برچسب: infringe

  • AI, other education technology can infringe on rights of disabled, LGBTQ students, report warns

    AI, other education technology can infringe on rights of disabled, LGBTQ students, report warns


    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    The use of education technology in schools, such as artificial intelligence, digital surveillance and content filters, poses a threat to the civil rights of students with disabilities, LGBTQ students and students of color, a new report released Wednesday warns.

    Some technology used in schools to block explicit adult content and flag students at risk of self-harm or harming others have also created serious problems for already vulnerable students, cautions the report by the Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that advocates for civil rights in the digital world.

    The report is based on a wide-ranging online national survey about the technology used by schools, students and teachers. This summer, the Center for Democracy and Technology polled 1,029 ninth- through 12th-grade students, 1,018 parents of sixth through 12th grade students and 1,005 teachers of sixth through 12th grade students in a sample the organization said was weighted to be “nationally representative.”

    According to the Center for Democracy and Technology, the surveys also indicate widespread confusion about the role of artificial intelligence in the classroom, with a majority of parents, students and teachers saying they want more information and training about how to properly use it.

    Report outlines education technology’s risks to students

    The report outlines how school technology can, often inadvertently, harm students. The Center for Democracy and Technology says these harms are felt most acutely by vulnerable students.

    Students reported incidents of LGBTQ classmates being outed by digital surveillance, a potentially traumatizing event of sharing their sexual identity or orientation without their consent.

    Students with disabilities said they were most likely to use artificial intelligence — and they were more likely to report facing disciplinary action for using it.

    One-third of teachers said content related to race or the LGBTQ community is more likely to be restricted by filters. The center said this “amounts to a digital book ban.”

    Some schools have faced pushback for the way they deployed technology. After the American Civil Liberties Union sued a school district in Texas, the district loosened a filter that had blocked the website of the Trevor Project, a website aimed at LGBTQ youth.

    “There are certain groups of students who should already be protected by existing civil rights laws, and yet they are still experiencing disproportionate and negative consequences because of the use of this education data and technology,” said Elizabeth Laird, director of equity in civic technology for the Center for Democracy and Technology.

    Although schools often have dedicated staff and other practices set up to ensure that students’ civil rights are being protected, Laird said its survey indicates that schools have not fully wrestled with how education technology is affecting the promise of an equitable education, resulting in civil rights and technology being treated as separate issues.

    “I think they’ve been kept separate, and the time is now to bring those together,” Laird said.

    Civil rights groups call for more federal guidance

    While schools have been conducting more outreach than in previous years, the survey shows an increase in student and parent concerns about data and privacy over the past year. Survey data collected in previous years shows both parents and students need more outreach and engagement on how schools are selecting and using technology.

    Last October, the White House released a Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, but civil rights groups — including the ACLU, the American Association of School Librarians, American Library Association, Disability Rights in Education Defense Fund and the Electronic Frontier Foundation — signed a letter accompanying the Center for Democracy and Technology’s report, petitioning the federal Department of Education for more guidance.

    “In the year since the release of the Blueprint, the need for education-related protections remains and, if anything, is even more urgent with the explosive emergence of generative AI,” according to the letter.

    Fifty-seven percent of teachers in the survey stated they haven’t had any substantive training in AI, while 24% say they have received training in how to detect inappropriate use of AI.

    The survey also found that 58% of students have used ChatGPT or other generative AI programs, and 19% said they have submitted a paper written using AI. Students report using AI both for school assignments and for dealing with mental health issues or personal problems with family and friends.

    Students with disabilities are more likely to use generative AI: 72% said they’ve used the technology. Parents of students with disabilities are more likely to say that their students have been disciplined for their use of artificial intelligence. The report calls higher rates of discipline among vulnerable communities “particularly worrisome.”

    These students and their parents — 71% of students with disabilities and 79% of their parents — express more concern than others about the privacy and security of the data collected and stored by the school.

    Licensed special education teachers are more likely to have conversations with students and their parents about student privacy and equity issues in technology, a “promising practice that could be extended to the rest of the school population,” the Center for Democracy and Technology recommends.

    School surveillance’s long arm

    The civil rights issues can go beyond the walls of the school. Some students, particularly students of color and those from lower-income communities are more likely to rely on school-issued devices when they are at home. Monitoring and tracking can therefore follow them home.

