AAC&U president reaffirms higher education's purpose
WILLIMANTIC — Dr. Lynn Pasquerella, one of the nation's leading advocates for higher education, recently visited Eastern Connecticut State University for a special discussion with students, faculty and staff.
As president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), Pasquerella reaffirmed the vital role of higher education at a time when it faces scrutiny in an increasingly polarized world.
'Colleges and universities are facing an existential threat,' Pasquerella said. 'For the first time, higher education is no longer viewed as the cornerstone of the American dream but, (in some circles) as the enemy.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Anti-ICE protesters in Los Angeles spit on and burn American flag
Protesters in Los Angeles were filmed burning and spitting on American flags as they chanted anti-Trump slogans over the weekend. Footage from the incident shows a circle of dozens of people, many wearing masks, surrounding an American flag burning on the ground. Several of the individuals then spit on the flag or sprayed flammable liquid to continue the blaze before a second flag was added to the fire. A number of the protesters held high the flags of South American countries like Mexico as the U.S. flag burned on the ground. They also chanted "F-Trump." The footage from this weekend's riots also shows officers with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department moving in to disperse the crowds, shooting flash bangs as they went. California Republicans Slam Newsom, Bass For Letting La Burn With Riots Amid Trump Immigration Blitz The Los Angeles Police Department declared an "unlawful assembly" Sunday night as protesters failed to disperse in the downtown area. Read On The Fox News App "Agitators have splintered into and through out the Downtown Area," the LAPD's Central Division wrote on X. "Residents, businesses and visitors to the Downtown Area should be alert and report any criminal activity. Officers are responding to several different locations to disperse crowds." "An UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY has been declared for the Downtown Los Angeles area," the department added. Trump Bans Travel To Us From Several Countries To Block 'Dangerous Foreign Actors' Protesters marched into the L.A. Live area, an entertainment complex in the heart of downtown Los Angeles that sits adjacent to Arena and the Los Angeles Convention Center, and were blocking lanes on Figueroa and 11th streets, police said. President Donald Trump sent in the National Guard this weekend after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were reportedly attacked on the streets of L.A. as they conducted raids to catch and deport illegal immigrants. Seeing that neither California Gov. Gavin Newsom nor L.A. Mayor Karen Bass were moving aggressively enough to stop the attacks, Trump signed a presidential memorandum to deploy 2,000 National Guard troops to "address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester," the White House said in a statement. Newsom objected immediately even as the riots spiraled. "I have formally requested the Trump Administration rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command," Newsom wrote on X on Sunday alongside his letter to President Trump. "We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty – inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed." Fox News' Louis Casiano contributed to this article source: Anti-ICE protesters in Los Angeles spit on and burn American flag
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Trump Administration's Nasty Campaign Against Trans People
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Last year, Donald Trump's presidential campaign notoriously made transgender issues a centerpiece of its charge that Democrats were out of touch with Middle America. The Trump team focused on matters where liberal activists and politicians had taken deeply unpopular stances: They would allow biological males in women's sports; Trump wouldn't. They supported medical transition for minors; he didn't. But in office, the Trump administration has gone far beyond those positions, issuing a series of executive orders and official statements that depict trans people as innately deluded, duplicitous, or dishonorable. The cumulative effect is to portray anyone who is gender-nonconforming as a traitor. 'NO MORE DRAG SHOWS, OR OTHER ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA,' Trump posted on Truth Social when he took over the Kennedy Center, in Washington, D.C. Look at the language of one of Trump's early executive orders, which prohibits trans people from serving in the military. The 'adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual's sex conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one's personal life,' a January 27 order declares. (Early last month, the Supreme Court allowed the ban on transgender soldiers to stand while legal challenges against it run their course.) More recently, the Trump confidante Laura Loomer has called for the firing of transgender government employees, including one she described on X as a 'Biden holdover.' This is noteworthy because Loomer's other personnel interventions appear to have been successful; six officials were fired from the National Security Council in April, apparently at her request. Loomer's animus against gender nonconformity is so strong that she has clashed with other MAGA darlings. She recently challenged Trump's nominee for surgeon general, Casey Means, to 'condemn' her own father, Grady, for