ReportWire

Tag: Law & Policy

  • U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Student-Loan Cancellation for Millions of Borrowers

    U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Student-Loan Cancellation for Millions of Borrowers

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday struck down President Biden’s sweeping plan to cancel some debt for millions of people who took out loans for a college education.

    Writing for the court’s six-member majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that the cancellation plan effectively amounted to an “exhaustive rewriting” of a law designed to give the U.S. secretary of education certain powers during a national emergency. The Biden administration had argued that the law, the 2003 Heroes Act, gives the secretary the ability to alleviate borrowers’ debt burdens during an emergency like the pandemic.

    The Heroes Act, Roberts wrote, “does not allow the secretary to rewrite that statute to the extent of canceling $430 billion of student-loan principal.”

    The justices’ ruling came in Biden v. Nebraska, No. 22–506, one of two cases that challenged Biden’s loan-forgiveness plan, in which his administration set out to wipe away up to $20,000 in student debt for many borrowers. The lawsuit was brought by a group of state attorneys general who argued that student-debt cancellation would harm their tax revenues.

    In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by the two other liberal justices, wrote that, “in every respect,” the majority had exceeded the court’s “proper, limited role in our nation’s governance.” The issues presented by the case, she wrote, were properly the concern of the government’s other branches. And so, she concluded, “in a case not a case, the majority overrides the combined judgment of the legislative and executive branches.”

    In the other case, Department of Education v. Brown, No. 22–535, the justices ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. The lawsuit was brought by two borrowers. One argued that the plan was unfair; she didn’t qualify for forgiveness because she had taken out private loans. The other borrower said he unfairly would not qualify for the maximum amount of forgiveness.

    The cancellation plan would have forgiven up to $10,000 in student debt for individual borrowers making up to $125,000 a year and households making up to $250,000 a year; Pell Grant recipients would have been eligible for up to $20,000 in forgiveness.

    Many observers had anticipated that the court would void the debt-forgiveness plan. Conservative justices expressed skepticism during oral arguments this year that the Education Department was allowed to cancel student debt without approval from Congress. Some justices also seemed to support the idea that the plan was unfair because it didn’t benefit all borrowers.

    A federal appeals court paused the debt-cancellation plan with an injunction last year. Before the injunction was issued, some 26 million people had applied for debt relief, and 16 million of them had been approved by the Education Department.

    Sarah Brown

    Source link

  • Students and Faculty Fear Tenure and DEI Bills Could ‘Destroy’ Texas Colleges

    Students and Faculty Fear Tenure and DEI Bills Could ‘Destroy’ Texas Colleges

    As a law student at the University of Texas at Austin, Sam Jefferson worked in the school’s diversity office. Jefferson said he learned firsthand just how essential the offices are to the success of students from underrepresented groups.

    Now it’s on the brink of being eliminated by a Texas bill that would bar public colleges from having diversity offices or officers.

    “You’re talking about legislation that’s going to take away one of the only places that students can feel seen, heard, and acknowledged and helped,” said Jefferson, who just graduated.

    Monday marks the end of a Texas legislative session in which higher ed played a starring role. Lawmakers made substantial investments in public higher ed, boosting funding for community colleges and creating an endowment to support emerging research universities. Yet many lawmakers also disparaged colleges’ diversity programs and tenure policies, leading to marathon hearings in which students, faculty, and alumni protested vehemently.

    Over the weekend, Texas lawmakers passed final versions of Senate Bill 17, which would prohibit diversity offices starting in 2024, and SB 18, which would make changes in tenure. Both are sponsored by Sen. Charles Creighton, a Republican. The bills now await the signature of Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican.

    A spokeswoman for the University of Texas Board of Regents didn’t respond to a request for comment. Texas colleges, like other institutions across the country, have generally declined to comment on pending legislation.

    Proponents of banning DEI efforts say requiring students, faculty, and staff to sign diversity statements or participate in DEI programming produces a “chilling effect” on campus. “Many of these programs have been weaponized to compel speech instead of protecting free speech,” Creighton said in April. He didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    Tenure elimination has been a key point of emphasis for Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican, who said the institution allows professors to “live inside a bubble” in a statement last month. “Over the past year, it has become abundantly clear that some tenured faculty at Texas universities feel immune to oversight from the legislature and their respective board of regents,” Patrick said.

    The bills have undergone changes since being introduced in March. Senate Bill 18 originally proposed banning tenure entirely, and the Texas Senate endorsed that idea, but the drastic shift didn’t have traction in the House. Revisions in Senate Bill 17 carved out more exceptions that allow public colleges to describe efforts to serve diverse students if required by federal agencies or institutional accreditors.

    Still, many students and faculty in Texas say that the legislation remains harmful — and that even the deliberations about banning tenure and DEI this spring were damaging to their campuses.

    If Senate Bill 17 becomes law, diversity administrators will be out of a job in six months. Last week, one diversity officer announced her departure. Carol Sumner, vice president for diversity, equity, and inclusion at Texas Tech University, will take a similar job at Northern Illinois University.

    “It’s not just that these things will have an impact on student life,” Jefferson, the law graduate, said. “It’s that they already have.”

    ‘Our Larger Campus Family’

    Banning DEI offices would affect not only students of color, but also veterans, LGBTQ+ students, and disabled students, four Texas students told The Chronicle.

    “DEI isn’t just about enrollment,” said Jordan Nellums, a graduate student at UT-Austin’s Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. “It’s about OK, how can we make sure that this student group feels comfortable enough on this campus — that way they can become part of our larger campus family.”

    Kat Williams, another UT-Austin grad student, said she waited for over 14 hours to speak against the diversity-office ban in April. “I didn’t really have 14 hours to waste that day, but it happened anyway,” Williams said.

    Williams said she doesn’t believe diversity programs and policies make students feel uncomfortable speaking their minds in the classroom, as critics allege.

    “At least in my experience as an instructor, that’s not the case whatsoever,” Williams said. “If somebody has an unpopular opinion, they still get voiced quite frequently.”

    Alexander De Jesus-Colon, a senior at the University of Texas at Dallas, said he went to the campus’s Galerstein Gender Center as early as last year to discuss the situation on campus. He was told that the center was already preparing to shut down if the Texas Legislature voted to ban such offices.

    Since then, he has become involved in organizing against the legislation with the group Texas Students for DEI. He said legislators have refused to hear student voices.

    “Nobody wants to listen to us,” De Jesus-Colon said. “These legislators, they’re busy passing bills that they’re not even fully aware of the consequences of what they’re doing.”

    At least 34 bills have been introduced in 20 states that would curb colleges’ DEI efforts, according to The Chronicle’s DEI Legislation Tracker.

    For Jefferson, the legislation in Texas is reminiscent of strategies wielded by Florida legislators. This month, Florida became the first state in the country to bar public colleges from spending money on diversity efforts.

    “The whole Texas-Florida competition to see who can battle ‘wokeness’ is hilarious,” Jefferson said. “It’s not about the schools — it’s about these political forums.”

    Step Toward Eliminating Tenure

    While some on campuses say the tenure bill could have dealt a worse blow to higher ed, others remain worried.

    The final version, which would take effect in September if it becomes law, defines tenure in state law as “the entitlement of a faculty member of an institution of higher education to continue in the faculty member’s academic position unless dismissed by the institution for good.”

    The legislation also articulates reasons that tenured professors could be fired, such as “professional incompetence” and “violating university policies,” which some faculty members see as vague. What’s more, they see requiring performance evaluations every six years as a stepping stone to eliminating tenure entirely.

    The uncertainty around faculty-job protections is making life difficult for people like Daniel M. Brinks.

    The chair of the government department at UT-Austin, Brinks has had eight different job candidates turn down offers and cite the state’s political environment as a factor, he said.

    Brinks also said that junior faculty members are particularly worried about the future of tenure, while other professors have canceled upcoming courses because of the likelihood that they could come under scrutiny.

    “That bill alone could essentially destroy the notion of a national-level research university,” Brinks said of the tenure bill.

    Even though the legislation doesn’t ban tenure outright, Brinks said, many faculty members still fear that another bill is “right around the corner.”

    “It signals both a general willingness to interfere with the internal governance of public universities and maybe even, more importantly, hostility to the things that we do and the way that we do them,” Brinks said.

    Students are noticing those impacts, too. De Jesus-Colon said several professors have shared with him that they are preparing to face consequences for teaching topics that some Republican lawmakers don’t like.

    Williams, who teaches a course on rhetoric that covers concepts including Indigenous liberation, the Black prophetic tradition, queer pride, and fatphobia, worries that her class material could become a target.

    The bill banning diversity efforts states that it doesn’t apply to course instruction or research. But in recent months, public-college leaders have often played it safe in political climates that appear hostile toward courses about race and gender — directing professors to, for instance, “proceed cautiously” if teaching about reproductive health.

