Latest news with #TedMitchell
Malay Mail
02-08-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
US$200m Columbia deal called ‘devastating precedent' as Trump targets higher education
WASHINGTON, Aug 2 — Columbia University's US$200 million (RM855.5 million) agreement with President Donald Trump's administration marks the end of a months-long showdown, but academics warn it is just the first round of a government 'assault' on higher education. Academics from Columbia and beyond have expressed concerns that the deal — which makes broad-ranging concessions and increases government oversight — will become the blueprint for how Trump brings other universities to heel. The New York institution was the first to be targeted in Trump's war against elite universities, for what the US president claimed was its failure to tackle anti-Semitism on campus in the wake of pro-Palestinian protests. It was stripped of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding and lost its ability to apply for new research grants. Labs saw vital funding frozen, and dozens of researchers were laid off. But Columbia last week agreed to pay the government US$200 million, and an additional US$21 million to settle an investigation into anti-Semitism. According to Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, the lack of due process — with the government slashing funding before carrying out a formal investigation — left Columbia in an 'untenable position.' Columbia law professor David Pozen agreed, saying the 'manner in which the deal was constructed has been unlawful and coercive from the start' and slamming the agreement as giving 'legal form to an extortion scheme.' Federal oversight The deal goes beyond addressing anti-Semitism and makes concessions on international student admissions, race and ethnicity considerations in admissions and single-sex spaces on campus, among other issues. Columbia also agreed to appoint an independent monitor to implement the deal, share ethnicity admissions data with the government and crack down on campus protests. Many of the provisions 'represent significant incursions onto Columbia's autonomy,' said Pozen. 'What's happened at Columbia is part of a broader authoritarian attack on civil society,' he said, pointing to similar pressures on law firms and media organisations to fall in line. According to the law professor, the deal 'signals the emergence of a new regulatory regime in which the Trump administration will periodically and unpredictably shake down other schools and demand concessions from them.' In the coming weeks, Pozen said he expected the 'administration will put a lot of pressure on Harvard and other schools to follow suit.' Harvard University has pushed back against the government, filing a lawsuit in a bid to reverse sweeping funding cuts. But Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard, said that 'in terms of academic freedom and in terms of democracy, the (Columbia) precedent is devastating.' 'First round' Education Secretary Linda McMahon said she hoped the Columbia deal would be a 'template for other universities around the country.' On Wednesday, McMahon announced a deal with Brown University to restore some federal funding and end ongoing investigations after the Ivy League school agreed to end race considerations in admissions and adopt a biological definition of gender. Brown President Christina Paxson admitted 'there are other aspects of the agreement that were not part of previous federal reviews of Brown policies' but were 'priorities of the federal administration.' Harvard is reportedly considering forking out US$500 million to settle, according to the New York Times. Others have made smaller concessions to appease the government, with Trump's alma mater the University of Pennsylvania banning transgender women from competing in women's sports, and the University of Virginia's head resigning after scrutiny over its diversity programs. Brendan Cantwell, a professor at Michigan State University who researches the history and governance of higher education, said government interference in universities 'has not happened at scale like this, probably ever in American history.' While some university staff see striking an agreement as the quickest way to reopen the federal funding spigot, Cantwell warned that concessions such as sharing ethnicity data from admissions could be 'weaponised' and provide fodder for future probes. Levitsky agreed, saying: 'Extortionists don't stop at the first concession. Extortionists come back for more.' 'There's a very high likelihood that this is just the first round,' he said. Pozen noted that it will be harder for 'major research universities to hold the line' compared to smaller colleges which are less reliant on federal funding. But Levitsky still urged Harvard to stand its ground and 'fight back,' including in the courts. 'Fighting an authoritarian regime is costly, but that's what we have to do,' he said. 'This is an unprecedented assault, and universities need to work together.' — AFP
France 24
02-08-2025
- Politics
- France 24
Academics warn Columbia University deal sets dangerous precedent
