Tag: Trumps

  • Trump’s FY26 budget would slash more than $4.5B from K-12

    Trump’s FY26 budget would slash more than $4.5B from K-12

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

    President Donald Trump on Friday delivered a federal budget that would slash more than $4.5 billion in K-12 funding for fiscal year 2026. In total, cuts to the Education Department would amount to $12 billion, or 15% of its current funding.

    The deep cuts would hit programs meant to ensure equitable access to education for underserved students and to protect their civil rights. And though maintained at current funding levels,  Title I and special education programs would be reorganized into separate single grants aimed at letting states spend the money as they see fit.

    “The Budget continues the process of shutting down the Department of Education,” the White House’s funding request states. 

    Among the cuts:

    • All $70 million for Teacher Quality Partnerships grant, often used to diversify the teacher workforce.
    • All $7 million for Equity Assistance Centers, established as part of desegregation efforts.
    • All $890 million for English Language Acquisition.
    • A $49 million, or 35%, reduction for the Office for Civil Rights. 

    At the same time, Trump’s budget would boost funding for charter schools by $60 million. 

    Funding for Title I and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act programs — which public school advocates had worried would be cut — was preserved. Head Start, which was widely rumored to be on the chopping block, appears to have survived for now as it is not among the cuts listed in the budget document.

    Cuts reflect administration’s anti-DEI priority

    Many of the proposed cuts reflect Trump’s course reversal from the previous decades-long focus on equity in the education sector. 

    For instance, the budget would zero out Equity Assistance Centers, originally established under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to level the playing field for students of color, and especially Black students, after decades of segregation and its long-standing impact on their achievement over generations. Friday’s White House budget request characterizes such efforts as “distractions” from focusing on core subjects like math, reading, science and history.

    Another program that would be halted is the Teacher Quality Partnerships grant, which funds teacher pipeline programs and helped establish a master’s program for teachers of color. The budget document argues that the program centers “racism in their pedagogy” by including instruction for aspiring teachers on “social justice activism, ’anti-racism,’ and instruction on white privilege and white supremacy.” Professional development workshops funded by the grants have included topics such as “building cultural competence,” “dismantling racial bias,” and “centering equity in the classroom,” which the administration took issue with.

    Also on the chopping block: The budget would eliminate the $890 million English Language Acquisition program, which the administration says “encourages bilingualism,” and “deemphasizes English primacy.”

    The administration also proposed an end to the U.S. Health and Human Services Department’s Preschool Development Grants. In the budget overview, the White House cited efforts by the Minnesota Department of Education to use the money to implement “intersectionality” and “racial equity” in early childhood education programs and by Oregon to provide “quality care” for the state’s LGBTQIA+ families. 

    One of the few increases included in the proposal to K-12 program funding was an additional $60 million for charter schools, which it says “have a proven track record of improving students’ academic achievement” and will create more local school options while expanding parental choice. 

    Proposed cuts follow recent moves to gut Education Department

    The president’s budget request “reflects funding levels for an agency that is responsibly winding down, shifting some responsibilities to the states, and thoughtfully preparing a plan to delegate other critical functions to more appropriate entities.” said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon.

    The budget proposal “supports the President’s vision of expanding school choice and ensuring every American has access to an excellent education,” McMahon said in a statement on Friday.

    Many of the proposed cuts reflect moves already made to pare down and eventually close the Education Departmentto the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law,” as Trump ordered in a March directive.

    For example, as part of a massive reduction in force that eliminated half of the department’s employees, the ELA office was already entirely slashed. 

    Source link

  • What’s next for students after Trump’s visa reversals?

    What’s next for students after Trump’s visa reversals?

    One of the realities of the Trump administration is that decisions with vast domestic and global consequences can be implemented and reversed at the drop of a hat. This has been the case with international trade. President Trump has imposed steep tariffs on other countries only to relent when the market takes a turn. It’s also been the case with staffing. Trump defended national security adviser Mike Waltz when it was revealed he accidentally added a journalist to an app chat about a military strike in Yemen. Weeks later, Trump removed Waltz and gave him another job.

    This is also true for student visas. Trump has upended the academic world with his threats to Harvard and other universities, and the arrests of students for pro-Palestinian protests. Harvard was even forced to hand over information about international students to federal officials. 

    Trump has also cracked down on student visas. The Trump administration revoked more than 1,800 visas earlier this year, and many students went into hiding after the news broke. Federal officials restored roughly 1,200 visas after significant public pressure. 

    International students can expect more erratic decisions as the Trump administration moves past its first 100 days. These changes could cause significant stress and anxiety to both intentional students and administrators. I’ve designed a primer for both international students and administrators on what to expect as we move forward and how to prepare for a time when change is the only certainty.

    Unpredictability Will Become The Norm: In the past, there was a defined process for becoming an international student. Students’ expectations have been upended in just a few months. This will make life difficult for universities and their staff; many international students, particularly those interested in medicine, may choose not to come to the United States due to these changes. This will have ripple effects across the academic world; research and innovation could stall without an infusion of the best and brightest; American companies could lose a pipeline to strong potential hires, and scientific and medical breakthroughs will decline.

    International students can expect more erratic decisions as the Trump administration moves past its first 100 days

    Shaun Carver, International House, UC Berkeley

    Threats to Higher Education Will Upend Academic Life: Federal funding freezes are now a reality for higher education, particularly at schools with robust diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The administration just froze $1 billion for Cornell and $790 million for Northwestern. These support cuts will make American universities less attractive to global talent. 

    Preparing to Study in America Will Look Different: Moving to a different country has always been challenging. Students need to navigate a new culture, learn a different language, and handle tasks that are challenging for domestic students, such as finding housing and making social connections.  

