Tag: Threatens

  • Canceling AmeriCorps grants threatens the future of education and workforce pipelines that power our nation’s progress

    Canceling AmeriCorps grants threatens the future of education and workforce pipelines that power our nation’s progress

    The recent decision to cancel $400 million in AmeriCorps grants is nothing short of a crisis. With over 1,000 programs affected and 32,000 AmeriCorps and Senior Corps members pulled from their posts, this move will leave communities across the country without critical services.

    The cuts will dismantle disaster recovery efforts, disrupt educational support for vulnerable students and undermine a powerful workforce development strategy that provides AmeriCorps members with in-demand skills across sectors including education.

    AmeriCorps provides a service-to-workforce pipeline that gives young Americans and returning veterans hands-on training in high-demand industries, such as education, public safety, disaster response and health care. Its nominal front-end investment in human capital fosters economic mobility, enabling those who engage in a national service experience to successfully transition to gainful employment.

    As leaders of Teach For America and City Year, two organizations that are part of the AmeriCorps national service network and whose members receive education stipends that go toward certification costs, student loans or future education pursuits, we are alarmed by how this crisis threatens the future of the education and workforce pipelines that power our nation’s progress, and it is deeply personal. We both started our careers as corps members in the programs we now lead.

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education.

    Aneesh began his journey as a Teach For America corps member teaching high school English in Minnesota. Jim’s path began with City Year, serving at a Head Start program in Boston. We know firsthand that AmeriCorps programs are transformative and empower young people to drive meaningful change — for themselves and their communities.

    At Teach For America, AmeriCorps grants are essential to recruiting thousands of new teachers every year to effectively lead high-need classrooms across the country. These teachers, who have a consistent and significant positive impact on students’ learning, rely on the AmeriCorps education awards they earn through their two years of service to pay for their own education and professional development, including new teacher certification fees, costs that in some communities exceed $20,000.

    Termination of these grants threatens the pipeline of an estimated 2,500 new teachers preparing to enter classrooms over the summer. At a time when rural and urban communities alike are facing critical teacher shortages, cutting AmeriCorps support risks leaving students without the educators they need and deserve.

    City Year, similarly, relies on AmeriCorps to recruit more than 2,200 young adults annually to serve as student success coaches in K-12 schools across 21 states, 29 cities and 60 school districts.

    These AmeriCorps members serving as City Year student success coaches provide tutoring and mentoring that support students’ academic progress and interpersonal skill development and growth; they partner closely with teachers to boost student achievement, improve attendance and help keep kids on track to graduate. Research shows that schools partnering with City Year are two times more likely to improve their scores on English assessments, and two to three times more likely to improve their scores on math assessments.

    Corps members gain critical workforce skills such as leadership, problem-solving and creative thinking, which align directly with the top skills employers seek; the value of their experience has been reaffirmed through third-party research conducted with our alumni. The City Year experience prepares corps members for success in varied careers, with many going into education.

    AmeriCorps-funded programs like Breakthrough Collaborative and Jumpstart further strengthen this national service-to-workforce pathway, expanding the number of trained tutors and teacher trainees while also preparing corps members for careers that make a difference in all of our lives.

    Those programs’ trained educators ensure all students gain access to excellent educational opportunities that put them on the path to learn, lead and thrive in communities across the country. And the leaders of both organizations, like us, are AmeriCorps alumni, proof of the lasting effect of national service.

    Collectively, our four organizations have hundreds of thousands of alumni whose work as AmeriCorps members has impacted millions of children while shaping their own lives’ work, just as it did ours. Our alumni continue to lead classrooms, schools, districts, communities and organizations in neighborhoods across the country.

    Related: Tracking Trump: His actions to dismantle the Education Department, and more

    The termination of AmeriCorps grants is a direct blow to educators, schools and students. And, at a time when Gen Z is seeking work that aligns with their values and desire for impact, AmeriCorps is an essential on-ramp to public service and civic leadership that benefits not just individuals but entire communities and our country at large.

