Tag: vote

  • Union to hold confidence vote for UTS VC – Campus Review

    Union to hold confidence vote for UTS VC – Campus Review

    The tertiary education union will this week ask staff whether they are confident in the leadership of University of Technology Sydney (UTS) vice-chancellor Andrew Parfitt.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • University of Nebraska-Lincoln faculty vote no confidence in chancellor

    University of Nebraska-Lincoln faculty vote no confidence in chancellor

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

    Dive Brief:

    • University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s faculty senate on Tuesday passed a no-confidence resolution in the public institution’s chancellor, Rodney Bennett, in part over allegations of poor leadership and financial management. 
    • In a 60-14 vote, faculty approved a measure calling for Bennett’s removal and formally stating no-confidence over allegations of “failures in strategic leadership, fiscal stewardship, governance integrity, external relations, and personnel management.”
    • The no-confidence vote — UNL’s first — follows fierce debate at the university over Bennett’s plan to cut a handful of academic programs as part of a broader effort to slash $27.5 million from UNL’s budget.

    Dive Insight:

    The no-confidence resolution reflects faculty pushback against Bennett since September, when the chancellor unveiled a proposal to slash six programs — which he later reduced to four — as part of a budget-reduction plan.  

    Criticisms have focused largely on what faculty say is a lack of transparency about how, precisely, programs were judged worthy of keeping or cutting. They also allege that Bennett, who joined UNL as chancellor in 2023, has largely failed to include faculty in the decision-making process. 

    The budget process and timeline precluded “meaningful faculty and departmental leadership consultation” and “undermines the possibility of completing a thorough review of evidence, consequences, and public comments,” according to a Nov. 3 memo the faculty senate circulated ahead of the no-confidence resolution. 

    As to the timeline, Bennett announced his initial proposal on Sept. 12, and roughly two months later issued his final recommendation, which the University of Nebraska System’s regents plan to vote on at a Dec. 5 meeting.

    The memo also questioned Bennett’s approach to reducing UNL’s deficit, saying that his plan relies on “immediate cost-reductions and across-the-board cuts rather than multi-year fiscal modeling or revenue diversification.”

    “This system is a $3.5 to $4 billion enterprise, and we are damaging it for $27.5 million,” Faculty Senate President John Shrader said in prepared remarks at a Nov. 4 meeting. “These cuts are going to be devastating to this campus. So damaging to be irreparable.”

    The memo further said Bennett had been “noticeably absent” from several faculty senate meetings and accused him of having periods of sparse contact with the senate’s executive committee, despite UNL bylaws calling for him to meet twice a month with the panel.

    “Faculty shared governance represents one of many voices of institutions of higher education,” University of Nebraska System President Jeffrey Gold said in a statement emailed Wednesday. “We value the voice of UNL’s faculty; however, ultimate decisions rest with the Board of Regents.

    A UNL spokesperson said Wednesday that Bennett does not plan to comment on the no-confidence vote.

    In October, an academic advisory body of faculty, staff, students and administrators tasked with reviewing Bennett’s plan called for more time to consider alternatives to ending programs and voted against winding down four of the original six programs Bennett originally put forward for closure. 

    Bennett’s final plan spares two programs that were on the chopping block but still included two others that the Academic Planning Committee voted against eliminating. 

    “None of us want to be in this space, where the decisions we must make will inevitably impact the lives of individuals and change how we do some things on campus,” Bennett said in November when announcing his final proposal. “However, our reality is that UNL’s expenses have been greater than its revenue for many years.”

    The proposal would slash UNL’s statistics, educational administration, Earth and atmospheric sciences, and textile, merchandising and fashion design programs. 

    UNL’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, which has actively opposed the cuts, lauded Tuesday’s no-confidence vote by the faculty senate. 

    “The faculty has made clear that this chancellor does not have what it takes to lead our flagship institution,” UNL AAUP President Sarah Zuckerman, who is an educational administration professor at the university, said in a statement Tuesday. “We will not accept a lack of transparency, the exclusion of faculty from decision-making, or the erosion of our university’s 156-year-old mission to educate Nebraska’s students.

    Source link

  • Texas A&M board to vote on sweeping classroom censorship proposal

    Texas A&M board to vote on sweeping classroom censorship proposal

    This Wednesday, the Texas A&M System Board of Regents will vote on whether to give university presidents sweeping veto power over what professors can teach. Hiring professors with PhDs is meaningless if administrators are the ones deciding what gets taught.