    Until she receives an order or instruction from a supervisor, chair, or dean, Williams said, she doesn’t plan to stop teaching the course because her students enjoy learning the material. The few that don’t, Williams noted, “still say what’s on their mind.”

    Should she be directed to stop or change her mode of instruction, Williams said, she isn’t sure how she would respond.

    “What would I even teach at that point?” Williams said. “If they can’t learn that at a public institution, where are they supposed to go?”

    Eva Surovell

    Source link

  • Tenure and DEI Changes Loom Large in Texas. Here Are 3 Takeaways From a Marathon Hearing.

    Tenure and DEI Changes Loom Large in Texas. Here Are 3 Takeaways From a Marathon Hearing.

    When Texas lawmakers scheduled a hearing this week about two bills that could alter tenure and eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion offices, the higher-ed community had a lot to say.

    Hundreds of witnesses — mostly faculty members, as well as some administrators and students — showed up to testify on SB 17 and SB 18 before the Higher Education Committee in the Texas House of Representatives. The event lasted over 10 hours and didn’t adjourn until 3:30 a.m. on Tuesday.

    Both bills are a part of a landslide of legislation introduced this year to reform higher education in Texas, including efforts to prohibit diversity training and ban the instruction of certain topics related to race and gender, among other priorities.

    Tenure elimination in particular has been a key legislative priority for Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican, who has previously said that some professors “hide behind” tenure in an effort to “continue blatantly advancing their agenda of societal division.” The Texas Senate voted last month to get rid of tenure for new faculty hires.

    A different version of SB 18 emerged at the hearing on Monday, and the tenure ban was gone. State Rep. John Kuempel, a Republican and chair of the Higher Education Committee in the House, said the substitute reflects that faculty tenure is a necessity for the state’s colleges to remain competitive.

    Instead, the new legislation would require in-depth performance reviews for all tenured faculty members at least once every six years. The proposal echoes an effort in Florida to revamp post-tenure review, which has drawn criticism.

    Meanwhile, to the proposed ban on diversity offices, in SB 17, lawmakers have added some exceptions — allowing colleges’ governing boards to approve diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts that are required for federal grants or accreditation.

    No witnesses spoke in favor of the tenure bill. Two voiced support for the diversity-office ban.

    Here’s what else people had to say at the hearing.

    As The Chronicle reported last week, even the prospect of eliminating or weakening tenure has already affected faculty recruitment and retention.

    Julie McCormick Weng, an assistant professor of English at Texas State University, said colleagues are going on the job market because they fear pursuing a long-term career in a state that does not support tenure. The revised bill, Weng added, still sends a message that the Texas Legislature believes there is an issue at the state’s colleges that requires state intervention.

    “The mere optics of this bill are already having a detrimental effect on our universities and their reputations,” Weng said. “If any version of this bill is passed, I worry that it would result in a profound faculty exodus.”

    “We all want greater political diversity in higher education. Please do not eliminate” the protection of tenure.

    Other faculty members said they had seen competitive candidates drop out of the hiring processes at Texas universities because of SB 18.

    “People turn down jobs for lots of reasons, but from what these candidates told me, the uncertainty around tenure was a big factor in our failure to hire this year,” said Daniel Brinks, chair of the government department at the University of Texas at Austin.

    Brinks said he’d made job offers to six candidates for two faculty openings this year, and all six declined. Another professor in the department informed Brinks last week that he’d be leaving.

    While lawmakers have moved away from banning tenure for now, the list of reasons to fire tenured faculty are vague and confusing in the new House version of the bill.

    That bill proposes that tenured faculty may be dismissed for exhibiting “professional incompetence,” engaging in “unprofessional conduct that adversely affects the institution,” and violating university policies, among other things.

    Brian L. Evans, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, and president of the campus chapter of the Association of American University Professors, said he welcomed the changes in the bill but stressed that the language around dismissal of tenured professors needs to be clarified.

    “‘Violating university policies’ could be a reason for dismissal, so we’re concerned that could be used in all kinds of ways — many unforeseen,” Evans said.

    Stephen McKeown, an assistant professor of mathematics at the University of Texas at Dallas, said he worried the vague language in the revised SB 18 could be used to fire conservative faculty members who speak up about their beliefs. Tenure, McKeown said, is “vital” for conservative faculty members, because most of the people who make hiring and firing decisions on college campuses lean to the left politically.

    “We all want greater political diversity in higher education,” McKeown said. “Please do not eliminate this protection.”

    The state’s colleges will continue promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion even without designated offices.

    College administrators who were invited to testify by the committee said that SB 17 may require universities to take a different approach, but the administrators stressed that they are committed to diversifying their campuses and supporting students.

    Michael R. Williams chancellor of the University of North Texas system, said that while the majority of the system’s campuses do not have their own DEI offices, that has not stopped them from pursuing diversity, equity, and inclusion.

    “This is the path that we’re on regardless,” Williams said.

    LaToya Smith, vice president for diversity and community engagement at the University of Texas at Austin, said it is hard to say what the impact of the bill would be if passed.

    “There could be a chilling effect,” Smith said. “There could be potential issues with recruiting students.”

    Eva Surovell

    Source link

  • College DEI Bans Are Showing Up in Republicans’ State Budgets. Not Everyone Is on Board.

    College DEI Bans Are Showing Up in Republicans’ State Budgets. Not Everyone Is on Board.

    Each spring, Missouri’s legislature goes through the familiar ritual of passing a new state budget. This year, Republican lawmakers have mostly wrangled over just one thing related to higher ed: a ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion spending by public colleges and other state institutions.

    The Missouri House wants to bar funding for DEI. The Missouri Senate does not. Both houses are controlled by Republicans.

    The House approved a budget amendment in March that would prohibit funding for “staffing, vendors, consultants, or programs” associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion. But similar language was unsuccessful in the Senate, after hours of debate that lasted until 3 a.m.

    The Senate proposal would have prohibited funding “for intradepartmental ‘diversity, equity, inclusion,’” as well as for “‘diversity, inclusion, belonging’” training, programs, staffing, and hiring. But key Senate Republicans said a DEI ban could have unintended consequences.

    The two chambers are scheduled to meet this week to hash out a compromise. Missouri’s legislative session ends on Friday.

    Legislatures in 20 states have proposed bills this year that seek to curtail diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts on college campuses, according to The Chronicle’s DEI Legislation Tracker.

    Simultaneously, some lawmakers have tried a different tactic: leveraging the budgeting process to enact DEI bans.

    It’s not a new approach. Lawmakers often lobby to have their priorities wrapped into sweeping budget bills.

    The budget is the one must-pass item each session, and legislators may find it easier to tack on policy riders than to try to pass separate bills, said Robert Kelchen, a professor of higher education at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.

    More lawmakers have used this strategy in recent years, however, said Michael Harris, a higher-education professor at Southern Methodist University.

    “If you’re in a red state, your legislature is either doing this or they’re seriously thinking about doing this — that’s just the reality today,” Harris said.

    A ‘Job Killer’

    In several states, Republican-backed budget provisions that would curtail college DEI spending are facing opposition — including from other Republicans.

    Nearly 200 organizations voiced opposition to the Missouri House’s amendment in an open letter, citing “wide-ranging consequences” from economic concerns to health and economic disparities. “The budget language would jeopardize licensing and accreditation of programs critical to both the well-being of Missourians and our state’s economic competitiveness,” the letter states. The Missouri Chamber of Commerce called the proposal a “job killer.”

    State Sen. Lincoln Hough, a Republican who chairs the Missouri Senate’s Committee on Appropriations, has expressed concern that the DEI provision could “jeopardize” federal funding, as well as state agreements with some contractors and vendors. The ban’s vagueness creates uncertainty, Hough said last week.

    In Kansas, Republican lawmakers added a provision in the state’s budget bill that would have restricted public colleges from asking job applicants about diversity, equity, and inclusion. But the language didn’t make the final cut.

    Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, used a line-item veto to strike the DEI language on April 21. The Kansas House tried and failed last week to override her decision on that measure.

    South Carolina Republicans also considered, and ultimately voted down, a series of budget amendments that would have banned DEI spending at public colleges.

    While some conservative legislators argued that colleges shouldn’t be using taxpayer dollars to support diversity measures, others expressed concern that a blanket cut in funding would harm students by leading colleges to raise tuition. One lawmaker suggested that the state budget was not the right vehicle for targeting campus diversity programs.

    The Texas House and Senate have both approved anti-DEI language in their respective state-budget proposals, though the provisions differ slightly.

    The House plan would bar public colleges from using state funds for “unconstitutional” DEI programs. The Senate’s would prohibit spending money on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs or trainings.

    The Texas chambers will have to reconcile their proposals before May 29, when the legislative session ends. In addition, at least seven bills have been introduced in the state that would affect diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts on college campuses, according to The Chronicle’s tracker.

    At the same time, Texas lawmakers plan to increase funding for other higher-ed priorities. Community colleges are slated to potentially see a $305-million increase, and another bill would support research efforts at institutions of higher education.