Academics from Columbia and beyond have expressed concerns that the deal -- which makes broad-ranging concessions and increases government oversight -- will become the blueprint for how Trump brings other universities to heel. The New York institution was the first to be targeted in Trump's war against elite universities, for what the US president claimed was its failure to tackle anti-Semitism on campus in the wake of pro-Palestinian protests. It was stripped of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding and lost its ability to apply for new research grants. Labs saw vital funding frozen, and dozens of researchers were laid off. But Columbia last week agreed to pay the government $200 million, and an additional $21 million to settle an investigation into anti-Semitism. According to Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, the lack of due process -- with the government slashing funding before carrying out a formal investigation -- left Columbia in an "untenable position." Columbia law professor David Pozen agreed, saying the "manner in which the deal was constructed has been unlawful and coercive from the start" and slamming the agreement as giving "legal form to an extortion scheme." Federal oversight The deal goes beyond addressing anti-Semitism and makes concessions on international student admissions, race and ethnicity considerations in admissions and single-sex spaces on campus, among other issues. Columbia also agreed to appoint an independent monitor to implement the deal, share ethnicity admissions data with the government and crack down on campus protests. Many of the provisions "represent significant incursions onto Columbia's autonomy," said Pozen. "What's happened at Columbia is part of a broader authoritarian attack on civil society," he said, pointing to similar pressures on law firms and media organizations to fall in line. According to the law professor, the deal "signals the emergence of a new regulatory regime in which the Trump administration will periodically and unpredictably shake down other schools and demand concessions from them." In the coming weeks, Pozen said he expected the "administration will put a lot of pressure on Harvard and other schools to follow suit." Harvard University has pushed back against the government, filing a lawsuit in a bid to reverse sweeping funding cuts. But Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard, said that "in terms of academic freedom and in terms of democracy, the (Columbia) precedent is devastating." - 'First round' - Education Secretary Linda McMahon said she hoped the Columbia deal would be a "template for other universities around the country." On Wednesday, McMahon announced a deal with Brown University to restore some federal funding and end ongoing investigations after the Ivy League school agreed to end race considerations in admissions and adopt a biological definition of gender. Brown President Christina Paxson admitted "there are other aspects of the agreement that were not part of previous federal reviews of Brown policies" but were "priorities of the federal administration." Harvard is reportedly considering forking out $500 million to settle, according to the New York Times. Others have made smaller concessions to appease the government, with Trump's alma mater the University of Pennsylvania banning transgender women from competing in women's sports, and the University of Virginia's head resigning after scrutiny over its diversity programs. Brendan Cantwell, a professor at Michigan State University who researches the history and governance of higher education, said government interference in universities "has not happened at scale like this, probably ever in American history." While some university staff see striking an agreement as the quickest way to reopen the federal funding spigot, Cantwell warned that concessions such as sharing ethnicity data from admissions could be "weaponized" and provide fodder for future probes. Levitsky agreed, saying: "Extortionists don't stop at the first concession. Extortionists come back for more." "There's a very high likelihood that this is just the first round," he said. Pozen noted that it will be harder for "major research universities to hold the line" compared to smaller colleges which are less reliant on federal funding. But Levitsky still urged Harvard to stand its ground and "fight back," including in the courts. "Fighting an authoritarian regime is costly, but that's what we have to do," he said. "This is an unprecedented assault, and universities need to work together."
Yahoo
02-08-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Academics warn Columbia University deal sets dangerous precedent
Columbia University's $200 million agreement with President Donald Trump's administration marks the end of a months-long showdown, but academics warn it is just the first round of a government "assault" on higher education. Academics from Columbia and beyond have expressed concerns that the deal -- which makes broad-ranging concessions and increases government oversight -- will become the blueprint for how Trump brings other universities to heel. The New York institution was the first to be targeted in Trump's war against elite universities, for what the US president claimed was its failure to tackle anti-Semitism on campus in the wake of pro-Palestinian protests. It was stripped of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding and lost its ability to apply for new research grants. Labs saw vital funding frozen, and dozens of researchers were laid off. But Columbia last week agreed to pay the government $200 million, and an additional $21 million to settle an investigation into anti-Semitism. According to Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, the lack of due process -- with the government slashing funding before carrying out a formal investigation -- left Columbia in an "untenable position." Columbia law professor David Pozen agreed, saying the "manner in which the deal was constructed has been unlawful and coercive from the start" and slamming the agreement as giving "legal form to an extortion scheme." - Federal oversight - The deal goes beyond addressing anti-Semitism and makes concessions on international student admissions, race and ethnicity considerations in admissions and single-sex spaces on campus, among other issues. Columbia also agreed to appoint an independent monitor to implement the deal, share ethnicity admissions data with the government and crack down on campus protests. Many of the provisions "represent significant incursions onto Columbia's