US universities

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares27 Views

    US House panel drops inquiry into Northwestern’s law school clinics

    by

    The US House education and workforce committee withdrew an investigation into Northwestern University’s law school clinics after professors there sued and alleged that the inquiry violated their constitutional free speech rights.The professors secured what amounted to a legal victory for them on Thursday, when the House committee withdrew its investigative requests with respect to the university and its law school’s Bluhm Legal Clinic program on Thursday.Citing reports of antisemitism on campus, House committee members had sought budget and personnel records over claims that the university was using “taxpayer-supported institutional resources for troubling purposes”.The mention of reported antisemitism on campus was contained in a 27 March letter that the committee sent to justify the investigation and was addressed to Northwestern University’s chairperson, Peter Barris, as well as its president, Michael Schill.“The Community Justice and Civil Rights Clinic at Northwestern’s Pritzker School of Law (Northwestern Law) is providing free legal representation in a civil suit to the organizers of an anti-Israel blockade of highway traffic to Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport,” the House committee’s letter said. “This blockade resulted in the arrest of 40 participants. The fact that Northwestern, a university supported by billions in federal funds, would dedicate its resources to support this illegal, antisemitic conduct raises serious questions.”The letter also alluded to “broader concerns about the institutionalization of leftwing political activism at Northwestern Law”, adding that the school’s Community Justice and Civil Rights Clinic, led by the law professor Sheila Bedi, was using “Northwestern’s name and resources to engage in progressive-left political advocacy”.According to the letter, the House committee demanded that the university provide all written policies, procedures and guidance related to the function of the law school’s legal clinics, a detailed budget for the Bluhm Legal Clinic, and a list of its sources of funding. The committee also demanded the university turn over a list of all the Community Justice and Civil Rights Clinic’s payments to people or groups not employed by Northwestern and any of its clinics and centers since 2020.In addition, the committee asked to review all hiring materials and performance reviews for Bedi.In response, Bedi and a fellow law professor, Lynn Cohn, sued the committee, asserting that its investigation violated their and their clients’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process, among others.The committee subsequently withdrew its request – a move that a Thursday press release from the Center for Constitutional Rights described as a “victory for academic freedom, the rule of law, and bedrock constitutional principles”.In a statement accompanying the press release, Bedi said: “I filed this suit to defend my clients’ rights to representation, my students’ rights to learn, and my right to teach. But today’s decision won’t stop the federal government’s attacks on universities and the legal profession.“Educators and institutions must stand united to protect our students, our communities, and each other … We teach, we advocate, and we stand with communities demanding justice. That’s why Congress is targeting us.”Echoing similar sentiments, Cohn said: “Uniting to support the fundamental rights of all people can still be done even in these turbulent times. We hope others will join this effort – this legal challenge is far from over. Clinical legal educators won’t back down. We will keep doing what we do best: centering students, defending our clients, and standing firm in defense of justice and the rule of law.”Donald Trump’s administration on Tuesday froze $790m for Northwestern University as part of the president’s increasing crackdowns on students and faculty members across US colleges who have expressed their opposition toward Israel’s deadly war on Gaza.In response to the federal crackdowns, more than 1,000 faculty members, alumni, students and attorneys have signed letters expressing their support for Northwestern University.One letter signed by hundreds of alumni in part said they were troubled “that the federal government would target legal scholars who have dedicated their careers to upholding constitutional liberties”, WWTW reports. More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares24 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘A huge cudgel’: alarm as Trump’s war on universities could target accreditors

      by

      Advocates for academic freedom are bracing for what they expect to be the next phase of the government’s effort to reshape higher education: an overhaul of the system accrediting institutions of higher learning.Donald Trump has made no secret of such plans. During the campaign, he boasted that accreditation would be his “secret weapon” against colleges and universities the right has long viewed as too progressive.“I will fire the radical left accreditors that have allowed our colleges to become dominated by Marxist maniacs and lunatics,” Trump said last summer. “We will then accept applications for new accreditors who will impose real standards on colleges once again and once for all.”In recent weeks, the government has taken aggressive actions against US universities in the form of funding cuts, a ban on diversity initiatives, and the targeting of international students. Dismantling the accreditation system would be a powerful tool to further erode the separation between the government’s political ideology and what US students are taught.While it’s unlikely that Trump can delist currently recognized accreditation agencies, which are controlled by a bipartisan body enshrined in federal law, there are several ways in which the administration could weaken their authority to enforce schools’ compliance with a series of standards. Project 2025 and efforts to curtail accreditors’ power in some conservative states offer a blueprint for what several education professionals who spoke to the Guardian, along with officials at the Department of Education, fear may be an impending executive action on the issue.Targeting accreditation – the peer-review system guaranteeing quality assurance on learning institutions – is part of the right’s broader strategy to undermine higher education as a whole, advocates warn. Because accreditation by a recognized agency is required for students to be eligible for federal financial aid, the government has huge financial sway over how the system works.“The Trump administration unfortunately doesn’t care about quality assurance in higher education,” said Tariq Habash, a former education department official. “If colleges and universities do not align with this administration on diversity policies, on immigrants’ or trans rights, or on speech supporting Palestinian rights, Donald Trump wants them to suffer the consequences, by illegally cutting off access to federal funds.”Getting rid of the guardrailsAccreditation has been in place for centuries, but the government tied it to federal funding in the aftermath of the GI bill of 1944, when countless veterans were essentially defrauded by sham schools. Since the 1960s, degree-granting institutions have been overseen by a so-called “triad” regulatory mechanism involving federal and state authorities and independent accrediting agencies. Today, there are dozens of accreditors recognized by the Department of Education, including many specialised in technical subjects and six major regional accreditation agencies.One way in which Trump may seek to undermine the current system – and one of several proposed by Project 2025 – would give states the authority to approve institutions for federal aid purposes, bypassing accreditors altogether. That’s a troubling prospect for the ability of universities to remain independent of political pressure.“If a state wanted to force institutions to act in certain ways to achieve accreditation, this would be a huge cudgel that could be used to make really fine-level changes in colleges and universities across the state,” said Timothy Cain, a professor of higher education at the University of Georgia who has researched accreditation practices. “At the core of it, it’s a real problem for American democracy.”Project 2025 also outlines how the government could prohibit accreditors from requiring universities to adopt diversity policies, from “intruding” upon the governance of state schools, and from enforcing standards that “undermine religious beliefs”. Such prohibitions would severely weaken accreditors’ authority to ensure quality and serve as guardrails for education institutions’ autonomy from government.Trump is also expected to expand long-existing conservative attacks on the accreditation apparatus, which rightwing activists and legislators have often referred to as a “cartel”.In 2023, Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, argued in a lawsuit against the Biden administration that the government had “ceded unchecked power” to accrediting agencies. Florida and North Carolina have passed legislation seeking to weaken accreditation standards. And during Trump’s first term, the then secretary of education, Betsy DeVos, loosened accreditation regulation in the name of free-market competition, introducing policies that critics said would give schools an option to “shop” for more friendly accreditors.Some Republican senators, including Marco Rubio before Trump appointed him secretary of state, also introduced legislation at the federal level seeking to prevent accreditors from requiring universities to adopt what Rubio called “woke standards”.“The endgame is always about controlling the curriculum, and controlling what takes place within the classroom,” said Isaac Kamola, a political science professor at Trinity College, whose research focuses on conservative efforts to undermine higher education. “In order to remake the institution, you need to get rid of the guardrails that would prevent you from exerting that much external interference.”But there is an additional risk in Trump’s suggestion that he would pave the way for “new accreditors” more aligned with the administration, Kamola noted.“You’re going to see a bunch of fly-by-night, grifty, Trump University-style colleges that are going to appear,” he said.“And without accreditation, and federal funding being tied to accreditation, you’re going to see a massive exodus of federal funds into the hands of a higher education mass grift economy. Student loan money will be spent in institutions that under the current regime would never be accredited.” More

