Tag: Trump

  • Can Universities Still Diversify Faculty Hiring Under Trump?

    Can Universities Still Diversify Faculty Hiring Under Trump?

    Before Donald Trump retook office, advocates of a more demographically diverse U.S. professoriate were already criticizing existing hiring efforts as inadequate. One late-2022 paper in Nature Human Behaviour noted that, at recent rates, “higher education will never achieve demographic parity among tenure-track faculty.”

    One example of the disparity: As of November 2023, only 8 percent of U.S. assistant professors were Black, according to the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources. That’s significantly less than Black representation in the U.S. population, currently estimated by the Census to be 13.7 percent. And the CUPA-HR data showed that the Black share of tenure-track and tenured professors decreases as rank increases—only 5 percent of associate professors and 3.6 percent of full professors were Black. 

    Efforts that institutions have made to racially diversify their faculties drew political backlash well before Trump regained the White House, with activists, organizations and some faculty criticizing university hiring practices and state legislatures passing laws banning affirmative action and/or diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. The goal of a more representative faculty slipped further out of reach starting on Inauguration Day, when Trump issued executive orders targeting DEI, including what he dubbed “illegal DEI discrimination.”

    His administration’s crusade has continued, including with a letter Friday demanding that Harvard University end all DEI initiatives, “implement merit-based hiring policies” and “cease all preferences based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin throughout its hiring, promotion, compensation, and related practices.” (Harvard has refused to comply with Trump’s orders, which go far beyond hiring, and the federal government has frozen part of the university’s funding and threatened its tax-exempt status.)

    Given the current political situation—not just nationally, but also among the growing number of states with DEI and/or affirmative action restrictions—how can higher ed institutions continue to diversify their faculties?

    “I think that’s the question of the day: What’s lawful, what’s legal, what might subject an institution to investigation by the investigatory arms of the federal government?” said Paulette Granberry Russell, president and chief executive officer of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, which is among the organizations suing over Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders.

    “Is it purposeful that this administration has chosen ambiguity?” Granberry Russell asked. “Or left [us] to guess what they intend by ‘illegal DEI’? Is diversifying our campuses on its face illegal DEI?”

    So far, the administration has not clarified where the line is. On Feb. 14, the U.S. Education Department published a Dear Colleague letter declaring that the department interprets the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision banning race-conscious admissions as applicable to other areas of higher ed, including hiring, promotion and compensation. That letter is facing legal challenges. The department later released a frequently-asked-questions document further explaining its position, but that guidance didn’t discuss hiring practices.

    In response to a request for an interview and written questions, Harrison Fields, special assistant to the president and principal deputy press secretary, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed, “President Trump is working to Make Higher Education Great Again by ending unchecked anti-Semitism and ensuring federal taxpayer dollars do not fund higher education institutions’ support for dangerous racial discrimination or racially motivated violence. Any institution violating Title VI is, by law, ineligible for federal funding.” (Title VI bans discrimination based on, among other things, shared ancestry, including antisemitism.)

    Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications at the U.S. Education Department, told Inside Higher Ed, “It is illegal to make decisions on the basis of race.”

    She said the department isn’t providing any additional guidance at this point beyond the text of the executive orders, the Dear Colleague letter, the FAQ, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling.

    Also, in an FAQ titled “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work,” the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission writes that, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, DEI “practices may be unlawful if they involve an employer or other covered entity taking an employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by an employee’s or applicant’s race, sex, or another protected characteristic.” In addition, it says that Title VII’s protections aren’t just for minority groups.

    Adrianna Kezar, a professor of higher education and director of the Pullias Center for Higher Education at the University of Southern California, said in an email that there isn’t “universal understanding” across campuses of the current hiring rules.

    “In states like California (and others), affirmative action in hiring is illegal. In other states, it remains legal until the Trump dear colleague letter becomes the legal interpretation,” Kezar wrote. But she said some states “are already complying even though that has not become the law of the land.”

    “Right now, everything is still murky,” she added.

    Tres Cleveland, a partner at the Thompson Coburn law firm who represents higher education clients, said most of them are trying to stay “in the good graces of the Department of Education or other regulators, and it’s a challenge at this point.” Cleveland said the “rules of the road” are “changing almost daily.”

    Damani White-Lewis, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education, said, “There’s genuinely no consensus” on what’s barred under the Trump administration with regard to hiring that wasn’t prohibited before.

    “I wanted to do a project of: If you asked, like, 10 different legal counsels, what sorts of answers would they come to and how did they make sense of them?” White-Lewis said. “Because that’s just how different folks are, and some are more conservative, some are a little more progressive on this issue.”

    For colleges and universities, faculty diversification isn’t just an end in itself; studies have found positive benefits for students. So, what can institutions do to continue diversifying faculties? Experts pointed to fundamentals such as active recruiting, structured hiring processes and more.

    Casting a Wide Net

    While Granberry Russell of NADOHE criticized the Trump administration’s “ambiguity,” she said that actively seeking a diverse applicant pool still seems acceptable. In recruitment, she said, “you’re not making a decision; you’re just saying, ‘Apply for this position.’”

    “There’s nothing, at least on its face, that would appear to prohibit recruitment efforts,” she said. (The Education Department has, however, targeted dozens of universities for allegedly supporting the PhD Project, which was accused of barring white or Asian prospective doctoral students from a recruitment conference.)

    Kezar, at the University of Southern California, wrote in an email that while recruitment strategies still seem to be a viable way to attract diverse candidates, “some of the approaches that people have been relying on, they don’t feel comfortable with because they are being targeted.”

    Granberry Russell echoed this concern, saying that, out of fear of investigations, “people are being very, very conservative in how they approach faculty searches.”

    Denise Sekaquaptewa, director of the University of Michigan’s ADVANCE Program, a faculty diversity initiative, wrote in an email that “approaches which may still be viable” include disseminating job announcements “to outlets where [they] may reach a wide range of excellent candidates.”

    White-Lewis, of the Penn Graduate School of Education, said there’s a “pervasive myth” that there aren’t enough graduate students of color to diversify faculties. He called it a “no-brainer” for institutions to invest in postdoctoral fellows and postdoctoral researchers—a stepping-stone to permanent faculty jobs.

    “That’s a very perceivably neutral avenue of thinking about how we can increase opportunities for postdoctoral funding—given their crucial nature within not just medicine but other STEM fields as well, where postdocs are more pervasive,” White-Lewis said. “And that gives everybody more opportunities to research, write and publish and become more competitive for faculty jobs.”

    He said he thinks postdoctoral programs “specifically devoted to minoritized hiring” will be difficult to continue. Multiple experts Inside Higher Ed interviewed suggested institutions should avoid saying in any faculty job advertisements that they’re specifically seeking to hire faculty of color or of a specific race.

    “The devil is all in the details with this,” said Scott Goldschmidt, another higher ed specialist partner at Thompson Coburn. He said institutions have to weigh the risks of litigation and administrative action, especially when it comes to public job ads.

    Goldschmidt said there are other hiring considerations that job ads could include that might lead to diverse hires, such as socioeconomic status and experience working with diverse populations. But he believes the Trump administration would also argue that such factors can’t be used as proxies for race. The hiring criteria should be narrowly tailored to the job, and the search and hiring process must be conducted in a race-neutral manner, Goldschmidt said.