autonomy," said Pozen. "What's happened at Columbia is part of a broader authoritarian attack on civil society," he said, pointing to similar pressures on law firms and media organizations to fall in line. According to the law professor, the deal "signals the emergence of a new regulatory regime in which the Trump administration will periodically and unpredictably shake down other schools and demand concessions from them." In the coming weeks, Pozen said he expected the "administration will put a lot of pressure on Harvard and other schools to follow suit." Harvard University has pushed back against the government, filing a lawsuit in a bid to reverse sweeping funding cuts. But Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard, said that "in terms of academic freedom and in terms of democracy, the (Columbia) precedent is devastating." - 'First round' - Education Secretary Linda McMahon said she hoped the Columbia deal would be a "template for other universities around the country." On Wednesday, McMahon announced a deal with Brown University to restore some federal funding and end ongoing investigations after the Ivy League school agreed to end race considerations in admissions and adopt a biological definition of gender. Brown President Christina Paxson admitted "there are other aspects of the agreement that were not part of previous federal reviews of Brown policies" but were "priorities of the federal administration." Harvard is reportedly considering forking out $500 million to settle, according to the New York Times. Others have made smaller concessions to appease the government, with Trump's alma mater the University of Pennsylvania banning transgender women from competing in women's sports, and the University of Virginia's head resigning after scrutiny over its diversity programs. Brendan Cantwell, a professor at Michigan State University who researches the history and governance of higher education, said government interference in universities "has not happened at scale like this, probably ever in American history." While some university staff see striking an agreement as the quickest way to reopen the federal funding spigot, Cantwell warned that concessions such as sharing ethnicity data from admissions could be "weaponized" and provide fodder for future probes. Levitsky agreed, saying: "Extortionists don't stop at the first concession. Extortionists come back for more." "There's a very high likelihood that this is just the first round," he said. Pozen noted that it will be harder for "major research universities to hold the line" compared to smaller colleges which are less reliant on federal funding. But Levitsky still urged Harvard to stand its ground and "fight back," including in the courts. "Fighting an authoritarian regime is costly, but that's what we have to do," he said. "This is an unprecedented assault, and universities need to work together." aks/wd
Straits Times
21-06-2025
- Business
- Straits Times
Tuition fee increases and staff layoffs are coming to a broad set of US universities
Duke University, one of many colleges and universities around the US that says it may need to cut staff. PHOTO: AL DRAGO/NYTIMES Tuition fee increases and staff layoffs are coming to a broad set of US universities Public universities in the United States' Midwest are raising prices for out-of-state students, as Florida schools consider making the same move for the first time since 2012. Cornell and Duke are among the colleges weighing layoffs. The University of Minnesota is cutting hundreds of jobs, even as undergraduate tuition soars as much as 7.5 per cent. Just as America's colleges are preparing to welcome what could be the largest freshman class in the nation's history, political and economic forces are unleashing havoc on higher education budgets. Schools are grappling with meager upticks in state support and topsy-turvy economic forecasts, and Republicans in Washington are pursuing federal budget cuts and threatening tax hikes. Students and employees from coast to coast are poised to feel the squeeze. Although the exact consequences will vary by school, administrators are warning that many students may have to pay more, professors may lose their jobs, programs could vanish and support services could shrink. The turmoil is not limited to any one type of university or college, or any one state. A day before Michigan State University trustees opted for tuition increases, a California State University campus minutes from the Pacific Ocean announced that it was trimming its workforce. 'If you're a student or family looking to go to college this year, all of the numbers are going in the wrong direction,' said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, who described the mood among higher education leaders as 'dark but resolved'. The Trump administration's efforts to reduce research funding are siphoning cash from many campuses, sometimes by hundreds of millions of dollars. But that is just one factor contributing to higher education's financial crunch. Colleges, like businesses and households, are facing greater costs for wages, supplies, utilities and other expenses. Their income sources are not always keeping pace. In Nebraska, the state government's contribution to the university system will rise roughly 0.6 per cent, far below the 3.5 per cent increase that the Board of Regents had sought to account for inflation. But regents saw the increase as a modest victory. Governor Jim Pillen, a Republican who wanted the state to have 'the courage to say no, and to focus on needs, not wants,' had originally urged a 2 per cent reduction. 