    For every dollar invested in AmeriCorps, $17 in economic value is generated, proving that national service is not only efficient but also a powerhouse for economic growth. Rather than draining resources, AmeriCorps drives real, measurable results that benefit individual communities and the national economy.

    Moreover, two-thirds of AmeriCorps funding is distributed by governor-appointed state service commissions to community- and faith-based organizations that leverage that funding to meet local needs. By working directly with state and local partners, AmeriCorps provides a more effective solution than top-down government intervention.

    On behalf of the more than 6,500 current AmeriCorps members serving with Teach For America and City Year, and the tens of thousands of alumni who have gone on to become educators, civic leaders and changemakers, we call on Congress to protect AmeriCorps and vital national service opportunities.

    Investing in AmeriCorps is an investment in America’s future, empowering communities, strengthening families and revitalizing economies. Let’s preserve the fabric of our national service infrastructure and ensure that the next generation of leaders, educators and community advocates who want to serve our nation have the ability to do so.

    Aneesh Sohoni is Teach For America’s new CEO. Previously, he was CEO of One Million Degrees and executive director of Teach For America Greater Chicago-Northwest Indiana. He is a proud alum of Teach For America.

    Jim Balfanz, a recognized leader and innovator in the field of education and national service, is CEO and a proud alum of City Year.

    Contact the opinion editor at opinion@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about AmeriCorps, Teach For America and City Year was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • DHS Threatens Harvard With Loss of International Students

    DHS Threatens Harvard With Loss of International Students

    The Department of Homeland Security canceled $2.7 million in grants going to Harvard University Wednesday night and threatened to terminate its Student and Visitor Exchange Program certification, which would bar the private Massachusetts institution from enrolling international students.

    DHS’s threats came shortly after Harvard rebuffed the Trump’s administration’s demands to overhaul governance, admissions, hiring processes and more amid allegations of antisemitism and harassment tied to pro-Palestinian protests last spring. Although the Trump administration has opened a civil rights investigation into antisemitism at Harvard, that inquiry remains in process.

    Even so, the federal government has already moved to punish the university.

    The Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in research grants after Harvard rejected its initial demands, and the Internal Revenue Service is reportedly taking aim at its tax-exempt status. Now SEVP certification appears to be in the Trump administration’s crosshairs as well.

    “Harvard bending the knee to antisemitism—driven by its spineless leadership—fuels a cesspool of extremist riots and threatens our national security,” Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a Thursday statement. “With anti-American, pro-Hamas ideology poisoning its campus and classrooms, Harvard’s position as a top institution of higher learning is a distant memory. America demands more from universities entrusted with taxpayer dollars.”

    DHS demanded the university provide “detailed records on Harvard’s foreign student visa holders’ illegal and violent activities by April 30” or lose SEVP certification. The demand comes as the federal government has revoked visas for international students across the U.S., in some cases for political speech. (Inside Higher Ed has tracked more than 1,450 visa revocations.)

    Harvard spokesperson Jason Newton emphasized the need for due process in federal actions.

    “Harvard values the rule of law and expects all members of our community to comply with University policies and applicable legal standards,” Newton wrote. “If federal action is taken against a member of our community, we expect it will be based on clear evidence, follow established legal procedures, and respect the constitutional rights afforded to all individuals.”

    Source link

  • Trump threatens Harvard’s ability to host int’l students 

    Trump threatens Harvard’s ability to host int’l students 

    US homeland security secretary Kristi Noem has written a “scathing letter” to Harvard University, demanding it submits records of international students’ “illegal and violent activities” by April 30, or face losing its eligibility to enrol student visa holders.

    In Noem’s April 16 statement, she accused Harvard’s “spineless leadership” of “bending the knee to antisemitism” and “threatening national security”. 

    “Harvard’s position as a top institution of higher learning is a distant memory,” she added, cancelling two department of homeland security (DHS) grants worth USD $2.7 million on the basis that the university was “unfit to be entrusted with taxpayer dollars”.  