    Students will now need to factor in other challenges, such as potential threats to their visa status, the risk of arrest or deportation for speaking their mind, and also distrust in a culturally divided country. International students should be aware of their legal rights before coming to the United States. Administrators should be prepared to support them and provide them with relevant legal resources.

    STEM Could Be Hit Hard: In the past, federal regulators targeted humanities departments, perceiving them as liberal. Science, technology, or medicine were seen as essential to society and global status, and were shielded from scrutiny. The Trump administration had added science and technology disciplines to its target list and reduced grants for critical research. 

    Roughly 16% of Harvard’s total revenue comes from sponsored support, including grants and federal funding. But 53% of the revenue for the School of Public Health, 35% of the revenue for the School of Medicine, and 37% of the revenue for Engineering and Applied Sciences come from federal grants. Many of the funding cuts are for STEM research programs, including those related to artificial intelligence (AI). The administration is also slashing science-related funding at other schools. In addition to possible brain drain at universities, these changes could affect America’s ability to compete, keep pace with other countries that are embracing AI, maintain its populace’s health, and more.

    The Big Picture: 

    It’s a tenuous time for both university administrators and international students. Despite these difficulties, American universities remain among the best in the world, and many have deep financial resources. Schools are getting creative; Harvard’s staff has agreed to a pay cut to support the university. 

    The best thing international students and administrators can do is ensure they are prepared, closely monitor changes and developments, and finally encourage those in power to make changes. Transparent and consistent policies, along with stronger protections, are needed now to restore confidence among international students and maintain US leadership in global education.

    Source link

  • Higher Ed After Trump’s First 100 Days: The Key Podcast

    Higher Ed After Trump’s First 100 Days: The Key Podcast

    Inside Higher Ed journalists analyze the first 100 days of the Trump administration in this week’s episode of The Key, IHE’s news and analysis podcast.  

    Editor in chief Sara Custer, along with news editor Katherine Knott and reporters Johanna Alonso and Liam Knox, discuss the major events of the last three months and the impact they have had on universities and colleges.

    The team summarizes the executive orders that will affect higher education, including one to shutter the Department of Education, another to overhaul accreditation and another to tackle alleged antisemitism. 

    The conversation also explores the new relationship the federal government has established between itself and higher education and how the administration is threatening federal research funding to set ultimatums and progress its agenda, in particular with Columbia and Harvard University.

    The group updates listeners on the latest developments with international students’ Student Exchange and Visitor Information System status reinstatements. Alonso and Knox also talk about what they learned about the administration’s targeting of international students from speaking to students, their advisers and digging through dozens of lawsuits brought against the government. 

    While what comes next is anyone’s guess. The team discusses what they’ll be watching over the next 100 days, including what Congress will be working on, the fallout from the international student crackdown and how summer might shift the vibe on campus. 

    Listen and download the episode here. 

    Source link

  • The implications for UK universities of Trump’s attacks on EDI

    The implications for UK universities of Trump’s attacks on EDI

    Few will be unaware of Donald Trump’s antipathy towards diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the US. In February 2025, Trump issued executive orders and policy directives aimed at eliminating DEI programmes and removing references to “gender ideology” from federal agencies.

    For those of us who know DEI as equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI), there is concern about the ripple effects of Trump’s measures on UK universities, for research as well as teaching and learning.

    One of the immediate impacts of this manoeuvre was to remove essential LGBTQ+ content from federal websites. Terms such as “transgender”, “LGBT”, and “pregnant person” were all banned. Decades of HIV data, contraception guidelines, and research on racial health disparities were suddenly inaccessible. For US researchers in higher education, such staggeringly blatant anti-EDI policies have disrupted the passage of critical research focused on improving health outcomes for marginalised groups.

    Such censorship – to our minds at least – thoroughly undermines scientific integrity, limiting the study of complex health and social issues. Our colleagues in the US are now forced to work within these constraints, which threaten accuracy and inclusivity. Indeed, the politicisation of scientific terminology arguably damages public trust in research and, in the US, diminishes the credibility of federal agencies.

    Implications for LGBTQ+ researchers

    Trump’s anti-EDI stance is a menace to any form of university research seeking to address inequalities and build inclusion for seldom heard population groups, and the effects of these decisions will have wide-reaching and intersectional repercussions.

    As committee members of a university’s LGBTQ+ staff network, our focus is understandably on the impact for our colleagues working on LGBTQ+ issues. US-based researchers working on LGBTQ+ themes now face obstacles in securing funding and publishing their work. And this has a knock-on effect on wider LGBTQ+ population groups. The suppression of critical health information and the suspension of targeted research leaves LGBTQ+ communities bereft of vital support and resources.

    More fundamentally, Trump’s policies send the signal that LGBTQ+ identities and needs are irrelevant from his agenda for US growth. It’s a quick step from this to the increase of social stigma and discrimination targeted at LGBTQ+ people. And this in turn worsens mental health and social marginalisation. To put it bluntly: the absence of LGBTQ+ representation in official communications sends a damaging message about the validity of these communities’ experiences.

    Lessons for UK universities

    To bring this back to the UK context then, a few things come to mind.

    First, the UK has its own, depressingly recent, history of government-led suppression of LGBTQ+ communication, which we’d do well to remember. Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 banned the promotion of homosexuality in schools across England, Scotland, and Wales. Repealed in England and Wales in 2003, this act led to years of silence and marginalisation within educational settings.

    Section 28 not only harmed students and staff at the time but also created a culture of fear and misinformation, curtailing inclusive teaching and research. To ensure the UK does not repeat such history, universities must prioritise legal advocacy and protection for all involved in higher education, to safeguard academic freedom and inclusivity. Being involved in the LGBTQ+ staff network as we are, we might also add that coalition building among universities, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, and non-profits can also strengthen efforts to resist any potential policy shifts that might echo the restrictive measures of the past.