    “There’s a real dichotomy between these efforts to restrict DEI and also substantial increases in funding,” Kelchen said.

    Chilling and Demoralizing

    Even if the DEI spending ban doesn’t end up in Missouri’s final state budget, other legislation could target campus diversity efforts in the state.

    One bill would prohibit institutions from “enforcing a ‘discriminatory ideology’” that “promotes the differential treatment of any individual or group of individuals based on immutable characteristics of race, color, religion, sex, gender ethnicity, national origin, or ancestry” through requiring the submission of diversity, equity, and inclusion statements. Another would ban the instruction of “diversity-equity-inclusion ideologies or materials.”

    A representative from the University of Missouri’s Board of Curators declined to comment on pending legislation.

    The sheer volume of legislative proposals that would affect diversity, equity, and inclusion this year is overwhelming for colleges to keep track of and mitigate behind the scenes, Harris said.

    “It feels like you’re fighting this war on every single front — it’s attacking DEI, it’s attacking tenure, it’s attacking autonomy,” Harris said. “It’s so chilling and it’s so demoralizing, and what’s almost worse is that I think that’s the point.”

    As legislative debates continue this month, Harris said, it’s important to remember that many institutions have begun proactively making changes in diversity and inclusion programs in order to be risk averse — even if legislation doesn’t end up going into effect.

    “If that’s the case, then it almost feels like we don’t quite have our eye on the ball,” Harris said. “We‘re watching the crazy legislation, but if institutions are essentially voluntarily complying, well then it doesn’t matter if the bill didn’t pass.”

    Eva Surovell

    Source link

  • North Dakota Just Enacted a ‘Specified Concepts’ Bill. Here’s What It Says.

    North Dakota Just Enacted a ‘Specified Concepts’ Bill. Here’s What It Says.

    A bill banning mandatory diversity training at public institutions of higher education in North Dakota was signed into law on Monday.

    Gov. Doug Burgum, a Republican, signed Senate Bill 2247 into law with little fanfare. His office issued no press release about its signing. Only the Senate journal includes a communication from the governor stating that he signed the bill along with others. It will go into effect on August 1.

    The new law will prevent institutions under the control of the State Board of Higher Education from mandating noncredit diversity training. An exception for training on federal and state nondiscrimination laws is included. It also prevents institutions from asking about the “ideological or political viewpoint” of students, prospective employees, or those being considered for a promotion or tenure, very likely ending the use of diversity statements in hiring.

    Additionally, the bill prohibits students and college employees from being discriminated against because of their position on a “specified concept,” which is defined in a list of 16 statements, most of them about race, sex, and power. The specified concepts include: the notion that a person’s race or sex is “inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously”; that the idea of meritocracy is “inherently racist or sexist”; and that the United States itself is “fundamentally or irredeemably” racist or sexist. Another specified concept that a student or employee can’t be penalized for refusing to believe or oppose: “The rule of law does not exist, but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups.”

    The bill also states that if a college employee’s main duties include efforts to improve diversity, part of their job must also encompass “efforts to strengthen and increase intellectual diversity among students and faculty” at their institution.

    The language in the signed bill also states that its provisions shouldn’t be interpreted as restricting faculty members’ academic freedom or preventing them from “teaching, researching, or writing publications about the specified concepts or related topics.”

    Of the 33 diversity, equity, and inclusion-related bills The Chronicle is tracking, North Dakota’s is the first to be signed into law.

    The bill was sponsored by three state senators and three state representatives, all Republicans.

    Two of the bill’s sponsors responded to a request for comment on its passage. State Rep. Bernie Satrom said he was unaware the bill had passed and offered no further comment.

    State Sen. Randy Lemm said he was glad the governor signed the bill because it will ensure students and instructors are not penalized for their views, and that they have free speech.

    Gov. Burgum’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

    Earlier in the legislative process, at a March 7 hearing of the House Education Committee, 17 people testified in opposition to the bill, while three spoke in favor, including one of its sponsors, Sen. Bob Paulson.

    Casey Ryan, chair of the state board, wrote in opposition to the bill: “Personally, I believe the goal of our colleges and universities is to teach students ‘how’ to learn — not ‘what’ to learn.”

    Kate Marijolovic

    Source link

  • Hundreds of Students, Faculty, and Administrators Speak Out Against Ohio’s Proposal to Reform Public Colleges

    Hundreds of Students, Faculty, and Administrators Speak Out Against Ohio’s Proposal to Reform Public Colleges

    Florida and Texas have drawn much of the national attention over lawmakers’ efforts to reform higher ed this year. But Ohio’s legislature hosted a dramatic, seven-hour committee hearing on Wednesday — in which hundreds of students, faculty, and administrators sought to articulate the consequences of lawmakers’ sweeping proposed changes to public colleges in the state.

    Introduced in the Ohio Senate last month, the 39-page SB 83 would ban mandatory diversity training, prohibit the use of diversity statements in hiring or admissions, and prevent higher-ed employees from striking. It could also have the effect of preventing institutions from funding diversity offices.

    SB 83 would also prevent institutions from accepting donations from individuals or institutions based in China, as well as require colleges to institute new post-tenure-review policies; use specific, state-mandated language in their mission statements; and post all course syllabi on their websites.

    The hearing, held by the state Senate’s Workforce and Higher Education Committee, drew over 100 professors and over 90 students, most of them undergraduates, and most of them testifying in opposition to the bill.

    A dozen college staff members and administrators voiced opposition, including the dean of Ohio State University’s College of Public Health. The Ohio School Psychologists Association argued that the legislation could cause all school-psychologist training programs in the state to lose their accreditation.

    Six people testified in support of the bill.

    Bobby McAlpine, undergraduate student-body president at Ohio State, said he commissioned a survey of almost 1,600 undergraduates, with 82 percent responding that they “do not believe that Ohio State faculty, staff, or administration seek to impose certain political beliefs on them.” Ohio State has about 47,000 undergraduates.

    According to McAlpine, 86 percent of student respondents said Ohio State’s DEI efforts were meaningful in some way. One respondent who answered that such efforts were not meaningful wrote: “Why should we have to learn about them anyway? They don’t even deserve to be here. Senate Bill 83 should be passed.”

    Such a statement shows that the legislation is having an impact on campus, McAlpine said. “We’re already seeing, in this huge survey size of people, that the language of this bill is clearly making students already speak out against people that look like me, against people that have marginalized identities,” he said.

    Potential Impacts

    At Wednesday’s hearing, Republican lawmakers spoke of the bill as a way to level the academic playing field for conservative students who, they said, are often scared to speak up in class or face retaliation for their opinions when they do.

    State Rep. Josh Williams, a Republican and proponent of the bill, said he had that experience while pursuing a law degree at the University of Toledo. During a class, he said, he expressed the opinion that the United States shouldn’t adopt an open-border policy. Later, Williams said, a law professor commented on one of Williams’s Facebook posts, saying that his views reminded him of the Nazi Party. Williams said he was also harassed by fellow students, both online and in class.

    On another occasion while attending law school, Williams said, a student with opposing views deliberately signed up to be his note taker (a disability accommodation enabled Williams to get notes taken for days he missed). But Williams said the student refused to take notes for him on the days he missed class. After he reported the student to the university, the note taker would copy down the law cases discussed in class only as they appeared in the textbook. An investigation was eventually opened into the notetaking, according to Williams.

    “I have personally been warned that I would be blocked for advancement in the space of higher education for expressing opinions widely accepted outside of academia,” Williams said.

    Students and others who opposed the bill expressed concern with its language surrounding “controversial beliefs or policies,” which some said could be construed to prevent factual scientific concepts, like climate change, from being taught.

    SB 83 would require faculty and staff to “allow and encourage students to reach their own conclusions about all controversial matters and shall not seek to inculcate any social, political, or religious point of view.”

    The bill defines “controversial beliefs and policies” as “any belief or policy that is the subject of political controversy, including issues such as climate change, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion.”

    It is unclear what would happen to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs if SB 83 is passed. The bill states: “No state institution shall fund, facilitate, or provide any support to any position, material benefit, policy, program, and activity that advantages or disadvantages faculty, staff, or students by any group identity, except that the institution may advantage citizens of the United States or this state.” (The Chronicle has included SB 83 in our interactive tracker of DEI legislation across the states.)

    A fiscal note on the bill’s financial impact — written by the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, a nonpartisan group that provides financial and policy analysis to the Ohio General Assembly — said that while passage of the bill could result in some cost savings for universities, it could also significantly increase costs.

    “Some of these provisions may marginally increase administrative costs for state institutions, while others will increase administrative costs more substantially. When taken as a whole, however, administrative costs may increase significantly, potentially resulting in the need to hire additional staff to handle the increased workload,” reads the analysis.

    The analysis also said that SB 83 would raise costs for the Ohio Department of Higher Education, which is funded by the state.