    DHS is threatening to strip Harvard of its Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification, which allows colleges and universities to issue forms to admitted international students to use in their US visa applications. 

    The punitive measures are the latest in a dispute between Trump and the country’s oldest university, which saw USD $2.2bn in federal funding frozen after it rebuffed government demands, including reporting on international students and ending DEI policies. 

    What’s more, President Trump threatened on April 15 to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status over its “radical ideology”. 

    The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights

    Alan Garber, Harvard University

    Last year, Harvard hosted 6,793 international students, totalling over 27% of the entire student body.  

    Across the country, more than a million international students attend US colleges every year, contributing $50bn to the economy, as previously reported by The PIE News. 

    The DHS letter – seen by the Harvard Crimson student newspaper – accused Harvard of creating a “hostile learning environment” for Jewish students and reminded the university it was “a privilege to have foreign students attend Harvard University, not a guarantee”.  

    Refusing to submit to the government’s previous demands, Harvard president Alan Garber said the university was committed to tackling antisemitism but maintained it would not “surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.”  

    “[The administration’s prescription] violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority,” Garber wrote in a message to the community.  

    In light of the recent escalation over SEVP certification, the university has maintained its position that it will not cede to government control, according to the Washington Post.  

    Alongside enhanced scrutiny of teaching, the government is requiring that Harvard reports on international students “supportive of terrorism or antisemitism” and those “hostile to American values”, ban all clubs supporting Palestine, and ban mask-wearing on campus, among other measures.  

    The directives largely stem from two of Trump’s early Executive Orders relating to “protecting the US from terrorism” and “combatting antisemitism”, which have led to over 1,320 international student visa revocations as of April 16, according to Inside Higher Ed.  

    Of this figure, 12 Harvard students and alumni have had their visas cancelled, though the university was not made aware of the rationale behind the revocations.  

    Student visas have been revoked for a variety of reasons, including some minor traffic infractions. Most of the high-profile cases involve students that participated in pro-Palestinian activism.  

    Challenges to the Trump administration have gained traction in recent weeks, with 19 states and 86 institutions supporting a legal challenge against the government’s revocation of student visas, led by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).  

    Former President Obama, a Harvard alum, expressed his support for the university in a post on X, describing the government’s funding freeze an “unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom”, urging other institutions to “follow suit”.

    Meanwhile, hundreds of Yale faculty members have published a letter asking its leadership to legally challenge “unlawful demands that threaten academic freedom and university self-governance”.

    Source link

  • Trump’s attack on law firms threatens the foundations of our justice system

    Trump’s attack on law firms threatens the foundations of our justice system

    Atticus Finch is remembered as one of literature’s greatest heroes for his willingness to defend an unpopular client despite great professional and personal cost. I was reminded of Atticus when the Trump administration recently retaliated against attorneys explicitly because they represented clients and causes the president dislikes.

    On March 6, President Trump issued an executive order targeting a law firm, Perkins Coie, for activities that are protected by the First Amendment. The order cites the firm for “representing failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton” and commissioning opposition research into the Trump campaign. Trump also critiqued Perkins Coie for bringing a lawsuit to challenge election laws Trump supports, “including those requiring voter identification.”

    This order came after the president revoked the security clearances of attorneys at another firm for representing a client the president dislikes: former Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith, who had led the government’s investigations into Trump’s role on January 6 and his handling of classified documents.

    In yet another order, Trump also singled out attorneys at a third firm, Paul Weiss, for bringing a lawsuit against individuals who protested at the Capitol on January 6, and for hiring an attorney who had investigated Trump while in government service. Trump’s orders against Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss not only barred federal agencies from engaging the firms’ services but also suspended the security clearances of its attorneys and restricted their access to federal buildings. These sanctions cripple the attorneys’ ability to represent clients in disputes with the federal government. The administration points to no evidence that these firms are a genuine security risk, and expressly targets these firms for their client selection and speech. 