    Second, Trump’s agenda also urges us to re-think our approach to US-UK research collaborations and student exchanges. There seems to be an increasing discrepancy between what the UK and US each consider to be worthy of research and funding.

    Universities in the UK should assess how they foster links with other nations whose research agendas align more closely with UK priorities, to mitigate any potential funding losses. Moreover, UK universities should ideally review their reliance on external funding from the US to determine whether any existing projects might be impacted by shifts in US policy. Equally, with US suppression of data relating to LGBTQ+ issues impacting LGBTQ+ health and wellbeing, it’s vital that UK universities ensure that their research connected to LGBTQ+ issues is readily available.

    Third, it seems crucial that UK universities futureproof their relationships with US students. The possibility of new limitations on exchange programmes, including restrictions on modules with extensive EDI content, could impact the accessibility of UK higher education for US students. Online programmes that currently enrol US students may also face scrutiny, raising concerns about whether course content is monitored or whether degrees will continue to be recognised in the US due to their inclusion of EDI principles.

    Looking forward

    UK universities have a pivotal role to play in responding to what’s happening in the US in relation to Trump’s anti-EDI stance.

    We’ve focused particularly on the impacts of these political and policy shifts on LGBTQ+ research and culture in higher education. But they represent a more wholesale attack on initiatives seeking to safeguard the wellbeing of marginalised population groups. UK universities must continue to represent a safe space for education which upholds inclusivity, critical thinking, and academic integrity. This requires a strong coalition of organisations, advocacy groups, and academic institutions working together to resist the erosion of rights and the suppression of essential research.

    Such a coalition of critically-minded parties seems all the more important given the recent ruling by the Supreme Court on 16 April 2025 in relation to the Equality Act 2010, which insisted on the binary nature of sex, which is determined by biology. As a result, this leaves trans women unable to avail themselves of the sex-based protections enshrined in the Equality Act.

    Universities, like other institutions, will need to review their policies accordingly and should do their utmost to continue to assert a safe and inclusive environment for trans people. But this decision, coming so soon after the Cass review, is also contributing to the anxiety and uncertainty experienced by LGBTQ+ people more broadly. With echoes between the US situation and recent UK developments, the direction of travel is concerning.

    By standing together, we can safeguard the rights of all marginalised communities and ensure that the integrity of scientific research, human dignity, and social progress are protected.

    Source link

  • Day 100! Abridging the First Amendment: Zick releases major resource report on Trump’s executive orders — First Amendment News 468 

    Day 100! Abridging the First Amendment: Zick releases major resource report on Trump’s executive orders — First Amendment News 468 

    “Under my watch, the partisan weaponization of the Department of Justice will end. America must have one tier of justice for all.” — Pamela Bondi (confirmation hearing for U.S. attorney general, Jan. 15, 2025)

    “After years and years of illegal and unconstitutional federal efforts to restrict free expression, I will also sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America.” — Donald J. Trump (Jan. 20, 2025, inaugural address)

    “Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.” — Donald J. Trump (Jan. 20, 2025, executive order)

    So many lies, so many orders, so much suppression. The “flood” of free expression abridgments continues to be dizzying and depressing. 

    Unprecedented! That is the word for this new form of silencing that is spreading like a deadly cancer.

    The rules of the past cease to be honored. Retribution has replaced righteousness. Fear triumphs over courage. A one-party-led Congress has abdicated its authority. Judicial review is derided. And our system of justice as constituted is unable to adequately address the wrongs perpetuated by an authoritarian figure aided by his confederates. A blitzkrieg takeover of the federal government seeks to vest unchecked power in the Executive while normalizing suppression on the vile pretense of advancing free speech and equality — a page right out of Orwell’s “1984.”

    In some respects, we are witnessing what constitutes a threat perhaps as great as the Sedition Act of 1798, the Civil War actions taken by Lincoln, and the World War I, Cold War, and Vietnam War abridgments of free speech. Nonetheless, the number and frequency of such abridgments make it difficult to comprehend the cumulative gravity of this threat to our First Amendment freedoms.

    Within the Trump administration’s first 100 days, the government has ushered in a new era of direct and indirect suppression of speech. Meanwhile, cases are being litigated, individuals and institutions are being silenced, books banned, “settlements” coerced, scientific research squelched, history erased, while lower court rulings struggle to be relevant. And all of this, in its many forms, has occurred in the absence of any near-final resolution by the Supreme Court, as if that too might be slighted someday soon.

    We are beyond any “there are evils on both sides” mentality, much as we were beyond it in 1798. Recall that while John Adams, the lawyer, championed free speech in his writings, he later backed the Alien and Sedition Acts as “the Federalist” president. 

    Calling out tyranny is not partisan; it is American! And yet, many are relatively detached, silent, and clueless.

    Trump’s “flood the zone” tactics have taxed the American mind to such an extent that few can barely, if at all, remember yesterday’s free speech abridgments let alone those of last week or last month. The result: who remembers all of the trees leveled not to mention any big picture of the forest devastated in the process? What to do?

    Enter “First Amendment Watch” and the Zick Resource Report 

    Thanks to Professor Stephen Solomon and Susanna Granieri over at First Amendment Watch (FAW), there is a meaningful way to begin to get a conceptual hold on what has occurred within the first 100 days of the Trump administration and its attacks on free speech.