    “It has to be a truly open process,” he said. “The conditions there can’t be there to kind of serve as a way to unlawfully discriminate.”

    White-Lewis suggested that faculty searches consider evaluating applicants’ experience with mentoring marginalized populations first. But that doesn’t mean their teaching and research records should be discounted.

    “It’s very difficult to be a mentor if you don’t have research funding, right?” he said. “And so these things go hand in hand. What I’m suggesting is to make the evaluation of mentoring capabilities noteworthy instead of it being subsidiary.”

    He also said that, when considering what positions to hire, administrators and faculty should think about how to align the department’s needs—in research, teaching and service—with areas where minoritized scholars are more represented.

    “It’s not always just going after Indigenous studies or ethnic studies or Africana studies, because that clumps diversity within a few departments, but psychology, English, sociology, arts, even biology in terms of health disparities,” White-Lewis said. “Health disparity searches have been the thing that have historically driven faculty diversity in the sciences, and it can still continue because health disparities still exist.”

    Some said using diversity statements in hiring is likely a no-go under the Trump administration, whose demands to Harvard included abolishing in hiring practices “all criteria, preferences, and practices” that “function as ideological litmus tests”—a common critique of diversity statements. Republican-controlled legislatures in multiple states have banned them.

    “They’re dead,” said Musa al-Gharbi, a research fellow at Heterodox Academy and an assistant professor in Stony Brook University’s School of Communication and Journalism. He noted that even the University of California system has stepped away from them.

    Furthermore, al-Gharbi said, “A lot of this stuff which is now rendered illegal … doesn’t really work well anyway. Some of the efforts that we take to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in higher ed actually create a hostile environment for the same people that we’re trying to include.”

    He said that people of color and people from lower-income backgrounds are more likely to be socially conservative and religious than people who are currently better represented in academe, adding that “some of these diversity challenges around viewpoint diversity and demographic diversity are actually intimately interrelated.”

    “But we also should nonetheless advocate for the goals of diversity and inclusion” and try to think up better alternatives, al-Gharbi said. Still, that’s hard when the Trump administration has basically “villainized,” “censored” and “demeaned” anything associated with DEI.

    “This isn’t a smart bomb,” he said. “It’s a chain saw.”

    Source link

  • Harvard’s resistance to Trump is a model for US universities

    Harvard’s resistance to Trump is a model for US universities

    This article was originally published on April 15, 2025, at UnHerd and is republished here with permission.

    They say that where Harvard goes, others follow. For the first time in a while, supporters of free expression on American campuses should hope that’s true.

    Late last week, the Ivy League university received a letter from the federal government demanding changes to its governance, leadership structure, hiring practices, and admissions processes, as well as a “discontinuation of DEI” and reform of “programs with egregious records of antisemitism or other bias.” If it failed to carry out these changes, Harvard would risk losing its government investment. In other words, “Nice school you’ve got there. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.”

    Thankfully, Harvard pushed back. Yesterday the university’s president Alan Garber published a response, firmly committing to the preservation of academic freedom and institutional independence on campus. The government’s mandates, Garber wrote, “[threaten] our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

    In retaliation, the Trump administration moved to freeze $2.2 billion in funds to the university. That’s a high price to pay, but the costs of giving in would be far greater. For one thing, that sum is a drop in the bucket of Harvard’s $50 billion endowment. More importantly, if a school with such resources and influence doesn’t fight back against government strong-arming, it will send a chill down the spine of every other university in the Trump administration’s crosshairs.

    Columbia, for example, recently caved to similar pressures. But in the wake of Harvard’s pushback, the New York university published a statement rejecting “heavy-handed orchestration from the government that could potentially damage our institution” and “any agreement in which the government dictates what we teach, research, or who we hire.”

    This is a welcome development. How many other institutions, facing millions in contract cancellations, will stand up for themselves now that Harvard has set an example? There is good reason to push back against the excesses of DEI on campus, much of which amounts to bureaucratic ideological gatekeeping and a chilling of dissent. Combatting discrimination is also a worthy goal — but not by way of overly broad definitions of antisemitism which prohibit criticizing the state of Israel and wind up restricting campus speech.

    Among other issues, the government’s provisions ignore the existing process for adjudicating alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act — the federal law banning discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in federally funded programs or activities. Under these demands, Harvard’s hiring and admissions processes would be forced to employ government-approved “ideological diversity” litmus tests that would rival, if not supersede, the DEI mandates many in this administration pledged to oppose.

    What’s more, the provisions are fundamentally at odds with the university’s First Amendment rights. If Harvard were to acquiesce, any free speech or academic freedom on campus would exist only according to the administration’s preferences. That is no way to facilitate the free exchange of ideas, which is at the core of any university’s mission.

    The principle is clear: the government cannot condition a school’s federal funding on giving up First Amendment rights. When the Obama and Biden administrations demanded universities restrict student free speech and due process rights under Title IX — the law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs or activities — this was clearly unlawful. The same argument applies now.

    There is no doubt that higher education needs serious reform. But the solution to censorious and discriminatory policies isn’t more censorious and discriminatory policies. It certainly shouldn’t involve allowing the federal government to hold US universities hostage to its own preferences. For better or worse, other universities have long followed in Harvard’s steps. Anyone invested in the future of American higher education should hope that this fightback inspires a further wave of copycats.

    Source link

  • Harvard stands firm, rejects Trump administration’s unconstitutional demands

    Harvard stands firm, rejects Trump administration’s unconstitutional demands

    Last Friday, three federal agencies sent a demand letter to Harvard University laying out conditions for the university to continue receiving federal funds. The letter is unprecedented in its scope. It would essentially render Harvard a vassal institution, subjecting much of its corporate and academic governance to federal directives. 

    If Harvard acceded to these demands, faculty hiring, student admissions, student and faculty disciplinary procedures, university programming decisions, student group recognition processes, and much more would be transformed to align with the government’s ideological preferences.

    Among other things, the university would be required to:

    • Abolish ideological litmus tests in hiring and admissions practices and take steps to ensure viewpoint diversity in the faculty and student body. How Harvard can take both steps simultaneously and also commit to merit-based hiring and admissions, another directive, is unclear. FIRE opposes ideological litmus tests, but you can’t abolish them by trading one litmus test for another.
    • Deny admission to international students who are “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence.” These values go undefined. And, as any historian or Supreme Court observer would know, they’re subject to intense debate and varied interpretations. Ironically, this is also an ideological litmus test of the sort prohibited by the directive that Harvard abolish such tests.
    • Audit certain disfavored academic departments. The mandatory audit would include investigations into individual faculty members and would require Harvard to work hand in glove with the government to sanction faculty members who allegedly engaged in anti-Semitic discrimination or otherwise “incited students to violate Harvard’s rules.” The federal government’s definition of anti-Semitism incorporates the IHRA definition, which Harvard recently adopted and FIRE has long criticized as violating First Amendment standards.
    • Discontinue DEI. This would include shuttering all “programs, offices, committees, positions, and initiatives” relating to “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” These terms also go undefined in the letter, and while FIRE has been critical of many university DEI programs for their tendency to chill and censor speech, not all of them do, and many programs are within a university’s prerogative to create. This is especially true at private institutions.
    • Reform student disciplinary processes and procedures. The letter demands Harvard not fund or recognize any student group that “endorses or promotes criminal activity, illegal violence, or illegal harassment.” This amounts to a federal requirement of viewpoint discrimination. While many would find these categories of speech abhorrent, the categories go undefined and would nevertheless be protected by the First Amendment so long as the speech stays confined to endorsement and promotion and the student groups do not themselves engage in any criminal activity, illegal violence, or illegal harassment. The letter also identifies specific student groups that must lose recognition and funding.
    • Implement a comprehensive mask ban. Masks can be used by criminals to commit crimes, the sick to stay healthy, and, yes, protesters to remain anonymous. A blanket mask ban is an overbroad requirement that infringes on individuals’ constitutional right to anonymous speech.
    • Risk double jeopardy. The letter demands that Harvard “carry out meaningful discipline for all violations that occurred during the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 academic years.” To the extent any student was already tried for these alleged violations, this requirement would amount to “double jeopardy,” violating the venerated and centuries-old principle of fundamental fairness, enshrined in the Fifth Amendment, that says no individual should be tried for the same infraction twice.
    • Generally reform corporate governance structure and practices, including by “reducing the power held by students and untenured faculty” in its current structure. How Harvard governs its academic programs, and who should have a say in that governance, is up to Harvard, not the federal government. The First Amendment and basic principles of academic freedom require no less.

    In addition to these demands, the university would be required to undergo frequent and highly intrusive audits to ensure compliance. In short, the federal government would effectively serve as president and provost of Harvard University.

    The ostensible justification for these demands stems from the government’s belief that Harvard has allowed for a hostile environment for Jewish students in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. But federal law also dictates specific procedures for adjudicating alleged noncompliance — procedures the government circumvented here. 

    If allowed to stand, the government could revoke federal funding from any institution regardless of the merit of the government’s allegations. This processless approach is a loaded gun for partisan administrations to target institutions and individuals that dissent from administration policies and priorities.

    What Harvard does — for better or worse — others follow. Those of us who support free inquiry, academic freedom, and fair procedures on campus — not to mention institutional autonomy — can hope that maybe its action will inspire other institutions to grow a backbone.

    It’s true that institutions take federal funding voluntarily. But it’s also true that the government cannot condition federal funding on institutions giving up their autonomy and constitutional rights. A requirement that Harvard relinquish its authority to guide core academic programs certainly violates its free speech and academic freedom rights, as well as those of its students and faculty.

    It’s also true that Harvard doesn’t have clean hands. For the past two years, it has sat at the bottom of FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings, and it may well have violated Title VI by failing to meaningfully respond to conduct creating a hostile environment for Jewish students on campus. But just as with individuals, we don’t punish institutions based on allegations alone. And we cannot restore free speech with censorship.

    This isn’t the first time FIRE has objected to a presidential administration using federal civil rights law to violate rights. Under the Obama and Biden administrations, the federal government weaponized Title IX to erode campus due process and free speech protections. The fight over the Obama/Biden rules lasted over a decade, and has been largely resolved (for now) in court and with President Trump’s Department of Education promulgating federal rules that protect free speech and due process rights in campus sexual misconduct investigations.

    That’s why we’re deeply concerned that the administration doesn’t recognize that what was wrong and unlawful in the Title IX context is also wrong and unlawful in the Title VI context. Indeed, these federal requirements go even further than what we saw in the Title IX context.

    Fortunately, Harvard is fighting back. Yesterday, Harvard President Alan Garber wrote in an open letter:

    The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.

    Garber’s response didn’t sit well with the federal government, which soon announced it was freezing $2.2 billion in grants to the university. The fight will continue.

    What Harvard does — for better or worse — others follow. Those of us who support free inquiry, academic freedom, and fair procedures on campus — not to mention institutional autonomy — can hope that maybe its action will inspire other institutions to grow a backbone.

    There is some evidence of that already. On the same day Harvard announced it was rejecting the administration’s demands, Columbia University’s new acting president announced Columbia would not agree to any federal demands that “require us to relinquish our independence and autonomy as an educational institution.”

    In addition to Columbia, the administration also froze grants at Cornell University and Northwestern University and is investigating nearly 60 other universities.

    Behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated. Until more universities stand alongside Harvard in opposing the government’s unconstitutional demands, we can be sure these demands won’t be the last.

    Source link

  • Harvard Faculty, AAUP Challenge Trump Administration’s $8.7 Billion Funding Threat

    Harvard Faculty, AAUP Challenge Trump Administration’s $8.7 Billion Funding Threat

    In what legal experts are calling a landmark case for academic freedom, Harvard faculty and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging unconstitutional attempts to control campus speech and governance through threatened funding cuts.

    The legal action, filed Friday, seeks to block the administration from withholding $8.7 billion in federal funding for Harvard University and its affiliated hospitals after demands that the university implement specific policy changes and restructure its operations.

    According to court documents, the administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism issued a demand letter on April 3 outlining “immediate next steps” Harvard must take to maintain its “financial relationship with the United States government.” These demands reportedly extend far beyond addressing antisemitism, including new speech restrictions, elimination of all diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, and mandatory cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security.

    “The First Amendment does not permit government officials to use the power of their office to silence critics and suppress speech they don’t like,” said Andrew Manuel Crespo, Morris Wasserstein Professor of Law at Harvard and general counsel of the AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter. “Harvard faculty have the constitutional right to speak, teach, and conduct research without fearing that the government will retaliate against their viewpoints by canceling grants.”

    The lawsuit comes after the task force chair announced on Fox News in March that “the academic system in this country has been hijacked by the left, has been hijacked by the Marxists,” and threatened to “bankrupt these universities” by removing federal funding.

    Harvard professors involved in the lawsuit claim the administration’s threats have already begun to impact academic freedom on campus.

    “The research and teaching of Harvard faculty have already been chilled by the Trump administration’s attempt to coerce the university into changing its curriculum and governing structure,” said Dr. Kirsten Weld, professor of History and president of the AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter. “If Trump can threaten to withhold billions of dollars from our colleagues unless we stop teaching about diversity and inclusion, he can make the same threat to try and stop us from teaching about science, his critics, or anything else.”

    The plaintiffs have requested an immediate temporary restraining order to prevent any funding cuts while the case proceeds.

    The AAUP warns that allowing such governmental intrusion at Harvard could set a dangerous precedent for institutions nationwide.

    “Our students and faculty members across the nation are terrified,” said Veena Dubal, AAUP General Counsel. “If the administration’s lawless and unconstitutional attempts to control speech and governance at Harvard are allowed to proceed, then any one of our institutions could be next.”

    Dr. Todd Wolfson, president of the AAUP, characterized the administration’s actions as “an attack on democracy and economic mobility” with harms that “will be so irreparable that they will last generations.”

    At the heart of the case is whether the federal government can legally condition billions in funding on compliance with policy demands that appear to target specific viewpoints and academic content.

