Florida A&M student claims he is being suspended for protest
A controversy at HBCU Florida A&M University has sparked debate after a student activist claimed he is facing suspension and housing loss following his protest efforts.Elijah Hooks, a political science major from Chipley, Florida, organized a major May 14 rally at the HBCU's Will Packer Performing Arts Amphitheater to oppose the potential appointment of Marva Johnson as FAMU's next president. The protest featured remarks from Packer and others, while Hooks also launched a Change.org petition titled "FAMU Deserves Better," which received over 12,500 signatures.
Despite the outcry, FAMU trustees voted 8-4 on May 16 to select Johnson as the university's next president, pending approval by the Board of Governors. Hooks, who spoke during the meeting's public comment session, was escorted out shortly after his remarks. He later said the university notified him via email that he was facing possible disciplinary action, prompting concerns that his activism was being punished.
While Hooks declined to share the university's email, he questioned its timing and described feeling ashamed and disheartened, adding, "I really, truly love FAMU."
The HBCU's Vice President of Student Affairs, William E. Hudson Jr., denied the disciplinary action was connected to the protest, citing an unrelated ongoing matter but offered no further details due to privacy guidelines.
Hooks said he received permission to attend and speak at the meeting and was confused by the disciplinary language in the email. His removal from the meeting raised concerns, especially from Board of Trustees chair Kristin Harper, a Florida A&M alumna and former SGA president, who appeared visibly disturbed by the situation.
The controversy highlights the tensions that can arise between student activism and administration decisions at HBCUs, especially during critical leadership transitions.
The post Florida A&M student claims he is being suspended for protest appeared first on HBCU Gameday.
Copyright HBCU Gameday 2012-2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Journals
3 hours ago
- Business Journals
Delaware's 2025 DGCL amendment
In March 2025, Delaware enacted significant amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL). These amendments, enacted through Senate Bill 21 (SB 21) and signed into law by Gov. Matt Meyer on March 25, 2025, substantively modify the safe harbor provisions for interested transactions and refine the scope of stockholder inspection rights. We analyze these critical changes and their practical implications for Delaware corporations, their boards and stockholders. Background and context The amendments were passed by the Delaware legislature in response to a concerning trend of corporations redomesticating to other states. The law took effect immediately upon the governor's signature and represents Delaware's proactive effort to maintain its position as the premier state for corporate domicile by providing greater statutory clarity in areas previously defined primarily through case law. Section 144: Comprehensive safe harbor framework Defining the 'controlling stockholder' The amendments provide a statutory definition of a 'controlling stockholder' as one who: Owns or controls a majority of voting stock entitled to vote in director elections Can appoint directors with majority voting power, or Has equivalent control by holding at least 33.33% of the corporation's voting stock and managerial authority over the corporation Three distinct safe harbor paths The amendments establish differentiated approval requirements for interested transactions based on the specific conflict scenario: 1. Majority interested board safe harbor For transactions involving a majority interested board, the amendments provide a safe harbor from both equitable relief and damages liability through either: Approval by an independent committee comprising at least two disinterested directors, or Approval or ratification by a majority of the votes cast by disinterested stockholders Notably, the director safe harbor no longer requires conditioning approval before the start of substantive economic negotiations, though the board must determine all committee members are disinterested. For stockholder approval, the 'votes cast' standard replaces the previous 'outstanding' shares standard. 2. Conflicted controller/non-go-private transactions For transactions where a controlling stockholder has a conflict but is not taking the company private: Safe harbor is available through either: Approval by an independent committee comprising at least two disinterested directors, or Approval or ratification by a majority of the votes cast by disinterested stockholders This effectively overrules prior case law requiring both protections for such transactions. 3. Conflicted controller / go-private safe harbor For transactions where a controlling stockholder is taking the company private: Safe harbor requires both: This codifies the dual-protection framework from Kahn v. M&F Worldwide Corp. (MFW) while eliminating the 'ab initio' requirement that these protections be implemented before the start of substantive economic negotiations. Enhanced protection for public company directors The amendments create a strong presumption that directors of public companies are disinterested and independent if they meet stock exchange independence definitions. This presumption: Does not apply if the director is a party to the transaction Can only be rebutted by 'substantial and particularized facts' The amendments also limit controller liability to breaches of loyalty or improper benefits, shielding controlling stockholders from damages for breaches of the duty of care in their capacity as controllers. Section 220: Refining stockholder inspection rights Statutory definition of 'books and records' The amendments provide a statutory definition of 'books and records' to establish clearer boundaries for stockholder inspection rights, including: Enhanced requirements for inspection SB 21 also institutes more structured requirements for books and records inspections: Demands must be conducted in good faith Proper purpose must be described with reasonable particularity Requested records must be specifically related to the stockholder's proper purpose