Latest news with #JewishStudents
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump admin asks court to rule against Harvard without a trial
Following Harvard University's filing for summary judgment at the beginning of the month, the Trump administration filed new documents opposing Harvard's claims and asking for the court to rule in its favor on funding cuts, according to Monday evening filings. 'Harvard, the richest university in the history of the world, annually receives billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars from the federal government. As much as Harvard would like to receive these tax dollars with no strings attached, they are not charitable gratuities,' the lawyers for the federal government wrote in a Monday evening court filing. The filings are part of a lawsuit filed in April in response to the federal government freezing or cutting nearly $3 billion in federal funding, citing antisemitism at Harvard. The university filed a second lawsuit against the federal government last month, focused on international students. A summary judgment, which is being asked for on both sides, would allow a judge to rule on the case without a full trial. The Trump administration's overarching claim against Harvard is that the university failed to protect Jewish students, particularly in the wake of the war in Gaza. Read more: Federal judge delays decision over Trump admin barring Harvard foreign students The federal government said its policy is 'not to fund institutions that fail to adequately address antisemitism in their programs' — something Harvard has acknowledged their failures in, according to the filing. Thereby, the Trump administration canceled Harvard's funding due to 'no longer aligning with the agencies' policy priorities,' according to the filing. In Harvard's request for summary judgment, which was filed on June 2, the university asked that the court order the government to declare the freeze orders and termination letters unlawful and to 'vacate' them. They argue in the filing that the canceled funds began a '120-day clock' to submit reports and 'liquidate all financial obligations' related to the federal funding. The university also requests that the court nullify a collection of letters and termination orders that canceled funding and placed specific conditions on the university, such as allowing the government to force them to hire people with different points of view. Read more: Sept. deadline might make Trump cuts to Harvard permanent unless courts act In a separate lawsuit, the federal government responded similarly in court documents on Monday evening. The lawsuit is led by the American Association of University Professors — including the Harvard chapter — and the Harvard Academic Workers chapter of the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (HAW-UAW) against the Trump administration. The Trump administration argues that the court should deny the organization's request for summary judgment and rule in its favor. It states that the organization is trying to 'insert themselves into the picture,' despite the funding not being allocated to the members, according to a court filing. Federal judge orders Trump admin to reinstate hundreds of NIH grants Federal judge delays decision over Trump admin barring Harvard foreign students Harvard's Monday court date will be important for international students. Here's why As Trump cuts funding, these Harvard scholars consider leaving US — and academia Harvard researcher released from custody after months in detention Read the original article on MassLive.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
English universities barred from enforcing blanket bans on student protests
Universities in England will no longer be able to enforce blanket bans on student protests under sweeping new guidance that urges a 'very strong' approach to permitting lawful speech on campus. The detailed regulations set out for the first time how universities should deal with inflammatory disputes, such as those between the University of Cambridge and students over the war in Gaza, and rows over academics who hold controversial but legal opinions, such as the gender-critical professor Kathleen Stock. The guidance issued by the Office for Students (OfS) will make it harder for universities to penalise students and staff for anything other than unlawful speech or harassment. But experts said the guidance failed to address the complexity of balancing free speech with activities that have 'chilling effects' on students or staff. Universities are advised not to apply prolonged bans on protest encampments involving the Israel-Gaza conflict – as used by the University of Cambridge earlier this year – but will also be required to block 'frequent, vociferous and intrusive' protests if they intimidate Jewish students. The guidance also says: Academics should not be pressed to support particular views. Protests should not be restricted for supporting legal viewpoints. Students or staff should not be 'encouraged to report others' for lawful speech. Universities must 'secure freedom of speech' for visiting speakers. The OfS said its guidelines would help universities 'navigate' their duties under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which is due to come into force in August. Julian Sladdin, a partner at the law firm Pinsent Masons and a specialist in higher education regulation, said the guidance gave some 'much-needed clarity' for providers but left others unclear. 