اینترنت

برچسب: Critical

  • Proactive campus policies, communication with students critical under ‘antagonistic’ federal actions, panel says

    Proactive campus policies, communication with students critical under ‘antagonistic’ federal actions, panel says


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUqMDwwZbO8

    How might federal funding to colleges change under the current federal administration? What to tell students who are worried their financial aid packages might be impacted by proposed changes to federal education funding? Is it possible to find common ground with President Donald Trump?

    A panel of education experts on Tuesday provided few definitive answers to those questions, leaving several unanswered, reflecting the uncertainty facing many in education today as they examine how the Trump administration’s approach to higher education may impact them.

    The panelists on an EdSource roundtable, “The future of California higher education under Trump,” described a barrage of executive actions — banning diversity efforts, withdrawing already budgeted funds, blacklisting colleges, canceling visas of international students and threatening college leaders — actions that Dominique J. Baker, associate professor at the University of Delaware, described as “antagonistic.”

    Baker stated that while many of the funding threats and proposed changes to education come from the executive branch of government, it’s important to consider the role of “the entirety of our federal apparatus” when discussing the future of higher education in this country, including Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Panelists agreed that proposed changes to student loan repayment options and to the federal Pell Grants, which are awarded to students with exceptional financial need, would be detrimental to many students.

    “If all of these policies went into place the way that they are currently written out, we would expect to see a stark drop in low-income students enrolling in higher education, whether that’s for the first time or students who had previously enrolled leaving higher education before they can earn any sort of credential or degree,” said Baker, in a blunt assessment of what could occur if the proposed changes to those programs are approved.

    Panelist Cristian Ulisses Reyes, a master’s candidate in higher education counseling and student affairs at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo who received the Pell Grant, said that threats to such funding are instilling fear in his peers.

    “Students aren’t just numbers and policy debates,” Reyes said. “We’re the ones that are being directly impacted.”

    Potential scenarios in case of cuts

    Gregory A. Smith, chancellor of the San Diego Community College District, said that of around $64 million in annual federal funds, about $43 million goes toward financial aid for students, much in the form of Pell Grants.

    The rest of the funds go to programming — about $3.5 million in yearly Title III grants from the federal Department of Education are geared toward the enrollment and retention of Hispanic students in STEM fields; the community college district is a Hispanic-serving institution.

    If threats to funding continue, Smith said the San Diego Community College District needs to be prepared for these scenarios:

    • The funding could be withheld altogether.
    • The funding may remain intact, but the staff who process the payments may have been laid off during recent staff terminations at the federal Department of Education, which could lead to funding delays.
    • “The most catastrophic version” of events, he said, would be if Congress amended Title III of the Higher Education Act, which would eliminate the Hispanic-serving institution’s STEM program.

    And if any of these scenarios were to occur, “[the program] may need to look different, it may need to be funded differently, but we’re certainly committed to continuing the work in any of those three scenarios,” Smith said.

    “Especially for a lot of the populations that we’ve listed — like low-income students, first-generation students — the administration’s attacks on student protections feel personal for many of us,” said Reyes, the Cal Poly San Luis Obispo master’s student.

    Reyes urged colleges and universities to be more transparent with their students about discussions and involve them in decisions being made. “Institutions shouldn’t be making decisions about us, without us,” he said.

    Relying on long-standing California policies

    California has decades of practice in implementing anti-affirmative action policies after approving Proposition 209 in 1996, the panelists noted, as a reminder that the state is protected from some of the changes being made at the federal level.

    “Legally, we’ve spent a lot of time figuring out what that looks like to not consider race in hiring, race in admissions, while still being equity-minded,” said Gina Ann Garcia, professor in the School of Education at UC Berkeley.

    Affinity graduation ceremonies, for example, have been criticized by the federal administration as part of its attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

    Garcia, however, not only recently attended a cultural graduation, but said she feels supported by her university to say such graduations will not be canceled.

    “We’re talking about a state that’s been anti-affirmative action for 30 years, so we’ve had 30 years to get in compliance,” she said. “We’re not really the state you want to come for, if they’re smart.”

    Smith, from San Diego community colleges, echoed Garcia’s sentiments about feeling no fear when the federal Department of Education issued a “Dear Colleague” letter in February, threatening cuts in federal funding if schools did not eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

    The letter has not changed their DEI programming, Smith said, but it has led to fear in their school community, and they are afraid about the security of these programs.

    Smith also shared strategies his district has implemented to keep their students and staff informed, including:

    • Discussions on what DEI activities are offered and why.
    • Communicating that campus policies on civility, academic freedom, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech remain intact.
    • Proactive action by their board in adopting resolutions related to institutional protection from certain government threats.

