Latest news with #AmericanLegislativeExchangeCouncil
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Rewriting America: The Constitution under siege
Stock photo from Getty Images. The original U. S. Constitution — where did it go? Did it disappear or was it just tossed into the trash can of history? We all might be asking these questions if a current ultra-right-wing movement to call a National Constitutional Convention succeeds. A movement is afoot by organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Convention of States and the Heritage Foundation — author of Project 2025, a sweeping proposal to remake the U.S. government in support of right-wing beliefs. The concept is simple and scary. President Donald Trump and ultraconservative brain trusts want all of Project 2025 enacted into law or embedded in the U.S. Constitution. Whatever can't be delivered by Trump, Congress or the U. S. Supreme Court, they believe, should be added to the constitution by a convention of the states dominated by MAGA delegates. We have not had a constitutional convention since the original group met in 1787, but convention proponents say a new convention is long overdue. Let's say this is a back-up position for ultraconservatives if Trump doesn't succeed, but a real possibility nonetheless. The process to call a constitutional convention is outlined in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. It says that if two-thirds of the state legislatures request a convention Congress must create one. That means that 34 states must request the convention. However, Article V does not specifically outline how a convention would work and what, if any limits, are placed on a convention once it begins. This means that there is potential for a convention to rewrite the whole constitution and to toss out current amendments that delegates may find repugnant — such as the First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and religion. The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unlawful search and seizure may also be on the chopping block along with Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and due process, Sixth Amendment rights to a fair and public trial with a right to counsel, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under the law. Strengthening presidential powers certainly would be a convention agenda item. Many states are calling for a convention limited to certain issues like placing fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the powers and jurisdiction of the federal government, and imposing term limits on certain government officials and members of Congress. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis visits Ohio in support of congressional term limits However, constitutional experts say that once a convention is called, all bets are off. Delegates would not be limited to specific issues — the delegates could do whatever they wish and create whatever kind of constitution they desire. Any new constitution or amendment would then need to be approved by three-quarters of the states, or 38. Does all this sound farfetched and like the rantings of an alarmist? It's not. Some 28 state legislatures are currently controlled by Republicans, 18 are headed by Democrats and four are split, according to the New York Times. In the 2024 presidential election, Trump won the popular vote in 31 states compared to 19 by Harris. That means more Republican state legislatures following the presidential vote. 'In all, Republicans have proven much more adept than Democrats at leveraging presidential vote patterns into even larger majorities in state legislative chambers. The GOP has achieved significant levels of excess seats in about three times as many states as the Democrats have,' according to a study by the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. So far, 19 states have called for a constitutional convention: Georgia, Alaska, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Indiana, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arizona, North Dakota, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Utah, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Nebraska, West Virginia, and South Carolina. Ohio is attempting to add to that total. In February 2025, joint resolution bills were introduced in both the Ohio House and the Ohio Senate calling for a national constitutional convention. Ohio House Joint Resolution 2 is sponsored by state Reps. Riordan McClain, R-Upper Sandusky, and Bernie Willis, R-Springfield. The bill has been assigned to the House Government Oversight Committee and the Committee has already heard testimony from the resolution's sponsors. An accompanying bill, House Bill 67 also has been introduced setting the parameters of Ohio delegate actions at such a convention. If passed, the effectiveness of this bill would be questionable, given Article V's open-ended approach to a convention. Ohio Senate Joint Resolution 3 is sponsored by state Sens. Michele Reynolds, R-3, and George Lang, R-4, and has been assigned to the Senate General Government Committee. To date, the committee has had two hearings: one for the sponsors and one for 11 proponents of the resolution. Many were from the Convention of States, including former Pennsylvania senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum. Sens. Theresa Gavarone, R–2, and Jane Timken, R–29, introduced Senate Joint Resolution 6, which restricts the call for a convention to discussion of term limits. That resolution also is assigned to the Senate's General Government Committee. The activist group Common Cause in Ohio is actively opposing the pending legislation. 