    Nikolas Bowie, Louis D. Brandeis Professor of Law at Harvard and secretary-treasurer of the AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter, argues there is no legal basis for the administration’s actions.

    “No law in this country permits President Trump to suspend billions of dollars from universities like Penn, Princeton, or Harvard simply because he doesn’t like their policies on transgender athletes, their research on climate change, or the constitutionally protected speech of their students and faculty.”

    Legal experts note that the case could potentially reach the United States Supreme Court, given its significant First Amendment and separation of powers implications.

    Source link

  • Trump administration moves to cut off Maine’s federal K-12 funds

    Trump administration moves to cut off Maine’s federal K-12 funds

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

    The U.S. Department of Education on Friday moved to terminate federal K-12 funding for the Maine Department of Education, following through on its promise to cut off the state and ultimately others if they do not enforce Title IX so as to keep transgender students from girls’ locker rooms, restrooms and athletic teams. 

    The move marks the first time the Trump administration has officially initiated a cut in federal funding to a state K-12 school system over civil rights violations.

    The department at the same time referred its Title IX investigation of Maine to the U.S. Department of Justice for enforcement — after multiple threats that it would do so if the state did not sign onto a resolution agreement within 10 days of the agency finding Maine in violation of Title IX.  

    “The Department has given Maine every opportunity to come into compliance with Title IX, but the state’s leaders have stubbornly refused to do so, choosing instead to prioritize an extremist ideological agenda over their students’ safety, privacy, and dignity,” said Craig Trainor, acting assistant education secretary for civil rights in an April 11 statement. 

    Gov. Janet Mills “would have done well to adhere to the wisdom embedded in the old idiom — be careful what you wish for,” Trainor said. “Now she will see the Trump Administration in court.” 

    Mills has maintained since the investigation’s launch that the state is not in violation of Title IX. The governor has said the federal investigation is “not just about who can compete on the athletic field,” but rather “about whether a President can force compliance with his will, without regard for the rule of law that governs our nation. I believe he cannot.”  

    A swift investigation

    The directed investigation — meaning one initiated without a public complaint — was initiated by the department on Feb. 21 and concluded less than a month later in March. The move was precipitated by a public spat between Mills and Trump in February over the state’s transgender athlete policies, during which Mills threatened to see Trump in court. 

    The day the investigation was launched, alongside a nearly identical one into Maine by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also over Title IX, Mills said the outcome was “all but predetermined.” 

    Indeed, the investigation’s directed nature, quick turnaround time, high stakes attached, and referral to the Department of Justice — which traditionally has been reserved for egregious cases — has raised eyebrows in the education civil rights community. 

    The seemingly targeted, quick and aggressive enforcement strategy marks a significant shift from education civil rights enforcement under past administrations. Investigations traditionally took months or years, involved interviews and other investigative tools, and concluded with a negotiation with schools to bring them into compliance with federal law. Resolution agreements often included changes to school district operations like conducting climate surveys or hiring or training staff to ensure all students have access to an equal education. 

    Resolution agreement rebuffed

    In this case, however, the administration gave Maine 10 days to sign a draft resolution agreement that would change state and district policies to define “females” by “a reproductive system with the biological function of producing eggs (ova),” and “males” by having “a reproductive system with the biological function of producing sperm.” “Gender” would be the same as “sex” under the agreement.

    The draft agreement also would have required the state to apologize to each cisgender girl impacted by the state’s transgender female athlete policy “for allowing her educational experience and participation in school sports to be marred by sex discrimination.” 

    After the state refused to sign the agreement, the department warned officials on March 31 that it would send the case to the Department of Justice by April 11. 

    “Under prior administrations, enforcement was an illusory proposition. No more,” said Trainor in a March 31 statement.  “The Trump-McMahon Education Department is moving quickly to ensure that federal funds no longer support patently illegal practices that harm women and girls.” 

    While cutting off states or districts from funds was always within the Education Department’s power, it was a stick that was rarely used in past administrations, and especially not over Title IX, according to the Association of Title IX Administrators. 

    Within three months under this Trump administration, the department has threatened the cancellation of more than $9.5 billion for Ivy League universities over alleged Title VI and Title IX violations related to alleged antisemitism and LGBTQ+ policies, threatened some 60 colleges and a handful of districts with additional loss of funding over allegations of antisemitism, and promised that “this is only the beginning.”  

    Source link

  • Penn to Lose Security Clearance in Trump Attack

    Penn to Lose Security Clearance in Trump Attack

    President Donald Trump signed a directive Wednesday removing the security clearances of University of Pennsylvania community members, the latest government action to pummel the president’s alma mater.

    In the directive, Trump, a 1968 Wharton School of Business graduate, ordered the Department of Justice to investigate Miles Taylor, a former senior Department of Homeland Security official who has criticized the president, including in a 2018 New York Times op-ed and in a book in which he alleges presidential misconduct during Trump’s first term.

    Taylor taught an undergraduate course at Penn in fall 2023 called The Future of Conservatism and the GOP, according to The Daily Pennsylvanian, and it’s this tie that has put Penn in the crosshairs.

    Trump’s memo asks the attorney general, the director of national intelligence and other relevant department and agency heads to suspend the security clearances held by Taylor “and any individuals at entities associated with Taylor, including the University of Pennsylvania.”

    According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Penn does not conduct classified research and has no security clearance.

    “The University does not possess a government security clearance and cannot as a corporate entity possess classified material,” the website states. “It is the policy of the university not to accept agreements which require access to classified data, require university employees to obtain security clearances, or restrict the dissemination of the results.”

    Penn is also currently facing a $175 million funding freeze from the federal government, announced in March, related to participation of a transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team in 2022. The university was further affected by visa revocations of international students and scholars earlier this week.

    Source link

  • ‘Executive Watch’: The breadth and depth of the Trump administration’s threat to the First Amendment — First Amendment News 465

    ‘Executive Watch’: The breadth and depth of the Trump administration’s threat to the First Amendment — First Amendment News 465

    Given the Trump administration’s continued and varied assaults on the First Amendment, it is vital to monitor those attacks and then realize the gravity of the “sweeping and draconian sanctions” imposed by unconstitutional executive fiat. Vigilance is especially important, as New York Times investigative reporter Michael S. Schmidt has noted, because “Mr. Trump has employed tactics including lawsuits, executive orders, regulations, dismissals from government jobs, withdrawal of security details and public intimidation to take on a wide range of individuals and institutions he views as having unfairly pursued him or sought to block his agenda.” 

    Mindful of such matters, this installment of “Executive Watch” by professor Timothy Zick provides the most comprehensive and informed account of the current threats facing us up to now. 

    Of course, yet more posts are forthcoming. Meanwhile, it is worth heeding the sound advice recently offered by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky: “despite the risks of speaking out, silence itself comes at enormous cost.”

    — rklc

    My introductory post, which was published a little more than a month after Donald Trump took office for the second time, identified various areas in which his administration’s actions threatened First Amendment rights. At this point, even before the first 100 days of the second Trump administration have elapsed, we now have a much fuller picture of the nature and scope of the threat — and it’s even worse than we thought. 

    Media stories and commentary have covered a range of Trump administration policies and actions that threaten speech and press rights. Commentators have examined the attacks on media, law firms, government employees, and universities, among others. My last post discussed Trump’s abuse of the civil lawsuit to punish the media and others.