    Happily, FAW today released what is surely the most important First Amendment resource documenting the numerous First Amendment abridgments committed by the Trump administration within its first 100 days. This invaluable resource was prepared by Professor Timothy Zick

    Professor Timothy Zick

    Though the full resource repository is available over at FAW, its table of contents is reproduced below:

    Introduction by Timothy Zick

    I. First Amendment-Related Executive Orders and Memoranda 

    A. Freedom of Speech and Censorship
    B. Foreign Terrorism and National Security
    C. Law Firms
    D. Retribution Against Former Government Officials
    E. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
    F. Gender and Gender Identity
    G. K-12 Education
    H. Museums, Libraries, and Public Broadcasting
    I. Political Donations
    J. University Accreditors 

    II. First Amendment-Related Litigation

    A. Lawsuits Challenging Executive Orders, Guidance, and Policies

    1. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
    2. Immigration 
    3. Educational Funding
    4. Law Firms
    5. Gender and Gender Identity
    6. Data and Scientific Inquiry
    7. Libraries and Museums
    8. Public Broadcasting

    B. Retaliatory Dismissal and Other Employment Lawsuits
    C. Lawsuits Filed by Media and Journalists
    D. Defamation and Other Civil Lawsuits Filed By Donald Trump

    III. Commentary and Analysis

    A. Actions Against the Press and Journalists
    B. Defamation and Other Civil Lawsuits
    C. Broadcast Media
    D. Social Media
    E. Education 

    1. DEI Programming and Initiatives
    2. Antisemitism Investigations and Demands
    3. Academic Freedom
    4. K-12 Curriculum

    F. Immigration Enforcement 

    1. International Students
    2. Foreign Scholars
    3. Immigration Activism

    G. Public Employees
    H. Private Sector

    1. Law Firms
    2. Individual Critics and Enemies

    I. Transparency, Data, and Information

    1. Data, Information, and Scientific Research
    2. Museums and Libraries
    3. Public Broadcasting
    4. Misinformation and Disinformation
    5. “DOGE” and Transparency

    J. Grants and Funding
    K. Protests and Demonstrations

    1. Campus Protests
    2. Public Protests

    L. Governmental Orthodoxy

    1. Race and DEI
    2. Gender and Gender Identity
    3. History and Patriotism

    M. Retribution and Chilling Speech
    N. Investigations
    O. The Bigger Picture
    P. Tracking All Trump 2.0 Lawsuit

    Related


    Coming Next Week

    The next installment of Professor Timothy Zick’s ongoing posts is titled
    “Executive Orders and Official Orthodoxies.”


    Justice Department to go after reporters’ records in government leak cases

    Senate Judiciary Committee considers the nomination of Pamela Bondi for Attorney General

    Senate Judiciary Committee considers the nomination of Pamela Bondi for Attorney General on Jan. 15, 2025. (Maxim Elramsisy / Shutterstock.com)

    The Justice Department is cracking down on leaks of information to the news media, with Attorney General Pam Bondi saying prosecutors will once again have authority to use subpoenas, court orders and search warrants to hunt for government officials who make “unauthorized disclosures” to journalists.

    New regulations announced by Bondi in a memo to the staff obtained by The Associated Press on Friday rescind a Biden administration policy that protected journalists from having their phone records secretly seized during leak investigations — a practice long decried by news organizations and press freedom groups.

    The new regulations assert that news organizations must respond to subpoenas “when authorized at the appropriate level of the Department of Justice” and also allow for prosecutors to use court orders and search warrants to “compel production of information and testimony by and relating to the news media.”

    The memo says members of the press are “presumptively entitled to advance notice of such investigative activities,” and subpoenas are to be “narrowly drawn.” Warrants must also include “protocols designed to limit the scope of intrusion into potentially protected materials or newsgathering activities,” the memo states.

    Former FCC Chairs attack FCC’s attack on First Amendment principles

    Mobile phone with seal of US agency Federal Communications Commission FCC on screen in front of web page

    (T. Schneider / Shutterstock.com)

    As former chairmen of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — one appointed by a Democrat, the other by a Republican — we have seen firsthand how the agency operates when it is guided by its mission to uphold the public interest. But in just over two months, President Donald Trump and his handpicked FCC Chair Brendan Carr have upended 90 years of precedent and congressional mandates to transform the agency into a blatantly partisan tool. Instead of acting as an independent regulator, the agency is being weaponized for political retribution under the guise of protecting the First Amendment.

    Their actions fall into two categories. First, the president used executive orders (EOs) to strip the agency of its independence, making it subservient to the White House. Second, the chairman has exploited the commission’s powers to undermine the very First Amendment rights it is supposed to uphold.

    Mchangama on the ‘New McCarthyism’

    Jacob Mchangama in 2024

    Jacob Mchangama

    Despite being Danish, I’ve always found America’s civil-libertarian free speech tradition more appealing than the Old World’s model, with its vague terms and conditions. For much of my career, I’ve been evangelizing a First Amendment approach to free speech to skeptical Europeans and doubtful Americans, who are often tempted by laws banning “hate speech,” “extremism,” and “disinformation.” That appreciation for the First Amendment is something I share with many foreigners — Germans, Iranians, Russians — who now call America home.

    [ . . . ]

    It’s now clear that the government is targeting noncitizens for ideas and speech protected by the First Amendment. The most worrying example (so far) is a Turkish student at Tufts University, apparently targeted for co-authoring a student op-ed calling for, among other things, Tufts to divest from companies with ties to Israel. One report estimates that nearly 300 students from universities across the country have had their visas revoked so far.

    Instead of correcting this overreach, the government has doubled down. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services recently announced that it would begin screening the social media posts of aliens “whose posts indicate support for antisemitic terrorism, antisemitic terrorist organizations, or other antisemitic activity.” Shortly after, the X account of USCIS posted about a “robust social media vetting program” and warned: “EVERYONE should be on notice. If you’re a guest in our country — act like it.” And four days later, White House homeland security adviser Stephen Miller promised to deport “anyone who preaches hate for America.” What that means is anybody’s guess — and seems to depend entirely on subjective assessments.

