I understand. But these are separable concerns. Whether we like it or not, people under American jurisdiction have a protected right to be antisemitic or anti-black or anti-Muslim, etc. But students do not have a right to be here if they are breaking laws. Selective punishment/deportation based on the cause one is protesting is, to me, the government putting a thumb on what is allowed to be said and what isn't allowed to be said by foreign nationals.
which is why universities have to figure out how they are going to act: universities are dedicated to academic freedom and free speech--that's why there is so much effort spent on facilitating and allowing student protest while at the same time ensuring that other students/campus activities are not negatively affected.
Another part of Project 2025. https://www.cbpp.org/research/feder...s-and-project-2025-would-increase-poverty-and It's the world maga wants.
If the schools are less woke, Trumpers remain broke, and America’s public education system remains pathetic, will Trumpers feel like America is great again? it’s been a while since I checked into D&D. How has the first month of the Trump presidency gone in here? Have we gotten rid of colleges yet?
I don’t think this is going to work out the way Steven Miller thinks. It may work the way he wants for a few years but that is it.
fascinating issues here May Aliens Be Deported Based on Their Speech? The answer, oddly, isn't settled. https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/03/may-aliens-be-deported-based-on-their-speech/ lots of extra formatting with this one, so perhaps best to just click the link to read it.
It links to a FIRE piece on this topic as well, that is worth a read: Trump’s threat to deport anti-Israel protesters is an attack on free speech | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
the "Dear Colleague" letter arrived this morning https://www.ed.gov/media/document/dear-colleague-letter-sffa-v-harvard-109506.pdf
Here is a detailed review from Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/...f-bad-ideas-some-more-actionable-than-others/ Project 2025 outlines a radical policy agenda that would dramatically reshape the federal government. The report was spearheaded by the right-wing Heritage Foundation and represents the policy aims of a large coalition of conservative activists. While former President Trump has attempted to distance himself from Project 2025, many of the report’s authors worked in the previous Trump administration and could return for a second round. Trump, himself, said in 2022, “This is a great group, and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do.” In other words, Project 2025 warrants a close look, even if the Trump campaign would like Americans to avert their gaze. Project 2025’s education agenda proposes a drastic overhaul of federal education policy, from early childhood through higher education. Here’s just a sample of the Project 2025 education-related recommendations: Dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (ED) Eliminate the Head Start program for young children in poverty Discontinue the Title I program that provides federal funding to schools serving low-income children Rescind federal civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ students Undercut federal capacity to enforce civil rights law Reduce federal funding for students with disabilities and remove guardrails designed to ensure these children are adequately served by schools Promote universal private school choice Privatize the federal student loan portfolio It’s an outrageous list, and that’s just the start of it. We’ve reviewed the Project 2025 chapter on education (Chapter 11), along with other chapters with implications for students. We’ve come away with four main observations: 1. Most of the major policy proposals in Project 2025 would require an unlikely amount of congressional cooperation Project 2025 is presented as a to-do list for an incoming Trump administration. However, most of its big-ticket education items would require a great deal of cooperation from Congress. Proposals to create controversial, new laws or programs would require majority support in the House and, very likely, a filibuster-proof, 60-vote majority in the Senate. Ideas like a Parents’ Bill of Rights, the Department of Education Reorganization Act, and a federal tax-credit scholarship program fall into this category. Even if Republicans outperform expectations in this fall’s Senate races, they’d have to attract several Democratic votes to get to 60. That’s not happening for these types of proposals. The same goes for major changes to existing legislation. This includes, for example, a proposal to convert funding associated with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to no-strings-attached block grants and education savings accounts (with, presumably, much less accountability for spending those funds appropriately). It also includes a proposal to end the “negotiated rulemaking” (“neg-reg”) process that ED follows when developing regulations related to programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA). The neg-reg requirement is written into HEA itself, which means that unwinding neg-reg would require Congress to amend the HEA. That’s unlikely given that HEA reauthorization is already more than a decade overdue—and that’s without the political baggage of Project 2025 weighing down the process. The prospect of changing funding levels for existing programs is a little more complicated. Programs like Title I are permanently authorized. Eliminating Title I or changing the formulas it uses to allocate funds to local educational agencies would require new and unlikely legislation. Year-to-year funding levels can and do change, but the vast majority of ED’s budget consists of discretionary funding that’s provided through the regular, annual appropriations process and subject to a filibuster. This limits the ability of one party to make major, unilateral changes. (ED’s mandatory funding is more vulnerable.) In sum, one limiting factor on what an incoming Trump administration could realistically enact from Project 2025 is that many of these proposals are too unpopular with Democrats to overcome their legislative hurdles. 