UI graduate students concerned over contract funding uncertainty
Graduate students at the University of Iowa are voicing concerns about changes to their contracts to make funding year-to-year, which the UI claims has always been the norm. (Photo by Brooklyn Draisey/Iowa Capital Dispatch)
University of Iowa graduate workers are voicing concerns of potential contract changes destabilizing their futures, with the UI stating it is working to ensure all students — potential or current — know about contingencies in their contract relating to funding.
Campaign to Organize Graduate Students, or COGS, President Cary Stough said he spent much of Friday speaking with faculty and university human resources staff to get more information on an apparent decision by the university to transition graduate student contracts from being funded through a set amount of years determined in the contract to being funded year-over-year.
This announcement, and the lack of available information about implementation and potential consequences, has graduate students feeling worry and fear.
'If they weren't already freaking out or feeling precarious, they're feeling extremely precarious now,' Stough said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Contracts for international students are among Stough's biggest concerns, he said, as there could be impacts on student visas if their holder's funding is suddenly gone.
According to a statement from the UI, provided over email by UI spokesperson Steve Schmadeke, 'graduate assistantship appointments have always been dependent on available funding,' with many UI programs having the information listed in admissions and employment communications.
'Given the current uncertainties in the funding environment, the university believes it is important to ensure that all prospective and admitted graduate students are fully aware of the contingencies that come with financial support,' the statement read.
Some UI departments have already felt devastating blows from canceled funding, including the International Writing Program, Iowa Flood Center and Iowa Geological Survey.
The UI said in its statement it 'is not aware' of any graduate student admission or employment offers being rescinded. At Iowa State University, some offers to prospective graduate students that hadn't been accepted yet have been rescinded due to funding uncertainty.
All university units with graduate students have been encouraged by the UI to 'clearly outline the contingencies that come with financial support in their admissions and employment offers' for both prospective and enrolled graduate students, according to the statement.
'This clarification does not reflect a change in policy or a withdrawal of any existing agreements,' the statement read.
Stough said many, but not all, departments already had language like this in their contracts, but it has been expanded to the whole university now. His own contract as a doctoral student in the university's English department is slated for seven years, with the money to pay him earmarked for the duration of the contract. Going to a year-to-year policy could free up funds for areas seeing negative impacts of federal actions, like pausing funding and canceling projects.
Templates of graduate teaching appointment letters from the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 academic years both have 'availability of funding' listed as a determining factor in whether contract renewals are approved.
The template for the upcoming academic year, listed online as being updated March 14, also lists funding availability as a contingency for appointment, while the current year template lists 'examples of possible contingencies,' but does not include funding. It does say different programs may have different examples to list when creating a specific appointment letter.
With the current lack of information from the university on timelines and other information relating to potentially losing their funding, Stough said there are really only two options for graduate students who don't get funded — take on all of the cost burdens of graduate education without the aid that was previously provided, or drop out.
'That's really the stakes here,' Stough said. 'We don't get paid enough year-to-year as graduate workers, we know that, but we just certainly do not get paid enough to, if we're told we're not going to get funding, to turn around and start paying for our education.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Iowa governor vetoes bill restricting private pipelines' use of eminent domain
Gov. Kim Reynolds vetoed a bill Wednesday aimed at CO2 pipelines and eminent domain. She's pictured at her 2025 Condition of the State Address Jan. 14, 2025. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch) Gov. Kim Reynolds Wednesday vetoed a controversial bill pertaining to eminent domain and carbon sequestration pipelines in Iowa. House Republican leaders initiated an effort to reconvene the Legislature to override the veto, but Senate GOP leaders indicated that was unlikely. House File 639 would have increased insurance requirements for hazardous liquid pipelines, limited carbon pipeline permits to one 25-year term and changed the definition of a common carrier for pipelines, making it more difficult for the projects to use eminent domain. Reynolds, in a statement, said she shared the bill's goal of 'protecting landowners' but the bill lacked the 'clear, careful lines' drawn in good policy. 