    [ . . . ]

    Had America been known for deporting, rather than welcoming, dissent, I would never have made it my home. That might not have been much of a loss. But consider this: 35 percent of U.S.-affiliated academic Nobel laureates are immigrants, and nearly half of all American unicorn startups have founders born outside the country. How many of these brilliant minds would have chosen the United States if they risked exile for crossing the speech red lines of the moment?

    As a European who owes my freedom in life thus far to the America that fought Nazism and defeated communism, I feel a responsibility to speak out when this country strays from its founding ideals. I came to America for its freedom, not just to enjoy it, but to defend it — even if that puts me at risk.

    Related

    New scholarly article on commencement speaker provocateurs

    This Article explores an untheorized area of First Amendment doctrine: students’ graduation speeches at public universities or private universities that embrace free speech principles, either by state statute, state constitutional law, or internal policy. Responding to recent graduation speech controversies, it develops a two-tier theory that reconciles a multiplicity of values, including students’ expressive interests, universities’ institutional interests in curating commencement ceremonies and preventing reputational damage, and the interests of captive audiences in avoiding speech they deem offensive or profane. 

    The Article challenges the prevailing view that university students’ graduation speeches implicate individual First Amendment rights. It develops a site-specific understanding of the ritualistic sociology of the university commencement speech, which the Article argues is firmly within the managerial purview of the university. But it also argues that heavy-handed administrative regulation of student graduation speeches has the potential to undermine the academic freedom of students and professors.

    Reflecting on the history of the university commencement speech in the American intellectual tradition, it urges university administrators to exercise their authority to regulate speeches through transparent standards, a longitudinal view, and collaborative negotiation with student speakers.

    It concludes by discussing the conceptual dangers of turning the First Amendment into a metonym for every instance of speech abridgment within a managerial sphere.

    ‘So to Speak’ podcast: Rabban and Chemerinsky on academic freedom


    Our guests today signed onto a statement by a group of 18 law professors who opposed the Trump administration’s funding threats at Columbia on free speech and academic freedom grounds.

    Since then, Northwestern, Cornell, Princeton, Harvard, and nearly 60 other colleges and universities are under investigation with their funding hanging in the balance, allegedly for violations of civil rights law.

    To help us understand the funding threats, Harvard’s recent lawsuit against the federal government, and where universities go from here are:

    • David Rabban — distinguished teaching professor at The University of Texas at Austin School of Law
    • Erwin Chemerinsky — distinguished professor of law and dean at UC Berkeley Law.

    More in the news

    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 (9-0: 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

    Emergency Applications

    • Yost v. Ohio Attorney General (Kavanaugh, J., “IT IS ORDERED that the March 14, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, case No. 2:24-cv-1401, is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Wednesday, April 16, 2025, by 5 p.m. (EDT).”)

    Free speech related

    • Mahmoud v. Taylor (argued April 22 / free exercise case: issue: Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.)
    • Thompson v. United States (decided: 3-21-25/ 9-0 w special concurrences by Alito and Jackson) (interpretation of 18 U. S. C. §1014 re “false statements”)

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 467: “Thankfully: Larry David mocks Bill Maher

    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

  • Will Trump’s school discipline order drive wider disparities or ‘restore common sense’?

    Will Trump’s school discipline order drive wider disparities or ‘restore common sense’?

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

    A new White House executive order calling for “common sense” in school discipline policies by removing practices based on “discriminatory equity ideology” will drive even wider racial disparities in discipline than currently exist, critics say.

    Rather than being common sense, the directive would “permit school discipline practices that target and punish students of color and students with disabilities at disproportionate rates,” said Denise Forte, president and CEO of EdTrust, in a statement Thursday, a day after President Donald Trump signed the order. EdTrust, a nonprofit, works with school systems to close opportunity gaps for students of color and students from low-income backgrounds.

    Additionally, EdTrust in a separate Thursday statement to K-12 Dive said, “When the dust settles from the education chaos being created by Trump administration, students — especially students from low-income backgrounds, students of color, students with disabilities, English learners, and students in rural areas — will be worse off, and the Trump administration wants to make sure we don’t have the data and research to prove it.”

    Dan Losen, senior director of education at the National Center for Youth Law, said the Trump administration is creating a false dichotomy that schools either need harsh discipline practices or they deal with out-of-control and unsafe student behaviors.

    The reality, Losen said, is that well-trained educators and administrators have many approaches to reducing student misconduct that are evidence-based. “Many schools and superintendents are aware that the best antidote to violence, to drug involvement, to gang involvement, is to try to find ways to keep more kids in school,” Losen said.

    Closing racial gaps in school discipline has been a priority at the local, state and national levels for many years. Schools have also shunned strict zero-tolerance discipline policies in favor of responsive and restorative practices and other approaches that help students examine their behavior and make amends to those harmed. 

    Supporters of alternatives to suspending or expelling students — or what’s called “exclusionary discipline” — say those different approaches help keep students connected to school and reduce the school-to-prison pipeline. They also note that alternative strategies help reduce racial disparities in school discipline. 

    The U.S. Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection found that even though Black students represented 15% of K-12 student enrollment in the 2021-22 school year, they accounted for 19% of students who were secluded and 26% who were physically restrained. And while Black children accounted for 18% of preschool enrollment, 38% received one or more out-of-school suspensions, and 33% were expelled. 

    In the years following the COVID-19 pandemic, schools have reported an uptick in mental health and disruptive behaviors in students. In fact, 68% of respondents said behavioral disruptions have increased since the 2019-20 school year in an EAB survey of school employees published in 2023.

    At the same time, schools said they lack the funding and staffing to adequately address students’ mental health needs. Furthermore a 2024 Rand Corp. report found that challenging student behaviors contribute to teacher burnout.

    On Thursday, the departments of Education, Homeland Security, Justice, and Health and Human Services issued a resource for K-12 threat assessment practices to help prevent school violence and create a safe school environment. 

