Rules & Policies

Katherine Knott
Inside Higher Ed

Excerpt: The Biden administration’s new rule overhauling Title IX, the federal gender-equity law, is on hold in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia after a federal judge issued an order temporarily blocking the regulations from taking effect in those states Aug. 1.

Chief Judge Danny Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, found that the final regulations, which clarify that Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sexual and gender identity, are inconsistent with the underlying Title IX statute, Congress’s intentions in passing the law, and the way it’s been regulated.

Piper Hutchinson
Louisiana Illuminator

Excerpt: Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry has enacted a law to exclude acts of civil disobedience from free speech protections on college campuses.  

Senate Bill 294 by Sen. Valarie Hodges, R-Denham Springs, was billed as a pro-free speech proposal. The bill was designed to “shore up protections” for campus speech, Hodges said.

Students and faculty opposed the bill because they fear it will criminalize free speech. The new law specifically excludes any act that carries a criminal penalty from free speech protections, meaning campus free speech policies would no longer protect acts of civil disobedience.

Douglas Soule
Tallahassee Democrat

Excerpt: An attorney representing education officials appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis Friday told a federal appeals court that Florida lawmakers, if they so choose, can prohibit professors from criticizing the governor in the classroom.

“In the classroom, the professor’s speech is the government’s speech, and the government can restrict professors on a content-wide basis and restrict them from offering viewpoints that are contrary,” said Charles Cooper of the Cooper & Kirk law firm, responding to a judge posing that scenario.

Jessica Wills
Foundation for Individual Rights in Expression

Excerpt: At the end of May, Stanford’s faculty senate formally voted to approve free expression and institutional neutrality statements, making Stanford the third university in the last month to put into writing its dedication to these principles.

The new Statement on Freedom of Expression proclaims that the “freedom to explore and present new, unconventional, and even unpopular ideas is essential to the academic mission of the university.” The language in Stanford’s statement closely mirrors the “Chicago Statement” on free expression, which FIRE considers to be the gold standard for campus free speech policies.

Liam Knox
Inside Higher Ed

Excerpt: Almost as soon as the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action last June, Missouri attorney general Andrew Bailey fired off a response. Within hours of the rulings in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC Chapel Hill cases (SFFA), Bailey ordered the state’s public colleges and universities to comply—which in his view meant removing race-conscious policies “not just [in] college admissions, but also scholarships,” an extrapolation that many legal experts say is unnecessary.

University officials quickly began amending institutional grants and scholarships across the system’s four campuses, according to Christian Basi, the Missouri system’s director of public affairs. Since then, they’ve worked methodically to bring other awards in line—including endowed scholarships that donors specified should go only to members of certain racial or ethnic groups.

Daniel Diermeier
Wall Street Journal

Excerpt: Harvard University announced last week that it will no longer “issue official statements about public matters that do not directly affect the university’s core function” as an academic institution. This is welcome news for all of us who have long been concerned about politicization of universities and the resulting erosion of free expression in academia.
     
Yet [the] new policy makes a crucial omission that is at the core of the current controversy on campuses. Students at universities nationwide have called on their institutions to join the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel. According to the Harvard working group co-chairs, it didn’t “address, much less solve, the hard problem of when the university should or shouldn’t divest its endowment funds from a given portfolio.