having written a children's book about a flamboyant flamingo exploring its identity. When I asked Loomer by text why she opposed trans people working in national-security roles, she replied: 'Transgenderism is a mental disorder. It's important that only people of sound mind work in positions of national security. It would be reckless to appoint or allow transgenders to work at the NSC, given the fact that transgenderism is body dysmorphia, which is a mental disorder.' [Helen Lewis: The Democrats need an honest conversation on gender identity] The straightforwardly antagonistic tone in Trump's orbit represents a big shift since his first presidential campaign, when he said that North Carolina's so-called bathroom bill had gone too far and repulsed voters, and that Caitlyn Jenner, the Olympic champion and reality-TV star who'd publicly transitioned the year before, was welcome to use whichever bathroom she liked at Trump Tower. In the second Trump term, however, gratuitous rudeness toward transgender Americans has become normalized. Representative Sarah McBride, the first openly trans member of Congress, has been repeatedly referred to by some of her fellow lawmakers as 'the gentleman from Delaware' and 'Mr. McBride.' No doubt the people doing this see it as a punkish political statement. To me, they just seem pointlessly rude. My conclusion might strike some trans-rights advocates as incongruous. I have previously argued against the inclusion of biological males in women's sports and expressed skepticism of poorly evidenced treatments in youth gender medicine. I don't believe that male rapists and killers who say they are trans belong in women's jails—as California and some other jurisdictions decree. That creates an unacceptable risk to female prisoners. But understanding that women's rights sometimes conflict with those of males who identify as women is not the same as thinking that a lot of ordinary Americans are innately predatory or degenerate just because they are transgender. Adults should have broad latitude to make decisions about their own body, yet Republicans in Congress are considering the withdrawal of Medicaid funding for all hormonal and surgical gender treatments, not just those for minors. If you're skeptical of people who put their pronouns in their email signatures, feel free to roll your eyes—We could have guessed you're a man, Steve—while understanding that the gesture might be meaningful to them. Barring federal workers from including their pronouns, as this administration has done, is just as illiberal as mandating pronoun inclusion. Trump's actions on trans policies reflect a pattern across the administration of chaotic executive orders, inflammatory language, and counterproductive decisions. European reviews have found that American child gender-medicine practices far outstrip the available evidence for their safety and efficacy. But the Trump administration isn't helping convince the champions of puberty blockers to reconsider. When the Department of Health and Human Services commissioned a balanced, well-evidenced report suggesting caution in child gender medicine, the administration preempted its release by calling the practice 'chemical and surgical mutilation.' The White House's emotive language duly gave liberals—along with the medical associations who were criticized by the report—permission to ignore the findings. [Adam Serwer: The attack on trans rights won't end there] Even policies that may be defensible in substance have been carried out with a level of haste that seems vindictive. In January, Trump issued an executive order declaring that there are only two sexes, and that they are fixed at birth. (Most Americans agree with these statements.) Yet the consequences of this executive order have been to throw trans Americans' legal status into confusion: In February, the Euphoria star Hunter Schafer, a trans woman, revealed that her passport had been returned to her with the sex marker changed to 'Male.' No support or explanation has been provided for people who have to navigate what this might mean for their travel abroad. Trump has also said that any athletes who have changed their legal documents from their birth sex will not be allowed into the United States to compete in the 2028 Olympics. More than that, such athletes could receive a lifetime visa ban—even though their home country might well recognize their legal gender. 'America categorically rejects transgender lunacy,' Trump said in February—hardly the kind of language that will convince liberals that his primary interest is fair competition in women's sports. Overall, these are the actions of an administration that wants to keep waging a polarized fight against a vilified enemy, not broker sensitive compromises that respect the dignity of a minority group. The same pattern is obvious in the scrapping of several grants by the National Institutes of Health whose abstracts used the word transgender. We need more research on gender-related medical treatments, for the simple reason that thousands of Americans have already been given them, with too little attention to their long-term outcomes. We don't need grant refusals so haphazard that you suspect that a 20-something coder has done a keyword search and defunded entire studies as a result. If artificial hormones are dangerous, as some MAGA influencers contend, why would the government cancel grants dedicated to studying their side effects? Similarly, the only conceivable reason to scrap an LGBTQ suicide hotline is gratuitous meanness. The most recent Pew Research Center survey shows that 77 