    Some students who testified against the bill said they are deliberately choosing to attend graduate school outside the state, and they believe other students will follow suit if SB 83 passes.

    “I applied to five of the best schools in the entire nation for my graduate field, and I got into every single one of them with funding to boot. All not in Ohio, because I am intimately familiar that this bill might actually impact my graduate education, and therefore, I am choosing to go elsewhere,” said Lalitha Pamidigantam.

    At Wednesday’s hearing, Sen. Jerry C. Cirino, a Republican and the bill’s primary sponsor, said SB 83 does not attack or weaken tenure.

    “I’ve had lots of dialogue with our university presidents about this subject, and they have made a strong case that eliminating tenure would be very disadvantageous for the state of Ohio, so this bill does not do that,” Cirino said.

    He was also adamant that the bill would not eliminate DEI programs.

    “DEI is not outlawed in SB 83. The mandatory nature of it would be,” Cirino said. He later added, “I’ve had a lot of questions from people who obviously haven’t read the bill, because” DEI is “not prohibited in SB 83. I’d just like to clear that up.”

    Kate Marijolovic

    Source link

  • ‘Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion’ Is Stripped Out of Florida’s Higher-Ed Reform Bill

    ‘Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion’ Is Stripped Out of Florida’s Higher-Ed Reform Bill

    Florida’s state senators edited out some of the most contentious provisions of a much-discussed higher-education bill advancing through the legislature on Wednesday. Lawmakers scrapped all references to “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” eliminated the ability to subject professors to tenure review at any time or for any cause, and shelved language that would have given hiring authority to governing boards.

    HB 999 and its complement Senate Bill 266 were first filed in February after Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced that changes to public higher education would be a policy priority of his this year.

    In modifying the bill, Florida lawmakers signaled that some of DeSantis’s most aggressive proposals on higher education may not be realized this year.

    Senators removed all of the bill’s references to “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” rewriting the bill to ban curricula based on “theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States and were created to maintain social, political, and economic inequities.” Universities would also be prohibited from using state funding to promote, support, or maintain campus programs or activities that are based on these theories, the bill states.

    The latest version also strips out previous language that would have banned specific majors and minors. The bill had been amended in March to bar universities from offering any major or minor that is “based on or otherwise utilizes pedagogical methodology associated with Critical Theory, including, but not limited to, Critical Race Theory, Critical Race Studies, Critical Ethnic Studies, Radical Feminist Theory, Radical Gender Theory, Queer Theory, Critical Social Justice, or Intersectionality.”

    Most public universities in Florida offer majors or minors in gender studies, and many other disciplines and programs cover topics like race, gender, and intersectionality. Faculty and students expressed concern that these programs were at risk under prior versions of the bill.

    Under prior versions of the senate bill, tenured professors could have been subject to post-tenure review at any time or for any cause. That provision was struck Wednesday by the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Erin Grall, a Republican. Florida established a five-year post-tenure review process last year.

    Despite the revisions, State Sen. Geraldine Thompson , a Democrat, stressed that she believes the bill still represents a step “backwards” for the state.

    Another addition to the senate bill would give university presidents the final authority over hiring decisions for provosts, deans, and full-time faculty members. Presidents would also be responsible for assessing the performance, productivity, and employment practices of the university’s provost and deans and would be encouraged to participate in faculty reporting.

    Previously, the bill would have permitted boards of trustees to make hiring decisions, allowing them to delegate that authority to presidents but forbidding them from delegating to faculty members. The new text lifts that ban.

    Eva Surovell

    Source link

  • Some States Want to Ban DEI in Higher Ed. These States Want to Require It.

    Some States Want to Ban DEI in Higher Ed. These States Want to Require It.

    This academic year, public colleges in Washington state were required to provide training for faculty and staff on diversity, equity, inclusion, and anti-racism — a new mandate based on a 2021 state law.

    As colleges’ diversity efforts face possible bans in some states, lawmakers in others are doing the opposite: They’re aiming to affirm these programs through legislation.

    Proposals this year in Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey present a striking contrast to what’s happening in states like South Carolina, where lawmakers have debated defunding diversity efforts, and Texas, where a handful of bills would ban critical race theory and prohibit diversity training, among other restrictions. A Chronicle analysis has found that at least 29 bills have been introduced in 17 states so far that would affect diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

    Leah Hakkola, an associate professor at the University of Maine at Orono who studies diversity in higher education, said the legislative initiatives today are particularly polarizing.

    “Our country is more divisive than ever,” Hakkola said.

    In that environment, Hakkola said, legislation that promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion at public colleges is increasingly important. Most administrators understand that these efforts improve accessibility and foster innovation, she said.

    Massachusetts

    In Massachusetts, S.1973 would require every state and quasi-state agency — including the state’s 29 public colleges — to establish a senior-level position that has the title of director of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

    The bill was introduced by State Sen. Nick Collins, a Democrat. Collins’s office did not respond to a request for comment from The Chronicle.

    Hakkola said that some universities may find it helpful to have a director of diversity, equity, and inclusion, but she stressed that the burden of promoting diversity should be “collective” across administrators, departments, and the campus community as a whole.

    New Jersey

    In New Jersey, A3944 would require the state’s 33 public colleges to develop a faculty and student diversity plan.on second thought, let’s lose the hyphens that I added. This is the bill’s language./hl Each campus plan would have to establish diversity goals for increasing the recruitment and retention of students, faculty, and staff who represent diverse backgrounds; identify steps and metrics to monitor those goals; and create programming aimed at improving the campus climate for diversity. The bill would also require that an annual diversity report that includes enrollment, retention, and graduation rates be submitted to the state’s secretary of higher education.

    The bill was introduced by Assemblywoman Annette Quijano, a Democrat.sic Her office did not respond to a request for comment from The Chronicle.

    New York

    In New York, Senate Bill 1452 would require all 89 campuses in the State University of New York and City University of New York systems to establish courses in ethnic studies, women’s studies, and social justice. The legislation would also require students to complete at least one three-credit course in one of those disciplines to graduate.

    State Sen. James Sanders Jr., the Democrat who introduced the bill, said requiring students to complete such a course would deepen their understanding of prejudice — particularly as the country continues to grapple with the systemic inequities brought into sharp relief by the pandemic and the murder of George Floyd.

    “Racism is a major problem in New York and America,” Sanders said. “New York should go forward and not backward, like states that ban similar requirements.”

    Such a ban has surfaced as legislation in Florida, for example, where House Bill 999 would ban majors in gender studies, critical race theory, and intersectionality.

    Finding Common Ground

    While state law is one way to preserve the future of diversity, equity, and inclusion, Hakkola said, colleges looking to entrench these efforts could also consider rebranding by using more-inviting, low-risk language — like “intercultural sensitivity” or “intercultural competence.”

    Ultimately, Hakkola said, it is important for both skeptics and supporters of campus diversity efforts to find common ground.

    “This fighting will not necessarily come to a conclusion or some kind of compromise unless we are able to talk across our differences,” Hakkola said. “We just have to be open to those conversations.”

    Eva Surovell

    Source link

  • Texas Republicans Want to Reform Higher Ed. What Are Their Plans?

    Texas Republicans Want to Reform Higher Ed. What Are Their Plans?

    Among an avalanche of bills filed in the Texas Legislature on Friday were at least half a dozen proposals that would affect public colleges — a sign of Republican politicians’ keen interest in reforming higher ed this year.

    Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who presides over the Texas Senate by virtue of his position, is helping lead the charge. Patrick named banning critical race theory, ending colleges’ diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, and eliminating tenure among his top 30 priorities for the 2023 legislative session.

    Prior to Friday, state legislators had already filed bills that proposed prohibiting colleges from requiring diversity statements as a condition of employment or admission; preventing employers, including city and county governments and higher-ed institutions, from using “inherent classifications” — race, gender, etc. — in employment or admissions decisions; and banning colleges from staffing diversity, equity, and inclusion offices.

    The push in Texas comes amid heightened legislative interest nationwide in reforming higher ed this year. At least 21 bills in 13 states have been introduced so far that would curb colleges’ attempts to boost diversity, equity, and inclusion if passed, a Chronicle analysis found. Texas lawmakers appear interested both in restricting colleges’ diversity efforts and in reshaping other aspects of higher ed.

    Here are some of the higher-ed bills that emerged in Texas on Friday.

    HB 1607 would prohibit instruction on certain concepts relating to race and gender, such as discrimination and unconscious or conscious bias, by withholding state funding. Versions of the legislation have passed in a number of other states over the last two years.

    SB 2313/HB 5001 would prohibit public colleges from requiring diversity training as a condition for enrollment or registration. A handful of other states are considering similar measures this year.

    SB 18 would eliminate tenure or any type of permanent-employment status at public institutions of higher ed. The proposal comes amid efforts in other states — including North Dakota and Florida — to significantly modify tenure.