    This is deeply troubling regardless of where one stands on the activities or firms affected. The process of defending constitutional rights relies heavily on the ability of private attorneys to bring lawsuits against the government. This requires lawyers to be free from official government pressure when choosing which clients and causes to represent. If lawyers are put in fear of federal government retaliation for representing clients who challenge the government or stand for unpopular causes, many injustices will never be challenged. 

    The administration’s actions represent a direct assault on this freedom. Punishing firms for their choice of clients or the nature of their legal work cannot help but intimidate the legal community, discouraging attorneys from taking on cases that may be politically unpopular or present a challenge to those in power. 

    History is repeating itself with Trump’s latest efforts. What is at stake here is nothing less than the legal profession’s capacity to fulfill its role in a democratic society.

    It also sets an ominous precedent for future presidents to exploit. If the Trump administration can target specific firms on this basis, what prevents future administrations from blacklisting firms that represent, say, gun-rights groups? This concern is hardly theoretical: just last year, the Supreme Court had to slap down a New York state official for trying to punish a third party for doing business with the NRA. Could religious organizations be next? Or animal-rights activists? Could the next Democratic president ban from federal buildings any attorneys that represented Republican candidates? What is the limiting principle?

    Furthermore, how can a lawyer who is considering representing a politically controversial client know that she will not be targeted the next time control of the White House changes hands? The safest course of action will be to avoid representing clients of any political salience, right or left, even if their cause is just. 

    Even before Trump’s latest actions on this front, a number of law firms have already shown their willingness to run from controversial causes, such as when Kirkland & Ellis withdrew from its representation of the NRA because the NRA advocates for gun rights. Supreme Court litigator Paul Clement, one of the firm’s most famous attorneys, had to leave the firm entirely simply so he could continue to represent his gun-related clients. Clement could afford to do this precisely because he was so well-known. But if the government can punish an entire law firm over the nature of the work of one of its attorneys, less influential attorneys will face enormous pressure from colleagues to avoid taking controversial cases and clients.

    These actions also directly violate the First Amendment. They explicitly target these firms for the clients they have represented and the legal positions they have taken on election law matters. The Supreme Court has recognized the First Amendment right of lawyers “to associate for the purpose of assisting persons who seek legal redress for infringements of their constitutionally guaranteed and other rights.” By officially punishing lawyers on the basis of these associations, the executive order therefore is unconstitutional viewpoint-based retaliation and violates the right of freedom of association. For this reason, a federal judge this week issued a temporary restraining order blocking the order against Perkins Coie.

    There is a long, troubling history of trying to silence advocacy through fear and intimidation of the advocates. Attorneys who fought for abolition and civil rights were frequently harassed, or even subjected to threats and violence such as when Thurgood Marshall barely escaped a lynch mob while arguing civil rights cases in the South before Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Many other civil rights attorneys, including those working for the NAACP, were investigated by the FBI, accused of communist sympathies, and faced professional blacklisting. More recently, government officials pressured the firms that represented Guantanamo Bay detainees in the 2000s to drop the cases.

    History is repeating itself with Trump’s latest efforts. What is at stake here is nothing less than the legal profession’s capacity to fulfill its role in a democratic society. As the judge in Perkins Coie’s lawsuit warned, the administration’s decision “threatens to significantly undermine our entire legal system and the ability of all people to access justice.”

    Public interest organizations like FIRE understand this principle well. Because we are committed to the nonpartisan defense of free speech, we are routinely accused of being “right-wing hacks” or “left-wing radicals,” often during the same week. But defending the rights of the unpopular is not about political allegiance — it’s about ensuring that fundamental freedoms apply to everyone. Civil rights groups must be able to defend speech and causes that challenge those in power, regardless of who holds office.

    Atticus Finch understood how crucial vigorous representation is. In his impassioned speech to the jury, he explained, “In this country our courts are great levelers, and in our courts all men are created equal.” If lawyers fear retaliation for simply doing their jobs, then the courts can no longer serve as the “great levelers” as unpopular or politically powerless individuals and causes are unable to get their day in court. We’re all better off when even “bad people” can get a good lawyer — whoever those in power have deemed “bad people” today.