    Under the proposal, any course material or discussion related to “race or gender ideology” or “sexual orientation or gender identity” would need approval from the institution’s president. Faculty would need permission to teach students about not just modern controversies, but also civil rights, the Civil War, or even ancient Greek comedies.

    This is not just bad policy. It invites unlawful censorship, chills academic freedom, and undermines the core purpose of a university. Faculty will start asking not “Is this accurate?” but “Will this get me in trouble?”

    That’s not education, it’s risk management. 

    FIRE urges the board to reject this proposal. And we will be there to defend any professor punished for doing what scholars are hired to do: pursue the truth wherever it leads.

    Source link

  • NEA Executive Committee Reverses Member Vote to Boycott ADL Educational Materials

    NEA Executive Committee Reverses Member Vote to Boycott ADL Educational Materials

    ADL CEO Jonathan GreenblattThe National Education Association’s (NEA) executive committee has rejected a resolution passed by union members that would have severed ties with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), preserving access to educational materials on antisemitism and Holocaust education amid rising campus tensions.

    The decision, announced Friday by NEA President Becky Pringle, came after the union’s Representative Assembly voted last week in Portland, Oregon, to cut ties with the civil rights organization over its characterization of campus protests related to the Gaza conflict as antisemitic.

    “Following the culmination of a thorough review process, it was determined that this proposal would not further NEA’s commitment to academic freedom,” Pringle said in a statement. The rejection preserves educators’ access to ADL curricula and professional development programs that address antisemitism in educational settings.

    The controversy highlights the complex challenges facing educational institutions as they navigate discussions about antisemitism, campus climate, and academic freedom in the aftermath of increased tensions following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks and subsequent Gaza conflict.

    The executive committee’s decision followed an unprecedented coalition effort, with nearly 400 Jewish organizations and dozens of elected officials urging the NEA to reject the boycott proposal. The coalition argued that excluding ADL materials would harm efforts to combat antisemitism in schools and marginalize Jewish educators and students.

    “This resolution was not just an attack on the ADL, but a larger attack against Jewish educators, students, and families,” said a joint statement from ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, American Jewish Committee CEO Ted Deutch, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations COO Stephanie Hausner, and Jewish Federations of North America Executive Vice President Shira Hutt.

    The Jewish leaders emphasized that the proposed boycott would have normalized “antisemitic isolation, othering, and marginalization of Jewish teachers, students and families in our schools,” even as teachers’ unions have limited power to dictate curriculum.

    The debate reflects broader tensions on college and K-12 campuses nationwide, where Jewish students and faculty have reported increased incidents of antisemitism alongside pro-Palestinian advocacy efforts. The ADL’s annual reporting on antisemitic incidents has itself become a point of contention, with some progressive Jewish leaders questioning whether the organization conflates legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies with antisemitism.

    Amy Spitalnick, CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, offered a nuanced perspective: “It’s possible to disagree with ADL without cutting off all engagement — which would undercut our shared goals of countering antisemitism and broader hate and bias.”

    Pringle clarified that rejecting the boycott proposal was not an endorsement of “the ADL’s full body of work” but acknowledged the organization’s role in addressing rising antisemitism. She met with ADL CEO Greenblatt to discuss the union’s processes and reaffirm the NEA’s commitment to combating antisemitism.

    Source link

  • Fla. Board of Governors to Vote on Creating New Accreditor

    Fla. Board of Governors to Vote on Creating New Accreditor

    Gov. DeSantis has called the current system an “accreditation cartel.”

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Joe Raedle/Getty Images | ricul/iStock/Getty Images 

    The governing board of the State University System of Florida is set to vote Friday on whether to form a new accrediting agency focused on public universities, known as the Commission for Public Higher Education. While some accreditation experts say the move could be a positive development, they also worry it may lead to undue political influence in the accreditation process.

    If the vote goes as planned, the Florida governing board will create the proposed agency along with five other public university systems: the University System of Georgia, University of North Carolina system, University of South Carolina, University of Tennessee system and the Texas A&M University system.

    “The launching of a new institutional accreditor is a major undertaking, and CPHE’s Founding University Systems have not undertaken it lightly,” reads the business plan for the Commission for Public Higher Education. “Growing dissatisfaction with current practices among the existing institutional accreditors and the desire for a true system of peer review among public institutions have led to this endeavor.” The plan accuses some existing accreditors of “bureaucratic bloat, delays, and increased costs.”