    Considered in isolation, these actions raise troubling First Amendment concerns. But the whole threat to the First Amendment is far greater than the sum of its damaging parts. Combined, the administration’s actions represent a whole-of-government and whole-of-society effort to control whether and how Americans talk about certain ideas. 

    Trump 1.0 and the First Amendment

    As it concerns the First Amendment, the fundamental difference between Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0 is the extraordinary use of the levers of governmental power to suppress, dictate, and coerce viewpoints the president disfavors.

    During the first administration, the threat to the First Amendment emanated primarily from the president’s own statements and threatened actions. Trump talked about “opening up” the libel laws to make it easier to sue media defendants. He waged a constant war on the press, which he referred to as “the enemy of the people.” He demanded loyalty, attacked those who disagreed with his views on patriotism and dissent, and threatened to punish media outlets by revoking their licenses. He also threatened to shut down social media platforms that fact-checked him.

    Prof. Timothy Zick

    During the 2016 presidential election, Trump called for de-naturalizing and jailing protesters who burned the U.S. flag. As president, he routinely denigrated protesters. During the Black Lives Matter demonstrations, Trump considered invoking the Insurrection Act to call up U.S. military personnel to quell protest-related civil unrest. He sent federal agents to Portland and other cities to police and quell protests. At one point during the demonstrations, Trump reportedly asked his then-secretary of defense why protesters couldn’t be shot. And, of course, after he lost the 2020 election he used his own speech to incite the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

    It was clear during his first term that Trump had little or no tolerance for dissent, and a strong desire to impose his will on the media and other institutions. However, for the most part, he either didn’t or couldn’t effectuate that agenda. Perhaps this was because members of his administration talked him out of it, or perhaps because he was not yet familiar with the levers of power.

    Trump 2.0 and executive orders

    Trump 2.0 has been a vastly different story. Past presidents, including Trump, have used executive orders to exercise or augment their executive powers. They have set important agendas for the executive branch of government. However, no president has ever used executive orders to attempt to control what Americans can discuss, or how they speak about concepts regarding diversity, patriotism, anti-Semitism, gender, and other matters of public concern. And no president has been as successful at extending such an agenda across not just the federal bureaucracy but nearly every aspect of society.

    Thus far, President Trump has issued eighteent Executive Orders, plus several accompanying “Fact Sheets,” that implicate First Amendment rights. Although some of the Orders are vague and/or thin on specifics, many target expression based on its viewpoint – a quintessential violation of the First Amendment.  

    • Five of the Executive Orders target law firms based on their representation of clients and advocacy for causes the President disfavors.
    • Three Orders prohibit universities, companies, and others receiving federal funds from maintaining “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) policies and practices – including training, teaching, and supporting those ideas.
    • Trump’s Orders also target “anti-Semitic” speech by federal grantees and encourage universities to monitor “pro-jihadist protests” and campus “radicalism.”
    • An Executive Order requires that K-12 schools adopt “patriotic” curricula and further vows to withhold funding from any schools that teach that the United States is “fundamentally racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory.”
    • Other Orders provide that resident aliens who express “hatred for America” or “bear hostile attitudes toward [American] citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles” are subject to deportation.
    • Two of Trump’s Executive Orders single out transgender individuals, banning them from military service and imposing restrictions on the genders they can use on U.S. passports. These Orders raise important equal protection concerns, but also bar individuals from communicating about their own gender identity.
    • Finally, the Administration’s cost-cutting and desire to control the flow of information have deeply affected the availability and distribution of information in the United States. Trump has ordered the disbanding of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, important outlets for furthering American interests abroad. Trump’s spending cuts have also decimated libraries, which are critical distributors of information. Trump recently issued an Executive Order that purports to remove “anti-American ideology” from the Smithsonian Museum.

    TRUMP’S FIRST 80 DAYS
    Executive orders affecting free speech and press: 18
    Federal agencies involved in enforcement: 20
    Lawsuits raising First Amendment challenges: 30

    The whole-of-government campaign

    Standing alone, Trump’s executive orders represent a serious threat to the First Amendment. But the orders are backed by agency enforcement powers that drastically expand the danger.

    Think of the executive orders as a general blueprint for an ideological and retributive campaign aimed at punishing enemies for speech, imposing governmental orthodoxy regarding race, gender, and other matters, and controlling the distribution of information. That blueprint is being enforced by all federal agencies under the president’s command. So far, that includes some twenty separate agencies, including:

    • The Federal Bureau of Investigation
    • The Department of Justice
    • The Department of Health and Human Services
    • The Department of Education
    • The General Services Administration
    • The Department of Homeland Security
    • The State Department
    • U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    • U.S. Customs and Border Patrol
    • The Federal Communications Commission
    • The Office of Personnel Management
    • The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
    • The United States Agency for Global Media
    • The Federal Trade Commission 

    In contrast to Trump 1.0, during Trump 2.0 the entire agency alphabet soup is fully committed to enforcing executive orders that require adoption of official orthodoxies and ideologies, or punish individuals or institutions for their viewpoints. Pursuant to these executive orders, federal agencies have investigated employers and universities based on their support for DEI, targeted law firms based on their clients and causes, arrested international students based on their political advocacy, investigated broadcast stations based on the content of their shows, and removed scientific papers from public databases because they include forbidden words about gender or diversity. 

    Agencies across government are involved in enforcing Trump’s executive orders in areas ranging from private business to immigration. Ironically, the president’s ability to control and punish expression is due, in large part, to the size of the federal government he has targeted for downsizing or eradication.

    The whole-of-society impact of the executive orders

    Trump’s executive orders bind all federal agencies under his command. Agencies across regulatory areas have moved swiftly to scrub websites of offensive DEI language. Their efforts to comply with Trump’s directive have at times been comical. The Defense Department apparently removed material about the Enola Gay, the aircraft that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, because of its name. Agencies have also removed information about Jackie Robinson and other material that celebrates the accomplishments of black people and women. Taking a “chainsaw” approach to language in public-facing websites, agencies have removed information that does not comport with the president’s preferred terms and viewpoints.

    “In a pre-election poll, respondents ranked ‘free speech’ among the top issues that were ‘very important’ in influencing their vote for president.”

     FIRE/NORC poll of 1,022 Americans conducted Oct. 11-14, 2024

    The federal government is an important source of information for issues relating to public health, the armed forces, employment, and other matters. Governments can determine what messages they want to communicate, including on websites they control, but those efforts can have harmful effects on the distribution of information to the public. 

    Trump’s orders have also limited the availability of information, both at home and abroad. They have silenced the nation’s voice in international spheres, cut off aid to libraries, and even demanded that museums change exhibits that convey “anti-American ideology.” Again, no president has ever used executive orders to so comprehensively control what can be seen, heard, or viewed. 

    Trump’s executive orders have also affected millions of individuals, entities, and institutions beyond federal agencies. Indeed, it is hard to overstate the breadth and depth of the activities covered by the existing executive orders — and they continue to be issued almost daily. The orders have already extended into every boardroom, classroom, breakroom, and laboratory in the United States. Businesses have shut down activities recognizing the value of a diverse workforce. Universities have scrubbed websites and materials of any references to the values of diversity in education. Legal counsel at some hospitals have even warned staff not to use “triggering” words like “vulnerable” or “diverse” to describe patients. 