    Source link

  • Florida Dreamer Tuition Policy Reversal Threatens $25 Million Economic Impact

    Florida Dreamer Tuition Policy Reversal Threatens $25 Million Economic Impact

    Education advocates and immigration policy experts are warning of significant economic, and workforce impacts following Florida’s decision to rescind in-state tuition waivers for undocumented students who graduated from Florida high schools. The policy change, signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis, marks a significant shift in the state’s approach to higher education access for Dreamers.

    The decision is expected to cost Florida institutions approximately $25 million in tuition and fees, according to TheDream.US, a national organization supporting higher education access for Dreamers. The organization’s President and CEO, Gaby Pacheco, a long-time Miami resident, said that the impact extends beyond immediate financial consequences, potentially affecting Florida’s future workforce development and economic growth.

    “Our state is turning its back and hindering the potential of students who have succeeded throughout their K-12 education,” says Pacheco, noting that many affected students arrived in the United States at an average age of six years old. The organization has already helped more than 600 Florida-based Dreamers graduate college, with many now working as nurses, teachers, engineers, and entrepreneurs within the state.

    The Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, through its Director of Policy and Strategy Diego Sánchez, points to concerning workforce implications. With Florida facing shortages in healthcare, teaching, and STEM fields, the policy change could exacerbate existing gaps in critical sectors. Sánchez, himself a former undocumented student in Florida, argues that the state risks losing bilingual, skilled professionals to other regions with more inclusive education policies.

    The impact of this policy shift could be particularly significant given Florida’s traditional role as a hub for educational and economic opportunity. Critics argue that the change contradicts the state’s historical position as a beacon of dynamism and opportunity, potentially deterring talented students from pursuing higher education in Florida.

    Advocates point out that many affected students are deeply integrated into Florida communities, having completed their entire K-12 education in the state’s public schools. The new policy, they argue, creates barriers for these students to continue their education and contribute to the state’s economy, potentially forcing them to either abandon their educational pursuits or seek opportunities in other states with more favorable policies.

    As this policy takes effect, educational institutions and advocacy groups are working to assess the full scope of its impact on Florida’s educational landscape and future workforce development. The change represents a significant shift in Florida’s approach to higher education access and raises questions about the state’s long-term economic and workforce strategy.

    Source link

  • Trump admin threatens to rescind federal funds over DEI

    Trump admin threatens to rescind federal funds over DEI

    The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights declared all race-conscious student programming, resources and financial aid illegal over the weekend and threatened to investigate and rescind federal funding for any institution that does not comply within 14 days.

    In a Dear Colleague letter published late Friday night, acting assistant secretary for civil rights Craig Trainor outlined a sweeping interpretation of the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which struck down affirmative action. While the decision applied specifically to admissions, the Trump administration believes it extends to all race-conscious spending, activities and programming at colleges.

    “In recent years, American educational institutions have discriminated against students on the basis of race, including white and Asian students,” Trainor wrote. “These institutions’ embrace of pervasive and repugnant race-based preferences and other forms of racial discrimination have emanated throughout every facet of academia.”

    The letter mentions a wide range of university programs and policies that could be subject to an OCR investigation, including “hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.”

    “Put simply, educational institutions may neither separate or segregate students based on race, nor distribute benefits or burdens based on race,” Trainor writes.

    Backlash to the letter came swiftly on Saturday from Democratic lawmakers, student advocates and academic freedom organizations.

    “This threat to rip away the federal funding our public K-12 schools and colleges receive flies in the face of the law,” Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, wrote in a statement Saturday. “While it’s anyone’s guess what falls under the Trump administration’s definition of ‘DEI,’ there is simply no authority or basis for Trump to impose such a mandate.”

    But most college leaders have, so far, remained silent.

    Brian Rosenberg, the former president of Macalester College and now a visiting professor of education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed that the letter was “truly dystopian” and, if enforced, would upend decades of established programs and initiatives to improve success and access for marginalized students.