    “Their learning environment for those students is quite different than those who can essentially opt out of some of this tracking,” Laird said.

    Students who use technology devices to charge their personal phones may also find that this technology will scan and monitor these personal devices as well. Among students who have used their school device for charging, 51% said school software began syncing with and downloading content from their personal device.

    Monitoring technology became prevalent in the pandemic-era remote learning, but it has persisted, with 88% of teachers reporting their schools use the technology. The White House named preventing the unchecked monitoring of students a priority in its blueprint. The Center for Democracy and Technology says that the use of surveillance technology can cause a host of problems for students.

    Students with disabilities and LGBTQ students are more likely to report being disciplined as a result of technology that monitors them. Laird said that sometimes students are disciplined for something the technology flagged, but other times, they are disciplined because of their reaction to being flagged.

    Schools sometimes share data directly with law enforcement — even after school hours. Fifty-three percent of special education teachers and 46% of teachers in Title I schools said data was shared with law enforcement after hours. During an interview with the Center for Democracy and Technology, the parent of a ninth grader said that law enforcement was contacted even before she was notified when something on her child’s device was flagged by the school’s monitoring technology. Her son was questioned for an hour without her consent.

    “All of those things can result in students being removed from the classroom and losing instructional time,” said Laird. “And so if those students are being disproportionately flagged and being intervened in a disproportionate way, this could also be a potential violation of [a student’s right to a free and appropriate public education], which is specific to preventing discrimination on the basis of disability.”





    Source link

  • Community college professors allege new diversity policies infringe on academic freedom

    Community college professors allege new diversity policies infringe on academic freedom


    Bill Blanken, a chemistry professor at Reedley College, claims that a diversity and equity policy in California’s community colleges amounts to a “loyalty oath.”

    Photo courtesy of Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    Bill Blanken, a chemistry professor at Reedley College, said a new diversity and equity policy in California’s community colleges amounts to a “loyalty oath” and “compelled speech” that runs afoul of free speech and academic freedom. 

    Community colleges’ DEIA goals: address diversity and especially racism

    The push for new diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) policies came out of a long-running effort to improve student outcomes in California Community Colleges. The systemwide plan called Vision for Success outlined goals for improving transfer rates and other outcomes for students. 

    In 2019, the board of governors for the California Community Colleges voted in favor of establishing a framework for evaluating all its employees on their competency in serving a diverse student population. More than seven out of 10 students in the California Community College system are not white, according to 2022-23 enrollment data from community college’s Data Mart site.

    But in the wake of the George Floyd protests in 2020, discussions over how to address diversity and especially racism on college campuses became more pointed. In August 2020, the Student Senate for the California Community Colleges held town halls where students could discuss the racism they had experienced on their college campuses and offer possible solutions. 

    These discussions led to Anti-Racism: A Student Plan of Action, a report which called for changes to the curriculum and for training of all college employees in areas of cultural diversity and concepts like unconscious bias.

    During the first town hall, several students spoke about being assigned texts that contained racial epithets. Students said they did not object to the texts themselves, examples of which  include “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King, Jr. and John Steinbeck’s “Of Mice and Men.” The students said, however, that they objected because professors, who were not Black, read these epithets aloud. Other students said they did not take issue with being assigned white authors who held racist views, but that authors with opposing perspectives were excluded from the syllabus. 

    Some students detailed explicit racism they faced from professors.

    Joseph Merchain, a student at Pasadena City Community College from South Los Angeles, said that as a Black man, he felt singled out when his professor told him that his dreadlocks were not professional in front of the class.

    Merchain said, “So I’m taking a whole two-hour bus ride every morning and every night just to get to and from school, just to be racially profiled?”

    Blanken, along with five other tenured professors in State Center Community College District, are challenging new California Community College diversity policies that change the way employees are evaluated. A lawsuit, filed in August, describes the plaintiffs as critics of anti-racism and diversity, equity, accessibility and inclusion (DEIA) principles who are concerned that these stances could result in negative performance evaluations or even losing their jobs.

    “We need legal protection,” Blanken said in an interview with EdSource on Oct. 12. 

    Last year, the Board of Governors for the California Community Colleges adopted new regulations requiring local districts to evaluate employees, including faculty, on their competency in working with a diverse student population. Local districts were required to be in compliance last month.