Additionally, the amendments codify that corporations can impose reasonable confidentiality restrictions, limiting the use and distribution of inspected records and redacting irrelevant information. Limited expansion provision Unlike the original bill, the enacted amendments permit the inspection of materials beyond those covered by the 'books and records' definition if a stockholder: Makes a showing of a compelling need for inspection to further a proper purpose, and Demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that such specific records are necessary and essential to further such purpose This balanced approach is designed to preserve meaningful inspection rights while providing companies with greater certainty about the scope of potential demands. Practical implications For corporate governance: Strategic flexibility in transaction planning: The amendments provide multiple pathways to cleanse conflicted transactions based on the nature of the conflict, enhancing flexibility in transaction structuring. Greater certainty for boards: The presumption of independence for public company directors who meet exchange requirements reduces litigation risk in board decision-making. Protection for controllers: Limiting controller liability to breaches of loyalty or improper benefits shields controlling stockholders from damages for breaches of the duty of care. Streamlined approval processes: Removal of the 'ab initio' requirement and other timing constraints allows more practical implementation of protective measures. For transaction planning: Clearer standards: The 33.33% threshold for controlling stockholder status provides a bright-line rule. Tailored approval paths: Different cleansing options based on transaction type allow more efficient governance approaches. Special committee requirements: Committees must include at least two directors determined to be disinterested and fulfill their duty of care. Modified stockholder approval standard: The shift to a 'votes cast' standard from 'outstanding shares' may make stockholder approval more attainable. For stockholder rights: More defined inspection scope: The statutory definition of 'books and records' provides both corporations and stockholders with greater clarity. Balanced protection: While defining limits to inspection rights, the amendments preserve access to additional records when stockholders can demonstrate compelling need. expand To learn more about King & Spalding's global M&A practice, please visit With nearly 140 years of service, King & Spalding is an international law firm that represents a broad array of clients, including half of the Fortune Global 100, with 1,300 lawyers in 24 offices in the United States, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Rob Leclerc works with publicly traded and private companies as well as private equity firms to execute mergers and acquisitions, strategic investments, joint ventures and other complex transactions. Leclerc is a partner in our Mergers and Acquisitions and Corporate Governance practices. Zack Davis specializes in representing issuers and underwriters in a variety of capital markets activities in the U.S. and abroad. He also advises a number of public companies in connection with governance issues, SEC reporting and disclosure requirements and other corporate and securities matters.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Russia strikes Chernihiv overnight: four injured and more people may be trapped under rubble
The Russians launched a combined attack on the city of Chernihiv on the night of 5-6 June, using Geran-2 kamikaze drones, an Iskander-M ballistic missile and a cruise missile. Four civilians have been injured and residential infrastructure damaged, with people possibly trapped under the rubble. Source: Viacheslav Chaus, Head of Chernihiv Oblast Military Administration Details: At least 14 explosions were heard during the Russian strike on Chernihiv. A residential area was hit, damaging both apartment blocks and houses. At least four civilians were injured: three received medical aid on site and one man was taken to hospital in a moderate condition. Photo: State Emergency Service of Ukraine One of the local businesses and infrastructure facilities were also damaged in the attack. Emergency workers are conducting search and rescue operations, as there may still be people trapped under the rubble. Photo: State Emergency Service of Ukraine Part of the city has been left without electricity and power engineers are working to restore the electricity supply. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Air Force on repelling Russian attack on 6 June: 406 targets destroyed, 32 strikes and debris falls
Russia attacked Ukraine with 452 air targets – missiles and drones – on the night of 5-6 June. Ukrainian air defence downed 406 targets, with strikes in 13 locations and debris falling elsewhere. Source: Air Force on social media Details: From 20:00 on 5 June, the Russians used: - 407 Shahed attack UAVs and various types of decoy drones that were launched from the Russian cities of Kursk, Oryol, Millerovo, Shatalovo and Primorsko-Akhtarsk and Hvardiivske in temporarily occupied Crimea; - 6 Iskander-M/KN-23 ballistic missiles launched from Russia's Kursk and Voronezh oblasts; - 36 Kh-101 cruise missiles from Tu-95MS/Tu-160MS strategic aircraft launched from the airspace of Russia's Saratov Oblast, over the Caspian Sea; - 2 Iskander-K cruise missiles from Dzhankoi in Crimea; - 1 Kh-31P anti-radar missile from a tactical aircraft over the Black Sea. Early reports indicate that as of 10:00 a.m., air defence forces destroyed 406 Russian air attack assets throughout the country: - 199 Shahed-type UAVs (other types of drones) were shot down by fire weapons, 169 disappeared from radar/were suppressed by electronic warfare; - 4 Iskander-M/KN-23 ballistic missiles, two more did not reach their targets (disappeared from radar); - 30 Kh-101 cruise missiles; - 2 Iskander-K cruise missiles. Meanwhile, strikes were recorded in 13 locations and debris fell in 19 locations. The air attack was repelled by aicraft, anti-aircraft missile forces, electronic warfare units and unmanned systems, as well as mobile fire groups of the Ukrainian defence forces. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
