Latest news with #proPalestine
The Guardian
9 hours ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Student protesters face expulsion from University of Melbourne over pro-Palestine office occupation
Two University of Melbourne students have been recommended for expulsion and two for suspension for taking part in a pro-Palestine demonstration at the university's Parkville campus last October. If the decisions are upheld, the students will become the first pro-Palestine student activists for whom suspension and expulsion have been enforced in Australia since the waves of student demonstrations against Israel's assault on Gaza began in 2023. The students intend to appeal against the decision, with one telling Guardian Australia she believed the outcome had been 'prejudged' by the university, which has implemented anti-protest rules that critics have characterised as 'repressive' and an 'authoritarian' overreach. The students were referred to the institution's disciplinary committee after reports they were part of a group of about 20 who, for about 90 minutes on 9 October, occupied the office of an academic they believed was integral to the university's partnerships with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The protesters were calling on the university to disband its joint programs with Israeli universities, which have been a target of the global boycott, divestment and sanctions movement since 2004. Footage of the occupation, distributed on social media at the time, showed protesters entering the office with their faces covered by keffiyehs, hoods and masks. The university alleged the students had harassed and intimidated staff who worked in the office, damaged property by placing signs and stickers on some university-owned items including a monitor screen, and writing on and placing stickers on personal items of the academic, including a photo. The students said their demonstration had been peaceful and clearly political, that they had informed people working in the office and nearby that they were protesting and had even offered to turn down the music they were playing so others could keep working. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email One student facing expulsion, Niamh*, who spoke to Guardian Australia on condition that her real name not be used, was found by the disciplinary committee to have been present at the demonstration for no longer than 10 minutes. Documents seen by the Guardian state she was not found to have performed any of the specific actions listed by the university as 'harassing or intimidating' the staff, such as placing stickers or graffiti, but that her presence in the room with others was itself harassment and intimidation, and also constituted improper and unsafe use of university property. The committee said they were recommending Niamh be expelled on the basis of 'the seriousness of the breaches and the nature of the behaviour' and her past alleged breaches of the student conduct code. Niamh said she believed this was a reference to her participation in the 'Mahmoud's Hall' occupation of the Arts West building, a demonstration that led to the university agreeing to additional disclosures about its research project grant arrangements. Niamh appeared to have been identified as being involved in the protest in part by the university tracking her location on campus through her wifi login, a tool that has been the subject of an investigation by the office of the Victorian information commissioner. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion She said she believed the activists had been 'prejudged' by the university council, beginning with the then vice-chancellor, Duncan Maskell, circulating a university-wide email the day after the protest characterising it as 'an attempt to harass and intimidate' the academic. Maskell's email was criticised in an open letter signed by 174 university staff members, which said the comments risked impeding procedural fairness and 'enabled the action to be incorrectly framed by major media outlets as antisemitic'. Maskell did not respond to the open letter. In May last year he implemented new university rules banning 'protest that is not peaceful' and prohibiting protesters who were not university staff or students from entering university grounds. On 3 March his successor as vice-chancellor, Emma Johnston, implemented another suite of rules against protests, including that they may not be held indoors and must not obstruct entries or exits of university buildings. The rules would apply to students and staff and also to 'individual forms of action'. The student union and the National Tertiary Education Union have called the new rules 'an authoritarian approach' that erroneously conflates staff and student discomfort with lack of safety. The Human Rights Law Centre, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have urged the university to rescind them. Niamh said Johnston's rules were 'particularly disturbing and hypocritical' and 'a massive betrayal of the values and history of student unionism' given Johnston's own history as the university's student union president in the 1990s, when she advocated for direct action protests including sit-ins. 'Her words are irreconcilable with her actions when some of the worst anti-protest rules are being pushed through under her leadership,' Niamh said. 'I would love to see the university take more of an approach of wanting to sit down with their students and wanting to really hear from where their students are coming from and why students around the world feel this urgent moral necessity to stand against … the horrible atrocities we're witnessing in Gaza as well as the West Bank and all of occupied Palestine,' she said. A spokesperson for the University of Melbourne said it would not comment on individual cases 'to protect the integrity of our disciplinary processes''. 