    Blanken disagrees with the DEIA policy’s premise that racism is embedded in institutions, including California’s community colleges, or in disciplines such as chemistry, math and physics. He argues that these fields should be taught in a way that is race- and gender-neutral.  That is at the crux of the lawsuit by the six plaintiffs.

    Filed by free speech advocacy group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), the suit names California Community College Chancellor Sonya Christian, the board of governors of the California Community Colleges as well as the chancellor and governing board of State Center Community College District.

    A related suit, filed in June on behalf of Bakersfield College history professor Daymon Johnson, targets the chancellor and board of the Kern Community College District.

    State Center Community College District, which serves Fresno and surrounding central San Joaquin Valley communities, is one of the first districts in the state to include these new diversity requirements in its latest faculty contract. The district said in a statement that it will defend its implementation of the state’s DEIA regulations and its collaborative effort with the State Center Federation of Teachers.

     “The District now and forever will be a welcoming place for a diverse population, with a commitment to access and inclusion,” wrote Jill Wagner, spokesperson for State Center Community College District. “DEIA initiatives have sparked many important conversations spanning decades, and as this issue continues to evolve, efforts to address them will continue to be at the forefront.” 

    The district’s new evaluation process requires instructional faculty to demonstrate “teaching and learning practices that reflect DEIA and anti-racist principles,” in addition to a written self-evaluation on the faculty’s “understanding” of DEIA competencies and “anti-racist principles,” with the goal of improving “equitable student outcomes and course completion.”

    How these principles will play out in the next rounds of evaluation is still uncertain. Blanken said he has not received guidance from his department. A September memo by State Center’s human resources department noted that the district and academic senate have  yet to develop uniform training guidelines for evaluations, and that meanwhile, “evaluatees should, in good faith, review the language in the contract and do their best to speak to how they have demonstrated or shown progress toward practices that embrace the DEIA principles.”

    Daniel Ortner, the FIRE attorney representing the State Center professors said, “That’s not good enough when free speech is on the line.” 

    Ortner added that broad, undefined regulations could have a “chilling effect” on speech in the classroom. Plaintiffs are particularly concerned about a framework released by the California Community College Curriculum Committee that warns professors not to “‘weaponize’ academic freedom and academic integrity in an academic discipline or inflict curricular trauma” on historically marginalized students.

    In the suit, plaintiffs said they have changed the way they teach their classes this semester because of the new DEIA policies. Loren Palsgaard, English professor at Madera Community College, said he will no longer assign texts that contain racial slurs, including Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” and works by William Faulkner and Flannery O’Connor. 

    A response filed on Oct. 2 by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, on behalf of thc chancellor and the board of governors challenges the claim the DEIA policies bar professors from using these texts, adding that this framework is not binding and only provides a reference for college districts creating their own DEIA policies.  

    The guidance “expresses competencies the Chancellor’s Office endorses, but does not require,” wrote Melissa Villarin, spokesperson for the state Chancellor’s Office. “The regulations do not impose penalties on district employees. They are intended to contribute to employee professional development.”

    Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, said that it is well within a college’s rights to not only prescribe the curriculum for courses but to insist that faculty be sensitive to teaching a diverse student body. He added, however, that schools cannot require that faculty espouse a particular viewpoint in their teaching.

    “The question is whether this is more the former than the latter,” Chemerinsky wrote in an email to EdSource, adding that he believes the government has a strong argument that this is within its realm of prescribing a curriculum. 

    “It is hard to say on this record that the First Amendment has been violated,” Chemerisky wrote. “It would be different if a teacher was being disciplined and bringing a challenge.” None of the plaintiffs in the suits has been disciplined.

    A separate suit, filed by the Institute for Free Speech on behalf of Bakersfield College professor Daymon Johnson, points to the firing of Matthew Garrett, a professor who had been critical of DEIA initiatives. Garrett was not subject to new DEIA policies affecting faculty evaluations. However, Johnson’s suit claims that he worries that he, too, could lose his job, because he shares many of the same conservative values and anti-DEIA stances as Garrett.

    The Kern Community College District said in a statement that Garrett was not terminated because of his opinions on DEIA or other free speech issues.

    “Matthew Garrett was terminated after a lengthy and detailed examination of his disciplinary violations at Bakersfield College,” said district spokesperson Norma Rojas.