percent of Americans believe that discrimination against trans people exists, including 63 percent of Republican-leaning people. Waging all-out war on transgender Americans is just as out of touch with popular opinion as supporting routine mastectomies for troubled teenagers. [Helen Lewis: The push for puberty blockers got ahead of the research] One very good reason for the Democrats to retreat from their unpopular, maximalist Joe Biden–era positions on this issue is that they could then oppose the Trump administration's overtly cruel decisions. At the moment, the entire party is paralyzed about the topic, unwilling to go against its loudest activists while also reluctant to endorse those activists' demands. California Governor Gavin Newsom, for example, is now on the record opposing trans athletes in girls' sports, but the practice is still legal in his state—and drawing both grassroots protests and threats from Trump. 'Many in the Democratic coalition share, if only among close and trusted friends, the sense that we are walking on eggshells,' Jonathan Cowan, of the advocacy group Third Way, wrote in Politico late last month, adding: 'That silence is proving a political disaster.' As it stands, Democrats are neither being honest with voters that they went too far before nor opposing the Trump administration's overreach in the opposite direction. It should be possible to express concern about trans-rights groups' most dogmatic positions without being shouted down. But that does not also mean signing up to the premise that transgender Americans are inherently unworthy of basic respect. Under Biden, the left went too far into bad and unpopular gender-identity policies. Under Trump, the same is true of the right. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
An Uproar at the NIH
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Updated at 10:26 a.m. on June 9, 2025 Since winning President Donald Trump's nomination to serve as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya—a health economist and prominent COVID contrarian who advocated for reopening society in the early months of the pandemic—has pledged himself to a culture of dissent. 'Dissent is the very essence of science,' Bhattacharya said at his confirmation hearing in March. 'I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement, respectfully.' Two months into his tenure at the agency, hundreds of NIH officials are taking Bhattacharya at his word. More than 300 officials, from across all of the NIH's 27 institutes and centers, have signed and sent a letter to Bhattacharya that condemns the changes that have thrown the agency into chaos in recent months—and calls on their director to reverse some of the most damaging shifts. Since January, the agency has been forced by Trump officials to fire thousands of its workers and rescind or withhold funding from thousands of research projects. Tomorrow, Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate appropriations subcommittee to discuss a proposed $18 billion slash to the NIH budget—about 40 percent of the agency's current allocation. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration (a reference to the NIH's location in Bethesda, Maryland), is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published by Bhattacharya and two of his colleagues in October 2020 that criticized 'the prevailing COVID-19 policies' and argued that it was safe—even beneficial—for most people to resume life as normal. The approach that the Great Barrington Declaration laid out was, at the time, widely denounced by public-health experts, including the World Health Organization and then–NIH director Francis Collins, as dangerous and scientifically unsound. The allusion in the NIH letter, officials told me, isn't meant glibly: 'We hoped he might see himself in us as we were putting those concerns forward,' Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and one of the letter's organizers, told me. None of the NIH officials I spoke with for this story could recall another time in their agency's history when staff have spoken out so publicly against a director. But none of them could recall, either, ever seeing the NIH so aggressively jolted away from its core mission. 'It was time enough for us to speak out,' Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the National Cancer Institute, who has signed her name to the letter, told me. To preserve American research, government scientists—typically focused on scrutinizing and funding the projects most likely to advance the public's health—are now instead trying to persuade their agency's director to help them win a political fight with the White House. In an emailed statement, Bhattacharya said, 'The Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months, including the continuing support of the NIH for international collaboration. Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed.' A spokesperson for HHS also defended the policies the letter critiqued, arguing that the NIH is 'working to remove ideological influence from the scientific process' and 'enhancing the transparency, rigor, and reproducibility of NIH-funded research.' The agency spends most of its nearly $48 billion budget powering science: It is the world's single-largest public funder of biomedical research. But since January, the NIH has canceled thousands of grants—originally awarded on the basis of merit—for political reasons: supporting DEI programming, having ties to universities that the administration has accused of anti-Semitism, sending resources to research initiatives in other countries, advancing scientific fields that Trump officials have deemed wasteful. Prior to 2025, grant cancellations were virtually unheard-of. But one official at the agency, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of professional repercussions, told me that staff there now spend nearly as much time terminating grants as awarding them. And the few prominent projects that the agency has since been directed to fund appear either to be geared toward confirming the administration's biases on specific health conditions, or to benefit NIH leaders. 