'Delegates to the proposed Constitutional Convention will be approved by concurrent resolution of the state legislature or by a majority of those present and voting in a joint session of the Ohio General Assembly. Since the GOP has a supermajority in the state legislature, that means delegates would be chosen and approved by this single party,' Common Cause writes. In a call to action, Common Cause warned: 'If a Constitutional Convention were convened, unelected and unaccountable delegates would have the power to rewrite the U.S. Constitution with no checks or balances. This is an unprecedented risky endeavor that puts our democratic principles at great risk.' However, another line of thinking is that this kerfuffle over 34 states asking for a convention won't be necessary. In March, ProPublica's Local Reporting Network teamed with Wisconsin Watch to uncover a 'behind-the-scenes legal effort' to force Congress to call for a constitutional convention now, without further state action. A draft lawsuit, being circulated among certain friendly state attorneys general, claims the 34-state threshold was, in fact, reached in 1979 and therefore, Congress must call for a convention. The litigation proponents total state 'calls for a convention' from before the Bill of Rights was passed to the present. They have stacked them all together and say that the magic number of 34 was reached 45 years ago. The pro-litigants claim that once a state asks for a convention it cannot repeal the request. Several states have tried but not successfully, according to the proponents. 'The draft lawsuit says those actions don't count because once the Article V bell has been rung, it cannot be unrung,' says the ProPublica article. The Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation and ALEC support the draft litigation that is signed by Charles 'Chuck' Cooper, a high-powered conservative attorney. The lawsuit is being circulated among conservative state attorneys general; proponents hope that the litigation will be filed within a few months. Meanwhile, other constitutional convention advocates are hoping the Trump and GOP congressional leaders will agree to call a constitutional convention without the litigation to promote Trump's 'Make America Great' agenda even further. None of this will happen overnight, but the movement for a national constitutional convention is advancing in state legislatures (like Ohio's) with advocacy groups, and with far-right litigators at a speed greater than ever before. It is worth understanding, watching, and monitoring. Now is the perfect-storm moment for a convention, with Trump in the White House, a super-conservative majority on the U. S. Supreme Court, GOP in control of both houses of Congress and most state legislatures. A convention is the backup plan for getting all of Project 2025 enacted and entrenched into the 'new' constitution — but don't believe for a second that the concept is on the back burner. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Newsweek
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Map Shows Best States for 'Education Freedom'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Florida is the top state for "education freedom," according to a study by the American Legislative Exchange Council. The nonprofit, formerly known as the Conservative Caucus of State Legislators, helps state lawmakers across the U.S. write legislation. In its 2025 Index of State Education Freedom report, it ranked states after scoring them on school choice programs and the availability of various educational environments. Why It Matters At least 29 states have implemented a program that uses vouchers, tax credits or scholarships to help parents pay for private school or education costs outside the public school setting, and more than a dozen states in recent years have launched or expanded programs that make most students eligible. Advocates say the programs give students a way out of underperforming public schools and let parents choose how best to educate their children. But critics say the programs drain money from public schools to help wealthier families whose children were already attending private schools. What To Know The index scored states based on the availability of charter schools, homeschooling, virtual schooling and open enrollment policies. The index also ranked each state based on the "education freedom" programs on offer, with the most points available for this category. Florida, which topped the index with a total of 89.87 points, was the only state to receive an A+ grade. Arizona (79.62), Arkansas (77.12), Oklahoma (72.93) and Iowa (72.78) rounded out the top five. New York ranked last on the index, with a score of 9.96 and an F grade. The other states in the bottom five also received F grades and were the only ones in the country to receive scores less than 20 points: Massachusetts (14.47), Oregon (15.02), Rhode Island (15.23) and Kentucky (19.57). According to ALEC's report, which was released in January, states scored higher if "education freedom" programs, including education scholarship accounts and voucher and tax-credit scholarship programs, were not subjected to funding or enrollment caps. Points were also awarded based on the program's participation rate. States also received more points if they did not cap charter school growth, when state law gave charter schools flexibility to operate freely and when those schools received similar funding to public schools. More points were awarded to states where parents were not required to provide notice that they were homeschooling and those that had fewer regulations about homeschooling. States also earned higher scores when virtual schooling was available statewide, and points were awarded to states that allowed intradistrict and interdistrict open enrollment. What People Are Saying Andrew Handel, the director of the Education and Workforce Development Task Force at ALEC, wrote in the report's introduction: "We are in the midst of an educational renaissance in America. At the time of writing, a record 12 states are empowering (or will soon be empowering) every family and every student with education freedom. These states recognize the unique needs of each student and that parents, not government bureaucrats, are best positioned to determine those needs and choose a school that best fits their student." Becky Pringle, the president of the National Education Association, said in a statement in January: "Every student deserves fully-funded neighborhood public schools that give them a sense of belonging and prepare them with the lessons and life skills they need to follow their dreams and reach their full potential. Instead of stealing taxpayer money to fund private schools, we should focus on public schools—where 90 percent of children, and 95 percent of children with disabilities, in America, attend—not take desperately needed funds away from them." What Happens Next Earlier in April, the Texas Legislature approved a $1 billion education bill that allows families to use taxpayer money to pay private school tuition. Lawmakers in several states are also considering bills to advance new school choice programs.