    University of North Carolina system president Peter Hans dropped the news in May that UNC was in talks with other public university systems to launch a new accrediting agency—an idea Inside Higher Ed discovered they’d been discussing for at least a year. The project has taken on distinct political undertones; last month Florida governor Ron DeSantis announced the effort in a speech largely focused on what he calls “woke ideology.”

    “What we’ve seen develop is an accreditation cartel,” he said in his address. “And the accreditors by and large are all singing from the same sheet of music, and it’s not what the state of Florida wants to see reflected in its universities in many different respects.”

    According to the business plan, the new agency “will laser-focus on student outcomes, streamline accreditation standards, focus on emerging educational models, modernize the accreditation process, maximize efficiency without sacrificing quality, and ensure no imposition of divisive ideological content on institutions.”

    How It Would Work

    The Commission for Public Higher Education would be incorporated as a nonprofit organization in Florida, initially funded by a $4 million appropriation from the Florida State Legislature, according to the business plan. Other involved higher ed systems are expected to cough up similar funds. A board of directors representing each of the founding systems would oversee the new accreditor.

    The goal is to accredit six institutions by next summer and secure Department of Education recognition by June 2028, according to the business plan. (A new accreditor typically has two years to prove it is operating in accordance with federal regulations to receive federal approval.)

    In the meantime, higher ed institutions pursuing accreditation from CPHE can retain their current accreditors, the plan notes. Later, when CPHE gains department recognition, they can adopt CPHE as their primary accreditor.

    Accreditation experts say that the time frame is doable but optimistic if the Department of Education maintains the rigor of its current recognition process for new accreditors.

    “The timeline proposed by Florida seems aggressive since in the past, it usually took the [Education Department] more time to approve new accreditors,” Cynthia Jackson Hammond, president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, wrote in a statement to Inside Higher Ed.

    But the Trump administration has shown interest in making it easier for new accreditors to form. President Trump signed an executive order in April that spoke of “recognizing new accreditors” among other reforms.

    Mixed Views

    Jackson Hammond said CHEA isn’t against new accreditors, as long as they go through the standard recognition process and show they’re following federal regulations for ensuring institutions’ quality. But she and her colleagues have qualms about the idea of state-sponsored accrediting bodies like the Commission for Public Higher Education.

    “CHEA does not believe that states are likely to be effective accreditors,” she wrote. “Historically, states have not had the staff, experience, or knowledge necessary to create a higher education accreditor. It is critically important that higher education reflects an impartial and unbiased accrediting review process that is focused on student learning outcomes. To date, there has not been a state that has accomplished this.”

    Robert Shireman, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, a progressive think tank, worries the structure of the new accrediting agency may make unbiased evaluations more challenging, given the involvement of state policymakers.

    State university systems are “essentially run by the governors and their appointees,” said Shireman, who was a deputy under secretary at ED during the Obama administration. So “it really detracts from the independence of public institutions from political meddling. This feels like it’s part of an effort for closer political control over colleges and that would just embroil them in culture war issues and sort of the political issue of the day.”

    But he doesn’t rule out the potential positives of having an accreditor focused on public universities. He said such an agency could emphasize college access and affordability in ways that accreditors that oversee private colleges don’t.

    As state higher ed systems, “they’re all government actors,” he said. In an ideal scenario, “they can work together [to say], ‘Let’s be affordable. Let’s make sure students get served.’”

    Jamienne Studley, former president of the WASC Senior College and University Commission, also emphasized that agencies that accredit “like-type” institutions can benefit from their similarities—“as long as the federal oversight of agencies is consistent, the standards are solid and their application is rigorous.”

    Source link

  • Florida university system’s board to vote on creation of accrediting agency

    Florida university system’s board to vote on creation of accrediting agency

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

    Dive Brief: 

    • The State University System of Florida’s governing board plans to vote Friday to approve the creation of the Commission for Public Higher Education, a new accreditor formed by the state university system and five other Southern public higher education networks. 
    • The state’s Legislature has devoted $4 million to the Florida governing board to help with startup costs for the new accreditor, according to CPHE’s business plan. The accreditor expects the other five university systems to devote a similar level of resources to the effort. 
    • CPHE hopes to begin accrediting six institutions by June 2026 and to become recognized by the U.S. Department of Education by June 2028. Accreditors must operate for two years before the Education Department will recognize them. 

    Dive Insight: 

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced the formation of the new accreditor for public colleges in late June, criticizing diversity, equity and inclusion standards at existing agencies and framing the effort as a way to focus more on student outcomes. 