    HB 4736 would prohibit the admission of Chinese, Iranian, North Korean, Russian, and undocumented students at public colleges. Current state law permits undocumented students who meet certain eligibility requirements to receive financial aid and pay in-state tuition.

    SB 2335 would permit institutions of higher education which are “adversely impacted by retaliatory action” taken by accrediting agencies, which control colleges’ access to federal financial aid, to sue for damages. The measure comes as accreditors and Republican-led college-governing boards clash in Idaho and North Carolina. For example, a board member at North Idaho College, which was issued a “show cause” sanction last month amid leadership dysfunction, recently accused the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities of leading a “political” process to strip the college’s accreditation.

    SB 19 would create the Texas University Fund — an endowment to support four of the state’s public research institutions: Texas Tech University, the University of Houston, Texas State University, and the University of North Texas.

    Eva Surovell

    Source link

  • DEI Legislation Tracker

    DEI Legislation Tracker

    The Chronicle is tracking legislation that would prohibit colleges from having diversity, equity, and inclusion offices or staff; ban mandatory diversity training; prohibit institutions from using diversity statements in hiring and promotion; or prohibit colleges from using race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in admissions or employment. All four proscriptions were identified in model state legislation proposed this year by the Goldwater and Manhattan Institutes.

    We are tracking 21 bills in 13 states. So far,

    0

    have final
    legislative approval.

    0

    have been signed
    into law by a governor.

    2

    have been tabled
    or failed to pass.

    What Would the Legislation Restrict?

    We Want to Hear From You

    How are people in your state or on your campus reacting to these efforts to restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts at public colleges? What are your thoughts on these proposals? And have we missed any relevant bills? Please email Adrienne.lu@chronicle.com and let us know.

    Methodology

    The Chronicle looked for bills introduced in the current legislative sessions on state legislative websites. We searched for bills that would affect diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts identified in the model state legislation proposed by the Goldwater and Manhattan Institutes this year. We supplemented those efforts by looking for articles about relevant legislation in local media outlets.

    In some states, changes in diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts at public colleges have come from outside the legislature. For example, in a measure that appears to target diversity statements, the University of North Carolina’s Board of Governors voted in February to prohibit colleges from asking applicants or employees to state or agree with certain viewpoints in hiring or admissions, while the chancellors of the Texas A&M and Texas State systems eliminated requirements for diversity statements in hiring. We did not include measures like those, but focused on state legislation only.

    Data on student enrollment represents only full-time students for the fall of 2021, and it comes from the U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (Ipeds). Employee numbers also come from Ipeds, and these figures include only full-time employees. Nonwhite students and faculty percentages are calculated by taking the total population minus the white population. People who identified as two or more races, nonresidents, or unknown were removed from these calculations as well. Only data from Title IV, degree-granting institutions within the United States is included.

    Audrey Williams June, Kate Marijolovic, Julian Roberts-Grmela, and Eva Surovell contributed to this article.

    Jacquelyn Elias and Adrienne Lu

    Source link

  • Citing State Law, an Idaho College Censored an Art Exhibit That Mentioned Abortion

    Citing State Law, an Idaho College Censored an Art Exhibit That Mentioned Abortion

    Lydia Nobles, a New York-based artist, thought everything was going smoothly with the installation of her artwork at Lewis-Clark State College’s Center for Arts and History, in Idaho.

    Nobles’s work, a series of videos of women talking about their experiences with abortion and pregnancy, was going to be included in a group show, called “Unconditional Care,” that focused on health issues.

    But on February 28, the artist got an email from the center’s director, Emily Johnsen, saying that Nobles’s work could not be included in the show. The decision was made, the email said, after consulting with lawyers and “based on current Idaho Law,” specifically a recent law that makes it illegal to use public funds to “promote” or “counsel in favor of” abortion.

    By the time the show opened last Friday, the college had removed two other artists’ works and edited a wall label that mentioned abortion.

    The episode confirms the fears of free-speech advocates who have taken note of Idaho’s particularly restrictive abortion ban. The law’s language is vague, leaving the state’s public colleges to interpret for themselves and their employees what it means to “promote” abortion in the context of scholarship, teaching, and art. Last year the University of Idaho told its staff and faculty members that they must remain “neutral” on the topic of abortion and reproductive health. Such forceful interpretations have not been limited to Idaho.

    The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Coalition Against Censorship wrote a letter to Cynthia L. Pemberton, the college’s president, urging the institution to reconsider its decision to exclude Nobles’s work from the show and condemning its reading of the No Public Funds for Abortion Act, or the NPFAA.

    “The College’s interpretation of the NPFAA — that it applies to works of art depicting the discussion of abortion — demonstrates the potential abuses of the Act,” the letter said. The decision, the groups said, threatens the First Amendment “by censoring Nobles’ important work and denying visitors of the Center the opportunity to view, consider, and discuss it.”

    For her piece, Nobles interviewed 26 people about their pregnancies. Most of the participants had proceeded with abortions, though some had not. For the show at Lewis-Clark State College, she narrowed the work to four videos. She did not intend to advocate for or against abortion, she said, but to allow people to tell their stories.

    “I was really interested in documenting people’s perspectives,” Nobles said. “Allowing them to frame their story how they wanted to frame it.”

    Nobles said she asked the center’s director what the college had objected to, hoping there might be a way to compromise and still include some of her work. But, she said, she never heard back. None of her videos were in the show and her name was not included on the center’s website or the exhibit’s news release.

    The college also removed one of the works by Katrina Majkut, an artist who curated the exhibition. The day before the show opened last Friday, Majkut walked through the exhibit with college administrators. She said they were concerned about a piece of hers that depicts abortion pills. She was told by administrators, whom she declined to name, that she could not include that piece in the show. Majkut said she was also asked to remove some language from a wall label that mentioned abortion in the context of IVF treatments.

    A Lewis-Clark State College spokesperson said in a statement to The Chronicle that college officials became aware of concerns about the show on the night of February 26.

    “Within 24 hours the college engaged legal counsel to try to determine if any of the concerns might be in conflict with Idaho Code Section 18-8705,” the statement said. “On Feb. 28, within hours of receiving legal advice that some of the proposed exhibits could not be included in the exhibition, the college began notifying the third-party exhibit curator and artists involved.”

    Majkut said she did not intend to create the show or a piece of artwork to protest the Idaho law or advocate a position. Both were meant to prompt discussion and learning, she said.

    “I, in my own work and in this exhibit, really aimed to create an exhibit that bridged the gap,” she said, “where anyone, regardless of their political views, could learn and discuss a topic with respect and empathy.”

    To her, the college acted out of fear.

    ”It comes at the cost of free speech and expression and at the cost of academic learning,” she said.

    Michelle Hartney, the third artist whose work was excluded, had included a piece that was a recreation of a 1920s letter that a woman wrote to Margaret Sanger, the nurse and birth-control activist. In the letter, the woman wrote that she had had two abortions, though much of the letter was about the cost and physical toll of her medical care.

    “I was pretty surprised that my piece was pulled,” Hartney said. “I view it as a historical document. It’s really just a copy of that letter.”

    Nell Gluckman

    Source link

  • ‘Never Seen Anything Like It’: New Bill Would Write DeSantis’s Higher-Ed Vision Into Law

    ‘Never Seen Anything Like It’: New Bill Would Write DeSantis’s Higher-Ed Vision Into Law

    In recent months, Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, has laid out a comprehensive vision that would place public higher education under extraordinary state control. A bill introduced this week would write that vision into law.

    House Bill 999 takes up almost every bullet-pointed goal that DeSantis included for public higher education in a press release last month. It would prohibit public colleges from funding any projects that “espouse diversity, equity, and inclusion or Critical Race Theory rhetoric,” no matter the funding source; allow boards of trustees to conduct a post-tenure review of faculty members at any time for cause; and put faculty hiring into the hands of trustees. It also has new specifics DeSantis hadn’t proposed, such as a ban on gender studies as a major or minor.

    “This bill will be a gut punch to anyone who cares about public education in a democracy or academic freedom or the fact that our system of higher education is the envy of the world,” said Irene Mulvey, president of the American Association of University Professors. “Because higher ed in America is organized around the fact that research and teaching and decisions involving research and teaching are best made by experts and scholars in the field.”

    “We need to protest, we need to vote, we need to make our voices heard,” Mulvey added, acknowledging a student protest on Thursday. “I’ve never seen anything like it. The future of higher education is at stake. If it works in Florida, you know it’ll spread to other red states.”

    In a news conference in January, DeSantis said his proposals would help Florida “continue to lead in the area of higher education,” and the governor has expressed a desire to rein in public spending on campus initiatives related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Neither DeSantis nor Robert Alexander “Alex” Andrade, HB 999’s sponsor, returned requests for comment.

    The bill is very early in the legislative process. Andrade, a Republican representative in the Florida House who has filed other bills closely aligned with DeSantis’s agenda, filed HB 999 on Tuesday, and the legislative session doesn’t start until March 7. HB 999 may yet change before it passes, if it passes at all, but at least one politics expert in Florida saw it as a sign of what’s to come.

