This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The court determined the directive potentially contradicts established legal protections for academic freedom and may violate constitutional rights by imposing vague restrictions on curriculum and programming. Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, emphasized the importance of the ruling for educational inclusivity.
The attitudes of educators and administrators were often shaped by prejudices and low expectations, leading to a failure to recognize and support the potential of these students. Many predominantly white schools, which these students were integrated into, lacked the expertise and willingness to provide appropriate accommodations.
In what legal experts are calling a landmark case for academic freedom, Harvard faculty and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging unconstitutional attempts to control campus speech and governance through threatened funding cuts. Nikolas Bowie, Louis D.
That student protests against war, colonialism, or genocide are threats to campus life, while administrativecompliance with authoritarian demands is somehow neutral. It repurposes it, using the language of civil rights to enforce compliance and remake the university in the image of political control.
Most recently, the Trump administration issued an executive order framing efforts to address racial disparities in school disciplineincluding disproportionate suspensions of Black boysas themselves racist, arguing that such measures constitute discrimination against white students. The goal isnt compliance. Its consciousness.
Code is unambiguous: No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over curriculum. Yet, under this administration, we are witnessing a blatant disregard for this clear legal framework.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
264 
Let's personalize your content