'It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets,' Reynolds said in a letter announcing her decision to veto. Reynolds followed her critique of the bill by noting that Iowa could lose its 'leadership position' as a top biofuel production state if legislation stopped the infrastructure necessary to enter ultra-low carbon markets. Central to the bill is a carbon sequestration pipeline project led by Summit Carbon Solutions that would transport liquid carbon dioxide, captured from biorefineries across Iowa, to underground storage in North Dakota. Farmers and the biofuels industry have been supportive of the Summit pipeline, and therefore opposed to the bill, because it would give Iowa access to the carbon capture and sequestration technologies necessary to make products like sustainable aviation fuels. In a statement following the governor's veto, Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw said without carbon capture projects, and entry to ultra-low carbon fuel industry, Iowa could face 'very real, very severe economic consequences.' 'This is a classic example of why our system of government has checks and balances,' Shaw said. 'Any thoughtful review of this bill would determine that it would lead to higher energy prices for Iowans, hamper future economic development, hold back job creation, and stifle new markets for Iowa farmers. IRFA thanks Gov. Reynolds for listening to Iowans, studying the actual legislation, and ignoring the rhetoric that was as inaccurate as it was loud.' A press release from Iowa Corn Growers Association said entrance to the aviation fuel industry alone could result in nearly 6.5 million bushels of new corn demand, which it said is necessary for farmers dealing with high input costs and decreased profit margins. Farmers 'need expanded market growth and access to continue raising corn profitably; allowing them to continue growing Iowa's agricultural industry and economy,' the statement said. Opponents of the bill, including several lawmakers, argued the bill was aimed solely at carbon sequestration projects, rather than protecting landowners from eminent domain as supporters claimed. 'Eminent domain' allows the government to force private landowners to allow use of their property, for a fee set by the courts, for infrastructure projects deemed in the public interest. Eminent domain has long been used projects such as public roads and utilities. Leadership from Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy, or SIRE, said its CO2 pipeline project connecting to Nebraska's Tallgrass Trailblazer pipeline would be impacted by the bill's insurance and permit limit clauses, even though the SIRE project secured voluntary easements for 100% of its path in Iowa. Reynolds cited this example in her explanation, and said the 'arbitrary' term limits and insurance requirements would make it 'difficult for companies like SIRE to justify the additional investment' in Iowa. 'Those who crafted the bill said they don't want to stop CO2 pipelines that rely entirely on voluntary easements,' Reynolds said. 'But that is exactly what the bill does.' Summit Carbon Solutions thanked the governor for her 'thoughtful and thorough review' of the bill. In a statement, the company said the pipeline project 'opens the door to new markets and helps strengthen America's energy dominance for the long term.' 'Summit remains committed to working with landowners through voluntary agreements—just as we have with more than 1,300 Iowa landowners to date, resulting in $175 million in payments,' a spokesperson said in the statement. 'We look forward to continued discussions with state leaders as we advance this important project.' Opponents to the pipeline project, who were supportive of HF 639, argue the pipeline would negatively impact their properties and health, and that sequestering CO2 does not constitute a 'public use' deserving of eminent domain rights. Landowners opposed to the project lobbied state lawmakers for four years before a bill was debated, and ultimately passed, in the Senate and sent to the governor. Since the bill landed on the governor's desk, landowners have encouraged Reynolds to support Iowa GOP values on protecting property rights. Reynolds said the debate of when the government, or companies with government approval, can take private property is a 'debate as old as the Republic.' 'I've consistently said that if eminent domain is used, it must be rare, fair and a last resort,' Reynolds said. 'But HF 639 isn't just about eminent domain.' Reynolds said the bill sets a precedent that 'threatens' the state's 'energy reliability, economy and reputation as a place where businesses can invest with confidence.' Mary Powell, a Shelby County landowner opposed to the pipeline, said the veto shows that the state motto of, 'Our liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain' are 'just empty words' to the governor. 'Governor Reynolds chose to support the millionaires and billionaires at the expense of Iowans and their property rights,' Powell said in a statement. Another landowner, Don Johanssen from Cherokee County, said the governor's decision was 'beyond words,' especially as the bill would have given landowners 'some liability coverage' from hazardous pipelines. The bill would have required pipeline operator to carry insurance that covered any loss or injury from accidental, negligent or intentional discharges from the pipeline, and to cover insurance increases that landowners face due to the pipeline. 'This is a sad day for Iowa that will be long remembered,' Johanssen said. Reynolds said the bill would impact 'more than just CO2 infrastructure' and would change permitting rules 'across the board,' giving 'uncertainty into critical energy projects.' Opponents of the bill called the insurance requirements 'untenable.' The American Petroleum Institute's Midwest Regional Director Mike Karbo said the bill had 'unprecedented and unfeasible requirements' that would have hindered future projects in the state. 