    Garrett, who was terminated by the college in April 2023, contests these alleged disciplinary violations. He filed a lawsuit against the college in May 2021, claiming that he faced retaliation for exercising his free speech. He said in a statement to EdSource, that the district has “fabricated an absurd pretext that simply does not hold up under scrutiny.”

    Plaintiffs in both suits have asked the court for a preliminary injunction that would prevent the California Community Colleges’ DEIA policy — as well as State Center Community College District’s faculty contract — from going into immediate effect. The request remains pending in federal court, and no hearing date is currently set.

    Ortner said he is not aware of any other lawsuits from California’s 116 community colleges that are targeting the new DEIA policies, but he’s keeping his eye on the issue statewide.

    “A lot of colleges have anti-discrimination protections that make students feel welcome, such as tutoring, mentoring. There are a lot of things that you can do that don’t impinge on free speech,” Ortner said. “California colleges are much more aggressive and forward in advocating for these principles.”

    Editors’ note: This story has been updated to include a statement from Matthew Garrett.





    Source link

  • Federal judge dismisses case claiming community college diversity policies infringe on academic freedom

    Federal judge dismisses case claiming community college diversity policies infringe on academic freedom


    Bill Blanken, a chemistry professor at Reedley College, claims that a diversity and equity policy in California’s community colleges amounts to a “loyalty oath.”

    Photo courtesy of Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    A federal judge has dismissed a case filed on behalf of professors claiming that California Community Colleges diversity and equity policies infringe on their academic freedom.

    Professors at State Center Community College District, based in Fresno, had, in a suit filed in August 2023, sought to block the California Community Colleges from enforcing diversity, equity, accessibility and inclusion (DEIA) principles. 

    But U.S. District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff, a Biden appointee who joined the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in 2024, wrote in an order Tuesday that the plaintiffs “failed to allege that there exists a credible threat of enforcement of the regulations against them.”

    The plaintiff’s attorney, Daniel Ortner, with the free-speech advocacy group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), said he was reviewing the decision and discussing it with his clients.

    In 2022, the board of governors for the California Community Colleges adopted regulations requiring all 73 of its local districts to evaluate employees, including faculty, on their competency in working with a diverse student population. More than 7 out of 10 of California’s 2.1 million community students are not white, according to enrollment data from the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office.

    State Center Community College District complied with these regulations with a faculty union contract approved in March 2023. The district declined through a spokesperson to comment on the case.

    The push for new diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility policies came out of a long-running effort to improve student outcomes in the community colleges, but it picked up steam in the wake of the George Floyd protests in 2020. 

    The original complaint described the professors as critics of anti-racism, who instead support “race-neutral policies and perspectives that treat all students equally.” The complaint stated that requiring faculty to be evaluated on their commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility principles is unconstitutional and has a chilling effect on their free speech rights. The professors said they feared receiving disciplinary action or being fired under these new regulations.

    Lead plaintiff Loren Palsgaard, an English professor at Madera Community College, said in the complaint that he no longer assigned Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” because it “offer[s] perspectives that are different from the ‘anti-racism’ and ‘intersectionality’ perspective mandated by the DEIA Rules.” Reedley College chemistry professor Bill Blanken said he feared that not mentioning the races of Marie Curie or Robert Boyle means that “he will be accused of failing to adopt a ‘culturally responsive practices and a social justice lens.’”

    Judge Sherriff wrote that many of the professors’ concerns arose from documents from the Chancellor’s Office, such as guidance, recommendations, model principles and a glossary of terms. He added that none of these recommendations were formally adopted or legally binding, and that what the professors largely objected to was not in their faculty contract.

    Sherriff also noted that the Chancellor’s Office confirmed in court documents that it could not take any action against professors concerning their speech, because decisions regarding employees, such as hiring, performance evaluations and terminations, are the responsibility of the district. The Office also stated that they do not believe that the examples cited by the professors would be precluded by the diversity regulations.

    In September, Sherriff dismissed a related suit on behalf of Bakersfield College history professor Daymon Johnson. Sherriff wrote in his order that Johnson lacked standing because the Kern Community College District that employed him had not yet imposed local policies implementing diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility regulations.

    In October, Johnson’s case was filed in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The State Center Community College professors filed an amicus brief in November in support of Johnson, urging the court to “protect academic freedom across the state by vacating the district court’s decision.”





    Source link