'The University of Melbourne has followed its disciplinary processes in accordance with University policy in response to an incident that took place in October 2024,' the spokesperson said. 'This process has not concluded. The University is communicating directly with individuals involved in disciplinary proceedings. Students have the right to appeal decisions made through the University's disciplinary processes.' Last year an Australian National University student who was expelled and a Deakin University student who was suspended for Palestine-related activism had those decisions overturned on appeal. *Name has been changed
BBC News
a day ago
- General
- BBC News
Women's final abandoned over safety amid Palestine protest, says club
A women's regional cup final was abandoned over "a perceived risk to safety" when fans refused to remove flags and banners showing support for Community were playing Dulwich Hamlet Reserves in the final of the London and South East Women's Regional Football League (L&SERWFL) Trophy, which was hosted at Gallagher Stadium, the home of National League South men's side Maidstone of both sides displayed pro-Palestinian flags and banners for the game on Sunday, amid the ongoing conflict with game kicked off as scheduled but after 20 minutes, with Clapton leading 2-0, the match was paused after a request for the flags and banners to be moved was rejected. Maidstone United issued a statement, external that said "the match was abandoned by league and match officials, in consultation with the stewarding team, for reasons of a perceived risk to safety and with regard to clear stadium regulations and FA guidelines."This was because spectators refused requests to remove non-football related banners and flags."Maidstone United is a football club serving the local community. Ensuring a peaceful and safe environment for spectators in the stadium is a priority. The club does not engage in politics of any kind."Ground regulations typically ban flags and banners which carry political messaging, in line with guidance from governing bodies Fifa and Football Association rules, clubs can be sanctioned if fan behaviour is deemed improper or has the potential to ground regulations refer to the banning of flags and banners if they can be used as weapons, or "interfere with the viewing of spectators", though go on to say spectators should follow FA and National Football League rules and regulations, and not conduct actions which "could reasonably be construed as, constituting a source of danger, nuisance or annoyance to any other person".Football's laws of the game prohibit political messaging on kits and equipment, and it is not uncommon for this principal to be applied more widely.A statement from Clapton issued after the game said management at the venue objected to the presence of a Palestine flag among their support and a banner displayed by the Dulwich player Tammy Hymas told BBC Sport: "An official from Maidstone came on the pitch and said the game had to stop, as they no longer consented to the stadium being used while political material was present."The game was stopped. As I understand, there was a suggestion the match could continue behind closed doors, with no fans."As a team we refused that offer, we said we wanted to show solidarity, so we went into the stands and joined the fans."Hymas added the action had the support of Jewish members of the club's fanbase who were present at the Clapton supporter, who wanted to be known as Max, said: "When the match was abandoned, Dulwich Hamlet supporters came over to stand with us, and for a moment, it felt genuinely powerful. I've never seen something like it in football - it was beautiful. As a Jewish supporter of Clapton CFC, I feel proud of what the team and the fans stood for."I had so many emotions. At first I was shocked - it just seemed absurd. We were there to watch football. The players wanted to continue. The fans wanted to continue. The responsibility lies with the stadium - and I'll be asking for my money back."After an announcement at Gallagher Stadium saying the match was abandoned, a joint protest took place outside the stadium with both Dulwich and Clapton Community, which describes itself as "a members-owned, members-run football club", said in a statement, external that "32 women were denied the opportunity to play the L&SERWFL Trophy final".It said players and fans were "united in their support and concern for Palestinians" and added: "Showing that support with a flag or banner is no reason to abandon a cup final."Dulwich Hamlet chairman Ben Clasper said in a statement, external that his club had "seen no evidence that our fans have behaved in any way other than the peaceful and dignified manner that we would expect from them, in accordance with the values of our club and that the banners on display were not new, are not in breach of any laws or rules and have been to many games before this final".He added: "We are very disappointed that the L&SERWFL Trophy final has ended in this fashion, and we look forward to a full explanation as to how this was allowed to happen."The London FA told BBC Sport it was "gathering all relevant information and working closely with the appropriate parties".It added: "As this matter is ongoing, we will not be making any further comment at this time."
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Republicans plan to tax US college endowments: Who will that hurt?