The Guardian
09-04-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
US sees surge in bills seeking criminal punishments for protected speech
Anti-protest bills that seek to expand criminal punishments for constitutionally protected peaceful protests – especially targeting those speaking out on the US-backed war in Gaza and the climate crisis – have spiked since Trump's inauguration. Forty-one new anti-protest bills across 22 states have been introduced since the start of the year – compared with a full-year total of 52 in 2024 and 26 in 2023, according to the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) tracker. This year's tally includes 32 bills across 16 states since Trump returned to the White House, with five federal bills targeting college students, anti-war protesters and climate activists with harsh prison sentences and hefty fines – a crackdown that experts warn threaten to erode first amendment rights to freedom of speech, assembly and petition. In one example, the Safe and Secure Transportation of American Energy act would create a new federal felony offense that could apply to protests that 'disrupt' planned or operational gas pipelines – which would be punishable by up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $250,000 for individuals or $500,000 for organizations. The language in the bill is vague, which could, critics warn, lead to a rally blocking a road used for moving equipment or a lawsuit challenging a pipeline's permit being classified as disruptive and prosecuted. It is sponsored by seven Republicans including the senator Ted Cruz of Texas, the country's largest oil and gas producing state, who chairs the committee considering whether the bill should progress. The pipeline bill closely resembles model critical infrastructure legislation crafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), a rightwing fossil fuel-funded group that brings together corporations and lawmakers to create draft bills on environmental standards, reproductive rights and voting, among other issues. So far, Alec-inspired bills restricting protests against fossil fuel infrastructure have been enacted in 22 states. 'The new federal pipeline bill is extremely concerning because of the breadth of the language, and with Ted Cruz as a co-sponsor it could move forward,' said Elly Page, senior legal adviser at ICNL. 'The anti-protest bills that have passed into laws since 2017 create a chilling effect and deter people from speaking out – and are incredibly repressive. It is especially concerning that now, when we see other pillars of civil society under attack, lawmakers are also trying to further suppress dissent and foreclose what is a critical means of democratic participation.' Repressive anti-protest laws have proliferated since the 2016 Indigenous-led anti-pipeline protests on the Standing Rock Indian territory in North Dakota, with 52 bills introduced in 2017, when ICNL created its tracker. Lawmakers across the US have repeatedly responded to new social movements with bills to crack down on protests. In 2021, 92 bills were introduced across 35 states in response to the social uprising triggered by the murder of George Floyd by police officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Legislative sessions are still going in most states and so far 2025 is on track to be the second-worst year, after 2021, for anti-protest initiatives. The current spike is a 'clear response to the protests on Palestine and campus protests in particular', according to Page. In March, three federal bills targeting university campus protests were announced including the Unmasking Hamas Act, which would make it a federal crime subject to 15 years in prison for wearing a mask or other disguise while protesting in an 'intimidating' or 'oppressive' way. The bill, which is almost identical to the Unmasking Antifa bill introduced in the wake of the 2020 racial justice protests, does not define 'oppressive' or 'disguise'. A separate bill would exclude student protesters from federal financial aid and loan forgiveness if they commit any crime at a campus protest, even a non-violent misdemeanor such as failing to disperse. In both cases, sponsors have made clear that the bill is a legislative response to pro-Palestinian protesters, many of whom wore masks to avoid retaliation and doxing. According to Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the slew of anti-protest laws threatens the core of US democracy. 'These state bills and Trump's crackdown on protected political speech are intended to scare people away from protesting or, worse, criminalize the exercise of constitutional rights,' said Leventoff. In North Dakota, where the Standing Rock tribe organized against the Dakota Access pipeline, lawmakers have approved four anti-protest bills since 2017. The latest initiative seeks to create a new criminal offense punishable by up to 12 months in jail for anyone wearing a mask 'with intent to conceal the identity' while 'congregating in a public place with any other individual wearing a mask, hood, or other device that covers, hides, or conceals any portion of the individual's face'. The bill exempts public gatherings such as Halloween and a masquerade ball, but does exempt masks worn during protests to avoid doxing, or for health or religious reasons. Hannah Meyers, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a rightwing thinktank criticized for promoting skepticism about climate science, testified in favor of the masking ban, which has now passed the statehouse. Last year, Meyers co-drafted similar model legislation for Manhattan Institute, which has called on the federal government to crack down on protests 'by invoking statutes like Rico [racketeering], the anti mafia, anti organized crime statute, to look at the organizations that deploy civil terrorists for their own ends'. According to Meyers, referring to masking bans as anti-protest was 'incorrect'. 