'We will need to continue to reduce spending and make increasingly difficult choices to ensure fiscal discipline,' Jeffrey P. Gold, the University of Nebraska's president, told regents before a vote on June 19 to impose cuts and increase tuition. Students who enroll at the flagship campus in Lincoln are poised to pay about 5 per cent more. In neighbouring Kansas, only one of the state's six public universities did not propose a tuition increase for the coming school year. And University of Oklahoma leaders just raised tuition again, too. The White House rejected accusations from some college administrators that the federal government is partly to blame for tuition increases and other budget moves. 'Any school that scapegoats the administration's policies of cutting waste, fraud and abuse to justify raising already astronomical tuition costs is failing American students in an effort to score political points and fatten its coffers,' Mr Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement. He added: 'If these higher education institutions were serious about lowering costs, they would cut the bloated salaries of their faculty and stop wasting money on useless programmes that do little to advance education.' Some schools are more reliant than others on federal money, especially research institutions, and leaders on many of those campuses have cited the administration's tactics as they have reworked their budgets. But public institutions are also sometimes facing significant resistance in statehouses, and recent rises in inflation have put new demands on campus finances. College leaders across the country have sometimes sought to defend new tuition increases by noting correctly that their prices had stayed relatively steady in recent years. Others point to the number of scholarships and grants they offer, which routinely drive costs well south of the sticker price, and say that many students are ultimately paying less than in the past. In Minnesota, students are set to pay more for less. State leaders maintained stable support for the University of Minnesota – a decision that university officials considered an effective budget cut, given inflation. And questions are swirling over how much additional declines in federal money could worsen the university's financial outlook. Tuition at the Twin Cities campus will rise by at least 6.5 per cent. But the university is also pursuing cuts of 7 per cent. Academic units have been asked to come up with millions of dollars in 'reallocations' that could lead to programme changes and fewer materials in the Law Library, among other things. More than 350 jobs could be eliminated. 'Making these kinds of cuts here is new to us in Minnesota,' Rebecca Cunningham, the university's president, said during a board meeting on June 18. 'It is unfortunate, but indeed we are not alone.' They are not. The University System of Maryland's chancellor, Jay A. Perman, bluntly told employees in a video this month that the schools would absorb a 7 per cent cut for the coming fiscal year. 'A 7 per cent cut simply can't be achieved on every campus in a way that doesn't touch any of our people,' Mr Perman said. Elite universities not spared Private universities often say far less about their finances than public institutions, but similar signs of immense strain are emerging. Duke University is seeking about US$350 million in cuts, amounting to roughly 10 per cent of its budget. In a video message this month, Duke's president, Vincent E. Price, said the university was trying to sort out proposals from the federal government 'that have quite dire implications for the university'. He added there was 'sadly, no scenario in which Duke can or will avoid incurring substantial losses of funding due to these policy changes'. The university has imposed a hiring freeze and developed buyout plans, but Mr Price said that Duke would 'likely' resort to layoffs. The school is among the wealthy universities that could face a higher endowment tax under a Republican plan working its way through Congress. Many schools that would be hit hardest were already reeling. Harvard University, which has clashed bitterly with the Trump administration, is urgently seeking contributions from donors and has been making cuts, partly because billions of dollars in its endowment have restricted uses. And in a statement on June 18 ominously titled 'a message on financial austerity,' leaders at Cornell, which also has a substantial endowment, described a dire landscape. 'The spring semester was unlike anything ever seen in higher education,' school officials wrote, noting, among a long list of federal cuts, the burden of rising inflation along with 'rapidly escalating legal expenses.' To manage the financial pressures, school leaders said they 'anticipate involuntary reductions in head count.' But Mr Mitchell, the American Council on Education president, and a former president of Occidental College, emphasised the range of schools that were facing financial headwinds. 'This isn't just the Ivies, and this just isn't the result of headline freezes on big research projects,' he said. 'This reflects more uncertainty in the basic economy.' Some universities are making more modest adjustments for now, and approaches vary even within single systems. Public university trustees in Tennessee will soon vote on a proposal to raise in-state tuition by 3 per cent at outposts in Chattanooga, Martin and Pulaski. The state's flagship university in Knoxville, however, is not looking to increase tuition, though it is seeking a slight bump in mandatory fees. Some university leaders are depicting their budget moves as catch-up efforts. In Florida, where the state university system's board voted this week to empower schools to increase out-of-state student fees, one presentation noted that some schools had not raised those prices in about 20 years. But lawmakers in Florida have in recent months expressed worries about higher education spending. And academic leaders in many places are preparing for sustained troubles that could compound. 'As difficult as the situation is right now, we know it could get even worse as Maryland braces for the full financial impact of federal layoffs and funding cuts,' Mr Perman, the Maryland system chancellor, said. As the year goes on, he added, 'it's possible more cuts will be necessary.' NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Boston Globe