    “It is really important in this moment that we say these are lines around which there is no negotiation, they are fundamental to higher education in America, they’re at the core of a free democratic society, and so there is no negotiation,” Smith said, echoing what Baker and others noted during their discussion. “We can’t give up any margin on it whatsoever at all without crumbling the entire foundation of our institutions.”

    While the panelists agreed on this point, they also warned of a future in which the state’s present-day policies on education may change. Upcoming state elections, they said, will determine the direction California heads in regardless of who is in power at the federal level.

    “We could swing in a few years … there are many red districts in California,” said Garcia. “It changes what happens as far as funding and commitments to education when we change political leanings.”





    Source link

  • Court blocks Temecula Valley Unified from enforcing Critical Race Theory ban

    Court blocks Temecula Valley Unified from enforcing Critical Race Theory ban


    The Temecula Unified School District can no longer implement its ban on Critical Race Theory as litigation moves forward, a California Court of Appeals ruled Monday — marking the first time in California that a court has overturned a district’s effort to censor student learning about racial and LGBTQ+ equity, according to Amanda Mangaser Savage of the Strategic Litigation Counsel at Public Counsel. 

    “This ruling binds all of California,” said Amelia Piazza, an attorney with Public Counsel’s Opportunity Under Law project, “and, I think is an important signal to school districts all over the state that this type of censorship, the courts aren’t going to tolerate it — and that students shouldn’t be deprived of a fact based education now for any reason, and certainly not because it conflicts with the ideological positions of school board members.” 

    The decision is the latest chapter in the lawsuit Mae M. v. Komrosky, filed in August 2024, on behalf of the district’s teachers union, teachers, parents and students — alleging that the December 2022 ban on Critical Race Theory has led to a hostile environment at schools, censored teachers and infringes on students’ right to equal protection and to receive information. 

    Monday’s opinion also called the district’s policy “unconstitutionally vague” and said it has led to anxiety among teachers who remain confused about the policy and fearful of consequences — even if there are accidental violations. 

    But supporters of the district’s policies maintain that they do not discriminate against students of color or transgender students. 

    “Critical race theory and its offshoots have no place in public institutions that are meant to serve all individuals equally. These ideas promote division, resentment, and a distorted view of history that punishes students and staff based on skin color rather than character,” said Nicole Velasco, a spokesperson for Advocates For Faith & Freedom, a law firm representing the district for free, in an email to EdSource. “We remain committed to defending lawful policies that reject this kind of racialized thinking and instead promote unity and equal treatment under the law.” 

    Velasco added that while disappointed in the ruling, they “remain confident in the legality of Temecula Valley Unified School District’s actions and the strength of the case as it proceeds.” 

    In a statement released Tuesday, David Goldberg, the president of the California Teachers Association, said that “as educators and union workers, we work so hard to provide every student with a quality education and for schools to be safe places for all students, regardless of their race, sexual orientation, or gender identity.” 

    He added that teachers should be able to focus on teaching, without being caught between state law and district policies. 

    Temecula Valley Unified has not announced whether it will appeal the court’s decision, according to Velasco. But Piazza said they will continue to litigate until a final decision that will “permanently enjoin” Temecula’s resolutions is reached. 

    “Especially, as the federal government sort of escalates its attack on public schools and the right to a fact based education, I think it’s a really meaningful decision to come down in the California courts,” Piazza said.





    Source link

  • White House Explodes Over Story Critical of Don Jr.

    White House Explodes Over Story Critical of Don Jr.


    Oliver Darcy writes a blog about the media called Status that is ahead of the news. This story is a doozy. Business Insider wrote an article that was critical of Don Jr., and MAGA world went berserk. Typically, people in politics understand that being criticized comes with the job. Harry S Truman famously said, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

    The Trumps, however, do not accept any criticism. Anyone who dares to question their actions becomes a target, not only for anger, but for threats of legal action by the U.S. government. The tactic is clear: censorship by intimidation. This is Fascism 1.0. No one dare criticize the leader or his family.

    Darcy writes:

    An unflattering story about Donald Trump Jr. triggered a White House assault on Business Insider and parent company Axel Springer—and signaled just how far Trumpworld is willing to go to silence critical coverage.