'Mask ban laws are aimed – many explicitly – at individuals masking to conceal their identity with the intent to commit crimes, menace others, or avoid arrest and prosecution. They are not related to 'retaliation and doxing',' she said. Meanwhile, the Anti-Defamation League, a group criticized for conflating criticism of Israel and the defense of Palestinian rights with antisemitism, has lobbied in favor of a bill banning protest encampments on campuses in Arizona and for harsher sentencing for protesters wearing masks in Missouri. 'The large number and variation of anti-protest bills introduced in just three months – in combination with the self-proclaimed 'law-and-order president' administration's revoking of student visas and disappearing of student protesters – indicates a movement towards fascism,' said David Armiak, research director with the Center for Media and Democracy. An ADL spokesperson said: 'ADL objects to the wearing of full-face masks by those who seek to intimidate and harass others. We support anti-masking laws that create an additional penalty for already-prohibited behavior (engaging in targeting, threatening, vandalizing or violence). Such laws are not a mask ban and have no bearing on peaceful protest.' The Trump administration's effort to cast pro-Palestinian protesters as terrorists – and then use anti-terror and immigration laws to deport legal residents and quell campus demonstrations – appears to be inspired by Project Esther, an anti-protest blueprint published shortly before last year's election by the Heritage Foundation, the creators of Project 2025. Project Esther, which claims to be about rooting out antisemitism, promotes public firings of pro-Palestinian professors and using anti-racketeering laws to break up progressive anti-war groups. Critics say the plan promotes censorship and is a tool of Christian nationalism. 'The Trump regime claims to be cracking down on antisemitism on campus by kidnapping and deporting student activists,' said Jay Saper, an organizer with Jewish Voice for Peace – an anti-Zionist group that organizes anti-war and Palestinian liberation protests. 'Make no mistake, this is not about Jewish safety. This is about advancing an authoritarian agenda to clamp down on dissent.' The latest attacks on protest also include expanding civil penalties, which can tie up activists in expensive litigation for years. Five states – Alaska, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota and Ohio – are considering bills that introduce new or harsher civil penalties for protesters. Free speech experts have warned that malicious civil litigation or so-called Slapps (strategic lawsuits against public participation) – are being increasingly deployed by the fossil fuel industry, wealthy individuals and politicians to silence critics and suppress protest movements. Last month, a jury in rural Morton county in North Dakota ruled that the environmental group Greenpeace must pay $667m to the pipeline company Energy Transfer and is liable for defamation over the Standing Rock protests – in a ruling widely condemned as 'chilling'. In Minnesota, a new bill seeks to create civil and criminal liability for funders and supporters of protesters who peacefully demonstrate on pipeline or other utility property. In Ohio, legislators are considering whether participants of noisy or disruptive but non-violent protests – as well as people and organizations who support them – could face expensive lawsuits. Data from 2017 shows that the majority of bills fails or never make it out of committee and expire. And while most anti-protests bills enacted into law have been in Republican-run states, there are notable exceptions. The ACLU is urging the Democratic governor of New Jersey to veto a 2024 bill intended to improve community safety by cracking down on street brawls but which is 'overbroad, vague, and risks undermining fundamental freedoms protected under the first amendment, including the right to protest and assembly'. On Monday in Washington DC, a non-violent climate protester was convicted on felony charges of conspiracy against the United States and property damage for putting washable finger paint on the protective case of the Little Dancer statue in the National Gallery. Timothy Martin, who faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine on each count, will be sentenced in August. The Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council did not respond to a request for comment.