20-06-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Tuition increases, layoffs are coming to a broad set of universities
Students and employees from coast to coast are poised to feel the squeeze. Although the exact consequences will vary by school, administrators are warning that many students may have to pay more, professors may lose their jobs, programs could vanish, and support services could shrink. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The turmoil is not limited to any one type of university or college, or any one state. A day before Michigan State University trustees opted for tuition increases, a California State University campus minutes from the Pacific Ocean announced that it was trimming its workforce. Advertisement 'If you're a student or family looking to go to college this year, all of the numbers are going in the wrong direction,' said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, who described the mood among higher education leaders as 'dark but resolved.' The Trump administration's efforts to reduce research funding are siphoning cash from many campuses, sometimes by hundreds of millions of dollars. But that is just one factor contributing to higher education's financial crunch. Colleges, like businesses and households, are facing greater costs for wages, supplies, utilities, and other expenses. Advertisement Their income sources are not always keeping pace. In Nebraska, the state government's contribution to the university system will rise roughly 0.6 percent, far below the 3.5 percent increase that the Board of Regents had sought to account for inflation. But regents saw the increase as a modest victory. Governor Jim Pillen, a Republican who wanted the state to have 'the courage to say no, and to focus on needs, not wants,' had originally urged a 2 percent reduction. 'We will need to continue to reduce spending and make increasingly difficult choices to ensure fiscal discipline,' Jeffrey P. Gold, the University of Nebraska's president, told regents before a vote Thursday to impose cuts and increase tuition. Students who enroll at the flagship campus in Lincoln are poised to pay about 5 percent more. In neighboring Kansas, only one of the state's six public universities did not propose a tuition increase for the coming school year. And University of Oklahoma leaders just raised tuition again, too. The White House rejected accusations from some college administrators that the federal government is partly to blame for tuition increases and other budget moves. 'Any school that scapegoats the administration's policies of cutting waste, fraud and abuse to justify raising already astronomical tuition costs is failing American students in an effort to score political points and fatten its coffers,' Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement. He added: 'If these higher education institutions were serious about lowering costs, they would cut the bloated salaries of their faculty and stop wasting money on useless programs that do little to advance education.' Advertisement Some schools are more reliant than others on federal money, especially research institutions, and leaders on many of those campuses have cited the administration's tactics as they have reworked their budgets. But public institutions are also sometimes facing significant resistance in statehouses, and recent rises in inflation have put new demands on campus finances. College leaders across the country have sometimes sought to defend new tuition increases by noting correctly that their prices had stayed relatively steady in recent years. Others point to the number of scholarships and grants they offer, which routinely drive costs well south of the sticker price, and say that many students are ultimately paying less than in the past. In Minnesota, students are set to pay more for less. State leaders maintained stable support for the University of Minnesota — a decision that university officials considered an effective budget cut, given inflation. And questions are swirling over how much additional declines in federal money could worsen the university's financial outlook. Tuition at the Twin Cities campus will rise by at least 6.5 percent. But the university is also pursuing cuts of 7 percent. Academic units have been asked to come up with millions of dollars in 'reallocations' that could lead to program changes and fewer materials in the Law Library, among other things. More than 350 jobs could be eliminated. 'Making these kinds of cuts here is new to us in Minnesota,' Rebecca Cunningham, the university's president, said during a board meeting Wednesday. 'It is unfortunate, but indeed we are not alone.' They are not. The University System of Maryland's chancellor, Jay A. Perman, bluntly told employees in a video this month that the schools would absorb a 7 percent cut for the coming fiscal year. Advertisement 'A 7 percent cut simply can't be achieved on every campus in a way that doesn't touch any of our people,' Perman said. Private universities often say far less about their finances than public institutions, but similar signs of immense strain are emerging. Duke University is seeking about $350 million in cuts, amounting to roughly 10 percent of its budget. Harvard University, which has clashed bitterly with the Trump administration, is urgently seeking contributions from donors and has been making cuts, partly because billions of dollars in its endowment have restricted uses. And in a statement Wednesday ominously titled 'a message on financial austerity,' leaders at Cornell, which also has a substantial endowment, described a dire landscape.