    When Business Insider published a story this week headlined “Don Jr. Is the New Hunter Biden,” it was, on its face, a fairly standard piece of political reporting. Written by Bethany McLean, a well-regarded veteran of Vanity Fair, Reuters, and Fortune, the article carried a simple premise: Just as Republicans had long accused Hunter Biden of profiting off his father’s position, Trump’s eldest son now appeared to be dabbling in ethically dubious behavior in search of profit. It was the kind of story that Donald Trump Jr. was certain not to like, but not one that seemed destined to generate much fallout. 

    Instead, the story has resulted in a coordinated campaign by the White House and its allies not just to discredit the reporting, but to threaten the company behind it. Breitbart, the weaponized MAGA outlet, published a lengthy broadside on Tuesday attacking the piece and accusing McLean of journalistic malpractice. The piece, written by Matthew Boyle, who frequently acts as the unofficial press arm for Trumpworld, was quite a bit in itself. But buried in the bluster and long-winded statements from Trump allies that Boyle quoted was something more serious.

    A White House official used the opportunity to deliver an extraordinary statement accusing Axel Springer, the Mathias Döpfner-led German media conglomerate that owns Business Insider, of engaging in a foreign influence operation. The unnamed official suggested the company’s journalism might not just be biased (which it wasn’t), but illegal (which it also wasn’t). It was a not-so-subtle warning to the company to fall in line or it might seek to pull government levers that would be damaging to its business. 

    “Donald Trump Jr. is an innovator and visionary who is successfully reimagining the conservative media ecosystem—and the left is truly petrified,” the White House told Breitbart. “Axel Springer, a foreign-based media organization, is brazenly weaponizing its platforms to sow political division and spread disinformation in a manner that may well stretch beyond journalism, into illegal foreign political meddling.”

    It sounded like a line you’d expect from a right-wing troll online. But such trolls now occupy actual seats of power. And their incendiary rhetoric is being delivered not from the fringes, but from inside the White House. It’s not just Trump Jr. lashing out, though he has also been amplifying every attack he can find as he rages on social media and—in a twist of irony—appearing deeply triggered, to borrow one of his favorite terms for mocking the left. That fury has been further echoed by Republican lawmakers. Sen. Jim Banks of Indiana and Sen. Tim Sheehy of Montana have both railed against the story, rushing to the defense of Trump Jr. In any event, the threat from the White House, which did not respond to a request for comment from Status,upped the ante.

    Inside Business Insider, however, the episode has naturally consumed the attention of its leadership. I’m told there was a brief internal discussion about whether the framing of the piece needed to be revised after publication, though ultimately, the story remained untouched. Still, the unease inside the organization is real, given the volume of blowback, where it is coming from, and the fact that it is aimed squarely at the publication’s parent company.

    Indeed, executives at both Business Insider and Axel Springer are haunted by the memory of the Bill Ackman debacle last year, which drew intense right-wing blowback. Then, earlier this year, Elon Musk falsely accused POLITICO—another Axel Springer property—of accepting money from USAID, painting it as a government-funded propaganda outlet. The claim was nonsense, but it worked. It clouded the public narrative with conspiratorial nonsense and created precisely the kind of reputational headache Axel Springer executives have tried to dodge. It also led to every federal agency canceling their subscriptions to the outlet’s “pro” tier.

    Behind the scenes, Axel Springer has worked hard to avoid becoming a partisan punching bag. At Business Insider specifically, the company last year brought in seasoned editor Jamie Heller from The Wall Street Journal to raise editorial standards and minimize reputational risks. But none of that matters when the people in power aren’t playing by the rules. Axel Springer might not want another high-profile feud dragging the company into controversy. But now they have one—this time again involving the federal government.

    In a statement, an Axel Springer spokesperson told Status, “Axel Springer is a global media company committed to press freedom. Our U.S. newsrooms operate independently without editorial interference, and we stand firmly behind their right to report freely and without intimidation.” A Business Insider spokesperson separately told Status, “Our newsroom operates with full editorial independence, and we stand by our reporting.”

    The larger concern is the chilling effect these kinds of attacks can have—not just on one story, but on the broader environment in which journalists operate. Notably, the White House did not dispute any of the facts reported by Business Insider. Instead, it equated unflattering reporting with foreign subversion and deployed the weight of the executive branch in an effort to silence it. The message wasn’t just aimed at Business Insider. It was aimed at every newsroom under the Axel Springer umbrella—and, more broadly, at any journalist thinking about covering the Trump family with rigor.

    For Trump, the playbook is clear: Any outlet that scrutinizes him or his family becomes an enemy. And while that has long been his modus operandi, the stakes are higher now that he’s more willing than ever to blur the lines between his personal grievances and the instruments of state.



    Source link