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Lawmakers push bill aiming to solve Tennessee's recycling problems to 2026
Tennessee lawmakers are exploring a measure that would transfer the cost of recycling from local governments to producers. () Tennessee lawmakers across the political spectrum echoed the same idea in a Wednesday committee meeting: Tennessee has a trash problem, and something must be done. What that 'something' should be is a topic of debate. But a coalition of lawmakers, manufacturing companies and recycling groups are pushing for Tennessee to be the first Republican-led state to adopt a system that transfers the financial responsibility for recycling to producers instead of local governments. The 'Extended Producer Responsibility' (EPR) model is already in use in multiple European countries and Canada, and six states have approved EPR packaging laws. Companies that produce packaging products would pay fees into a producer responsibility organization that uses the funds for the collection, sorting and processing of recyclable packaging products. EPR can come in many variations, but the general idea has won support from the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council and caught the attention of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Sustainable Food Policy Alliance – which includes Nestle, Mars, Unilever and Danone – also supports the bill and EPR programs in general. While battles loom over landfills, Middle Tennessee hurtles toward a trash crisis It will take at least another year for the model to reach the Tennessee General Assembly for consideration. Sen. Heidi Campbell, a Nashville Democrat and sponsor of the 'Tennessee Waste to Jobs Act,' requested that the bill be deferred until January 2026 for more stakeholder engagement. Campbell said the request stemmed from a 'productive' conversation with the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce, which has been one of the strongest opponents to EPR in Tennessee. 'We have a serious landfill crisis in Tennessee,' Campbell said during a Senate Government Operations Committee meeting Wednesday. 'Tennesseans don't want more landfills, and we need immediate action to address this challenge. Meanwhile, companies are actively seeking access to materials currently being buried in those landfills. They're asking us to pass this legislation so they can put those materials to use.' Campbell said the bill would keep nearly 1 million tons of recyclable products out of Tennessee landfills each year. As it is currently written, it would require Montgomery, Williamson, Rutherford, Hamilton, Knox, Davidson and Shelby counties to operate under a producer responsibility organization, but allows all counties with populations under 200,000 to choose whether they want to opt in. All told, the bill has backing from more than 12 companies in Tennessee (with combined revenue totaling $200 billion) and the state's aluminum industry, which could use more recycled aluminum to reduce dependence on importing new metal, Campbell said. But the bill appears to be a ways away from consensus — skepticism in committees has centered on producers passing costs down to consumers and ceding some decision making to the system's private board. Sen. Paul Rose, a West Tennessee Republican, wasn't sold on the idea. 'I recognize — I think we all do — that we have an issue … but I have issues with the bill as it was written,' Rose said Wednesday. 'We do need to address this, and hopefully we can come up with a solution that everyone can get their head wrapped around, and their pocketbooks, because it's going to cost money for sure.' The Tennessee Waste to Jobs Coalition pitched the EPR structure as a way to bolster manufacturing businesses in the state, divert usable materials from landfills that are quickly approaching capacity and take pressure off of beleaguered local governments. The group presented the idea alongside the Recycling Partnership and representatives from businesses that said they could use far more recycled materials than the state currently produces. Donna Kopecky, the vice president of sustainability at Kaiser Aluminum, said she supports the effort to increase aluminum can recycling rates. The company employs 164 workers at its plant in Jackson, Tennessee, and about 80 salaried employees at its corporate headquarters in Franklin. The U.S. can only produce about a third of the primary ('new') aluminum supply needed to meet domestic demand, so companies must turn to Canada and other sources for the rest, she said. Recycled aluminum takes less energy to source and the metal can be infinitely recycled. Bipartisan Tennessee bill would bring recycling to all homes, paid for by private business Kaiser Aluminum averaged 50% recycled content in its packaging products in 2024, and could use more recycled aluminum, if the supply and cost is right. Demand for the metal is rising, she said. 'We need to capture more aluminum for recycling across the state, and this can be done by implementing recycling policy at the state level to help dramatically increase aluminum recovery and recovery of other valuable packaging materials in the state,' when paired with investment in recycling infrastructure and technology and consumer education, Kopecky said. Florim USA, based in Clarksville, is the largest single-site producer of porcelain tile in the United States, Sustainability Manager Don Haynes said. One of the company's goals is being green, and they are seeking out recycled glass to use in place of sand. The tile industry could use every glass bottle in the state and still have to buy more, Haynes said in a video presented to lawmakers. 