'Since there are no refineries in the state, critical energy infrastructure, such as pipelines, are crucial in ensuring Iowans have a reliable source of energy, and certainty is needed to develop the infrastructure network,' Karbo said. 'We thank the Governor for doing what is right for the future of energy development in the state.' Reynolds said HF 639 included 'a few helpful provisions' and the surrounding debate 'highlighted' areas for progress. 'I agree we can do more to limit the use of eminent domain, promote transparency, and ensure responsible land restoration,' Reynolds said. 'We can do better.' Reynolds, who is not running for reelection in 2026, said she is 'committed' to working with legislation to 'strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting and respect private property.' Taking one element from HF 639, Reynolds will ask the IUC to require all commissioners to be present for live testimony and ensure at least one commissioner is present at every informational meeting. In a statement from Iowa House Republicans, Speaker Pat Grassley said he has requested members sign a petition to reconvene the Legislature in a special session. 'This veto is a major setback for Iowa,' Grassley said in the statement. 'It is a setback not only for landowners who have been fighting across Iowa, but for the work the House of Representatives has put in for four years to get legislation like HF 639 passed. We will not stop fighting and stand firm on our commitment until landowners' in Iowa are protected against Eminent Domain for private gain.' Rep. Charley Thomson, R-Charles City, said he was 'very disappointed' in the governor's decision and that he was supportive of a special session to override the veto. Two-thirds of the Legislature must sign a petition to request a special session, and to override a veto, two-thirds of the members from each chamber must vote to pass the bill again. Sen. Jack Whitver, R-Grimes, the majority leader for the chamber, said he expects most of his caucus will 'not be interested in any attempt' to override the governor's veto. The bill likely would not have advanced in the Senate had it not been for a dozen Republican senators who vowed to block necessary budget legislation until the chamber debated eminent domain. The 12 were also joined by Senate Democrats in pushing for amendments, which were ultimately defeated, and approval of the bill. Senate Democrats said the fight for property rights will continue. 'I'm disappointed by the governor's veto of HF639, but, unfortunately, I cannot say I'm surprised,' Sen. Janice Weiner, D-Iowa City, said. 'There is simply no amount of political posturing or legislative stonewalling that can deny the fact that Iowans' right to private property should never be infringed upon for private gain.' One of the 12 to disagree with the Senate majority, Sen. Kevin Alons, R-Salix, said signing the bill was 'the single option available' to protect the rights of impacted landowners. Alons pledged to 'never quit working' on the issue, but said that means 'very little' to landowners who have been impacted by the 'unprecedented, and unconstitutional land grab.' 'To be clear: the Iowa government has given this private company the right to take people's land for one reason: corporate earnings,' Alons said in a statement. 'This has nothing to do with public use. It's absolutely not necessary for the ethanol industry in our state … And it certainly is not what the founders had in mind.' Alons said when the Legislature returns in January, he and other lawmakers 'will use every tool at our disposal' to 'return property rights back to the people.' Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, who sponsored the legislation, wrote in a social media post he was 'profoundly disappointed' by the veto. Holt said the state constitution and the Republican platform are clear in their message that eminent domain is for public use projects. 'Today the Governor has chosen to ignore landowners, the vast majority of the Legislature, the Republican Party Platform and the Iowa Constitution by choosing the economic development argument of special interests,' Holt wrote. Holt said Reynolds, and the Senate had opportunities of the past several years to offer their own suggestions to the eminent domain issue instead of opposing House legislation. 'On behalf of the people of Iowa and their fundamental property rights, the Governor's veto should be overridden,' he wrote. 'This fight for who we are as Republicans is far from over.' House Democratic Leader Rep. Brian Meyer said parties in the House collaborated to 'protect property rights.' 'At the end of the day, there is only one group to blame for the failure of the eminent domain bill: Iowa Republican lawmakers,' Meyer said in a statement. The first phase of the Summit Carbon Solutions project was approved by IUC nearly a year ago, which granted Summit the right to condemn easements from landowners who do not want to voluntarily sign agreements to put the pipeline on their land. Per the Iowa permit, Summit still needs a permit from South Dakota, which it has been denied twice, to begin construction. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
USA Today
40 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump 'gold card' website opens. Here's how to join the $5 million waitlist