    The order’s expectations

    Student discipline policies are set at the school or district level. However, the federal government can issue guidance and hold schools accountable for discriminatory practices.

    The executive order signed by President Donald Trump on Wednesday lays out a timeline of expectations for U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon. In one month, McMahon, along with the U.S. attorney general, is to issue school discipline guidance that reminds districts and states of their obligations under Title VI to protect students against racial discrimination. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in federally funded programs.

    Source link

  • ‘The gatekeepers’: Trump’s action on accreditation sparks concerns over government intrusion

    ‘The gatekeepers’: Trump’s action on accreditation sparks concerns over government intrusion

    Dive Brief:

    • Some higher education experts slammed President Donald Trump’s executive order aiming to reshape the accreditation system, raising warnings about government intrusion into academic matters, while the accreditation sector defended its work. 
    • The president took aim at accreditor criteria related to diversity and equity while calling for new requirements of what he called “intellectual diversity” in faculty. He also called on U.S. Secretary Linda McMahon to “resume recognizing new accreditors to increase competition and accountability.” 
    • The order was part of a bevy of higher education-related executive orders that Trump signed late Wednesday night affecting different aspects of the sector, including workforce development and historically Black colleges.

    Dive Insight:

     In his order on accreditation, Trump decried the quality-control bodies as “the gatekeepers that decide which colleges and universities American students can spend the more than $100 billion in Federal student loans and Pell Grants dispersed each year.”

    He accused the organizations of having “failed in this responsibility to students, families, and American taxpayers,” and also of having “abused their enormous authority.”

    In the order, Trump launched into a 350-word castigation of accreditors’ diversity, equity and inclusion criteria. 

    He specifically named the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits medical programs, and the American Bar Association’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, which accredits law schools. 

    The ABA is suing the U.S. Department of Justice over allegations the department canceled federal grants as retaliation for the association “taking positions the current Administration disfavors,” including its diversity requirements

    Federal recognition will not be provided to accreditors engaging in unlawful discrimination in violation of Federal law,” Trump said in the order, without specifying which DEI criteria and laws may come in conflict.

    Trump also directed McMahon to hold accreditors “accountable” by denying, monitoring, suspending or terminating of accreditation powers for those who “fail to meet the applicable recognition criteria or otherwise violate Federal law.” 

    His order specifically mandates that accreditors require institutions to use program data on student outcomes “without reference to race, ethnicity, or sex.”

    Other elements of the order would smooth the path for federal recognition of new accreditors.

    The order also includes a provision directing McMahon to ensure “institutions support and appropriately prioritize intellectual diversity amongst faculty in order to advance academic freedom, intellectual inquiry, and student learning.”

    Trump also issued executive orders Wednesday on workforce development, artificial intelligence, foreign funding reporting requirements for colleges, and historically Black colleges and universities.

    Trump’s accreditation order drew a fierce rebuke from the American Association of University Professors, among others.

    Accreditors have been “important mechanisms for ensuring that academic institutions are accessible and inclusive, and provide high-quality education for all students,” the faculty group said in a statement Wednesday. 

    It added, “This executive order, however, uses the administration’s cruel and absurdist weaponization of antidiscrimination and civil rights law to prevent accrediting agencies from requiring that institutions take basic steps to ensure they are accessible to and inclusive of all students.”

    AAUP President Todd Wolfson described the order’s call for “intellectual diversity” as “code for a partisan agenda that will muzzle faculty who do not espouse Trump’s ideological agenda.”

    Sameer Gadkaree, president of The Institute for College Access & Success, similarly condemned the order, saying that it “undermines the aspects of the accreditation process that are designed to protect classroom instruction from political interference.”

    Gadkaree also panned the order’s ban on using demographic data to evaluate programs, warning that without that option “accreditors — along with researchers, evaluators, and policymakers — will lack the information they need to truly assess quality.” 

    Responses from the accreditation sector were quieter, but they defended the work of accreditors.  

    Accreditor’s DEI standards are “predicated on institutions implementing such requirements in accordance with applicable state and federal laws,” the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions said in a statement Wednesday.  

    C-RAC called for the order’s required changes to be worked out through the Education Department’s negotiated rulemaking process, which brings together higher education representatives to hash out policy details. The organization also pointed to the regulated process for removing accreditor recognition, noting, “Ultimately, concerns about accreditor recognition can be escalated to federal court.”

    The Council for Higher Education Accreditation, an industry group that both vets and advocates for accrediting bodies, issued a statement Wednesday largely describing the work, standards and innovation already in place at accreditors and institutions. 

    Our focus is and always will be academic assurances,” said Cynthia Jackson Hammond, the organization’s president. “CHEA-recognized accreditation organizations meet those standards.”

    She closed by saying, “The independence of the accreditation process is essential in order to preserve and protect the integrity of quality assurance in higher education.”

    Source link

  • Trump’s Higher Education Crackdown: Culture War in a Cap and Gown

    Trump’s Higher Education Crackdown: Culture War in a Cap and Gown

    In a recent flurry of executive orders, former President Donald Trump has escalated his administration’s long-running war on American higher education, targeting college accreditation processes, foreign donations to universities, and elite institutions like Harvard and Columbia. Framed as a campaign for accountability and meritocracy, these actions are in reality part of a broader effort to weaponize public distrust, reinforce ideological purity tests, and strong-arm colleges into political obedience.

    But even if Trump’s crusade were rooted in good faith—which it clearly is not—his chosen mechanism for “fixing” higher education, the accreditation system, is already deeply flawed. It’s not just that Trump is using a broken tool for political ends—it’s that the tool itself has long been part of the problem.

    Accreditation: Already a Low Bar

    Accreditation in U.S. higher education is often mistaken by the public as a sign of quality. In reality, it’s often a rubber stamp—granted by private agencies funded by the very schools they evaluate. “Yet in practice,” write economists David Deming and David Figlio, “accreditors—who are paid by the institutions themselves—appear to be ineffectual at best, much like the role of credit rating agencies during the recent financial crisis.”

