulating X’s algorithm with “inauthentic behavior.” In the Texas suit, Paxton argues that he can use the state’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act to punish speech even if it is “literally true,” so long as officials think it’s misleading. 

    Efforts to prohibit purportedly false statements in politics are as old as the republic. Indeed, our First Amendment tradition originated from colonial officials’ early attempts to use libel laws against the press.

    America rejected this censorship after officials used the Sedition Act of 1798 to jail newspaper editors for publishing “false” and “malicious” criticisms of President John Adams. After Thomas Jefferson defeated Adams in the election of 1800, he pardoned and remitted the fines of those convicted, writing that he considered the act “to be a nullity, as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image.”

    Trump’s allegations against Selzer are so baseless that you’d be forgiven for wondering why he even bothered. That is, until you realize that these claims are filed not because they have any merit or stand any chance of success, but in order to impose punishing litigation costs on his perceived opponents. The lawsuit is the punishment.

    Lawsuits are costly, time-consuming, and often disastrous to people’s personal lives and reputations. If you have the threat of legal action hanging over you for what you’re about to say, you will think twice before saying it—and that’s the point.

    In fact, Trump has a habit of doing this. He once sued an architecture columnist for calling a proposed Trump building “one of the silliest things anyone could inflict on New York or any other city.” The suit was dismissed. He also sued author Timothy L. O’Brien, business reporter at The New York Times and author of “TrumpNation: The Art of Being The Donald,” for writing that Trump’s net worth was much lower than he had publicly claimed. The suit was also dismissed.

    But winning those lawsuits wasn’t the point, and Trump himself said so. “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more,” he said. “I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.” Back in 2015, he even threatened to sue John Kasich, then-governor of Ohio and a fellow Republican candidate for president, “just for fun” because of his attack ads.

    This tactic is called a “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” or SLAPP for short, and it’s a tried-and-true way for wealthy and powerful people to punish their perceived enemies for their protected speech. It’s also a serious threat to open discourse and a violation of our First Amendment freedoms.

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

    News

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


    Read More

    Lawsuits are costly, time-consuming, and often disastrous to people’s personal lives and reputations. If you have the threat of legal action hanging over you for what you’re about to say, you will think twice before saying it—and that’s the point. Trump’s dubious legal theory is a blatant abuse of the legal process, one that we cannot let stand. If we sued people every time we thought someone else was wrong about politics, nobody would speak about politics. A lawsuit requires a credible basis to believe your rights have been violated. You have to bring facts to court, not baseless allegations.

    That is why my organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), is defending Selzer pro bono against Trump’s SLAPP suit. By providing legal support free of charge, we’re helping to remove the financial incentive of SLAPP suits—just as we did when a wealthy Idaho landowner sued over criticism of his planned airstrip, when a Reddit moderator was sued for criticizing a self-proclaimed scientist, and when a Pennsylvania lawmaker sued a graduate student for “racketeering.”

    The protection of unfettered freedom of expression is critical to our political process. Any attempt to punish and chill reporting of unfavorable news or opinion is an affront to the First Amendment. Our rights as Americans, and participants in our democracy, depend on it.

    Source link