    “It goes well beyond the Supreme Court ruling on admissions and declares illegal a wide range of common practices,” he wrote. “In my career I’ve never seen language of this kind from any government agency in the United States.”

    The Dear Colleague letter also seeks to close multiple exceptions and potential gaps left open by the Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action and to lay the groundwork for investigating programs that “may appear neutral on their face” but that “a closer look reveals … are, in fact, motivated by racial considerations.”

    Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that colleges could legally consider a student’s racial identity as part of their experience as described in personal essays, but the OCR letter rejects that.

    “A school may not use students’ personal essays, writing samples, participation in extracurriculars, or other cues as a means of determining or predicting a student’s race and favoring or disfavoring such students,” Trainor wrote.

    Going even further beyond the scope of the SFFA decision, the letter forbids any race-neutral university policy that could conceivably be a proxy for racial consideration, including eliminating standardized test score requirements.

    It also addresses university-sanctioned programming and curricula that “teach students that certain racial groups bear unique moral burdens that others do not,” a practice that Trainor argues can “deny students the ability to participate fully in the life of a school.”

    The department will provide “additional legal guidance” for institutions in the coming days.

    That wide-reaching interpretation of the SFFA decision has been the subject of vigorous debate among lawmakers and college leaders, and in subsequent court battles ever since the ruling was handed down. Many experts assumed the full consequences of the vague ruling would be hammered out through further litigation, but with the Dear Colleague letter, the Trump administration is attempting to enforce its own reading of the law through the executive branch.

    Even Edward Blum, the president of Students for Fair Admissions, doesn’t believe the ruling on his case applies outside of admissions.

    “The SFFA opinion didn’t change the law for those policies [in internships and scholarships],” he told Inside Higher Ed a few days before the OCR letter was published. “But those policies have always been, in my opinion, outside of the scope of our civil rights law and actionable in court.”

    What Comes Next

    The department has never revoked a college or state higher education agency’s federal funding over Title VI violations. If the OCR follows through on its promises, it would be an unprecedented exercise of federal influence over university activities.

    The letter is likely to be challenged in court, but in the meantime it could have a ripple effect on colleges’ willingness to continue funding diversity programs and resources for underrepresented students.

    Adam Harris, a senior fellow at the left-leaning think tank New America, is looking at how colleges responded to DEI and affirmative action orders in red states like Florida, Missouri, Ohio and Texas for clues as to how higher education institutions nationwide might react to the letter.

    In Texas, colleges first renamed centers for marginalized students, then shuttered them after the state ordered it was not enough to comply with an anti-DEI law; they also froze or revised all race-based scholarships. In Missouri, after the attorney general issued an order saying the SFFA decision should apply to scholarships as well as admissions, the state university system systematically eliminated its race-conscious scholarships and cut ties with outside endowments that refused to change their eligibility requirements.

    “We’ve already seen the ways institutions have acquiesced to demands in ways that even go past what they’ve been told to do by the courts,” Harris said.

    The letter portrays the rise of DEI initiatives and race-conscious programming on college campuses as a modern civil rights crisis. Trainor compared the establishment of dormitories, facilities, cultural centers and even university-sanctioned graduation and matriculation ceremonies that are advertised as being exclusively or primarily for students of specific racial backgrounds to Jim Crow–era segregation.

    “In a shameful echo of a darker period in this country’s history, many American schools and universities even encourage segregation by race at graduation ceremonies and in dormitories and other facilities,” Trainor wrote.

    Harris, who studies the history of racial discrimination on college campuses, said he finds that statement deeply ironic and worrying.

    “A lot of these diversity programs and multicultural centers on campuses were founded as retention tools to help students who had been shut out of higher education in some of these institutions for centuries,” Harris said. “To penalize institutions for taking those steps to help students, that is actually very much an echo of the segregation era.”

    Source link

  • Trump Administration Threatens to Cut Off Grants to Higher Ed

    Trump Administration Threatens to Cut Off Grants to Higher Ed

    More information at the College Investor. 

    Source link