    How Trump has expanded his power over expression

    Four things account for the extraordinary scope and effect of the Trump administration’s campaign to control what Americans see, hear, and say regarding gender, race, and American history.

    First, in contrast to Trump 1.0, the president has relied more extensively on executive orders as a means of governing. Trump’s more than 100 executive orders cover everything from the types of straws that can be used in federal buildings, the legitimate causes law firms can pursue, and the content of displays at the Smithsonian Museum.

    “There . . . can be no question that the demands the administration is making of Harvard are intended to suppress protected expression, of various kinds. To avoid the loss of federal funds, Harvard will have to refrain from advocating for, or empowering others to advocate for, the viewpoint that diversity, equality, and inclusion are important educational and social values. It will have to change how it oversees faculty research and teaching, and what kinds of scholarly viewpoints it hires and promotes. And it will have to suppress student speech and association, including core political expression, more severely than it has chosen to do so far—or at least it will have to promise to do so.”

    Genevieve Lakier

    Second, the orders use the threat of lost federal funding as an enforcement mechanism. Federal funding touches nearly every aspect of American life. That includes education at all levels, health care, immigration, the practice of law, scientific research, and even farming. 

    Third, because the executive orders lack any meaningful specificity about concepts and ideas it targets, including “DEI” and “anti-Semitism,” no federal grantee can be sure which words, phrases, or ideas will result in a denial of critical funding. This lack of clarity has produced significant uncertainty at universities, hospitals, businesses, and other funding recipients. And that uncertainty has led to anticipatory compliance on a scale that federal anti-discrimination and other laws do not require.

    Fourth, the administration has not provided the process required by federal law to deny or remove federal funding. This enhances the chill of agency enforcement by speeding up the denial of funds, leaving grantees with little recourse to contest allegations or charges prior to loss of funding.

    Fifth, for many of the above reasons, the Orders have engendered a repressive fear in federal fund recipients — a fear, as Ronald Collins points out, that is “born of direct or veiled demands for loyalty” and the specter of punishment for dissent. Thus, words and phrases must be removed, lectures canceled, and “deals” inked that trade away law firms’ First Amendment rights for relief from facially retributive and unconstitutional Executive Orders. 

    To be sure, some will challenge these executive orders on First Amendment grounds. Indeed, nearly 30 lawsuits raising First Amendment claims have already been filed. But many more grantees will decide, as Columbia University and the Paul Weiss law firm recently have, to negotiate a settlement or comply with unlawful orders. Many others will comply in advance, lest they remain targets of the president’s ire and risk their funding and livelihoods. 

    This underscores just how widespread the effects on First Amendment rights and principles will turn out to be. By virtue of their breadth, vagueness, and procedural violations, Trump’s executive orders and threats of agency enforcement will produce far more suppression of speech than normal agency action — which is limited by, among other things, resource considerations and legal process requirements. Although lawsuits are an important check, the chilling and suppressive effects of the Trump administration’s campaign are much broader and deeper than courts alone can address or resolve. 

    The daily chaos of Trump 2.0 can readily distract us from the fuller picture in terms of threats to free speech. As Professor Stephen Vladeck has correctly observed, “it seems that chaos and disruption are themselves central to President Trump’s objective.” However courts ultimately rule after tiresome and delayed litigation, much damage will already be done, some of it even irreversible.  

    Make no mistake: What we have seen in the early days of Trump 2.0 is an unprecedented government-wide and society-wide broadside against fundamental First Amendment commitments. And there is no indication that the Trump administration’s campaign is going to end any time soon. 

    2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases

    Cases decided 

    • Villarreal v. Alaniz (Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
    • Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
    • TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)

    Review granted

    Pending petitions 

    Petitions denied

    Free speech related

    • Thompson v. United States (decided: 3-21-25/ 9-0 with special concurrences by Alito and Jackson) (interpretation of 18 U. S. C. §1014 re “false statements”)

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 464: “Free speech in an age of fear: The new system loyalty oaths”

    This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.

    Source link

  • Colorado School Attendance Zones Keep Racial, Socioeconomic Segregation Going – The 74

    Colorado School Attendance Zones Keep Racial, Socioeconomic Segregation Going – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Colorado school districts should revise their school attendance zones at least every four years with a “civil rights focus.” State lawmakers should increase funding to transport students to and from school. And attorneys, advocates, and community organizations should embrace the right to sue over school assignments that increase racial segregation.

    Those are among the recommendations in a new report from the Colorado Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. “Examining the Racial Impact of Public School Attendance Zones in Colorado” concludes that the way Colorado draws school attendance boundaries and assigns students to schools mirrors segregated housing patterns and results in low-income families having less access to high-quality schools.

    “This segregation fuels a widespread belief that schools serving predominantly white and affluent students are inherently better than those serving predominantly students of color or low-income families,” an accompanying policy brief said.

    Other reports from local and national think tanks and advocacy organizations have reached similar conclusions. While some local school officials, such as the Denver school board, have talked about possible solutions, the federal Trump administration has framed efforts to increase racial diversity in schools as discrimination that could trigger civil rights investigations.

    The Colorado Advisory Committee is a 10-person group of bipartisan appointed volunteers. Each state has an advisory committee that produces reports on civil rights issues ranging from housing discrimination to voting rights to the use of excessive force by police officers.

    In its latest report, the Colorado committee found that “thousands — perhaps tens of thousands — of Colorado students are likely to be assigned to schools in violation” of a federal law that says assigning a student to a school outside their neighborhood is unlawful “if it has segregating effects.”

    The committee’s recommended solutions attempt to balance strong support for neighborhood schools with allowing families to choose the best school for their child. School choice, or the ability for a student to apply to attend any public school, is enshrined in state law.

    The committee advocated for what it called “controlled choice,” which it said could mean that popular schools reserve seats for students who live outside the neighborhood or that schools give priority admission to non-neighborhood students who live the closest.

    To produce its report, the committee held hearings in 2023 to gather input from national experts including university professors, the author of a book on school attendance zones, and representatives from think tanks across the political spectrum.

    The committee also convened a group of 10 local experts including Brenda Dickhoner from the conservative advocacy organization Ready Colorado; Kathy Gebhardt, who was then a member of the Boulder Valley school board and now sits on the State Board of Education; former Aurora Public Schools superintendent Rico Munn; and Nicholas Martinez, a former teacher who heads the education reform organization Transform Education Now.

    The committee’s other recommendations include:

    • The civil rights divisions of the federal education and justice departments should review options for enforcing “the permissible and impermissible use of race in drawing attendance boundaries and setting school assignment policies.”
    • Colorado lawmakers should correct “the systemic racial and ethnic disparities” caused by the state’s school transportation system, which does not require school districts to provide transportation to students who use school choice.
    • State lawmakers should improve Colorado’s school choice system, including by adopting a uniform school enrollment window statewide and providing families with more information about schools’ discipline policies, class sizes, and other factors.
    • Colorado school districts should revise their school attendance zones and student assignment policies at least every four years and “consider racial and ethnic integration as part of the rezoning process.”