'The difficulty which remains in practical terms is the fact that institutions are still subject to dealing day-to-day with extremely complex and often polarising issues on campus and where the bounds of what may be lawful free speech are constantly being tested,' Sladdin said. 'These matters do not appear to be sufficiently addressed by the guidance at present. 'This still leaves institutions with the need to put in place their own procedures to assess these questions, and [assess] how any risks can be addressed by reasonable and practicable steps given the multifaceted and fact-sensitive nature of free speech issues and the considerable time pressure often involved in managing the same – particularly in a period where we have increasingly seen protest and occupations across UK higher education.' Universities will also expect staff and students to legally use social media in a personal capacity, without regard to any impact on institutional reputation, while reprimanding staff members whose speech or activities interferes with their teaching. Earlier this year the OfS imposed a £585,000 fine on the University of Sussex, saying it 'failed to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom' affecting Kathleen Stock, a philosophy professor targeted by protests for her views on gender identification and transgender rights. The OfS published a survey of academics in which 21% said they did not feel free to discuss 'challenging' ideas in their teaching, including 19% who identified as leftwing and 32% as rightwing. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Prof Bobby Duffy, the director of the Policy Institute at King's College London, said: 'The reality is it's really tough to have completely clear regulations and laws in this space, which means that the testing of thresholds will be key in particular cases. 'We need to recognise that this is not a neutral space but is linked to more general 'culture war' divisions in society as a whole – which means that people will be motivated to use regulatory and legal routes to make a point – the process itself can be used to divide. 'There's no way around that but we do need to be aware of it.' Arif Ahmed, the OfS's director for freedom of speech, said: 'It's important to remember that universities can regulate speech where appropriate. 'No university needs to allow shouting during an exam, or for a maths lecturer to devote their lectures to their own political opinions rather than the subject at hand. 'Equally, they can and should take steps to address harassing speech on campus. Antisemitic harassment, for example, should not be tolerated on any campus and we fully expect universities to take robust steps to tackle it.' The OfS guidance also suggests that universities refuse places to international students whose funding requires them to follow the policies of foreign governments, potentially threatening state-sponsored students from a number of Asian and Middle Eastern countries. A spokesperson for Universities UK said: 'We strongly agree that universities must be places where free speech is protected and promoted. 'These guidelines cover complex issues, and we are pleased to see that the OfS has taken onboard some of the feedback from the previous version. 'We will continue to work constructively with the OfS and with government as these changes are introduced, and will make sure universities are appropriately supported to comply with them.'
New York Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Negotiation or Capitulation? How Columbia Got Off Trump's Hot Seat.
It was a turning point in the Trump administration's efforts to bring elite academia to heel. The White House had made an example of Columbia University by axing $400 million in federal grants, and now it was saying that the Ivy League school would have to acquiesce to a bill of demands if it were to have any hope of recouping the money. One of the dictates handed down in March involved the university's Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies Department. The White House, which said Columbia had failed to protect Jewish students from antisemitic harassment, wanted the school to strip the department of its autonomy, a rare administrative step that was viewed as a serious blow to academic freedom. The university, which was the first high-profile target in the administration's war on higher education, had a different idea. Quietly, university officials were trying to navigate a narrower path, appeasing President Trump by cracking down on protests and making changes to student discipline. But the measures adopted by Columbia were not as drastic as what the White House had wanted. The university's leaders sought to shape Mr. Trump's demands through negotiation instead of fighting them through litigation, and to do that while maintaining core ideals that had defined the university for nearly 275 years. Columbia's approach stood in stark contrast to the tack taken by Harvard University, which turned to the courts to fight Mr. Trump. While many in the academic world have accused Columbia of caving to Mr. Trump's pressure, the university's strategy — so far — has limited the bleeding to $400 million, even as Harvard has absorbed cut after cut, stretching into billions of dollars. While opponents of the Trump administration's crackdown have lauded Harvard for standing its ground, it is far from clear which school will be better off in the long run. And the question remains whether Columbia's path can offer a road map for other universities attacked by the president. 'Following the law and attempting to resolve a complaint is not capitulation,' Claire Shipman, Columbia's acting president, said last week in a statement. 'We must maintain our autonomy and independent governance.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