    “My hope is that we get at least some of the more alarming things that are in these bills toned down a little bit, but, at the same time, I think there’s definitely a lot of momentum among Florida Republicans to do something here,” said Nicholas R. Seabrook, a professor of political science at the University of North Florida who has been critical of DeSantis’s posture on higher ed. “We’re definitely going to see something come out of this legislative session.”

    Although he expects legal challenges to HB 999 if it passes, Seabrook also thought it could better pass legal muster than last year’s “Stop WOKE” Act, which has its higher-ed portions under injunction. HB 999 takes aim at funding for programs, curriculum, and hiring, issues in which the state “legitimately has a greater role,” Seabrook said.

    Among the specifics of the bill: It directs trustees to remove from their universities majors and minors “in Critical Race Theory, Gender Studies, or Intersectionality, or any derivative major or minor of these belief systems.” It’s not clear whether any public Florida university has a critical race theory or intersectionality major or minor, but a majority of the 12 institutions offer gender studies as either a major or a minor or both.

    (Critical race theory refers to a set of ideas that arose from legal scholars decades ago that, among other things, positions racism as a structural force. Intersectionality is a theory that refers to “the idea that forms of prejudice overlap.” Both resist simple definition.)

    HB 999 would make boards of trustees responsible for hiring faculty members, and while it would allow boards to delegate that task to the college president, it prohibits the president from further delegating hiring to, say, faculty members. It clarifies that while “diversity” programs are banned, that doesn’t include support for “military veterans, Pell Grant recipients, first generation college students, nontraditional students, ‘2+2’ transfer students from the Florida College System, students from low-income families, or students with unique abilities.”

    The bill would create new rules around general-education courses. For example, they may not teach “American history as contrary to the creation of a new nation based on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.” It continues: “Whenever applicable,” gen-ed courses are to “promote the philosophical underpinnings of Western civilization and include studies of this nation’s historical documents, including the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments thereto, and the Federalist Papers.”

    But teaching history well does include some realities that are contrary to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, according to James Grossman, executive director of the American Historical Association, who has written books about 20th-century African American history. Inviting students to wrestle with colonialism and slavery in early American history is both truthful and helps with “students learning how to think historically and students learning how no ideas exist outside of context. Their ideas, their parents’ ideas, their teachers’ ideas, no ideas exist outside of a context,” Grossman said.

    There are some parts of HB 999 that Seabrook, the University of North Florida professor, agrees with. The bill adds language to Florida law about how a part of public universities’ mission is to prepare students “for citizenship of the constitutional republic.” He also thinks colleges could do more to foster intellectual diversity on campus, but HB 999 is not the way to go about it.

    “It’s identifying that there’s perhaps a problem with academia leaning one way on the ideological spectrum, and then you see what they’re doing at New College,” he said. “They’re just replacing it with an even worse model that goes in the opposite direction.”

    Francie Diep

    Source link

  • Could North Idaho College Really Lose Its Accreditation?

    Could North Idaho College Really Lose Its Accreditation?

    Abolish race-conscious practices. End “leftist indoctrination.” Fix what’s wrong with higher education in America. Those have been the long-stated goals of Republican governors, lawmakers, and activists who, empowered by voters and operating under state law, have for decades sought to remake the ideological climate on college campuses by taking control of the boards that govern public institutions.

    But what happens when the actions of these boards violate long-established rules and norms regarding institutional governance, and in turn begin to imperil a public university or college’s financial and operational well-being?

    That’s what could happen at North Idaho College, a 4,500-student community college that sits 13 miles from the state’s northwestern border. After three years of board interference and dysfunction, it now finds itself facing down a threat from its accreditor of a “show-cause” sanction — which would functionally be a final warning to the college to shape up or risk termination of its accreditation from the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.

    And it’s the board itself that has put the college’s accreditation at greater risk. In a Dec. 17 letter, the commission warned that “recent and subsequent public actions” of the college’s board “appear to place the institution at significant risk of being out of compliance with a number of NWCCU Eligibility Requirements and Standards.”

    Without accreditation, students enrolled at the college would be ineligible to participate in federal financial-aid programs to pay for their education there. For most institutions, this loss of access to federal dollars functionally serves as a death sentence. The “show-cause” threat follows a warning letter from NWCCU last April.

    Since 2016, only two public institutions of higher education in the mainland U.S. have ever been targeted with a “show-cause” sanction by their institutional accreditor, according to a Chronicle analysis.

    Now, uncertainty abounds. Will the threat of accreditor action curtail the board’s penchant for casting aside presidents? And, if not, will the commission actually withdraw the institution’s accreditation, even if it means the end of North Idaho College? And how will other interested parties — like state regulators and legislators, future insurers, crediting-rating agencies, the U.S. Department of Education, and even other accreditors — factor in?

    What higher ed can count on, said Sondra Barringer, an assistant professor of higher education at Southern Methodist University, are more standoffs like the one at North Idaho College between activist-minded boards at public colleges and the organizations that accredit those institutions.

    No one knows where the next showdown will break out. But another board-governance affair reminiscent of the NIC saga played out at New College of Florida on Tuesday. A new board majority — appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis to remake the institution into a “Hillsdale of the South” that rejects “trendy” political views — voted to fire the college’s president, and replace her in the interim with a former Republican Florida House speaker and close DeSantis ally.

    ‘Deep State’

    The story of how this small Idaho college came to the brink of losing accreditation goes back a ways, but the roots of the latest chapter can be traced back to the ouster of Rick MacLennan, the then-president of five years. NWCCU issued a warning letter in April 2022, citing “persistent issues with governance at the institution” and alerting the college’s board that it was out of compliance with the accreditor’s policies. Around the same time, the Idaho State Board of Education appointed three new trustees to the college’s board to restore a quorum until November, when the three seats would go up for election.

    The three state-appointed trustees were seated alongside incumbent members Todd Banducci and Greg McKenzie, who had both voted to fire MacLennan without cause — an apparent counterstrike against the “NIC ‘deep state,’” which Banducci had previously described in an email to a student.

    The three new appointees, who formed a new majority, also did not sit well with Banducci, who essentially characterized the move as a hostile takeover of the board he chaired.

    “They are moving at lightning speed to cram it down our throats!!” Banducci reportedly wrote on his Facebook page. “They are trying to take it out of the hands of the voters. Pushing through their agenda via bureaucratic fiat.”

    Over Banducci and McKenzie’s objections, the new board moved quickly to appoint Nick Swayne, the executive director of a Virginia-based partnership between the state’s eight public universities, as North Idaho’s new president. He replaced Interim President Michael Sebaaly — who had gotten an unusual promotion, thanks to support from Banducci and McKenzie, from college wrestling coach to college president.

    Newly aggrieved, Banducci, McKenzie, and their allies set their sights on restoring their board majority come election time. But first, their coalition would need to assuage any concerns that voters might have about the college’s accreditation. McKenzie argued in a campaign missive that any talk of accreditation loss for NIC was overblown.

    “What about accreditation?” McKenzie reportedly wrote before the general election. “Isn’t it still at risk? No, that was Fake News. Accreditation has never been ‘at risk’ and the only remaining item on the accreditation agencies request list is to hire a full-time Vice President, anticipated to be completed mid-November.”

    Art Macomber, a local lawyer and failed Republican attorney-general candidate, echoed similar sentiments in a Coeur d’Alene Press guest column published before the election.

    “The scare tactic complaints about NIC’s accreditation seem to be a smokescreen,” Macomber wrote.

    Banducci and McKenzie needed just one of their three preferred candidates to win at the ballot box in order to re-establish their majority on the five-seat board. And despite a $140,000 campaign war chest backing a slate of candidates endorsed by the regional Chamber of Commerce, Banducci and McKenzie were in the end able to secure their all-important third vote.

    Not wasting any time, at a December 8 board meeting, Banducci, McKenzie, and newly elected Mike Waggoner voted to immediately place President Nick Swayne on administrative leave (he promptly sued, looking to be reinstated).

    Critics alleged the board’s action had violated Idaho’s open-meetings law, a violation that the board would concede to in a meeting later that month. Macomber, who by this time was the college’s newly hired lawyer, said the move to place Swayne on administrative leave would allow the board to “investigate things that have arisen of concern that impeded our accreditation success.”

    A Rare Move

    Ironically, North Idaho College’s decision to place Swayne on leave gave rise to new anxieties about its accreditation.

    On December 17, NWCCU penned a letter to the college’s leadership, raising for the first time the prospect that a “show-cause” order could be issued against the institution for its ongoing lack of compliance with the accreditor’s policies. “Show-cause” orders are a relative rarity in higher education, and are almost never levied against public institutions like North Idaho College.