    The new accreditor’s business plan echoes those aims. 

    “CPHE will laser-focus on student outcomes, streamline accreditation standards, focus on emerging educational models, modernize the accreditation process, maximize efficiency without sacrificing quality, and ensure no imposition of divisive ideological content on institutions,” it states. 

    Still, the new agency is a long way off from getting the Education Department’s recognition, which is required before its accreditation can grant colleges access to federal financial aid. The business plan notes that the Education Department usually takes at least two years to recognize a new accreditor after it submits its application, which it plans to submit in 2026. 

    The Education Department currently recognizes about two dozen institutional accreditors, according to a federal database. 

    Colleges that want to be accredited by CPHE will be able to retain their current agency while the new accreditor seeks the Education Department’s recognition, according to the business plan. Once it becomes federally recognized, colleges can make CPHE their primary accreditor and shed their other agency, if they wish.

    The founding members of the new accreditor are the State University System of Florida, the Texas A&M University System, the University System of Georgia, the University of North Carolina System, the University of South Carolina system and the University of Tennessee System. 

    Each system will appoint someone to sit on CPHE’s board of directors, which will establish accreditation standards and policies. 

    The new accreditor will also create a paid Interim Review Committee, which will conduct peer reviews of colleges and make recommendations to the board of directors about accreditation actions. The committee will report to CPHE’s board of directors and include academic experts, auditors and compliance officers. 

    The business plan credits recent federal policy changes for making it easier for colleges to jump to new accrediting agencies. 

    That includes a regulatory change during President Donald Trump’s first term that removed regional restrictions on the nation’s seven major accreditors, meaning they each can now represent colleges nationwide instead of only those located in their traditional geographic territories. 

    The business plan also points to May guidance from the Education Department to make it easier for colleges to switch accreditors and revoked more rigorous Biden-era policies on changing agencies. It also mentions a recent executive order from Trump that in part aims to streamline the process for recognizing new accrediting agencies. 

    The Education Department said it will decide on accreditation change requests within 30 days. If the agency doesn’t respond by that deadline, colleges will receive automatic approval unless they don’t meet the eligibility requirements. 

    One higher education expert has described the deadline as a “30-day rubber stamp,” arguing that it takes time and expertise to conduct such reviews. Yet the procedural changes are coming even as the Education Department attempts to shed roughly half of its staff. 

    Colleges will not be eligible to switch if they’ve faced accreditor sanctions within the last two years. However, they will be able to switch for a litany of other reasons, including objecting to their current accreditors’ standards. 

    Both Florida and North Carolina legislators have passed laws in recent years requiring public colleges to switch accreditors each cycle, which usually run between six to 10 years. The changes came after each state’s public university systems publicly spat with their accreditor, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. 

    SACSCOC accredits each college within the six founding members’ university systems. However, some institutions in Florida and Texas have begun the process of switching to new agencies, according to CPHE’s business plan.

    Source link

  • One year on from the election, Labour is losing the student vote

    One year on from the election, Labour is losing the student vote

    A year ago, Sir Keir Starmer secured the largest election victory in the UK since 1997.

    Labour won 411 seats and a 174-seat majority – and while Labour’s vote share across many constituencies dropped compared to national predictions, the UK was washed with red seats.

    Yet as we reflect on Labour’s time in government to date, it’s fair to say the journey has not been smooth.

    Starmer has already made several significant U-turns and has announced policy changes that haven’t landed well with voters – increases to national insurance contributions, reducing winter fuel payments and the “tractor tax”, to name a few.

    As public trust in the government continues to decline and disapproval rates rise, we are continuing to see a swing of support over to Reform UK – including in constituencies with large student populations.

    PLMR recently commissioned Electoral Calculus to conduct a new multi-level regression and post-stratification (MRP) poll to understand voting intentions and the current political attitudes of the public.

    Conducted in June 2025 with a sample size of 5,400 individuals, the results show a significant change in student voting patterns and beg the question – is Labour losing the student vote?

    Voting intentions

    If a General Election was called tomorrow, our data currently places Reform UK with 31 per cent of the vote share ahead of Labour with 22 per cent and the Conservatives trailing with 19 per cent. Reform UK is predicted to win an outright majority, securing 377 seats and a majority of 104.

    If a General Election was therefore called tomorrow, Nigel Farage would become the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

    The data also shows changes in constituency MPs, including for ministers with responsibility for higher education like the Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson MP, according to the projections.