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state,' another official, who signed their name anonymously to the letter, told me. 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' NIH officials have tried to voice their concerns in other ways. At internal meetings, leaders of the agency's institutes and centers have questioned major grant-making policy shifts. Some prominent officials have resigned. Current and former NIH staffers have been holding weekly vigils in Bethesda, commemorating, in the words of the organizers, 'the lives and knowledge lost through NIH cuts.' (Attendees are encouraged to wear black.) But these efforts have done little to slow the torrent of changes at the agency. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH and one of the letter's signers, told me that the NIH fellows union, which he is part of, has sent Bhattacharya repeated requests to engage in discussion since his first week at the NIH. 'All of those have been ignored,' Morgan said. By formalizing their objections and signing their names to them, officials told me, they hope that Bhattacharya will finally feel compelled to respond. (To add to the public pressure, Jeremy Berg, who led the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011, is also organizing a public letter of support for the Bethesda Declaration, in partnership with Stand Up for Science, which has organized rallies in support of research.) Scientists elsewhere at HHS, which oversees the NIH, have become unusually public in defying political leadership, too. Last month, after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—in a bizarre departure from precedent—announced on social media that he was sidestepping his own agency, the CDC, and purging COVID shots from the childhood-immunization schedule, CDC officials chose to retain the vaccines in their recommendations, under the condition of shared decision making with a health-care provider. Many signers of the Bethesda letter are hopeful that Bhattacharya, 'as a scientist, has some of the same values as us,' Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told me. Perhaps, with his academic credentials and commitment to evidence, he'll be willing to aid in the pushback against the administration's overall attacks on science, and defend the agency's ability to power research. But other officials I spoke with weren't so optimistic. Many at the NIH now feel they work in a 'culture of fear,' Norton said. Since January, NIH officials have told me that they have been screamed at and bullied by HHS personnel pushing for policy changes; some of the NIH leaders who have been most outspoken against leadership have also been forcibly reassigned to irrelevant positions. At one point, Norton said, after she fought for a program focused on researcher diversity, some members of NIH leadership came to her office and cautioned her that they didn't want to see her on the next list of mass firings. (In conversations with me, all of the named officials I spoke with emphasized that they were speaking in their personal capacity, and not for the NIH.) Bhattacharya, who took over only two months ago, hasn't been the Trump appointee driving most of the decisions affecting the NIH—and therefore might not have the power to reverse or overrule them. HHS officials have pressured agency leadership to defy court orders, as I've reported; mass cullings of grants have been overseen by DOGE. And as much as Bhattacharya might welcome dissent, he so far seems unmoved by it. In early May, Berg emailed Bhattacharya to express alarm over the NIH's severe slowdown in grant making, and to remind him of his responsibilities as director to responsibly shepherd the funds Congress had appropriated to the agency. The next morning, according to the exchange shared with me by Berg, Bhattacharya replied saying that, 'contrary to the assertion you make in the letter,' his job was to ensure that the NIH's money would be spent on projects that advance American health, rather than 'on ideological boondoggles and on dangerous research.' And at a recent NIH town hall, Bhattacharya dismissed one staffer's concerns that the Trump administration was purging the identifying variable of gender from scientific research. (Years of evidence back its use.) He echoed, instead, the Trump talking point that 'sex is a very cleanly defined variable,' and argued that gender shouldn't be included as 'a routine question in order to make an ideological point.' The officials I spoke with had few clear plans for what to do if their letter goes unheeded by leadership. Inside the agency, most see few levers left to pull. At the town hall, Bhattacharya also endorsed the highly contentious notion that human research started the pandemic—and noted that NIH-funded science, specifically, might have been to blame. When dozens of staffers stood and left the auditorium in protest, prompting applause that interrupted Bhattacharya, he simply smiled. 'It's nice to have free speech,' he said, before carrying right on. Article originally published at The Atlantic