    According to a Chronicle analysis, of the 745 “show-cause” orders issued by institutional accreditors since 2016 and on file with the Department of Education, only two mainland public institutions of higher education have ever received such a sanction: Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, a four-year historically black university which had struggled financially in the past (Cheyney’s accreditor has since removed all sanctions against it); and Learey Technical College, a Florida vocational school that is now a part of the Hillsborough County Public Schools system. (All 11 campuses of the University of Puerto Rico were also issued “show-cause” findings in early 2019 after each failed to submit certain financial and regulatory items to the group’s accreditor).

    Responding to the accreditor’s letter, North Idaho wrote last month that it had taken numerous steps to rectify issues of noncompliance, such as allowing public comment during regular board meetings. But the board rejected the recommendation of two of college’s administrators, who were then acting as interim chief executives, to bring Swayne back; the board majority cited Swayne’s lawsuit in justifying their refusal.

    Instead, the board’s 3-2 majority voted to make Greg South, formerly an interim dean of instruction at NIC, the college’s latest acting president. Under the auspices of the Swayne lawsuit, Macomber issued more than a dozen subpoenas to college employees, former trustees, and others, according to reporting by The Coeur d’Alene Press. The Coeur d’Alene Press also learned that under Macomber’s arrangement with the college, the lawyer may bill it $325 an hour for his legal services. In December — his first month on the job — the institution paid him $25,000, according to invoices obtained by the paper.

    In addition, the credit-ratings agency Moody’s Investors Service decided in late December to place the college’s $7.9 million in debt under review for a possible downgrade, which would make it more expensive for the college to borrow money. In its assessment, Moody’s noted that the dysfunction on the college’s board had resulted in the loss of its insurer. A downgrade could come soon, unless the college demonstrates “meaningful steps taken to stabilize leadership and address accreditor’s concerns,” the notice stated.

    “The board members’ very public disputes with one another, college leadership, and external parties are negatively impacting NIC’s brand, which in turn, could negatively impact student demand and operations,” the analyst for Moody’s wrote.

    To date, Moody’s has not downgraded its ratings for the college or its debt.

    Sonny Ramaswamy, the accreditor’s president, said the commission had not yet prepared a response to the college, which formally replied to the “show-cause” threat on January 4. Ramaswamy declined to answer any specific questions about the college’s accreditation.

    Echoing answers he provided to state legislators’ questions last week, South, the new interim president of the college, said in an interview with The Chronicle that he was focused on working with the commission to bring the institution back into compliance with the accreditor’s policies, though he repeatedly noted that NIC remains accredited. South also said that Ramaswamy had advised the college’s leadership to focus on educating students, and avoid speculating on what might or might not come next for the institution.

    As for the challenge of working productively with a deeply divided board, South said he believed the trustees were committed to developing relationships and building trust.

    “If they weren’t committed to it, I probably wouldn’t have taken the job,” South said.

    The Chronicle requested interviews with Banducci, McKenzie, Macomber, and the other board members. A spokesperson for the college offered to forward emailed questions to the group.

    In response, McKenzie wrote that the entire institution — board, administration, and employees — were committed to meeting the commission’s expectations. Asked if he bore any responsibility for putting North Idaho College at increased risk of losing its accreditation, McKenzie said he did.

    “Everyone in leadership shares responsibility in where the college is at and where we need to go,” McKenzie said. “Being a member of the board governance team and having the accreditation issues relate to governance[,] I share responsibility. Pointing fingers isn’t what our students nor this college needs right now.”

    In keeping with Ramaswamy’s advice, Tarie Zimmerman, a trustee in the minority, wrote that the board had not discussed any plans for how the college would respond if NWCCU actually did terminate the college’s accreditation.

    Nothing In Between

    Board members overseeing public institutions of higher education are increasingly assuming that their roles extend beyond the traditional portfolio of fiduciary responsibility and long-term strategic management, said Barringer, the professor at Southern Methodist. In some cases, it’s activist-minded boards motivated by ideological objectives. But Barringer also pointed to examples of board-president conflicts that arose from interpersonal disputes, like at Texas Southern University. In 2020, the university’s board voted to give themselves the power to fire any and all campus employees, a month after placing its then-president on administrative leave.

    Because public colleges and universities like North Idaho College so rarely test the limits of their relationships with accreditors, what happens next at the institution will likely provide valuable insight into how much upheaval a body like NWCCU is willing to accept before it completely loses trust in a governing board. “We don’t have a line in terms of how far activist boards can go, and this could help establish a line for this accreditor in terms of how far it is willing to let the board go,” Barringer said.

    And each possible move by the accreditor can in turn beget a different series of options available to the college, said Robert Kelchen, a professor of education at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.

    Withdrawing accreditation is a significant step that would carry risk for North Idaho, its students, and the commission itself. Kelchen said he suspected that even if the accreditor were to issue a “show-cause” sanction against North Idaho, it would not go beyond this step and actually cut off students’ access to federal student-aid dollars. Despite all the different names for different types of sanctions, Kelchen said accreditors actually only have a limited number of tools to tame board behavior.

    “The tools in their arsenal jump from rubber mallet to sledgehammer. There’s really nothing in between,” Kelchen said. “They can require a bunch of documents to be provided. They can require a plan. But at the end of the day, you are either accredited, or you’re not.”

    But even if the commission were to withdraw accreditation, North Idaho would still have options. It could file a lawsuit to compel reaccreditation, or rely on allies and sympathizers in the media, within Congress, at the Idaho Legislature, or on the federal committee that evaluates accreditors to pressure the commission to restore the institution’s access to federal aid.

    The college could also elect to shop around for a new accreditor, Kelchen said. But that’s no guarantee, either. And even if a different accreditor did accept North Idaho College’s membership, could the board finally bring itself to follow the rules?

    Dan Bauman

    Source link

  • College Is a Dividing Line in Politics. Here’s What You Need to Know.

    College Is a Dividing Line in Politics. Here’s What You Need to Know.

    The idea of college as a fundamental political division in the U.S. has prompted a great deal of handwringing in the academic world over the past six years. On Tuesday, a high-stakes midterm election will play out with college in the backdrop once again.

    On its surface, the divide is simple: People with college degrees increasingly vote for Democrats, while people who didn’t go to college increasingly vote for Republicans. In a similar vein, there’s a widening gap on opinions of college itself: Republicans tend to question the value of higher ed, while Democrats tend to support it.

    In 2020, 56 percent of college-educated voters supported Democrats, a share that grew slightly from 2016. And 56 percent of voters with a high-school education or less supported Republicans.

    Before 2016, a majority of people from both political parties had positive perceptions of colleges. Starting that year, 72 percent of Democrats maintained this view, but only 43 percent of Republicans did.

    What’s behind the divide, however, is more complicated — as The Chronicle wrote in 2020.

    Here’s what the most recent data tell us.

    A 2022 survey by New America found that 73 percent of Democrats believe that colleges have a positive effect on the nation. Only 37 percent of Republicans said the same. Among all Americans, the proportion who believe higher ed is leading the country in a positive direction has dropped by 14 percentage points, to 55 percent, since 2020.

    Americans across the political spectrum agree that a college degree is valuable to an individual, and both Democrats and Republicans have expressed concerns about the rising cost of higher education. But they remain divided on who should pay for it. Among Republicans, 63 percent say students should pay for their degrees. That’s compared to 77 percent of Democrats who say the government should fund higher education, according to the New America report.

    An earlier survey from the Pew Research Center also charted dwindling support for higher education. The survey found that in 2019, 38 percent of American adults believed colleges were having a negative effect on the country, up from 26 percent in 2012. That shift came almost entirely from Republicans and independents who lean Republican, while Democrats’ views remained stable.

    At the center of the divide are white voters. Most white voters with less education voted for Republicans in 2016. But a majority of white voters with higher levels of education favored Democrats, a shift from most past elections. The divide has become more stark across gender: A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in 2018 found the widest gap between white, college-educated women, who preferred a majority-Democrat Congress, and white men without degrees, who preferred a majority-Republican one.

    ‘Winners and Losers’

    There’s a new book that cuts to the heart of the divide over college: After the Ivory Tower Falls: How College Broke the American Dream and Blew Up Our Politics — and How to Fix It (HarperCollins, 2022), written by Will Bunch, a Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist. In the book, Bunch argues that higher ed is a key source of modern-day resentment that has seeped into Republican politics.

    Higher ed is a key source of modern-day resentment that has seeped into Republican politics.

    Last week, during a session at the Chronicle Festival, Bunch zeroed in on a key question driving his work: “Why do people in the working class have these attitudes towards people with college diplomas?”

    Following World War II, higher ed was generally seen as a public good across the board, Bunch said. That began to change during the civil-rights movement in the 1960s, which spurred campus protests and pressured colleges to increase access for women and people of color. In the 1970s, Ronald Reagan, then governor of California, began touting the idea that colleges were liberal indoctrination factories, adding fuel to a burgeoning conservative backlash.