    While the sector is not unaccustomed to experiencing regular and quick changes in political governance – with six university ministers being in post in the last five years alone – the data does point to wider challenges for HE and the student vote.

    Reform the system

    Last year, the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) published a piece about whether students made a difference at the 2024 General Election – identifying the top twenty student constituencies and Labour’s vote share in these seats.

    We have analysed our polling to understand how these constituencies would fare in an election if it were called tomorrow – the results from which show the changing state of voting intentions in these areas.

    Of the twenty constituencies, over one-third (35 per cent) are predicted to move away from being Labour-held to either Reform or Green. This aligns with the national picture – voters are showing an ever-growing frustration with the current government and are therefore evolving their political affiliation.

    When we look specifically at the data for 18-24-year-olds – acknowledging the experiences of those beyond this age group who are currently studying in UK higher education – we continue to see this pattern of voting behaviour.

    For example, when asked who they would vote for if a General Election was called tomorrow, 24 per cent of 18-24-year-olds who indicated a likelihood to vote noted their intention to vote for Labour – with 23 per cent claiming they would vote for Reform UK and 21 per cent for the Green Party.

    The Conservatives followed with 13 per cent, the Liberal Democrats with 10 per cent and Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru with 1 per cent each.

    Interestingly, when we then consider the likelihood of voting among 18-24-year-olds we see further frustration with the current political system.

    For example, under half (41 per cent) of 18-24-year-olds responded that they would “definitely” vote in a General Election if it were called tomorrow, followed by 11 per cent who would be “very likely” to vote.

    Yet 21 per cent responded that they would “definitely not” or are “unlikely” to vote, and 16 per cent were unsure. That reveals an almost even split in the likelihood of voting among 18-24-year-olds. For a traditionally politically mobile population, this raises concerns about young people’s faith and willingness to engage with an election.

    Participants were then asked about the most important issues that will influence how they vote at the next General Election, with the top three issues for 18-24-year-olds being the cost of living and the economy (57 per cent), the National Health Service (NHS) waiting times, staffing and funding (45 per cent), and immigration and border control (25 per cent).

    While these generally align with trends in all other age groups,

    18-24-year-olds express greater concern for wider issues than other age cohorts. For example, 23 per cent of individuals in this age group reported being concerned about housing affordability and home ownership, 22 per cent about trust in politicians and government integrity, and 19 per cent about climate change and the environment.

    While some in other age cohorts reported concerns in these areas, the proportion is highest among 18-24-year-olds.

     

    So what does all of this tell us?

    It’s clear that Labour isn’t sustaining the support it built up during the General Election campaign last year, despite securing such an historic electoral victory, and this is true especially in student-heavy constituencies – with many already indicating their interest in seeing an electoral change.

    As economic challenges continue to create barriers within HE, with many institutions closing courses, implementing redundancy programmes and depending on international fees due to limited increases to domestic fees in line with inflation, government must be proactive in its engagement with the sector to recognise how challenges to the student experience can impact voter intention.

    With a growing national swing towards Reform UK, Labour must become aware of the challenges facing student voters if it wants to change the projected course of action and secure a second term in office.

    With lots of work to do ahead of 2029 – and only a year into this Parliament – student interests need to rise up the political agenda.

    Source link

  • Senate education panel postpones vote on polarizing antisemitism definition

    Senate education panel postpones vote on polarizing antisemitism definition

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

    The Senate’s education committee on Wednesday postponed a vote on a bill that would require the U.S. Department of Education to use a definition of antisemitism that critics say would undermine free speech and preclude criticism against Israel. 

    After two hours of contentious debate, Sen. Bill Cassidy, the Republican chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said the panel would defer the vote on the bill for another day. 

    The bill, called the Antisemitism Awareness Act, would require the Education Department to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism when investigating Title VI discrimination and harassment on college campuses. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin at federally funded institutions.

    Sens. Jacky Rosen, a Democrat from Nevada, and Tim Scott, a Republican from South Carolina, introduced the bill in February, contending it would help the Education Department determine when antisemitism crosses the line from protected speech into harassment. A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a companion bill in the House that same month. 

    During President Donald Trump’s first term, he signed an executive order directing the Education Department and other federal agencies to consider IHRA’s definition in Title VI investigations. The bill would codify that element of the executive order into law for the Education Department. 

    The Anti-Defamation League, a strong supporter of the IHRA’s definition on antisemitism, has advocated for its adoption at the executive level.