Republicans in the United States Congress are pushing for an increase in taxes on US universities, under a new bill that narrowly passed in the House of Representatives last Thursday. The bill's supporters argue that a provision relating to higher educational institutions is crafted to target 'woke' universities. Universities have taken a hit from US President Donald Trump's executive orders and decisions aimed at changing education and immigration in the country, alongside cracking down on pro-Palestine protests that took place on US college campuses last year. The new tax plans aim to increase taxes on what US universities earn from their endowments. An endowment refers to funds or assets donated to a university to keep it financially sustained in the future. Endowments typically comprise charitable donations from alumni, other donors and companies. The bill before the US Congress sets tax rates for universities based on their effective endowments per student – by dividing their total endowments by the number of full-time students at the institution. Earnings from investments made from endowments will be taxed, if the bill becomes law. Most colleges have not been taxed on their endowments for centuries. The Revenue Act of 1909 exempted educational institutions as nonprofits which operate for public interest 'exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes'. As a result, educational institutions did not pay taxes on their investment gains. This changed during Trump's first presidential term. In 2017, the US Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which introduced a 1.4 percent tax on colleges with per-student endowments of at least $500,000, and at least 500 students who paid tuition. Hence, the tax applies only to some of the wealthiest institutions in the country. This endowment tax generated approximately $380m in 2023, from 56 universities that met the taxation bar. On May 22, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed, with a 215-214 vote, what Trump and the legislation's authors have called the One Big Beautiful Bill. Within this bill is a proposal to raise taxes on elite universities. The proposal is tiered, and aims to levy a tax of: 1.4 percent on investment returns of institutions that have a per-student endowment of more than $500,000 but less than $750,000. 7 percent on institutions that have a per-student endowment of more than $750,000 but less than $1,250,000. 14 percent on institutions that have a per-student endowment of more than $1,250,000 but less than $2,000,000. 21 percent on institutions that have a per-student endowment of more than $2,000,000. These percentages apply to universities that had at least 500 tuition-paying students in the previous taxable year and where 50 percent of their full-time tuition paying students are in the US. Universities identified as 'qualified religious institutions' are exempt from this tax. The proposal was drafted by Republican legislators in the Ways and Means Committee, the oldest tax-writing body in the House. 'For too long, universities have received beneficial treatment from our tax code while disregarding the interest of taxpayers,' Jason Smith, Missouri Republican and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said shortly after the bill passed. A fact sheet released by Smith says the tax 'holds woke, elite universities that operate more like major corporations and other tax-exempt entities accountable'. The bill is now headed to the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 seats and Democrats hold 47. It is unclear when the vote will take place, but Trump is urging Republican senators to promptly pass it. On May 22, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform: 'Thank you to every Republican who voted YES on this Historic Bill! Now, it's time for our friends in the United States Senate to get to work, and send this Bill to my desk AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!' An investigation by The New York Times found that at least 58 schools could potentially be affected by this. Major universities could fall under the highest tax slab. In the 2024 fiscal year, Harvard University's total endowment was worth approximately $53.2bn – the largest of any university. There are 24,596 students at Harvard, which means the per-student endowment is $2.16m. That means it will have to pay a 21 percent tax if the bill becomes law. Yale University's endowment is valued at $41bn and the university has 15,490 students, bringing the per-student endowment to about $2.7m. While the institute currently pays the 1.4 percent tax, it too will have to pay a 21 percent tax if the bill becomes law. Likewise, Stanford's endowment is $36.5bn and it has 17,529 students, making the per-student endowment about $2.1m. While the institute currently pays the 1.4 percent tax, it will have to pay a 21 percent tax if the bill becomes law. By contrast, University of Pennsylvania's total endowment was $22.3bn as of June 2024 and the institute has 24,219 full-time students, making the per-student endowment $920,764. While the institute currently pays the 1.4 percent tax, it will have to pay a 7 percent tax if the bill becomes law. But because the bill determines which universities are taxable based on per-student endowments, it isn't just big schools that will be affected: Even smaller private institutions, that previously paid 1.4 percent tax, might now have to pay much more. Pomona College in Claremont, California, had a total endowment of $3bn in 2024, of which the institute uses 5 percent each year. The university says 60 percent, or $36m, of financial aid at Pomona is covered by endowment, which also covers about half the institute's operating budget. It has 1,747 students, which means Pomona has a per-student endowment of $1.7m. Until now, it paid a tax worth 1.4 percent of the endowment; if the bill passes, it will be taxed at 14 percent. If the bill passes in the Senate, Trump is almost certain to sign it. But the version of the legislature that makes it out of Congress might be different from the one passed by the House. 