2. Some Project 2025 proposals would disproportionately harm conservative, rural areas and likely encounter Republican opposition Another limiting factor is that some of Project 2025’s most substantive proposals probably wouldn’t be all that popular with Republicans either. Let’s take, for example, the proposed sunsetting of the Title I program. Project 2025 proposes to phase out federal spending on Title I over a 10-year period, with states left to decide whether and how to continue that funding. It justifies this with misleading suggestions that persistent test score gaps between wealthy and poor students indicate that investments like Title I funding aren’t paying off. (In fact, evidence from school finance reforms suggests real benefits from education spending, especially for students from low-income families.) The phrase “Title I schools” might conjure up images of under-resourced schools in urban areas that predominantly serve students of color, and it’s true that these schools are major beneficiaries of Title I. However, many types of schools, across many types of communities, receive critical support through Title I. In fact, schools in Republican-leaning areas could be hit the hardest by major cuts or changes to Title I. In the map below, we show the share of total per-pupil funding coming from Title I by state. Note that many of the states that rely the most on Title I funds (darkest blue) are politically conservative.
conti.. 3. Project 2025 also has significant proposals that a second Trump administration could enact unilaterally While a second Trump administration couldn’t enact everything outlined in Project 2025 even if it wanted to, several consequential proposals wouldn’t require cooperation from Congress. This includes some actions that ED took during the first Trump administration and certainly could take again. Here are a few of the Project 2025 proposals that the Trump administration could enact with the authority of the executive branch alone: Roll back civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ students Roll back Title IX protections against sex-based discrimination Dismantle the federal civil rights enforcement apparatus Eliminate current income-driven repayment plans and require higher monthly payments for low-income borrowers Remove protections from predatory colleges that leave students with excessive debt Federal education policy has suffered from regulatory whiplash over the last decade, with presidential administrations launching counter-regulations to undo the executive actions of the prior administration. Take, for example, “gainful employment” regulations that Democratic administrations have used to limit eligibility for federal financial aid for colleges that leave students with excessive loan debt. A second Trump administration would likely seek to reverse the Biden administration’s “gainful employment” regulations like the first Trump administration did to the Obama administration’s rules. (Then again, with the Supreme Court striking down Chevron, which provided deference to agency expertise in setting regulations, the Trump administration might not even need to formally undo regulations.) Other Project 2025 proposals, not explicitly about education, also could wreak havoc. This includes a major overhaul of the federal civil service. Specifically, Project 2025 seeks to reinstate Schedule F, an executive order that Trump signed during his final weeks in office. Schedule F would reclassify thousands of civil service positions in the federal government to policy roles—a shift that would empower the president to fire civil servants and fill their positions with political appointees. Much has been written about the consequences of decimating the civil service, and the U.S. Department of Education, along with other federal agencies that serve students, would feel its effects. 4. Project 2025 reflects a white Christian nationalist agenda as much as it reflects a traditional conservative education policy agenda If one were to read Project 2025’s appeals to principles such as local control and parental choice, they might think this is a standard conservative agenda for education policy. Republicans, after all, have been calling for the dismantling of ED since the Reagan administration, and every administration since has supported some types of school choice reforms. But in many ways, Project 2025’s proposals really don’t look conservative at all. For example, a large-scale, tax-credit scholarship program would substantially increase the federal government’s role in K-12 education. A Parents’ Bill of Rights would require the construction of a massive federal oversight and enforcement function that does not currently exist. And a proposal that “states should require schools to post classroom materials online to provide maximum transparency to parents” would impose an enormous compliance burden on schools, districts, and teachers. Much of Project 2025 is more easily interpretable through the lens of white Christian nationalism than traditional political conservatism. Scholars Philip Gorski and Samuel Perry describe white Christian nationalism as being “about ethno-traditionalism and protecting the freedoms of a very narrowly defined ‘us’.” The Project 2025 chapter on education is loaded with proposals fitting this description. That includes a stunning number of proposals focused on gender identity, with transgender students as a frequent target. Project 2025 seeks to secure rights for certain people (e.g., parents who support a particular vision of parental rights) while removing protections for many others (e.g., LGBTQ+ and racially minoritized children). Case in point, its proposal for “Safeguarding civil rights” says only, “Enforcement of civil rights should be based on a proper understanding of those laws, rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory.” These types of proposals don’t come from the traditional conservative playbook for education policy reform. They come from a white Christian nationalist playbook that has gained prominence in far-right politics in recent years. At this point, it’s clear that the Trump campaign sees Project 2025 as a political liability that requires distance through the election season. Let’s not confuse that with what might happen during a second Trump administration.