    “Redrawing school boundaries every few years can help prevent segregation from becoming entrenched while still allowing students to maintain a sense of stability in their educational environment,” the committee’s policy brief said.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Black Colleges Ponder Their Future As Trump Makes Cuts to Education Dollars – The 74

    Black Colleges Ponder Their Future As Trump Makes Cuts to Education Dollars – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    The nation’s historically Black colleges and universities, known as HBCUs, are wondering how to survive in an uncertain and contentious educational climate as the Trump administration downsizes the scope and purpose of the U.S. Department of Education — while cutting away at federal funding for higher education.

    In January, President Donald Trump signed an executive order pausing federal grants and loans, alarming HBCUs, where most students rely on Pell Grants or federal aid. The order was later rescinded, but ongoing cuts leave key support systems in political limbo, said Denise Smith, deputy director of higher education policy and a senior fellow at The Century Foundation, a left-leaning think tank.

    Leaders worry about Trump’s rollback of the Justice40 Initiative, a climate change program that relied on HBCUs to tackle environmental justice issues, she said. And there’s uncertainty around programs such as federal work-study and TRIO, which provides college access services to disadvantaged students.

    “People are being mum because we’re starting to see a chilling effect,” Smith said. “There’s real fear that resources could be lost at any moment — even the ones schools already know they need to survive.”

    Most students at HBCUs rely on Pell Grants or other federal aid, and a fifth of Black college graduates matriculate from HBCUs. Other minority-serving institutions, known as MSIs, that focus on Hispanic and American Indian populations also heavily depend on federal aid.

    “It’s still unclear what these cuts will mean for HBCUs and MSIs, even though they’re supposedly protected,” Smith said.

    States may be unlikely to make up any potential federal funding cuts to their public HBCUs. And the schools already have been underfunded by states compared with predominantly white schools.

    Congress created public, land-grant universities under the Morrill Act of 1862 to serve the country’s agricultural and industrial industries, providing 10 million acres taken from tribes and offering it for public universities such as Auburn and the University of Georgia. But Black students were excluded.

    The 1890 Morrill Act required states to either integrate or establish separate land-grant institutions for Black students — leading to the creation of many HBCUs. These schools have since faced chronic underfunding compared with their majority-white counterparts.

    ‘None of them are equitable’

    In 2020, the average endowment of white land-grant universities was $1.9 billion, compared with just $34 million for HBCUs, according to Forbes.

    There are other HBCUs that don’t stem from the 1890 law, including well-known private schools such as Fisk University, Howard University, Morehouse College and Spelman College. But more than three-fourths of HBCU students attend public universities, meaning state lawmakers play a significant role in their funding and oversight.

    Marybeth Gasman, an endowed chair in education and a distinguished professor at Rutgers University, isn’t impressed by what states have done for HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions so far. She said she isn’t sure there is a state model that can bridge the massive funding inequities for these institutions, even in states better known for their support.

    “I don’t think North Carolina or Maryland have done a particularly good job at the state level. Nor have any of the other states. Students at HBCUs are funded at roughly 50-60% of what students at [predominately white institutions] are funded. That’s not right,” said Gasman.

    “Most of the bipartisan support has come from the U.S. Congress and is the result of important work by HBCUs and affiliated organizations. I don’t know of a state model that works well, as none of them are equitable.”

    Under federal law, states that accept federal land-grant funding are required to match every dollar with state funds.

    But in 2023, the Biden administration sent letters to 16 governors warning them that their public Black land-grant institutions had been underfunded by more than $12 billion over three decades.

    Tennessee State University alone had a $2.1 billion gap with the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

    At a February meeting hosted by the Tennessee Black Caucus of State Legislators, Tennessee State interim President Dwayne Tucker said the school is focused on asking lawmakers this year for money to keep the school running.

    Otherwise, Tucker said at the time, the institution could run out of cash around April or May.

    “That’s real money. That’s the money we should work on,” Tucker said, according to a video of the forum.

    In some states, lawsuits to recoup long-standing underfunding have been one course of action.

    In Maryland, a landmark $577 million legal settlement was reached in 2021 to address decades of underfunding at four public HBCUs.

    In Georgia, three HBCU students sued the state in 2023 for underfunding of three HBCUs.

    In Tennessee, a recent state report found Tennessee State University has been shortchanged roughly $150 million to $544 million over the past 100 years.

    But Tucker said he thinks filing a lawsuit doesn’t make much sense for Tennessee State.

    “There’s no account payable set up with the state of Tennessee to pay us $2.1 billion,” Tucker said at the February forum. “And if we want to make a conclusion about whether [that money] is real or not … you’re going to have to sue the state of Tennessee, and I don’t think that makes a whole lot of sense.”

    Economic anchors

    There are 102 HBCUs across 19 states, Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Virgin Islands, though a large number of HBCUs are concentrated in the South.

    Alabama has the most, with 14, and Pennsylvania has the farthest north HBCU.

    Beyond education, HBCUs contribute roughly $15 billion annually to their local economies, generate more than 134,000 jobs and create $46.8 billion in career earnings, proving themselves to be economic anchors in under-resourced regions.

    Homecoming events at HBCUs significantly bolster local economies, local studies show. North Carolina Central University’s homecoming contributes approximately $2.5 million to Durham’s economy annually.

    Similarly, Hampton University’s 2024 homecoming was projected to inject around $3 million into the City of Hampton and the coastal Virginia region, spurred by increased visitor spending and retail sales. In Tallahassee, Florida A&M University’s 2024 homecoming week in October generated about $5.1 million from Sunday to Thursday.

    Their significance is especially pronounced in Southern states — such as North Carolina, where HBCUs account for just 16% of four-year schools but serve 45% of the state’s Black undergraduate population.

    Smith has been encouraged by what she’s seen in states such as Maryland, North Carolina and Tennessee, which have a combined 20 HBCUs among them. Lawmakers have taken piecemeal steps to expand support for HBCUs through policy and funding, she noted.

    Tennessee became the first state in 2018 to appoint a full-time statewide higher education official dedicated to HBCU success for institutions such as Fisk and Tennessee State. Meanwhile, North Carolina launched a bipartisan, bicameral HBCU Caucus in 2023 to advocate for its 10 HBCUs, known as the NC10, and spotlight their $1.7 billion annual economic impact.

    “We created a bipartisan HBCU caucus because we needed people in both parties to understand these institutions’ importance. If you represent a district with an HBCU, you should be connected to it,” said North Carolina Democratic Sen. Gladys Robinson, an alum of private HBCU Bennett College and state HBCU North Carolina A&T State University.

    “It took constant education — getting folks to come and see, talk about what was going on,” she recalled. “It’s like beating the drum constantly until you finally hear the beat.”

    For Robinson, advocacy for HBCUs can be a tough task, especially when fellow lawmakers aren’t aware of the stories of these institutions. North Carolina A&T was among the 1890 land-grant universities historically undermatched in federal agricultural and extension funding.