    As a watchdog of America’s subprime colleges and a monitor of the ongoing College Meltdown, the Higher Education Inquirer has long reported that institutional accreditation is no sign of academic quality. Worse, it is frequently used by subprime colleges as a veneer of legitimacy to mask predatory practices, inflated tuition, and low academic standards.

    The Higher Learning Commission (HLC), the nation’s largest accreditor, monitors nearly a thousand institutions—ranging from prestigious schools like the University of Chicago and University of Michigan to for-profit, scandal-plagued operations such as Colorado Technical University, DeVry University, University of Phoenix, and Walden University. These subprime colleges receive billions annually in federal student aid—money that flows through an accreditation pipeline that’s barely regulated and heavily compromised.

    On the three pillars of accreditation—compliance, quality assurance, and quality improvement—the Higher Learning Commission often fails spectacularly when it comes to subprime institutions. That’s not just a bug in the system; it’s the system working as designed.

    Who Watches the Watchers?

    Accreditors like the HLC receive dues from member institutions, giving them a vested interest in keeping their customers viable, no matter how exploitative their practices may be. Despite objections from the American Association of University Professors, the HLC has accredited for-profit colleges since 1977 and ethically questionable operations for nearly two decades.

    As Mary A. Burgan, then General Secretary of the AAUP, put it bluntly in 2000:

    “I really worry about the intrusion of the profit motive in the accreditation system. Some of them, as I have said, will accredit a ham sandwich…”

    [Image: From CHEA: Higher Learning Commission dues for member colleges. Over the last 30 years, HLC has received millions of dollars from subprime schools like the University of Phoenix.]

    The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), which oversees accreditors, acts more like a trade association than a watchdog. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Education—the only federal entity with oversight responsibility—has done little to ensure quality or accountability. Under the Trump-DeVos regime, the Department actively dismantled what little regulatory framework existed, rolling back Obama-era protections that aimed to curb predatory schools and improve transparency.

    In 2023, an internal investigation revealed that the Department of Education was failing to properly monitor accreditors—yet Trump’s solution is to hand even more power to this broken apparatus while demanding it serve political ends.

    Harvard: Not a Victim, But a Gatekeeper of the Elite

    While Trump’s attacks on Harvard are rooted in personal and political animus, it’s important not to portray the university as a defenseless bastion of the common good. Harvard is already deeply entrenched in elite power structures—economically, socially, and politically.

    The university’s admissions policies have long favored legacy applicants, children of donors, and the ultra-wealthy. It has one of the largest endowments in the world—over $50 billion—yet its efforts to serve working-class and marginalized students remain modest in proportion to its vast resources.

    Harvard has produced more Wall Street bankers, U.S. presidents, and Supreme Court justices than any other institution. Its graduates populate the upper echelons of the corporate, political, and media elite. In many ways, Harvard is the establishment Trump claims to rail against—even if his own policies often reinforce that very establishment.

    Harvard is not leading a revolution in equity or access. Rather, it polishes the credentials of those already destined to lead, reinforcing a hierarchy that leaves most Americans—including working-class and first-generation students—on the outside looking in.

    The Silence on Legacy Admissions

    While Trump rails against elite universities in the name of “meritocracy,” there is a glaring omission in the conversation: the entrenched unfairness of legacy admissions. These policies—where applicants with familial ties to alumni receive preferential treatment—are among the most blatant violations of meritocratic ideals. Yet neither Trump’s executive orders nor the broader political discourse dare to address them.

    Legacy admissions are a quiet but powerful engine of privilege, disproportionately benefiting white, wealthy students and preserving generational inequality. At institutions like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, legacy applicants are admitted at significantly higher rates than the general pool, even when controlling for academic credentials. This practice rewards lineage over talent and undermines the very idea of equal opportunity that higher education claims to uphold.

    Despite bipartisan rhetoric about fairness and access, few politicians—Democratic or Republican—have challenged the legitimacy of legacy preferences. It’s a testament to how deeply intertwined elite institutions are with the political and economic establishment. And it’s a reminder that the war on higher education is not about fixing inequalities—it’s about reshaping the system to serve different masters.

    A Hypocritical Power Grab

    Trump’s newfound concern with educational “results” is laced with hypocrisy. The former president’s own venture into higher education—Trump University—was a grift that ended in legal disgrace and financial restitution to defrauded students. Now, Trump is posing as the savior of academic merit, while promoting an ideologically-driven overhaul of the very system that allowed scams like his to thrive.

    By focusing on elite universities, Trump exploits populist resentment while ignoring the real scandal: that billions in public funds are siphoned off by institutions with poor student outcomes and high loan default rates—many of them protected by the very accrediting agencies he now claims to reform.

    Conclusion: Political Theater, Not Policy

    Trump’s latest actions are not reforms—they’re retribution. His executive orders target symbolic elites, not systemic rot. They turn accreditation into a partisan tool while leaving the worst actors untouched—or even empowered.

    Meanwhile, elite institutions like Harvard remain complicit in maintaining a class hierarchy that benefits the powerful, even as they protest their innocence in today’s political battles.

    Real accountability in higher education would mean cracking down on predatory schools, reforming or replacing failed accreditors, and restoring rigorous federal oversight. But this administration isn’t interested in cleaning up the swamp—it’s repurposing the muck for its own ends.

    The Higher Education Inquirer remains committed to pulling back the curtain on these abuses—no matter where they come from or how well they are disguised.

    Source link

  • Trump’s Latest Executive Orders Target Accreditation

    Trump’s Latest Executive Orders Target Accreditation

    President Donald Trump took aim at college accreditors in an executive order signed Wednesday that targets two accrediting agencies for investigation and suggests others could lose federal recognition altogether.