    • 175 Shares32 Views

      in US Politics

      White House may seek legally binding control over Columbia through consent decree – report

      by

      The Trump administration is considering placing Columbia University under a consent decree, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal, a dramatic escalation in the federal government’s crackdown on the Ivy League institution.The university has already accepted a series of changes demanded by the administration as a pre-condition for restoring $400m in federal grants and contracts that the government suspended last month over allegations that the school failed to protect students from antisemitism on campus.A consent decree – a binding agreement approved by a federal judge – would be an extraordinary move by the Trump administration, which has threatened government funding as a way to force colleges and universities to comply with Donald Trump’s political objectives on a range of issues from campus protests to transgender women in sports and diversity and inclusion initiatives.As a party to the consent decree, Columbia would have to agree to enter it – and the Journal report states that it is unclear whether such a plan has been discussed by the university board.In a statement to the Guardian, the university did not directly address the report. “The University remains in active dialogue with the Federal Government to restore its critical research funding,” a spokesperson said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAccording to the Journal, the proposal comes from the administration’s antisemitism taskforce, composed in part of justice department lawyers, who have reportedly expressed skepticism that Columbia was acting in “good faith”. If Columbia resists, the justice department would need to present its case for the agreement in court, a process that could drag on for years with the university risking its federal funding in the interim.Republicans and the Trump administration have sought to make an example of Columbia University, which was at the center of a student protest movement over Israel’s war in Gaza that broke out on campuses across the country. Last month, federal immigration authorities arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia graduate and prominent Palestinian activist who participated in campus protests. He remains in detention.During a cabinet meeting on Thursday, Trump pressed his education secretary, Linda McMahon, to elaborate on the department’s efforts to withhold federal funds from universities that were “not behaving”.“You’re holding back from $400 Columbia?” he asked McMahon. She nodded and named other schools, noting that the administration had frozen nearly $1bn in funding from Cornell.“We’re getting calls from the presidents of universities who really do want to come in and sit down and come in and sit down and have discussions,” she said. “We’re investigating them but in the meantime we’re holding back the grant fund money.” More

    • 138 Shares32 Views

      in US Politics

      Fear spreads as Trump targets lawyers and non-profits in ‘authoritarian’ takedown