Trump 'gold card' website opens. Here's how to join the $5 million waitlist Show Caption Hide Caption Trump wants to sell $5 million 'gold cards' as path to citizenship President Donald Trump says he wants to offer wealthy immigrants "gold cards" that would give a pathway to citizenship in exchange for a $5 million purchase price. President Donald Trump's long-touted "gold card," which offers foreigners a path to U.S. citizenship after paying $5 million to the government, is open for business. But even if you have the money, there's a waitlist at And read the fine print carefully: Your $5 million doesn't buy you immediate citizenship. Trump has said that he is not seeking approval from Congress as he is not providing gold card buyers with citizenship - only a path to citizenship. The path to citizenship requirements for card buyers are unclear and White House officials have said more details will be provided soon. The most common path to U.S. citizenship through naturalization is being a lawful permanent resident for at least five years. It requires the applicant to be least 18 years old when they apply, be able to read, write, and speak basic English (depending on age) and be of "good moral character." Trump has described the card, which he has also dubbed the Trump card, as 'somewhat like a green card, but at a higher level of sophistication.' 'FOR FIVE MILLION $DOLLARS, THE TRUMP CARD IS COMING!,' President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social on June 11. 'Thousands have been calling and asking how they can sign up to ride a beautiful road in gaining access to the Greatest Country and Market anywhere in the World.' The website shows an image of the gold-colored card, emblazoned with a likeness of Trump's face, and asks a few questions including name, region, email address and if an applicant is applying for themselves or as a business. The new website asks interested people to fill out a form that specifies eight regions: Europe, Asia (including Middle East), North America, Oceania, Central America, South America, Caribbean and Africa. Other countries also offer immigration programs that offers permanent residency or citizenship to foreign investors in exchange for investment. Portugal, for example, offers residency and a path to EU citizenship after five years. When he first floated the idea in February, Trump said the card would replace the "EB-5" immigrant investor green card visa program, The EB-5 visa allows immigrant investors the option to invest between $800,000 and $1.05 million to obtain a green card. The investment money is used to help create or preserve U.S. jobs. 'Wealthy people will be coming into our country by buying this card,' Trump said in February. 'They'll be wealthy, and they'll be successful, and they'll be spending a lot of money, and paying a lot of taxes and employing a lot of people.' 'It's a road to citizenship for people and essentially people of wealth or people of great talent where people of wealth pay for those people of talent to get in,' he said. Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy is a White House correspondent for USA TODAY. You can follow her on X @SwapnaVenugopal
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Premier League operating profit hits five-year high as PSR bites
Premier League clubs recorded their highest collective operating profit since 2019 last year as controversial PSR regulations enforced a greater emphasis on balancing the books. Aggregate operating profits among the 20 teams in the top division increased by 36 per cent to £533m in 2023-24, according to Deloitte's latest Annual Review of Football Finance published today. Premier League clubs' revenue grew four per cent to a record £6.3bn which, combined with tougher profitability and sustainability rules (PSR), led to their best operating profit figures since before the Covid-19 pandemic. 'We are starting to see a bit of a ripple when it comes to clubs focusing on compliance within regulations,' Jennifer Haskel, knowledge and insight lead in the Deloitte Sports Business Group, told City AM. 'As we continue within this evolving regulatory landscape, clubs are being run more and more as traditional businesses. While clubs are continuing to grow the top line and diversify their revenue streams, hopefully that will lead to more long term sustainability and profits.' Both Everton and Nottingham Forest received points deductions in the 2023-24 season for breaching PSR, while other teams – including Aston Villa and Chelsea – narrowly avoided sanctions with some late player trading. Premier League clubs made a pre-tax loss of £136m, although that was an improvement of almost £550m on the previous season. The relegation of heavily loss-making teams also contributed to the improvement. The total European football market grew by eight per cent to a record €38bn, with the Big Five leagues – England, Spain, Italy, Germany and France – generating more than €20bn for the first time. That growth may plateau due to a French media rights crisis, however, Deloitte said. Ahead of the imminent introduction of the Independent Football Regulator, meanwhile, the report warns that 'there can be no doubt that the system in English football is under strain'. 'We still await the output of the Independent Football Regulator to fully understand how this may impact the game in England, but it is clear that the way in which the game is governed and the regulation that underpins it needs to seek to drive value, fan engagement (both physical and digital) and competitive balance,' writes Deloitte's lead sports partner Tim Bridge. 'The level of interest and the demand to engage with English football remains high and investors still see the opportunity, particularly when there is a strong community link or adjacent investment opportunities, but the lack of clarity over the future regulatory regime is now unhelpful.' Sign in to access your portfolio