    However, the definition includes several examples that opponents of the bill worry could chill free speech. They include comparing “contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” and “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” 

    ‘You can’t regulate speech’

    Sen. Bernie Sanders, the committee’s ranking member, condemned antisemitism and other forms of discrimination but said lawmakers must defend the First Amendment and the right to peacefully protest. 

    “I worry very much that the Antisemitism Awareness Act that we are considering today is unconstitutional and will move us far along in the authoritarian direction that the Trump administration is taking us,” said Sanders, an independent from Vermont who is Jewish.

    Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, voiced similar concerns. He argued that the examples included in the definition would undermine free speech rights and told Scott he would support the bill if they were removed. 

    During the hearing, supporters of the bill pointed to language that says nothing in the Antisemitism Awareness Act should be used “to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment.” 

    Scott also contended that the bill would instead be used to assess whether conduct — not speech — was antisemitic. 

    “It’s the conduct that follows the speech that creates the harassment, not the speech itself,” Scott said.

    However, Paul rejected that argument, contending that the examples in IHRA’s definition of antisemitism describe speech rather than conduct. 

    “You can’t regulate speech,” Paul said. “Every one of the 11 examples is about speech.”

    The committee narrowly approved several amendments to the bill, including one from Sanders that says “no person shall be considered antisemitic for using their rights of free speech or protest” to oppose Israel’s wartime actions in Gaza. Another one of Sanders’ amendments that passed would protect students rights’ to carry out demonstrations that adhere to campus protest policies.

    The panel also passed an amendment from Sen. Edward Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, stating that the federal government undermines First Amendment rights of immigrant college students and employees when it revokes their visas, detains them or deports them due to their free speech. 

    Source link

  • Senate Committee Postpones Vote on Antisemitism Awareness Act

    Senate Committee Postpones Vote on Antisemitism Awareness Act

    A vote on the Antisemitism Awareness Act—a bill that would codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s controversial definition of antisemitism—was postponed Wednesday following a testy two-hour debate in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Jewish Insider reported.

    The committee’s Republican chairman, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, called off the planned vote after the Democratic minority won enough Republican support to pass several amendments aimed at more clearly distinguishing what qualifies as discriminatory speech and protecting the First Amendment rights of pro-Palestinian protesters.

    For instance, some of the proposed amendments included clarifying that it is not antisemitic to oppose the “devastation of Gaza,” or to criticize Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as preventing the revocation of visas based on “protected conduct under the First Amendment.” Lawmakers also sought to ensure students and faculty members could protest as long as they don’t incite violence.

    Cassidy opposed the amendments, saying they were “problematic” and could jeopardize GOP support for the bill on the Senate floor.

    “So that it’s clear for the people that are watching, supporting these amendments is an effort to kill this bill, which protects Jewish students from antisemitic acts,” he said during the meeting. “The bill [already] includes protections for free speech. So let’s not be naïve as to what’s taking place here.” 

    But Democrats and Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky said the amendments were necessary to ensure that while objecting to bigotry and discrimination, this bill also upheld the constitutional right to peaceful protest. (Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, also supported some of the amendments.)

    “I worry very much that the Antisemitism Awareness Act that we are considering today is unconstitutional and will move us far along in the authoritarian direction that the Trump administration is taking us,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont Independent and ranking member of the committee, said in his opening remarks.

    Paul also objected the current bill’s language, particularly the examples of antisemitic speech it includes.

    “The problem is if you look at the IHRA’s examples of speech, they are going to be limiting on campuses everything on that list … protected by the First Amendment,” Paul said. “The First Amendment isn’t about protecting good speech; it protects even the most despicable and vile speech.” 

    The bill was already expected to face a tight vote given that the committee consists of 12 Republicans and 11 Democrats. So if two Republicans voted in opposition to the act, it wouldn’t move forward.

    Furthermore, multiple Republican members of the committee were not present for the full hearing due to other commitments. Cassidy said there was not enough time for all Republicans to return to the committee room for a vote before the meeting ended, so he postponed the vote. A vote on the Protecting Students on Campus Act, which would require colleges to notify students of how to file discrimination complaints, was also delayed.

    Source link

  • 800 ANU staff vote no confidence in chancellor, vice-chancellor at “scandal-plagued” university – Campus Review

    800 ANU staff vote no confidence in chancellor, vice-chancellor at “scandal-plagued” university – Campus Review

    Nearly all Australian National University (ANU) union members on Thursday supported a vote of no confidence in vice-chancellor Genevieve Bell and chancellor Julie Bishop.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link