      by

      As Donald Trump dismantles federal agencies, his administration is also creating a chill among non-governmental groups, cowing non-profits, intimidating universities and extracting commitments from law firms to support his aims.Officials have launched investigations into progressive and climate organizations, colleges and recipients of government grants. Experts worry that if nongovernmental groups are frightened into silence, US democracy may not weather the strain.“Trump has a strikingly authoritarian instinct,” said Steven Levitsky, a Harvard political science professor who co-authored the book How Democracies Die. “This is what authoritarians do, they go after civil society,” he added, referring to organizations that exist outside the government and often seek to hold it to account.Some institutions are caving to the president’s demands, or staying quiet about their work in the hope of evading his attention.But others facing attacks have solidified their resolve, doubling down on their missions and even directly taking on the administration.“We will continue to vindicate the rights of our clients, and we do so without fear, because we know that we’re right,” said attorney Eric Lee, who represents a student facing deportation.Attacks on lawyersThe administration has cracked down in particular on lawyers, especially those who have investigated Trump or represented those who oppose him.Trump has targeted individual law firms and collectively attacked immigration attorneys, who he alleges engage in “unscrupulous behavior”. Some Biden-era officials told the Washington Post they have been unable to find representation because of the menacing effect Trump has had on the field. Some law firms have caved to the president’s demands, obeying his orders as a way to stay in business.Paul Weiss agreed to $40m in free legal services to the Trump administration. Willkie Farr & Gallagher committed to spending $100m in pro bono work to causes the firm and Trump support, and Milbank struck a similar deal for $100m in pro bono services.The onslaught prompted Democratic attorneys general to write a letter to the legal community, saying Trump’s goal was to “deter lawyers from representing politically disfavored clients”.The American Bar Association (ABA) has rejected the president’s attempts to undermine lawyers and the courts, saying in a statement that these actions show a “clear and disconcerting pattern”.“If a court issues a decision this administration does not agree with, the judge is targeted,” the statement said. “If a lawyer represents parties in a dispute with the administration, or if a lawyer represents parties the administration does not like, lawyers are targeted.” After issuing the missive, the association said it was “targeted” by a Trump official who told lawyers not to attend its meetings.Eric Lee, a lawyer for Momodou Taal, the British Gambian Cornell University student who faces deportation for participating in a pro-Palestinian demonstration, said it is “shameful, pathetic, feckless, cowardly” for major law firms and universities to acquiesce to Trump’s demands.It is also “historically uninformed” to believe giving in to these demands will get an authoritarian to moderate his positions, he said, encouraging lawyers to stand up for their profession.“We certainly are concerned about what is taking place,” Lee said. “But what can we do? If we stop fighting, then all is lost.”Chris Godshall-Bennett, the legal director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said that while the chilling effect is real, he doesn’t want people to believe they can’t get help. A lot of the attacks are “bluster”, he said, and there are lawyers willing to take a stand.“We have nothing to be afraid of, compared to the folks that we’re trying to help,” he said.Threatening non-profitsThe Trump administration is taking aim at non-profit advocacy groups, particularly if it sees their goals as antithetical to his aims. An array of non-profit employees told the Guardian that they are not willing to speak publicly about their work for fear of ending up on the administration’s radar.Some of the work in question was once seen as bipartisan or noncontroversial but is being treated as radical by the Trump administration, such as alleviating poverty, lowering utility bills or providing people with food.“I’m worried that the Trump administration is really intent on punishing who they perceive as their political opponents, even when those people, like, us are not at all political,” said one representative from a climate-focused organization, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of garnering attention from federal officials.Some advocates feel threatened for adhering to principles that were prioritized by the Biden administration.“Under Biden, we were asked to articulate the ways in which we would be using grant funds to live out environmental justice principles,” a representative from one grassroots non-profit in the north-east said. “Those are the values that are currently under attack.”In certain cases, groups who previously received federal money for their work are not only losing their funding, but also being targeted and demonized by administration officials.The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for instance, recently decided to terminate green grants worth $20bn, clawing back the money from Citibank, which was tasked with disbursing the funds. The justice department and FBI have launched a criminal investigation into three grantees, alleging possible legal violations including “conspiracy to defraud the United States”.Agencies have so far failed to legally support their claims of malfeasance, but have wrought havoc on the groups, with two non-profits exiting one of the coalitions being investigated.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe three grantees – Climate United Fund, the Coalition for Green Capital and Power Forward Communities – are suing EPA and Citibank in an effort to restore the funding.The Trump administration’s “unprecedented and unfounded actions” have put grantees “in impossible positions”, said a representative from Power Forward Communities.Organizations that received grants from Fema’s shelter and services program, are also being investigated, raising fear of additional crackdowns.“They’re not arresting people yet who work at non-profits, but everybody’s concerned that that is something that they might eventually do,” one person who works at an immigration non-profit told the Guardian.Many groups also worry that the Trump administration could seek to revoke their non-profit 501c3 status.In November, the House passed the “non-profit killer bill”, which would hand the executive branch broad powers to do so in the name of fighting “terrorism”. Many are concerned it will also pass the Senate if put up for a vote. But even in the absence of such legislation, advocates fear the administration will strip non-profits’ legal status on technical grounds.“We’re being especially careful to dot our Is and cross our Ts when it comes to meeting [501c3 legal] requirements,” said the north-east environmental justice advocate. The group is ensuring strict adherence to legal lobbying caps, and are being more cautious when using language criticizing the Trump administration – or even using politicized terms such as “environmental racism” – in written communications, the person said.If the attacks on 501c3 status come to fruition, non-profits may struggle to find legal representation and, given the attacks on the legal profession, be left to defend themselves in court.“There are so many organizations and charities that have benefited from the help of law firms, often pro bono assistance from firms that want to do good in their community, and the way they have to do that is through assisting with their legal services,” one non-profit executive told the Guardian. “The fact that firms now may no longer be able to do that leaves many organizations wondering if we are unprotected.”Trump’s attacks have also forced groups to be more cautious when considering filing or joining lawsuits that would make them more visible to federal officials, a worker at another immigration non-profit said, noting that non-profits’ ability to keep their tax legal status may depend on their shying away from their missions.Defunding universitiesUniversities, which are often hotbeds of progressive politics and dissent, are also facing repression. In early March, the administration announced the cancelation of $400m in grants and loans to Columbia University, alleging the school has failed to protect students from antisemitic harassment. In response, school officials yielded to a series of changes demanded by federal officials, sparking outrage from advocates.Weeks later, officials went after Harvard University, announcing a plan to review some $9bn in contracts and multiyear grants over accusations that the university also did not protect Jewish students and promoted “divisive ideologies over free inquiry”. The following day, Princeton University said dozens of its federal research grants were suspended over allegations of the promotion of antisemitism.The administration also paused $175m in federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania over its inclusion of transgender athletes in women’s college sports.“I’ve studied authoritarianism and authoritarian regimes for more than 30 years [and] authoritarian regimes tend to go after universities because they are usually very influential centers of dissent,” said Harvard’s Levitsky, who was among the 700 who signed a letter calling for the university to resist pressure to capitulate to Trump’s demands.The Trump administration also announced a task force on alleged antisemitism at 10 major universities, placed 60 colleges and universities under investigation for allegations of antisemitic harassment and discrimination, and arrested current and former college students for participating in pro-Palestinian demonstrations.Jerry Nadler, a member of Congress from New York, said Trump is taking advantage of “the real pain American Jews face” in order to “wield control over the truth-seeking academic institutions that stand as a bulwark against authoritarianism”.Jason Stanley, a Yale professor who studies fascism, announced in March that he would be leaving the university to work at the University of Toronto, in part because of the US political climate. Columbia University’s decision to give in to Trump’s demands played a pivotal role in his decision to accept an offer from Toronto, he told the Guardian.Other academics are more hopeful. Michael Crow, the president of Arizona State University, said he is not giving into pressure because “if we get intimidated then imagine what happens in the society as a whole”. Instead, the university is attempting to defend itself, showing its record of success on the four dozen projects from which officials have pulled federal funding.“There is of course concern everywhere,” Crow said, “but now is the time to make your case stronger than ever”. More