https://democracyforward.org/updates/challenge-trump-weaponizing-civil-rights-education/ Educators Sue to Challenge Trump Administration’s Efforts to Weaponize Civil Rights Laws, Attack Educational Programs and Student Opportunities PRESS RELEASE FEBRUARY 25, 2025 AFT, AFT-MD, American Sociological Association file to challenge administration’s “Dear Colleague Letter” in defense of students nationwide Baltimore, MD – A coalition including nationwide groups of educators, teachers and sociologists have filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague Letter,” which is a new policy that threatens to withhold federal funding for any education institutions that do not comply by February 28 with its unprecedented weaponization and undermining of civil rights laws. In addition to withholding funds, the letter also threatens educators and schools with potential investigations and prosecutions. The suit, filed in federal court in Maryland, is brought by the AFT, AFT-MD, and the American Sociological Association. The complaint challenges a “Dear Colleague Letter” published by the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights on February 14, 2025, which threatened that federal funding would be withheld from education institutions that teach accurate history and lessons about slavery, diversity and inclusion, among other efforts. The complaint argues that the “Dear Colleague Letter” will do a disservice to students and ultimately the nation by weakening schools as portals to opportunity and incubators for creative, innovative, and critical thinking. “The Department of Education’s new policy, reflected in the February Dear Colleague Letter, seeks to undermine our nation’s educational institutions and is an unlawful attempt to impose this administration’s particular views, which are not based in the law, of how schools and teachers should operate. This is un-American and unlawful,” said Democracy Forward President & CEO Skye Perryman. “We will continue to pursue every legal opportunity to oppose and stop harmful attacks on freedom of expression and on the values like inclusion, diversity, and belonging that make us all and our nation stronger. We are honored to work with the American Federation of Teachers, American Federation of Teachers-Maryland, and the American Sociological Association to fight back against Trump’s unlawful action.” “It’s our job as educators to foster opportunity, dignity and engagement. We create safe and welcoming classrooms where students are cared for and accepted. We teach the skills and knowledge they need to navigate a diverse and complex world. And we value critical thinking, which requires us to present history in an open and honest way,” said Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers. “This vague and clearly unconstitutional memo is a grave attack on students, our profession and knowledge itself. It would hamper efforts to extend access to education, and dash the promise of equal opportunity for all, a central tenant of the United States since its founding. It would ban meaningful instruction on slavery, the Missouri Compromise, the Emancipation Proclamation, the forced relocation of Native American tribes, the laws of Jim Crow, Brown v. Board of Education, the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, and the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. It would upend campus life. Federal statute already prohibits any president from telling schools and colleges what to teach. And students have the right to learn without the threat of culture wars waged by extremist politicians hanging over their heads. Our suit exposes these harms and shows how this memo’s arbitrary and capricious reasoning flies in the face of both American values and established law.” “Trump’s Department of Education is undermining the freedom of every student in Maryland and across the country to learn honest history, stoking more fear and division in the classroom. In a country where there should be no barriers on education, this broad-reaching and unlawful attack threatens the functionality of our public schools,” said AFT Maryland President Kenya Campbell. “We cannot meet the needs of every student, if we cannot teach the diverse and complex history of every student, and that is why AFT Maryland has joined this lawsuit – to ensure the honest education of all who learn in Maryland and across the country, from K-12 schools in our most vulnerable communities to our higher education institutions.” “Sociologists examine society and group behavior, including race and racial inequality,” said American Sociological Association President Adia Harvey Wingfield. “Studying and teaching about social movements like the Civil Rights Movement, economic disparities caused by redlining, or immigration policies is impossible without acknowledging the central role of race in these and many other social phenomena. This memo doesn’t just hinder sociologists from doing our jobs or merely violate our right to free speech— it inflicts a profound disservice upon students who gain from a more comprehensive understanding of the world and upon society as a whole that benefits from our discoveries about human behavior.” Please find the full complaint here. – # # # –