News.com.au
5 days ago
- Politics
- News.com.au
University of Sydney ‘did a good job' in handling pro-Palestine encampment despite criticism, inquiry told
The University of Sydney vice-chancellor has told a parliamentary inquiry that staff 'did a good job in peacefully resolving' the longest-running pro-Palestine encampment in the country despite leaders having 'apologised' over its handling of the camp to Jewish students. Sydney's largest and most exclusive universities appeared before a parliamentary committee into anti-Semitism in NSW on Monday to explain what challenges they have faced since October 7, 2023, and what measures they have implemented to combat allegations of anti-Semitism. Among them was The University of Sydney, which has come under fire for its handling of a pro-Palestine encampment, including emails last month that revealed that staff mulled over providing a separate entrance that could be used by Jewish students during mid-year exams last year. In her opening address, USYD vice-chancellor Annamarie Jagose acknowledged the university 'did not get everything right' in responding to the aftermath of Hamas's October 7 attacks on Israel and subsequent protests and had implemented changes to its speech and security policies. 'We have, however, committed to learn from these hugely challenging and complex events and from the experiences of other universities around the world and to listen to those who would work with us to ensure our campuses are safe and welcoming for all,' Professor Jagose said. Asked later about why the university didn't 'shut down' the months-long encampment, Professor Jagose told the committee that staff 'did a good job in peacefully resolving the longest running encampment in Australia', with an 'absolutely clear policy to de-escalate, to keep calm'. Professor Jagose and external engagement vice-president Kirsten Andrews refuted many allegations levelled at the university during Monday's hearing, including emails containing minutes that outlined plans to provide a separate entrance for exams amid the encampment. The email, dated May 14, detailed discussions about mitigations to be implemented during the exam, namely ensuring 'Jewish students have ways to avoid the encampment when gaining entry to exams', though USYD had refuted that the entrance was intended for Jewish students. 'These included offering different access options for all students or staff wishing to avoid the encampment, and we installed electronic signage where exams were taking place to remind members of the encampment that disruptions would not be tolerated,' USYD said in a statement, The hearing is the second into anti-Semitism in NSW and was established following a wave of anti-Semitic attacks in the state over the summer, many of which have since been linked to a criminal conspiracy debate that is being canvassed by a separate parliamentary inquiry. Universities around the world grappled with an outpouring of protests and counter-protests following the October 7 attacks as pro-Palestine encampments became widespread, including allegations that the actions of protesters made Jewish students and staff feel unsafe on campus. The Australian universities appearing on Monday morning, including USYD, UTS, and UNSW, each detailed wide-ranging changes to their social media and public speech, campus access, and security policies, including in the case of UYSD following an independent review. University of NSW vice-president Verity Firth AM said staff were 'gravely concerned by the sharp escalation in anti-Semitic events that have occurred in the wake of the appalling events of October 7' and 'deeply distressed by the ongoing conflict and tragic loss of life' in the Middle East. 'As a university, our foremost responsibility is to ensure that all members of our community students, academic and professional staff can engage in, study, research and work in an environment that is secure, respectful and inclusive,' Professor Firth told the parliamentary inquiry. Since the protests, Professor Firth said the school had updated its anti-racism policy to include anti-religious vilification, employed additional guards, increased 'connectivity' with law enforcement, and revised student orientation with a focus on the university's code of conduct. University of Technology Sydney deputy vice-chancellor Kylie Readman told the committee that among other measures the school had also provided additional training to teaching staff, strengthening the complaints mechanism, and expanded student support services. Nonetheless, committee chair and NSW Shooters MLC Robert Brosak grilled all three campuses over the policies at the time of October 7 that they claimed were well established and, rather than being deficient, needed a 'deep look' and to be 'updated', Professor Firth said.