    • 163 Shares40 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘HillmanTok’: how The Cosby Show inspired resistance to Trump’s war on Black education

      by

      In 1987, the Cosby Show spinoff A Different World made its US TV debut and followed the elder child, Denise Huxtable (Lisa Bonet), as she studied at her parents’ alma mater. The fictional historically Black college (or HBCU), Hillman, would go on to become a byword for Black excellence. “The influence of kids wanting to go to school, period, I think is very powerful,” one of the stars of the series, Jasmine Guy, said while touring HBCU campuses with her former castmates in 2024, 35 years after the sitcom ended. “Because they could see themselves there.”Hillman College is credited with driving record levels of enrollment at actual HBCUs in the 1980s and 90s, and remains a source of inspiration for Black creatives to this day. The actor-screenwriter Lena Waithe had the fabled campus in mind when she launched her production company, Hillman Grad. “I want to call it something that is close to my heart, and that is the world of A Different World and what that show represented for me and so many other people,” she said.View image in fullscreenFour decades later, that fantasy world lives on and finds itself reckoning with the reality of a second Donald Trump administration hellbent on rolling back diversity programs and gutting the Department of Education. On TikTok, the hashtag HillmanTok has become a free online space where Black scholars share their expertise in subjects that the administration is trying to excise from libraries and school curricula. Anyone who scrolls to their content on TikTok and sticks around for the lesson is part of the class. “I’m mindful of the weight of this particular teaching and this particular time,” says Leah Barlow, a liberal studies professor at North Carolina A&T, the country’s largest HBCU. “Honestly, it feels a little ancestral.”Last fall, Barlow posted an introductory two-minute TikTok video for her African studies class; 250,000 users subscribed to the class channel overnight and within a week it hit 4m views. “I thought it was going to be a trend for a short time, and then we’d move on to the next thing,” says Barlow, who posted the video on the same day Trump retook office and rescinded a federal TikTok ban.But then a sixth-grade math teacher named Cierra Hinton seized on the enthusiasm and started the hashtag HillmanTok. She encouraged Black educators to post instructional videos under the banner, and was inundated with hashtagged submissions. Like Black Twitter and Black Lives Matter, another digital social justice movement was born – the world’s first crowd-sourced HBCU. In an emotional response video, Hinton took a measure of satisfaction in helping “people come together and build something that is bigger than we ever imagined, something that means so much”.HillmanTok class subjects run the gamut from US history to mathematics to culinary arts. There are even electives on African American food studies and Stem careers. “I am finally about to post the syllabus,” Carlotta Berry says in the greeting for her Engineering 101 HillmanTok course. “You can learn asynchronously by watching any of my videos.”The HillmanTok educators aren’t limited to real-world academics like Berry, an electrical and computer engineering professor at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology in Indiana. Shannan E Johnson, a former creative executive at the Syfy channel, has a course on screenwriting. The music journalist Touré has a course on the prehistory of hip-hop. “This is actually a reprise of the class I did 20 years ago at NYU,” he joked. “We’re overenrolled, as usual.”Just as A Different World regularly dealt with weighty subjects such as war, homelessness and the Aids epidemic at the risk of losing advertiser support, HillmanTok also offers culturally urgent lessons on resistance and restorative justice. “People have always been trying to limit and marginalize the impact and effect of Black education,” says Jelani Favors, the director of North Carolina A&T’s Center of Excellence for Social Justice. “But it was those teachers opening up their classroom doors, pouring into young idealists and finding ways to unlock their potential to engage in the deconstructing of Jim Crow and white supremacy.”This is all happening against the backdrop of a Black college enrollment gap in which Black men account for 26% of the student body. All the while Maga donors add insult to injury by trashing the value of HBCU education overall. “Howard was not Harvard,” the billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel said in a dig at the former vice-president Kamala Harris’s scholarship at Howard University, the most prestigious HBCU. “You couldn’t even point this out [when she was running]. This is probably a racist thing to say.”That’s just the start of the slights against HBCUs, which were founded to provide educational opportunities for Black students at a time when it was illegal or impossible to attend college in the US. A 2023 investigation by the Biden administration found that HBCUs had missed out on more than $13bn in federal funding for more than three decades because state governors blocked the funds. North Carolina A&T, which has a 14,000-student enrollment, was owed more than $2bn alone. HBCUs could well end up suffering more under Trump, who has made a U-turn from allocating $250m in funding to freezing educational grants and loans – which is how most HBCU students cover tuition. Last month, he signed an executive order to close the Department of Education – a critical lifeline for HBCUs, which have a much harder time fundraising than predominantly white institutions.View image in fullscreenThat HillmanTok is poised to become a resource for a Black student population that could find itself locked out of the traditional college experience makes it more relevant than just another Khan Academy, YouTube University or MasterClass. Inevitably, that momentum faces new headwinds from the rush to capitalize on the Hillman name – not unlike the Black Lives Matter movement did at the end. Some HillmanTok supporters have taken exception to attempts to sell merchandise and live events under the name. What’s more, as a number of trademark claims have been filed for the name, Black TikTok users have raised concerns about a white business interest winning control.“Anytime something looks like it’s going to make some money or turn into a movement, you see this,” says the Howard University law professor Nicole Gaither, who adds that the case for each filing also holds potential ramifications. It just really depends on how the US Patent and Trademark Office is going to view this. “Lena Waithe has Hillman registrations that are related to entertainment services, but she also has education services related to manners and etiquette. And she sells apparel,” Gaither aded.While that plays out in the background, Barlow remains strictly committed to the work. Last month TikTok and the United Negro College Fund hosted an event in Washington to connect HillmanTok instructors with Capitol Hill lawmakers and bring awareness to inclusive education and Black history preservation. While there, Barlow conducted TikTok interviews with the Democratic senator Raphael Warnock and the representative Jasmine Crockett for her class. Crockett implored her students to “take advantage of this moment and realize we don’t have a million Leahs running around. Please value her and value your education.”HillmanTok continues a tradition of Black self-determination through education that dates back to the flouting of anti-literacy laws during slavery. “We always find a way, regardless of what is happening – we, meaning Black people,” says Barlow. “We have always been resilient, autonomous and used agency to get information where it needs to go.”View image in fullscreenThe Hillman brand wasn’t always such an easy sell. Where The Cosby Show was largely written and produced by white people for white audiences as a showcase for Black respectability, A Different World boldly entrusted young Black creatives with the task of relating the cultural experiences that young Black students were having in real time. A Different World faced bitter critical reception when it debuted. One newspaper reviewer called it “a greed-motivated sitcom” in a slam of the show’s creator, Bill Cosby – who patterned the college after the women’s HBCU Spelman College, where he was once a major benefactor.After that rough first season, control over the sitcom was passed to the Fame alumna Debbie Allen (sister of The Cosby Show matriarch Phylicia Rashad) – who not only brought her own college experience at Howard into the production process, but also an army of Black writers and consultants. She empowered actors to give feedback and introduced clauses into their contract that freed them up to write and direct episodes, adding to the show’s diverse perspectives. For a kicker, Allen enlisted Aretha Franklin to record the theme song.Also in the middle of that first season, Bonet became pregnant with her first child, Zoë, with her then husband Lenny Kravitz. Cosby, scoffing at the cultural optics of Denise being portrayed as an unwed mother in college, had Bonet written off the series and reabsorbed into The Cosby Show. “I thought that show just wasn’t going to come back because she was and is the star,” Guy said. But after reconfiguring around the romance between Whitley (Guy) and Dwayne (Kadeem Hardison), A Different World became a ratings colossus alongside The Cosby Show and a mainstay in Black households for generations.Among others, the sitcom introduced the world to Jada Pinkett Smith and the Oscar winners Halle Berry and Marisa Tomei – who took the role playing Bonet’s white roommate after Meg Ryan passed. (It certainly worked out for the both of them.) And unlike with The Cosby Show, the disgraced Cosby’s involvement has not dinted A Different World’s popularity over the years. (He only appears briefly in the pilot.) Last fall, the cast reunited for a national HBCU tour to spark enrollment and scholarship fundraising and found that many of the students who remain inspired by the show had been born long after its initial 144-episode run.In February, A Different World finally made its debut on Netflix – six months after the streamer announced the development of an Allen-produced sequel that would focus on the Hillman experience of Whitley and Dwayne’s daughter, with the pilot to begin shooting over the summer. It remains to be seen whether this new version of the series will address Magaworld’s assault on Black education. It wouldn’t be the same show if it didn’t. “The issues we were dealing with then,” said the series co-star Dawnn Lewis, “we’re still dealing with in some shape or form today.”HillmanTok roll call: five to follow