Green card holder arrested by ICE for participating in protests alleged to endorse/espouse terrorist activity. It's not yet clear to me what exactly he said or did that warranted the arrest. ICE arrests, seeks to deport Palestinian protester in New York : NPR Arrest of Palestinian protester shows escalation in Trump deportation efforts Updated March 10, 20252:20 PM ET Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Palestinian graduate student at Columbia University and green-card holder, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers over the weekend in what is likely one of the first high-profile detentions of a student who participated in the protests against the Israel-Hamas war. The arrest follows through on one of President Trump's executive actions, which directed the government to use all of its tools to punish those who have engaged in "antisemitic harassment and violence." The executive action cites the federal law that authorizes deporting a foreign national who "endorses or espouses terrorist activity." The move is an escalation in Trump's effort to increase deportations from the U.S. and strip protections from those who violate the new administration's priorities. In a social media post on Monday, Trump said the arrest was the first of many to come. He vowed that his administration "will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country — never to return again." Michael Thaddeus, a mathematics professor at Columbia University, said the move seeking to strip Khalil's green card and deport him violates the broader trust from foreign students who come to study in the U.S. "They come because of their trust and belief that they could speak out freely while they're here and not be imprisoned or harassed because [of] their political speech or activism or advocacy," Thaddeus said. Khalil was one of the Palestinian students who negotiated on behalf of the campus protesters who pressed Columbia to divest from Israel over its war with Hamas in Gaza. Amy Greer, Khalil's attorney, told NPR that ICE officers arrested Khalil in the lobby of his university-owned apartment. First, they told Khalil his student visa had been canceled. But he's not on a visa; he's a legal permanent resident. His wife went to get his green card from their apartment, but officers said his lawful permanent residency had been revoked. "I demanded to see a warrant or have a warrant shown to me or Mr. Khalil before they removed him, and the agent hung up the phone on me," Greer said. "Mr. Khalil was under the impression that as a lawful permanent resident, that he had some modicum of protection that may not exist for people who do have student visas or who are undocumented." His wife, a U.S. citizen, later discovered he had been transferred to a detention facility in Louisiana, Greer said. ...
This is a live look at the "Trump education policy". He doesn't want an educated populus because he thinks they will prevent the wealthy from doing whatever they want. The common man is to eat once the master has eaten - and only whatever crumbs happen to fall to the floor from his plate.
https://nypost.com/2025/03/10/us-news/trump-education-department-universities-antisemitism-scrutiny/ Any liberal Jews in here like the braindead Leroy still hating on Trump? He’s your best hope to protect your people you dope.
Do you think college students spread antisemitism more or the state of Israel when they level Palestinian homes and create orphans and then said orphans see The Star of David on a piece of concrete rubble to remind them who did this. Is it college students or the Israeli government telling the world that their genocide in Gaza is for the cause of Judaism? You'd be surprised with how many Jews not only hate Israel because they have empathy for Palestinians but understand the goal of Israel trying conflate their militarism with Judaism makes them less safe. For any reasonable person it is very easy to detach the actions of a violent Apartheid settle colonial project to the religion of Judaism. The true antisemites are the ones who do see those two as the same thing
https://apnews.com/article/trump-education-department-shutdown-b1d25a2e1bdcd24cfde8ad8b655b9843 If your kids have disabilities or have special needs, he said FUGGG YOU.