'Even if the Senate passes the tax, it's possible that they change the amount of the tax and the criteria for its application in the process,' said Emily Saulnier, editor-in-chief of the Boston College Law Review, a publication at Boston College Law School. Centrist and conservative Republicans in the Senate are divided on the bill. House Speaker Mike Johnson has urged Republican senators to revise it as little as possible. If Senators pass a revised version, the House will need to vote on that new text for it to be passed onto Trump, who will then sign it into law. Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson has opposed the bill in its current form, arguing it will increase the national deficit, which is the difference between the amount of money the federal government spends and the amount it earns through revenue. Johnson said the House bill would add '$4 trillion' to the deficit. In 2024, the deficit was $1.83 trillion. Republican Kentucky Senator Rand Paul raised similar concerns during a Fox News interview on May 25, saying while he supports parts of the bill, it would 'explode the debt'. But if the bill does pass and is signed by Trump, 'it will apply to all colleges and universities' that meet the conditions set in the legislation, Saulnier said. 'This legislation presents a greater threat to Yale than any other bill in memory,' Yale President Maurie McInnis said in a statement released on May 22. 'The endowment tax places more financial burden on students by making college less affordable. Taxing schools reduces the revenue available for financial aid,' she wrote, adding that 'the endowment tax will undermine the country's global leadership in technology.' During a faculty meeting in 2024, Harvard President Alan M Garber called a raise in endowment taxes 'the threat that keeps me up at night'. The Trump administration has repeatedly attacked higher education institutions, alleging they fail to curb anti-Semitism, or for 'illegal and immoral discrimination' in the form of diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) programmes. Last year, pro-Palestine protests and encampments sprang up in several US universities, including Columbia, Yale, New York University (NYU) and Harvard. On January 29, Trump signed an executive order titled 'Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism', ordering executive department heads to submit a report on all criminal and civil authorities and actions available for fighting anti-Semitism. A day after he signed this order, Trump was quoted in a White House fact sheet, saying: 'To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you. I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before.' Trump has since frozen federal funding to several universities, including Columbia and Harvard. With that funding at risk, universities are even more reliant on their endowment funds to sustain the research they conduct. However, endowments are subject to restrictions and donors decide how most of the endowment is spent. In Harvard's case, donors decide where 70 percent of the annual endowment distribution is spent. On May 22, the Trump administration revoked Harvard's certification to enrol any new foreign students. This move has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge. On Tuesday, the government ordered US embassies abroad to stop scheduling new visa interview appointments for foreign students and exchange visitors, according to an internal cable seen by news agencies.
Al Jazeera
3 days ago
- Business
- Al Jazeera
Republicans plan to tax US college endowments: Who will that hurt?
Republicans in the United States Congress are pushing for an increase in taxes on US universities, under a new bill that narrowly passed in the House of Representatives last Thursday. The bill's supporters argue that a provision relating to higher educational institutions is crafted to target 'woke' universities. Universities have taken a hit from US President Donald Trump's executive orders and decisions aimed at changing education and immigration in the country, alongside cracking down on pro-Palestine protests that took place on US college campuses last year. The new tax plans aim to increase taxes on what US universities earn from their endowments. An endowment refers to funds or assets donated to a university to keep it financially sustained in the future. Endowments typically comprise charitable donations from alumni, other donors and companies. The bill before the US Congress sets tax rates for universities based on their effective endowments per student – by dividing their total endowments by the number of full-time students at the institution. Earnings from investments made from endowments will be taxed, if the bill becomes law. Most colleges have not been taxed on their endowments for centuries. The Revenue Act of 1909 exempted educational institutions as nonprofits which operate for public interest 'exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes'. As a result, educational institutions did not pay taxes on their investment gains. This changed during Trump's first presidential term. In 2017, the US Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which introduced a 1.4 percent tax on colleges with per-student endowments of at least $500,000, and at least 500 students who paid tuition. Hence, the tax applies only to some of the wealthiest institutions in the country. This endowment tax generated approximately $380m in 2023, from 56 universities that met the taxation bar. On May 22, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed, with a 215-214 vote, what Trump and the legislation's authors have called the One Big Beautiful Bill. Within this bill is a proposal to raise taxes on elite universities. The proposal is tiered, and aims to levy a tax of: These percentages apply to universities that had at least 500 tuition-paying students in the previous taxable year and where 50 percent of their full-time tuition paying students are in the US. Universities identified as 'qualified religious institutions' are exempt from this tax. The proposal was drafted by Republican legislators in the Ways and Means Committee, the oldest tax-writing body in the House. 