      @amfamstudies Clip highlights from North Carolina A&T’s Leah Barlow from her actual African American studies course.

      @toureshow The music journalist offers a deep rewind on the prehistory of hip-hop.

      @dr.clo.flo The University of Oklahoma education studies professor Christy Oxendine unpacks the history of US education.

      @drdre4000 The Holy Cross chemistry professor Andre Isaacs puts the fun in functional groups.

      @iamalawyerinreallife The Atlanta defense attorney Danielle Obiorah shows civil servants how to protect themselves against Doge cuts in Federal Employee Rights 101. More

    • 138 Shares47 Views

      in US Politics

      White House freezes funds for Cornell and Northwestern in latest crackdown

      by

      In early March, the Trump administration sent warning letters to 60 US universities it said were facing “potential enforcement actions” for what it described as “failure to protect Jewish students on campus” in the wake of widespread pro-Palestinian protests on campuses last year.The president of Cornell University, which was on the list, responded with a defiant op-ed in the New York Times, arguing that universities, and their students, could weather debates and protests over the war in Gaza.“Universities, despite rapidly escalating political, legal and financial risks, cannot afford to cede the space of public discourse and the free exchange of ideas,” the Cornell University president Michael Kotlikoff wrote on 31 March.On Tuesday, the Trump administration froze over $1bn in funding for Cornell University, a US official said. The administration also froze $790m for Northwestern University, which hosts a prominent journalism school.The funding pause includes mostly grants and contracts with the federal departments of health, education, agriculture and defense, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.The newly announced funding freezes at Cornell and Northwestern come as Brown, Columbia, Harvard, Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania face similar investigations. The New York Times estimated that at least $3.3bn in elite university federal funding has already been frozen by the Trump administration in the past month, with billions more under review.In a statement Tuesday night, Cornell officials said that they were aware of “media reports” suggesting the federal government was freezing $1bn in federal grants.“While we have not received information that would confirm this figure, earlier today Cornell received more than 75 stop work orders from the Department of Defense related to research that is profoundly significant to American national defense, cybersecurity, and health.”Cornell officials said the affected grants “include research into new materials for jet engines, propulsion systems, large-scale information networks, robotics, superconductors, and space and satellite communications, as well as cancer research.”Northwestern also said it was aware of media reports about the funding freeze but had not received any official notification from the government and that it has cooperated in the investigation.“Federal funds that Northwestern receives drive innovative and life-saving research, like the recent development by Northwestern researchers of the world’s smallest pacemaker, and research fueling the fight against Alzheimer’s disease. This type of research is now in jeopardy,” a Northwestern spokesperson said.In Cornell’s Tuesday night statement, Kotlikoff and other university leaders defended the school as having “worked diligently to create an environment where all individuals and viewpoints are protected and respected,” and said they were “actively seeking information from federal officials to learn more about the basis for these decisions.”“We cannot let our caution overtake our purpose,” Kotlikoff had written in the New York Times piece. “Our colleges and universities are cradles of democracy and bulwarks against autocracy.”Trump has attempted to crack down on pro-Palestinian campus protests against US ally Israel’s devastating military assault on Gaza, which has caused a humanitarian crisis in the territory following a deadly October 2023 attack by Hamas.The US president has called the protesters antisemitic, has labeled them as sympathetic to Hamas and foreign policy threats.Protesters, including some Jewish groups, say the Trump administration wrongly conflates their criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism and support for Hamas. Human rights advocates have raised free speech and academic freedom concerns over the crackdown by the Trump administration.In March, the Trump administration suspended $175m in funding to the University of Pennsylvania over its transgender sports policies.In March, the Trump administration canceled $400m in funding for Columbia University, the epicenter of last year’s pro-Palestinian campus protests.Columbia sparked condemnation from academics and free speech groups after agreeing to significant changes Trump’s administration demanded, including putting its Middle Eastern studies department under new administrative supervision, banning face masks on campus, giving campus security officers power to remove or arrest people and expanding “intellectual diversity” by staffing up its Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies.In an interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education, Lee Bollinger, Columbia’s former president, described the situation as “an authoritarian takeover”. More