    The order was one of seven issued Wednesday as Trump nears the end of his first 100 days. Others directed the Education Department to enforce the law requiring colleges to disclose some foreign gifts and contracts, aimed to support historically Black colleges and universities, and outlined several policy changes for K-12 schools. With the accreditation order and the others, Trump and White House officials argued they were refocusing the education system on meritocracy.

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon, who was in the Oval Office for the signing, opened her follow-up statement by praising the accreditation order and saying it would “bring long-overdue change” and “create a competitive marketplace.”

    “America’s higher education accreditation system is broken,” she wrote. “Instead of pushing schools to adopt a divisive DEI ideology, accreditors should be focused on helping schools improve graduation rates and graduates’ performance in the labor market.”

    Some of the immediate public reactions from higher ed groups criticized the accreditation order, describing it as yet another attempt to put more power in the hands of the president and threaten academic freedom.

    The Council of Higher Education Accreditation said Trump’s directive would “affect the value and independence of accreditation,” while the American Association of University Professors said it would “remov[e] educational decision making from educators and reshap[e] higher education to fit an authoritarian political agenda.”

    Overhauling Accreditation

    Rumored for weeks, the accreditation order was perhaps the most anticipated one of those signed Wednesday, and it will likely have widespread ramifications as Trump seeks to scrutinize and reform the system.

    Historically, accreditors have operated under the radar with little public attention, but in recent years conservatives have focused on the agencies and their role in holding colleges accountable. (The accreditors do hold a lot of power, because universities must be accredited by a federally recognized agency in order to access federal student aid.)

    During his presidential campaign, Trump himself called accreditation reform his “secret weapon” and accused accreditors of failing “to ensure that schools are not ripping off students and taxpayers.”

    The order calls for McMahon to suspend or terminate an accreditor’s federal recognition in order to hold it accountable if it violates federal civil rights law, according to a White House fact sheet. The executive order specifically says that requiring institutions “to engage in unlawful discrimination in accreditation-related activity under the guise of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ initiatives” would be considered a violation of the law.

    The order also singles out the American Bar Association, which accredits law schools, and the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits medical schools, and directs cabinet secretaries to investigate them. (The American Bar Association suspended DEI standards for its members in February, as did some other accreditors.)

    Beyond that, McMahon is tasked to “realign accreditation with student-focused principles.” That could include recognizing new accreditors, prioritizing intellectual diversity among faculty and requiring “high-quality, high-value academic programs,” though the fact sheet doesn’t say how that would be measured.

    White House staff secretary Will Scharf said during the event that accreditors have relied on “woke ideology” instead of merit and performance to accredit universities. He didn’t provide evidence for his claims, but the fact sheet cites the national six-year undergraduate graduation rate, which is at 64 percent, as one example of how accreditors have “failed to ensure quality.”

    “The basic idea is to force accreditation to be focused on the merit and the actual results that these universities are providing, as opposed to how woke these universities have gotten,” Scharf said.

    The Trump administration also wants to streamline the process to recognize accreditors and for institutions to change agencies. Some states that have required their public colleges to change accreditors have claimed that the Biden administration made the process too cumbersome.

    Scharf said the order charges the Education Department “to really look holistically at this accreditation mess and hopefully make it much better.”

    Trump didn’t say much about the order or what actions he hopes to see McMahon take next.

    Enforcement of Foreign Gifts

    The president is not the first government official this year who has sought to limit foreign influence on American colleges and universities.

    The House recently passed a bill, known as the DETERRENT ACT, which would amend Section 117 of the Higher Education Act to lower the threshold for what foreign gifts must be reported from $250,000 to $50,000. It also would require the disclosure of all gifts from countries of “concern,” like China and Russia, regardless of amount. The legislation advanced to the Senate in late March following a 241–169 vote.

    Rep. Tim Walberg, a Michigan Republican and chair of the committee that introduced the bill, praised Trump’s action Wednesday, saying it “underscores” a Republican commitment to “promoting transparency.”

    “Foreign entities, like the Chinese Communist Party, anonymously funnel billions of dollars into America’s higher education institutions—exploiting these ties to steal research, indoctrinate students, and transform our schools into beachheads in a new age of information warfare,” Walberg wrote in a statement shortly after Trump’s order was signed. “I am glad the Trump administration understands the grave importance of this threat, and I look forward to working with President Trump to protect our students and safeguard the integrity of America’s higher education system.”

    Colleges’ compliance with Section 117 has been a key issue for Republicans over the years. House lawmakers repeatedly criticized the Biden administration’s efforts to enforce the law, but former education secretary Miguel Cardona defended his agency’s actions. They also tried to pass the DETERRENT Act last session, but it was blocked by Democrats in the Senate.

    The executive order is broader than the DETERRENT Act and does little to distinguish itself aside from directing McMahon to work with the attorney general and heads of other departments where appropriate and to reverse or rescind any of Biden’s actions that “permit higher education institutions to maintain improper secrecy.”

    More Support for HBCUs

    Another order creates within the White House an initiative focused on historically Black colleges and universities and revokes a Biden executive order titled “White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity Through Historically Black Colleges and Universities.”

    During his first term, Trump moved an HBCU initiative at the Education Department to the White House as a largely symbolic gesture to show his support for Black colleges. That initiative continued under Joe Biden, though it was returned to the Education Department. Biden also created initiatives focused on Hispanic-serving institutions and tribal colleges. Trump ended those newly created initiatives during his first week in office.

    The executive order also established the President’s Board of Advisors on HBCUs at the Education Department, which appears to already exist. The panel last met in January, according to a Federal Register notice.

    Scharf said the order would ensure that HBCUs are “able to do their job as effectively and as efficiently as possible.”

    Source link