Al Jazeera
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
Columbia University deserves to lose its accreditation
On June 4, the United States Department of Education notified the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) accrediting agency that its member institution Columbia University deserves to have its accreditation pulled. It accused the university of ostensibly being 'in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws' for supposedly failing 'to meaningfully protect Jewish students against severe and pervasive harassment'. This claim is, of course, wrong. It is a blatant mischaracterisation of the events that have taken place on campus over the last 19 months. Yet, it is also true that during that time Columbia violated the terms of its accreditation: by violently abrogating the academic freedom and viewpoint diversity of antigenocide protesters via institutional sanction and the deployment of police on campus. In this sense, Columbia does deserve to lose its accreditation. MSCHE's accreditation policy, which is standard across the industry, states that an 'accredited institution' must possess and demonstrate both 'a commitment to academic freedom, intellectual freedom, freedom of expression' and 'a climate that fosters respect among students, faculty, staff, and administration from a range of diverse backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives'. It is stunningly evident that since October 7, 2023, Columbia University has egregiously and repeatedly failed to satisfy the MSCHE's fundamental requirements due to its response to antigenocide protests on campus concerning Gaza and Palestine. The violent removal, suspension, and arrest of peaceful student protesters and faculty critics should be understood to constitute a violation of the institution's obligation to protect freedom of expression and academic freedom. On November 10, 2023, Columbia suspended Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) after they organised a peaceful protest for Palestinian rights. The administration justified the suspension by claiming the groups used 'threatening rhetoric and intimidation'. However, media reports, witnesses and university insiders revealed that the suspension was based on an incident involving an unaffiliated individual whose actions were condemned by the organisers and that no formal disciplinary process or appeals process was allowed by the university. It was later uncovered that Columbia administrators had unilaterally altered language in its official policies on student groups just before suspending the SJP and JVP. In January, Katherine Franke, a tenured law professor, retired and said she was 'effectively terminated' by Columbia after facing public and congressional criticism for a media interview criticising students who formerly served in the Israeli army. Similarly, the university has recently acknowledged doling out 'multi-year suspensions, temporary degree revocation and expulsions' to dozens of students who participated in 2024 antigenocide protests. One of those expelled, Jewish PhD student Grant Miner, president of the Student Workers of Columbia, noted that all of the students censured by the university 'had been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing'. Perhaps worst of all, Columbia has, on repeated occasions, invited the New York Police Department (NYPD) onto campus to intervene against student expression. On April 30, 2024, according to the university's own report, the NYPD arrested 44 students and individuals with apparent associations with the university. Likewise, in early May this year, about 70 students were arrested after participating in an 'occupation' of the university's library. The NYPD explicitly acknowledged that the presence of its officers on campus was 'at the direct request of Columbia University'. There is little question each of these incidents constitutes blatant stifling of academic freedom and viewpoint diversity. The disproportionate targeting of Arab, Muslim, Palestinian and Jewish students and allies can be viewed as discriminatory, undermining the institution's commitment to equitable treatment and inclusive learning environments, in clear violation of MSCHE's guiding principles on equity, diversity and inclusion. These decisions to suppress protests were made unilaterally by senior administration at Columbia – without input from faculty, students or shared governance bodies – clearly signalling a lack of adherence to MSCHE's accreditation policy standard on governance, leadership and administration. By failing to show 'a commitment to shared governance' with 'administrative decision-making that reflects fairness and transparency', Columbia has failed to meet the standards of accreditation outlined by the MSCHE. But Columbia University is not alone in failing to abide by guiding principles of its accreditation. At Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania, Jewish Associate Professor Maura Finkelstein was summarily fired for engaging in social media critiques of Israel's genocide in Gaza. Similarly, at Northwestern University, Assistant Professor Steven Thrasher was subjected to multiple investigations in relation to his support of the student antigenocide encampment on campus and was ultimately denied tenure in a decision he characterised as an effort designed to not just silence him but also to bully him so that 'students, journalists, faculty, staff and activists across campus and throughout the country [may be intimidated] into silencing themselves'. Students too have faced repression across the United States. Indeed, it has been estimated that by July 2024, at least 3,100 students had been arrested for participation in campus antigenocide protests. On November 6, 2023, Brandeis University became the first private university in the US to ban its student chapter of the SJP, for 'conduct that supports Hamas'. In April 2024, Cornell University suspended several students involved in pro-Palestinian encampment protests, citing violations of campus policies. Then in May, police brutalised students with pepper spray at George Washington University while arresting 33 people in the violent clearing-out of its student encampment. At Vanderbilt University, students were arrested and expelled for occupying an administration building. In the most recent news, it has become clear that the University of Michigan has spent at least $800,000 hiring dozens of private investigators to surveil antigenocide student protesters on and off campus in Ann Arbor. These examples are merely a small sample of what has occurred across the US, Canada and Europe since long before October 7, 2023. This is a broader existential crisis in higher education in which the free expression of students is being suppressed at the cost of the values these universities purport to espouse. Despite appearances, this crisis has very little to do with the heavy-handed Trump administration. It is, rather, the self-inflicted consequence of the decisions of university administrators whose allegiances are now first and foremost to donors and corporate stakeholders rather than to their educational missions. If universities are to exist in any plausible and practical sense as institutions devoted to genuine knowledge production and pedagogical development, it is essential that they robustly fulfil accreditation requirements for academic and intellectual freedom, diversity, and fair and transparent administration and governance. There can be no Palestine exception to that. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