    • 150 Shares52 Views

      in US Politics

      Deported over a speeding ticket? Dozens of US students’ visas abruptly revoked

      by

      Lisa was eating takeout at a friend’s place when the email from her university landed. She clicked into her inbox and skimmed the message:“ISS [International Student Services] is writing to inform you that your SEVIS record was terminated …”The wording felt unfamiliar. She read it again, but it still sounded like a scam – absurd and unreal.Lisa is an international student at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, just one month away from graduation. She asked to use a pseudonym due to concerns about retaliation and an ongoing legal case.Before going to bed, she found someone posted a similar notice on social media. It was through these posts that Lisa understood what the email had actually meant: with her Student and Exchange Visitor Information System record terminated, she was now considered out of status in the US. Staying could mean violating immigration laws.The Department of Homeland Security maintains the Sevis database that tracks international students and scholars on F, M and J visas. Once a Sevis record is terminated, a student’s legal status becomes immediately invalid. They must either leave the US within the grace period, typically 15 days, or take steps to restore their status. Otherwise, they risk deportation and future visa restrictions.She dug through comment sections. Joined group chats. Searched for patterns. One emerged: most of the affected students had been fingerprinted. Some had been cited for non-criminal offenses, but the messages they received said they had criminal records.That’s when she remembered: a year ago, she was driving home when she got two speeding tickets: one for speeding and another for failing to stop. She hadn’t seen the police car behind her until it was too late. To get the charges dismissed, she showed up in court, where she was fingerprinted.Lisa is one of several students across states who found their legal status revoked by the US government on 4 April, without prior notice or clear explanation. University statements show that at least 39 students have been affected, including UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC San Diego, Stanford, Ohio State, the University of Tennessee, the University of Kentucky, Minnesota State University and the University of Oregon.An online self-reported data sheet created by affected students suggests the issue may be more widespread. Students from 50 universities reported their visas were canceled around 4 April, with many noting that they had prior records, some limited to citations or non-criminal offenses.View image in fullscreenThis secret wave of revocation came a few days after the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, announced the revocation of 300 or more student visas. “We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas,” he said at a news conference on 27 March, referring to students he described as national security threats.Lisa’s university had included a screenshot of her Sevis record in the message. Termination was logged on 4 April by a system administrator, with a note: “Individual identified in criminal records check and/or has had their VISA revoked.”Shenqi Cai, a California immigration attorney and managing attorney at Lashine Law, said she got the first call from a student on 3 April. “At the time, we thought it was a one-off. It seemed strange.”But by Friday, more cases kept coming in. She contacted designated school officials at several partner universities and confirmed that the terminations were visible in the Sevis system.Cai said this round of Sevis terminations appeared to be unprecedented. “Students weren’t given any chance to explain their situation. As long as the system flagged them, what we believe is a kind of criminal screening trigger, they were terminated under one broad directive.”Based on the information collected so far, Cai said about 90% of the affected students had been fingerprinted. But she explained that the criteria used to flag students can vary by state. “Each state defines these triggers differently. The thresholds are inconsistent. A student may be arrested in one state, but that doesn’t mean they’ll be convicted, because the power to decide guilt or innocence lies with the judge.”David, a Chinese student who completed his undergraduate degree, was immediately unable to continue working. He requested a pseudonym due to fears of retaliation and an ongoing legal case.In 2024, David was reported to police after a verbal argument with his partner. When officers arrived, they were still arguing, but there was no physical contact, he said. Because of a language barrier, his partner couldn’t clearly explain what had happened. David was detained overnight and later ordered to appear in court.“My partner wrote a statement to the prosecutor explaining it wasn’t domestic violence,” he said. The charge was eventually dropped. Court records show the case was dismissed with prejudice, and the judge ordered the arrest record and biometric data to be destroyed.Three years later, David received a Sevis termination notice.Unlike enrolled F-1 students, David is working under Optional Practical Training, a work authorization linked to the Sevis system. Once a Sevis record is terminated, that authorization ends and is nearly impossible to recover.David was nearing the end of his first year of employment when he got the notice on Friday. He scheduled a lunch meeting with his manager, who said the company would try to help him relocate to Canada. But because the termination took effect immediately, he was subjected to the 15-day departure rule.“I told my family, and they felt just as powerless,” he said. “But we don’t come from wealth, and there’s not a lot they can do.”Bill is facing the same dilemma. He graduated in December 2024 and is currently job-hunting. He asked not to use his real name due to a pending case.In early 2025, Bill hit another car while making a turn. At the time, his driver’s license had just expired. Police cited him for driving with an expired license. After renewing it, he followed the instructions and appeared in court.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“I went with a temporary license. The court staff were friendly,” he said. “One even joked, ‘This is no big deal, handsome,’ while taking my fingerprints and photos. It felt like a scene out of a movie.”His initial appearance only involved ID verification. When he asked if the hearing could be held that day, a staff member told him it was scheduled for May and suggested he come back then.“I thought it was fine. My license was updated, I just had to show up again.” But on 3 April, he suddenly received a notice from the school that his Sevis record had been terminated.Now, Bill has no idea what to do. Legally, he should leave the country immediately, but his case is still open and he’s required to appear in court in May. He doesn’t know whether showing up would put him at risk of detention.On 4 April, he met with his university’s international office. Staff there were willing to help, he said, but had few tools. They asked him to write a personal statement, which they promised to pass along to university leadership. The only formal support offered was a referral to a discounted lawyer – $150 an hour.View image in fullscreen“The dust of history falls on me, and it becomes a mountain. That’s all there is to it,” he said.By Sunday evening, the panic had spread. Three hundred students joined a Zoom info session hosted by Brad Banias, a federal court immigration litigator and former justice department trial attorney. Questions poured into the chat box: “Should we leave our apartments right now in case ICE shows up?” “Will an unpaid parking ticket be a problem?”Banias called the terminations a political move, not a legal one. “It makes me angry to see 19-year-olds just trying to study, and suddenly a parking ticket they didn’t even know about shows up on a criminal background check,” he said. “Don’t let them convince you it’s reasonable to leave the country over a parking ticket.”For Lisa, the future was just starting to take shape. She is about to graduate in one month, with a job offer and grad school acceptance. But now, she said she wasn’t even sure if she should go to class on Monday.Back in April 2024, she was pulled over in Madison for speeding. She hadn’t noticed the patrol car behind her right away, and by the time she stopped, two officers approached. One told her not to worry – it was her first offense, and all she needed to do was pay the fine. But the other issued two citations: one for speeding, the other for failing to stop.They told her it was just a miscommunication, something she could clear up in court.But that never really happened.“My first court date was just for ID,” she said. “They fingerprinted me, took a photo, measured my height. The judge barely said anything. No hearing, just a new court date.”She asked if the case could be resolved sooner and was told to schedule an online meeting. She did. During that meeting, the case was dropped. No record. They asked if she accepted. She said yes.Everything after that went smoothly: her work visa was approved, the company background checks cleared, and she had no trouble leaving and re-entering the country. She thought it was behind her.Then the email came.“I don’t know if I’m still allowed to graduate,” she said. “If I don’t get my degree, does the grad school still take me? Does the company push back the offer? Worst case, I don’t graduate. I go home and start college again. Four more years. And then what?” More