'I'm not an expert on EPR, I'm not an expert on recycling, but I am an expert on using the glass,' Haynes said. 'We would like the glass.' Katie Raverty-Evans, vice president of chapter relations of the National Waste and Recycling Association, was not as enthusiastic about the EPR model. The association represents about 70% of the private sector in the waste and recycling industry, and member businesses employ about 25,000 Tennesseans with a combined payroll of $1.4 billion, she said. While she said the discussion of an EPR structure is 'commendable,' the association has concerns — namely, the package fees they view as 'unfair penalization of producers, especially … smaller, mid-sized companies.' 'Our point of view is, let's take a step back and look at it,' Raverty-Evans said. 'Nobody (in the U.S.) really has implemented the program yet. It's all in assessments, it's all in planning. And why push something so quickly … without seeing how it plays out within the other states?' Tennessee will now have a year to grapple with the bill's particulars and observe other states' approaches. Sen. Ed Jackson, a Jackson Republican and the chair of the State Government Operations Committee, said Tennessee needs to address its solid waste issue. 'I hope over this time before the next session that we can work something out that will really be productive and get the job done,' he said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
05-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion: Let's be thoughtful in our approach to higher education in Utah
Our state is in the thick of a crucial conversation about our higher education institutions. We applaud the robust dialogue about what we need from our exceptional colleges and universities going forward. As business leaders representing a wide array of industries in this state, we recognize the future success of our organizations depends on a well-educated workforce. Given that interest, we want to lend our voice to this discussion with five key perspectives. First, Utah's higher education system drives Utah's economic vitality. We must maintain an investment mindset as we contemplate any changes in public policy. Utah has become the economic envy of most other states. Last spring, the American Legislative Exchange Council ranked Utah the state with the best economic outlook for the 17th consecutive year. To maintain that position, we must continue producing a well-educated, skilled workforce and invest in institutions that are training our future employees. Second, we wholeheartedly embrace findings in the recent Workforce Alignment Study from the Utah System of Higher Education (USHE), which suggests there is an opportunity for greater collaboration between industry and higher education. One example is the Jobs CEO Council established at Utah Valley University last year. This group of a dozen business leaders convened to share perspectives about future economic dynamics that help the university adjust curricula. There are similar examples on other Utah campuses. We also support efforts by our Utah schools to provide more experiential opportunities for students. We have all seen firsthand how students benefit from internships, apprenticeships and project-based learning. We must connect the dots between classroom instruction and workforce realities. Third, as we look to make changes in higher education, proposals must be data-driven. While there are plenty of opinions about what colleges and universities should or shouldn't be, we need robust data and thoughtful analysis to inform critical decisions. We commend those institutions that have invested in software and systems to obtain granular data around the efficacy of specific college courses. We also encourage further efforts to identify efficiencies in our colleges and universities to ensure we maximize the value of taxpayer dollars and student tuition dollars. Fourth, we should proceed with precision in any proposed reforms. Sweeping generalities will not make good education policy. While there is merit in some national narratives around the shortcomings of the higher education system, many of those oft-cited arguments are not true in Utah or for USHE institutions. And finally, there are benefits to hiring employees who have broad critical thinking skills and can view work through more than just a technical lens. While we celebrate greater focus on technical training and courses that align with specific workforce needs, we shouldn't short-change today's students by limiting exposure to liberal arts education. Nearly one-third of Fortune 500 CEOs have bachelor's degrees in the humanities. A noted business consultant said, 'Liberal arts train us to see the forest, not just the trees, and [that is] the big picture training needed for entrepreneurial and corporate leadership.' The USHE Workforce Alignment Study indicates employers see a lack of soft or durable skills among many college graduates they hire. Developing these durable skills is a responsibility shared by parents, employers and the education system. When it comes to the role of colleges in this effort, we cannot prioritize technical skills training at the expense of a well-rounded, critically thinking citizenry. Change is healthy, and we value the work of policymakers, academics and others helping higher education evolve to meet the future needs of students, employers and society. We urge thoughtful, data-informed deliberation and a holistic view of Utah's future.