    The NC Promise Tuition Plan, launched in 2018, reduced in-state tuition to $500 per semester and out-of-state tuition to $2,500 per semester at a handful of schools that now include HBCUs Elizabeth City State University and Fayetteville State University; Western Carolina University, a Hispanic-serving institution; and UNC at Pembroke, founded in 1887 to serve American Indians.

    Through conversations on the floor of the General Assembly, and with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, Robinson advocated to ensure Elizabeth City State — a struggling HBCU — was included, which helped revive enrollment and public investment.

    “I’m hopeful because we’ve been here before,” Robinson said in an interview.

    “These institutions were built out of churches and land by people who had nothing, just so we could be educated,” Robinson said. “We have people in powerful positions across the country. We have to use our strength and our voices. Alumni must step up.

    “It’s tough, but not undoable.”

    Meanwhile, other states are working to recognize certain colleges that offer significant support to Black college students. California last year passed a law creating a Black-serving Institution designation, the first such title in the country. Schools must have programs focused on Black achievement, retention and graduation rates, along with a five-year plan to improve them. Sacramento State is among the first receiving the designation.

    And this session, California state Assemblymember Mike Gipson, a Democrat, introduced legislation that proposes a $75 million grant program to support Black and underserved students over five years through the Designation of California Black-Serving Institutions Grant Program. The bill was most recently referred to the Assembly’s appropriations committee.

    Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: [email protected].


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Trump Sets Demands Harvard Must Meet to Regain Federal Funds

    Trump Sets Demands Harvard Must Meet to Regain Federal Funds

    The Trump administration presented Harvard University with a letter Thursday outlining “immediate next steps” the institution must take in order to have a “continued financial relationship with the United States government,” The Boston Globe reported and Inside Higher Ed confirmed.

    The ultimatum came just three days after the president’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism notified the university it had been placed under review for its alleged failure to protect Jewish students and faculty from discrimination. If the case follows the precedent set at other universities, Harvard and its affiliate medical institutions could lose up to $9 billion in federal grants and contracts if they do not comply.

    Sources say the move is driven less by true concern about antisemitism on campus than by the government’s desire to abolish diversity efforts and hobble higher ed institutions it deems too “woke.” This week alone, the administration has retracted funds from Brown and Princeton Universities. Before that, it targeted the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University and opened dozens of civil rights investigations at other colleges, all of which are ongoing.

    Many of the task force’s demands for Harvard mirror those presented to Columbia last month, including mandates to reform antisemitism accountability programs on campus, ban masks for nonmedical purposes, review certain academic departments and reshape admissions policies. The main difference: Columbia’s letter targeted specific departments and programs, while Harvard’s was broader.

    For example, while the letter received by Columbia called for one specific Middle Eastern studies department to be placed under receivership, Harvard’s letter called more generally for “oversight and accountability for biased programs [and departments] that fuel antisemitism.”

    Inside Higher Ed requested a copy of the letter from Harvard, which declined to send it but confirmed that they had received it. Inside Higher Ed later received a copy from a different source.

    Some higher education advocates speculate that the Trump administration’s latest demands were deliberately vague in the hopes that colleges will overcomply.

    “What I’ve learned from various experiences with higher ed law is that it’s unusual to be general in legal documents,” said Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations and national engagement for the American Council on Education. Trump’s “open-ended” letter “starts to look like a fishing expedition,” he added. “‘We want you to throw everything open to us so that we get to determine how you do this.’”

    But conservative higher ed analysts believe the demands—even when broadened—are justified.

    “Many of these are extremely reasonable—restricting demonstrations inside academic buildings, requiring participants and demonstrations to identify themselves when asked, committing to antidiscrimination policies, intellectual diversity and institutional neutrality,” said Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

    Still, he raised questions about how certain mandates in the letter will be enforced.

    “When you see this in the context of the federal government trying to use funding as a lever to force some of these reforms, that’s where one might raise some legitimate concern,” he said. “For instance, trying to ensure viewpoint diversity is a very laudable goal, but if the federal government is trying to … decide what constitutes viewpoint diversity, there is a case to be made that that is a violation of the First Amendment.”

    What Does the Letter Say?

    The demands made of Harvard Thursday largely target the same aspects of higher ed that Trump has focused on since taking office in January.

    Some center on pro-Palestinian protests, like the requirements to hold allegedly antisemitic programs accountable, reform discipline procedures and review all “antisemitic rule violations” since Oct. 7, 2023.

    Others focus on enforcing Trump’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling on affirmative action; the university must make “durable” merit-based changes to its admissions and hiring practices and shut down all diversity, equity and inclusion programs, which the administration believes promote making “snap judgments about each other based on crude race and identity stereotypes.”

    The letter was signed by the same three task force members who signed Columbia’s demand letter: Josh Gruenbaum, commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service; Sean Keveney, acting general counsel for the Department of Health and Human Services; and Thomas Wheeler, acting general counsel for the Department of Education.

    The most notable difference in Harvard’s letter is that the task force is demanding “full cooperation” with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. That department and its Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency have been arresting and revoking visas from international students and scholars who, the government says, are supporting terrorist groups by participating in pro-Palestinian protests.

    Will Harvard Capitulate?

    Harvard already appears to be taking steps to comply. On Wednesday, the university put a pro-Palestinian student group on probation. The week before, a dean removed two top leaders of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, which has been accused of biased teaching about Israel.

    A letter to the campus community from university president Alan Garber also suggested capitulation is likely.

    “If this funding is stopped, it will halt life-saving research and imperil important scientific research and innovation,” Garber wrote following the task force’s review. “We will engage with members of the federal government’s task force to combat antisemitism.”

    But Fansmith noted such actions may not be enough to predict whether Harvard will fully acquiesce to the Trump administration’s demands.

    “If you look at all of these institutions over the last two years, they’ve been making a number of changes in policies, procedures, personnel and everything else,” he said. “And a lot of that was happening and was at pace before this administration took office and started sending letters.”

    Harvard was one of the first three universities that the House Committee on Education and the Workforce grilled about antisemitism on campus in December 2023. Shortly after, then-president Claudine Gay—the first Black woman to lead Harvard—resigned. The university has since been working to make changes at the campus level.

    Both Fansmith and Cooper pointed to Trump’s mandates regarding curriculum as the most likely to face opposition, as was the case at Columbia.

    A little over a week after the Trump administration laid out its ultimatum, Columbia capitulated and agreed to all but one demand: The university refused to put its department of Middle Eastern studies into receivership, a form of academic probation that involves hiring an outside department chair. Instead, it placed the department under internal review and announced it would hire a new senior vice provost to oversee the academic program.

    “You need to be making sure that Jewish students are not subject to harassment,” Cooper said. But “where that crosses the line is if the federal government is telling the universities … ‘this is how you have to appoint somebody to put an academic department into receivership,’ as was the original demand made of Columbia.”

    Regardless of how Harvard responds, one thing seems likely: There are more funding freezes to come.

    “A lot of folks were expecting Columbia to file a legal challenge, and when that didn’t happen, that might have emboldened the administration a bit to go after some of these other institutions,” Cooper said. But sooner than later, “one of these institutions might say, ‘We’re not going to make the reforms.’”

    “I don’t have a great guess as to which institution that will be,” he added, “but I would expect we probably will see a lawsuit at some point.”

    Source link