    • 225 Shares59 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump is targeting US universities as never before. Here are four ways to help them | Cas Mudde

      by

      Universities in the US are under attack. While the Trump administration pretends to punish them for their alleged compliance with or support for “antisemitism” (ie pro-Gaza demonstrations) and “anti-white racism” (ie diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives), the real targets are academic freedom and freedom of speech. Going after the most prominent and privileged universities, such as Columbia and Harvard, kills two birds with one stone: it garners prime media attention and spreads fear among other, far less privileged universities.The rest of the world has taken note and has started to respond, though mostly without knowing much about the specifics of US academia and without asking US-based academics what they need. Obviously, different academics face different challenges – depending on, for example, their gender and race, legal status, the state they live in and the university they work at – but here are some suggestions from a white, male, tenured green-card holder working at a public university in a GOP-controlled state.It is important to understand exactly how the Trump administration is attacking universities. Unlike in countries such as China or Turkey, academics are (so far) not imprisoned, while most universities or their leaderships have not been taken over by the state, as they have been in countries such as Hungary and Turkey. However, public universities are often overseen by heavily politicised boards and there are some individual cases of university takeovers – most notably, the New College of Florida. Rather, the attack is financial, but with clear political motivations.Universities that support – or even tolerate – protests, research or speech that go against the preferences of the Trump administration are investigated and their federal funding is frozen or cut. While DEI initiatives and research on climate breakdown or gender and sexuality are not technically banned, they can lead to heavy financial repercussions for the universities that engage in or tolerate them. And in neoliberal academia, money talks. University administrators are beholden to university boards mostly made up of businesspeople, who value financial growth over academic freedom. It was therefore disappointing, if unsurprising, that the presidents of Columbia and Harvard yielded to Trump’s demands, even if that did save neither them nor their university.Given that the main threat is financial, and the US spends almost twice as much on research and development as the EU, it is clear that other countries can only do so much. Moreover, given that the Trump administration is largely uninterested in dissenting opinions, let alone those from abroad, and the US is too powerful to coerce politically, we should be realistic about what Europeans can do. But even if they cannot stop the attacks on US academia, different groups can help US-based academics in other ways. I will focus on four groups: academics, journalists, universities and governments.Boycotts and petitions are the favourite forms of political protest of academics. On social media, many European academics have already declared that they will no longer travel to the US, for work or leisure, at least while Trump is in power. While these boycotts make sense as a form of self-protection, given the string of recent detentions and deportations, they will do little to support US-based academics. They could instead lend their support by offering to host targeted data and research on open websites in Europe.European journalists have covered the attacks on Columbia and Harvard with as much fervour as they did with the alleged “wokeness” of universities. Covering the attacks on US academia is important, particularly if it moves beyond the Ivy League in the north-east and includes public universities in states such as Florida and Texas. However, this will not sway the Trump administration. What journalists can do, however, is be more sensitive to the situation of US-based academics and administrators when they approach them for interviews.I understand that the plight of my colleagues and me makes an interesting story for you, but it can also create more problems for us. Given that at many public universities communication through official email accounts (and sometimes even through university computers) is subject to “open records” legislation, anything your interviewees write could be made public and used politically and professionally. Hence, at the very least, ask whether your interviewees want to communicate through their official work email or through a private one. And be aware of the potential risks your story might have for that academic – is that “provocative question” really worth the risk for your interviewee?Recently, several European universities, such as Aix-Marseille University in France and Free University Brussels, have set up initiatives to provide a haven to “the biggest victims of this political and ideological interference”. But three-year programmes and one-year postdocs are neither attractive nor structural solutions, particularly if they are meant to attract “outstanding scholars”. In fact, they can seem more driven by self-interest (good PR). If universities want to make a difference, for at least some individual academics, ensure that they can continue their thriving career at your institution. And focus your support primarily on scholars who are individually targeted and who, just like many “top” scholars, are working at public universities rather than Ivy Leagues.Several European countries have also started to discuss plans to bring leading international scientists to Europe. Few have been so blunt as the minister of education, culture and science in the Netherlands, Eppo Bruins, who defended his initiative in classic Dutch mercantile language: “Top scientists are worth their weight in gold for our country and for Europe.” Support for US-based academics should also benefit the supporting countries and institutions, but it should not be at the expense of Dutch and European academics. The Dutch government announced this initiative just days after academics from universities around the country had been striking in protest against the draconic cuts on higher education by that same government.The EU has a phenomenal opportunity to attract some of the best researchers in the world from the US, but these initiatives must be integrated into a much broader strategy for, and investment in, European academia. It might only benefit some individual, high-profile researchers at first, but there will be an economic effect. That might force even the Trump administration to change course.