    Today, Bunch said, college is roiled by a student-debt crisis, a decline in federal and state funding, and a perception among many people who didn’t earn degrees — some of whom live just a stone’s throw from their local college — that institutions are wildly out of touch.

    Bunch suggested that colleges help engineer a system “that’s maybe a little bit less obsessed with creating winners and losers” — in other words, a shift away from meritocracy and toward opportunity.

    What else is contributing to the political rift over college? Research has suggested that a college degree, especially one in the social sciences, could mediate one’s beliefs about race and gender in a way that makes people less likely to vote for Republican candidates.

    This dynamic was highlighted during the 2016 election, which was marked “by exceptionally explicit rhetoric on race and gender,” according to a paper authored by Tatishe M. Nteta, an associate professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. The paper found that people with college degrees were less likely to express negative views of racial groups than people without degrees.

    Republicans and Democrats agree that colleges in rural areas are major employers in these regions. But people in “rural and Rust Belt America” — areas that have steadfastly voted Republican over the years — “have viewed higher education as an otherworld, whose mores and demographics are at odds with their way of life,” David Scobey wrote for The Chronicle in 2019. Scobey is director of Bringing Theory to Practice, a national project aimed at increasing civic engagement.

    There are areas of common ground when it comes to higher ed, though.

    Across political affiliations, 86 percent of Americans agree that higher education can help advance people’s careers, a 2022 survey from Public Agenda found. Fifty-two percent of Americans believe higher education strengthens the economy. And 51 percent of Americans think democracy would be stronger if more people were college educated.

    Sarah Brown, Carolyn Kuimelis, and Grace Mayer

    Source link

  • A Rare Court Victory That Protected 4 Tenured Professors’ Jobs Just Got Reversed. Here’s Why.

    A Rare Court Victory That Protected 4 Tenured Professors’ Jobs Just Got Reversed. Here’s Why.

    The College of Saint Rose didn’t violate its own policies when it dismissed four tenured faculty members, according to a ruling Thursday by a New York appellate court. The unanimous decision overrules a lower court’s ruling last year that reinstated the four professors.

    While the decision is specific to New York, one expert said, it does offer an example for other institutions trying to lay off tenured faculty members.

    In the prior decision, a New York Supreme Court justice ruled that the private college in Albany had violated its own faculty manual by dismissing four longtime members of its music department. Saint Rose told the professors in December 2020 that they and about 30 other tenured faculty members would be laid off in 2021 as part of a cost-cutting plan that included eliminating 25 academic programs and $5.97 million in academic expenses. The college had retained less-senior faculty members, in what Justice Peter A. Lynch of the Albany County Supreme Court called a “select, narrow, and erroneous interpretation” of the faculty manual, seemingly “by design.”

    It was a resounding, and rare, legal victory for tenured faculty members who get laid off. But it was also a short-lived one.

    The state’s second-highest court found on Thursday, after a hearing last month, that Saint Rose had in fact not violated its faculty manual in terminating Yvonne Chavez Hansbrough, Robert S. Hansbrough, Bruce C. Roter, and the department chair, Sherwood W. Wise. The five-judge panel, whose decision was written by Justice Molly Reynolds Fitzgerald, noted that the manual stipulates only that the college should first consider “all reasonable alternatives before resorting to program reductions and any concomitant reductions in personnel.” Saint Rose had given the professors timely notice of their layoffs and allowed them to appeal through a faculty review committee, Fitzgerald said, writing that the decision “was supported by a rational basis, was not unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious or made in bad faith.” The court’s ruling also prevents the professors from suing the college for breach of contract.

    The court’s decision to defer to Saint Rose’s interpretation of its faculty manual is consistent with precedent for the New York-specific legal proceeding under which the case was brought, said William A. Herbert, executive director of the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions, at the City University of New York’s Hunter College. “It becomes not about the sanctity of the manual, but rather how to interpret it and whose interpretation is the one that the court’s trying to look for,” Herbert said. Guided by the terms of that legal framework, called an Article 78 proceeding, the court must only determine whether an institution’s interpretation of its faculty manual was “arbitrary and capricious,” which he described as a “relatively low standard.”

    If, for example, a similar case arose whose retrenchment policy is codified by a collective-bargaining agreement, an arbitrator would not grant that same deference but would instead interpret the case independently, based on testimony.

    It’s definitely a blow for the rights of tenured professors.

    The specificity of Article 78 proceedings, which are “highly deferential to the institution,” make it difficult to draw broader generalizations about the ruling’s implications for tenure, said Matthew W. Finkin, a professor of labor and employment law at the University of Illinois College of Law and a labor arbitrator. The New York judiciary, Finkin said, is “disconnected from the weight of judicial authority on the law of tenure.”

    While Thursday’s ruling shouldn’t have broader repercussions outside of New York, Finkin said, it does offer an example for other institutions trying to lay off tenured faculty members. The ruling also places a burden on future plaintiffs to educate the court that, although the New York decision would support the institution, the decision is not more broadly supportable, Finkin said. “There’s case after case that says you have to read rules of academic tenure in light of their history, of what they’re intended to accomplish and how they’ve been read and understood generally among institutions that adhere to the tenure system,” he said. “This court refuses to do that. It just looks at the plain text of the rule.”

    In a statement to The Chronicle, Jennifer Gish, associate vice president for marketing and communications, said the college had “followed a process in the academic program reductions, and that process was affirmed by the courts. Those decisions were difficult, and the contributions of the faculty impacted will not be forgotten.” Gish added that the details of when the faculty members’ employment would officially end are still being worked out, and that “our focus is on the students and maintaining continuity of instruction and their academic success.”

    The professors’ lawyer, Meredith Moriarty, said she was disappointed by the precedent the ruling set. “It’s definitely a blow for the rights of tenured professors,” Moriarty said. “I think it’s a blow for academic freedom, to be honest, because the opinion essentially states that courts have to give colleges complete deference in all their decisions in interpreting their own contracts.”

    Roter, one of the professors, said in a statement to The Chronicle that he was “deeply disappointed” by Thursday’s ruling. “I believe this decision will have a chilling effect on higher education, especially regarding tenure and the enforceability of faculty manuals,” he wrote. “This decision puts one more nail in the coffin of tenure, a system which has enabled educators to speak and teach with academic freedom, unencumbered by the fear of termination.”

    Roter and his colleagues can apply to appeal their case to the New York Court of Appeals, but they haven’t yet decided whether to do so, Moriarty said.

    A Secret Counterproposal

    Thursday’s ruling is likely to rankle faculty-rights and due-process advocates, including at the American Association of University Professors, which had already censured Saint Rose in 2016, a year after it cut 14 tenured appointments and 27 academic programs.

    After the more recent cuts, Gregory F. Scholtz, director of the AAUP’s department of academic freedom, tenure, and governance, sent Saint Rose’s president, Marcia J. White, a letter of concern about the layoffs in the fall of 2021, saying the college had acted against the AAUP’s widely adopted Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure by not declaring financial exigency before laying off tenured faculty members. While Saint Rose’s faculty manual permits the college to terminate tenured faculty members because of “anticipated program reductions,” Scholtz wrote in the letter, “the AAUP does not regard the mere anticipation of program reductions as a legitimate basis” for laying off tenured faculty. (Scholtz was not available for comment on Thursday’s ruling.)

    The process that led to the four music professors’ layoffs began when chairs in the college were asked to submit budget-reduction proposals. Wise, the music-department chair, submitted a plan that cut more than $500,000. But a joint working group of faculty members and administrators reviewing the proposals adopted a different plan, which Wise and his colleagues allege was influenced by a secret counterproposal they were unaware had been submitted. That proposal, the lawsuit says, was written by faculty members who taught in Saint Rose’s music-industry concentration. Their plan called for the entire music program — and the plaintiffs’ jobs — to be eliminated, and to spare the music-industry concentration and its faculty members.

    With one exception, none of the music-industry professors who kept their jobs were as senior as any of the laid-off faculty members. The plaintiffs’ argument — that Saint Rose’s faculty manual requires the college to give preference to faculty members based first on tenure, then seniority, then rank — was accepted by the Albany judge but dismissed by the appellate court on Thursday.

    The professors appealed their layoffs to an internal review committee, which ruled in their favor and recommended their reinstatement. But White — at the time the college’s interim president — rejected the appeal, prompting them to pursue legal action.

    Meanwhile, the financial circumstances that led to the layoffs have become even more dire. The bond-rating agency Fitch Ratings this month revised Saint Rose’s outlook to negative, citing “sizable, multi-year declines in the College’s already limited student enrollment” that are expected to persist into this fall despite the “comprehensive programmatic and enrollment management overhaul” that was supposed to stabilize the institution’s enrollment. The rating agency noted that Saint Rose’s enrollment was hit especially hard during the pandemic, dropping 15 percent in the fall of 2020 and 18 percent more in the fall of 2021.

    Megan Zahneis

    Source link