Your Cart is Empty
Liam Knox
Inside Higher Ed
Excerpt: The U.S. State Department is rolling out sweeping new rules for vetting student visa applicants using their social media presence, according to Politico. The new process will include screening for “any indications of hostility towards the citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles of the United States,” according to an internal State Department cable.
Department officials will also look for posts that signal “advocacy for, aid or support for foreign terrorists and other threats to national security” and “support for antisemitic harassment or violence,” specifically citing support for Hamas—a charge commonly levied against student protesters advocating for Palestinian rights—as grounds for rejection. The cable also directs officials to cull applicants who “demonstrate a history of political activism.”
Jocelyn Kaiser
Science
Excerpt: Talk about policy whiplash. This morning, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) lifted a pause on funding to Columbia University, according to an internal memo viewed by Science. A few hours later, the agency refroze money to the school.
Earlier today in an email Science saw and was first described on Bluesky by Nature, NIH told its program officers money can flow again to Columbia. Michelle Bulls, director of the agency’s Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration, around 9 a.m. wrote to NIH grants staff: “Great news, we have been told that we can resume funding awards to Columbia (funding pause has been lifted).” But less than 6 hours later, some grants staff were informed that Columbia awards were back on hold.
Emily Chamlee-Wright
Inside Higher Ed
Excerpt: American higher education is on its back foot. As part of the Trump administration’s broader project of regime consolidation, universities are facing new and shockingly direct threats to their independence and academic freedom. And in the past few months, we’ve seen that reality start to sink in.
Sometimes there is no more compromise to be had and the only way to stand on principle is to forthrightly say no. In the process, the academic community can reclaim fundamental values that had been eroding well before the present crisis.
Matthew W. Finkin
Chronicle of Higher Education
Excerpt: An article on threats to academic freedom on college campuses in last week’s New York Times Magazine touched on a running debate between the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The former has long been the expositor of the meaning of academic freedom; the latter is active in litigating free-speech cases. The quarrel between the two organizations raises some hard questions about the AAUP’s current role.
Robert Shibley
The Eternally Radical Idea
Excerpt: Last month, during the ongoing fight between the Trump Administration and Harvard University over student visas, research funding, anti-Semitism, and seemingly everything else under the sun, Vice President J.D. Vance weighed in on X, suggesting that universities should see Trump’s actions as a “necessary corrective.”
Ignoring legally required due process, as too many of the administration’s attacks on Harvard have done so far, has certainly not been “necessary.” But the underlying problems to which Vance points are real. They have done serious damage to knowledge production in America. And they’re poised to do even more, as they contain within them the seeds of destruction for Harvard — or any other university targeted by the federal government.
Chris Cooper
Inside Higher Ed
Excerpt: It is worth noting that most DEI initiatives and offices on campus offer noncontroversial services like tutoring, mental health counseling and accessibility services like sign language interpreters. But the public and politicians were forming their opinions of DEI based on the voices of those with the megaphones and lucrative book contracts.
Current legislation targeting DEI upholds the most radical media-amplified voices as representative of the whole, even though these voices have been largely unsuccessful on many public campuses. Our university is not Columbia or Harvard, yet it seems as if legislators are attempting to punish our institution for the sins of its private counterparts. But when there are no loud moderate voices, how can we expect the public to see anything other than the extremes?