      Cas Mudde is the Stanley Wade Shelton UGAF professor of international affairs at the University of Georgia, and author of The Far Right Today

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 125 Shares60 Views

      in US Politics

      Harvard faculty organize amid anxiety university will capitulate to Trump

      by

      The day after the Trump administration announced a review of $9bn in federal contracts and grants with Harvard University due to what it claimed was the university’s failure to combat antisemitism on campus, the university’s president, Alan Garber, sent an email to the Harvard community titled: Our resolve.“When we saw the Garber statement’s subject line, everybody thought: ‘Oh, great, Harvard’s going to stand up!” said Jane Sujen Bock, a board member of the Coalition for a Diverse Harvard, a group of alumni founded in 2016 amid a legal battle over affirmative action.But the actual body of the message indicated no such thing. In the email, Garber briefly touted academic freedom while pledging to “engage” with the administration to “combat antisemitism”, which he said he had experienced directly, and listed a series of measures the university had already taken. “We still have much work to do,” he wrote. He offered no detail about what Harvard would do to protect its independence from the Trump administration.It was “a statement of abdication”, said Kirsten Weld, a history professor and the president of the Harvard chapter of the American Association of University Professors, a national group advocating for faculty. “It basically says: ‘Yes, we have been bad and we deserve to be punished.’”The email, along with a string of actions recently taken by Harvard against academic programmes, faculty and student groups who have been accused of being pro-Palestinian, have fueled anxieties throughout US campuses that the Ivy League school will be following in the footsteps of Columbia University, which recently bowed to a string of demands from the Trump administration in an effort to retain federal funding.On Thursday, the Trump administration wrote in a letter to Harvard that federal funding would be conditional on the university banning diversity and inclusion initiatives, restricting protests on campus, cooperating with the Department of Homeland Security, reviewing its academic programs “to address bias”, and installing leaders to implement the president’s demands.Dozens more universities are under investigation for allegedly failing to protect Jewish students from pro-Palestinian protests, with Brown University on Thursday becoming the latest to face the risk of losing hundreds of millions of dollars in funding. They are all paying close attention to how Harvard and others weigh the financial costs of standing up to Donald Trump against the moral and academic costs that come with appeasing him.‘We have to be willing to stand up’Some signs of more muscular pushback are starting to emerge.On Tuesday, in response to the administration’s announcement that it would suspend $210m in funding to Princeton University, its president, Christopher Eisgruber, indicated that he had no intention of making concessions to the administration. At Harvard, the student newspaper reported that Rakesh Khurana, the dean of Harvard College, drew applause from his colleagues on Tuesday when he accused the Trump administration of weaponising concerns about campus antisemitism to justify its ongoing attacks against higher education. (Eisgruber and Khurana did not respond to requests for comment; several Harvard faculty only agreed to speak off the record, citing a repressive climate.)View image in fullscreenKhurana’s comments followed days of upheaval at Harvard, after 600 members of the faculty signed a letter calling on the university to publicly condemn the US president’s attacks and “legally contest and refuse to comply with unlawful demands”. The Harvard Academic Workers union, which represents non-tenure-track researchers and lecturers, wrote in a statement on Wednesday: “The Trump’s administration attack on Harvard has nothing to do with antisemitism” and called on the university to “resist this intimidation with us”.So far, Eisgruber and Christina Paxson, Brown’s president, have signaled they may take a different path and resist.“University presidents and leaders have to understand that the commitment to allow academics – including our faculty, including our students – to pursue the truth as best they see it is fundamental to what our universities do,” Eisgruber said in an interview with Bloomberg this week. “We have to be willing to stand up for that.”Brown has not announced how it plans to respond to threats it will lose more than $500m in funding, but last month, Paxson outlined how the university would respond to federal attacks on its academic freedom. “I know that many in our community have been gravely concerned about persistent media reports of some of our peers experiencing encroachments on their freedom of expression and the autonomy necessary to advance their mission, she wrote. “If Brown faced such actions directly impacting our ability to perform essential academic and operational functions, we would be compelled to vigorously exercise our legal rights to defend these freedoms.”Faculty across the country have also begun to organize. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has filed three lawsuits: over the funding cuts at Columbia, the targeting of international students by immigration authorities, and Trump’s efforts to ban diversity, equity and inclusion programmes on campuses. Meanwhile, faculty at Rutgers University have proposed a “mutual defence compact” within the “Big Ten” consortium, which includes some of the largest state universities in the country, to support one another in the face of political attacks.“The attacks that are coming from the federal government might be directed toward Columbia University last week, and Harvard University this week, and who knows which other university next week, but if we allow them to proceed, then we will be picked off one by one,” said Weld. “The only way forward for any individual institution in the higher-education sector right now is to join forces.”‘We have our voices’Harvard had tried to get ahead of the administration’s attack. The university was one of the first to come under scrutiny following 7 October 2023 and protests over Israel’s war in Gaza. Allegations that it had failed to address antisemitism on campus contributed, in part, to last year’s resignation of Claudine Gay, Harvard’s first Black president.This year, Harvard adopted a controversial definition of antisemitism in a legal settlement over complaints brought by Jewish students. In the days leading up to Trump’s threats, it forced out two leaders of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and suspended a public health partnership with Birzeit University, in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. This week, the university also suspended a “religion, conflict and peace initiative” at the divinity school that the Jewish Alumni Association had accused of focussing “entirely on the Palestinians”, and banned the Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee from hosting events on campus.View image in fullscreenBut if the repression of programmes targeting spaces sympathetic to Palestinians was meant to appease the Trump administration and avert threats of funding cuts, it didn’t work.A fraction of Harvard’s $53bn endowment – the world’s largest for a university – is liquid or free of restrictions, but several faculty said that this is the time for the university to tap into it to defend its core values. While the administration’s cuts threaten hundreds of jobs on campus, Harvard is uniquely placed to withstand the impact, they say.“We’re constantly told that the endowment is not a piggy bank, it’s not a slush fund, and that we need to protect it because it ensures the success of our initiatives over the long term and for future generations,” Maya Jasanoff, a history professor at Harvard, said. “But if we lose the independence of universities from political interference, then we’re sacrificing something for future generations that is truly priceless.”Others noted that Harvard is also in a position to forcefully defend itself in court, much like it did when affirmative action came under attack, although the US supreme court ultimately ruled against the university in that case.So far, the university administration hasn’t shown signs it will put up a fight. Several faculty members believe that Trump’s efforts have the tacit support of some university leaders and trustees.“There is a strategic alliance among segments of the professoriate and university administrations, particularly boards of trustees, who agree that pro-Palestine activism on US college campuses needs to be shut down,” said Weld. “Whether those voices understand what the collateral damage of their participation in that alliance is going to be, I don’t know.”Harvard faculty in recent months have ramped up organizing efforts, including by launching the AAUP chapter on the heels of the Gaza encampment last spring and the university’s response.“One of the perversely brighter things to come out of last year is that I saw the faculty organizing and working together to an extent that outstripped anything I had seen in my academic career,” said Jasanoff. “We have our voices, and we can use our voices together.” More