'For too long, universities have received beneficial treatment from our tax code while disregarding the interest of taxpayers,' Jason Smith, Missouri Republican and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said shortly after the bill passed. A fact sheet released by Smith says the tax 'holds woke, elite universities that operate more like major corporations and other tax-exempt entities accountable'. The bill is now headed to the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 seats and Democrats hold 47. It is unclear when the vote will take place, but Trump is urging Republican senators to promptly pass it. On May 22, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform: 'Thank you to every Republican who voted YES on this Historic Bill! Now, it's time for our friends in the United States Senate to get to work, and send this Bill to my desk AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!' An investigation by The New York Times found that at least 58 schools could potentially be affected by this. Major universities could fall under the highest tax slab. In the 2024 fiscal year, Harvard University's total endowment was worth approximately $53.2bn – the largest of any university. There are 24,596 students at Harvard, which means the per-student endowment is $2.16m. That means it will have to pay a 21 percent tax if the bill becomes law. Yale University's endowment is valued at $41bn and the university has 15,490 students, bringing the per-student endowment to about $2.7m. While the institute currently pays the 1.4 percent tax, it too will have to pay a 21 percent tax if the bill becomes law. Likewise, Stanford's endowment is $36.5bn and it has 17,529 students, making the per-student endowment about $2.1m. While the institute currently pays the 1.4 percent tax, it will have to pay a 21 percent tax if the bill becomes law. By contrast, University of Pennsylvania's total endowment was $22.3bn as of June 2024 and the institute has 24,219 full-time students, making the per-student endowment $920,764. While the institute currently pays the 1.4 percent tax, it will have to pay a 7 percent tax if the bill becomes law. But because the bill determines which universities are taxable based on per-student endowments, it isn't just big schools that will be affected: Even smaller private institutions, that previously paid 1.4 percent tax, might now have to pay much more. Pomona College in Claremont, California, had a total endowment of $3bn in 2024, of which the institute uses 5 percent each year. The university says 60 percent, or $36m, of financial aid at Pomona is covered by endowment, which also covers about half the institute's operating budget. It has 1,747 students, which means Pomona has a per-student endowment of $1.7m. Until now, it paid a tax worth 1.4 percent of the endowment; if the bill passes, it will be taxed at 14 percent. If the bill passes in the Senate, Trump is almost certain to sign it. But the version of the legislature that makes it out of Congress might be different from the one passed by the House. 'Even if the Senate passes the tax, it's possible that they change the amount of the tax and the criteria for its application in the process,' said Emily Saulnier, editor-in-chief of the Boston College Law Review, a publication at Boston College Law School. Centrist and conservative Republicans in the Senate are divided on the bill. House Speaker Mike Johnson has urged Republican senators to revise it as little as possible. If Senators pass a revised version, the House will need to vote on that new text for it to be passed onto Trump, who will then sign it into law. Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson has opposed the bill in its current form, arguing it will increase the national deficit, which is the difference between the amount of money the federal government spends and the amount it earns through revenue. Johnson said the House bill would add '$4 trillion' to the deficit. In 2024, the deficit was $1.83 trillion. Republican Kentucky Senator Rand Paul raised similar concerns during a Fox News interview on May 25, saying while he supports parts of the bill, it would 'explode the debt'. But if the bill does pass and is signed by Trump, 'it will apply to all colleges and universities' that meet the conditions set in the legislation, Saulnier said. 'This legislation presents a greater threat to Yale than any other bill in memory,' Yale President Maurie McInnis said in a statement released on May 22. 'The endowment tax places more financial burden on students by making college less affordable. Taxing schools reduces the revenue available for financial aid,' she wrote, adding that 'the endowment tax will undermine the country's global leadership in technology.' During a faculty meeting in 2024, Harvard President Alan M Garber called a raise in endowment taxes 'the threat that keeps me up at night'. The Trump administration has repeatedly attacked higher education institutions, alleging they fail to curb anti-Semitism, or for 'illegal and immoral discrimination' in the form of diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) programmes. Last year, pro-Palestine protests and encampments sprang up in several US universities, including Columbia, Yale, New York University (NYU) and Harvard. On January 29, Trump signed an executive order titled 'Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism', ordering executive department heads to submit a report on all criminal and civil authorities and actions available for fighting anti-Semitism. A day after he signed this order, Trump was quoted in a White House fact sheet, saying: 'To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you. I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before.' Trump has since frozen federal funding to several universities, including Columbia and Harvard. With that funding at risk, universities are even more reliant on their endowment funds to sustain the research they conduct. However, endowments are subject to restrictions and donors decide how most of the endowment is spent. In Harvard's case, donors decide where 70 percent of the annual endowment distribution is spent. On May 22, the Trump administration revoked Harvard's certification to enrol any new foreign students. This move has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge. On Tuesday, the government ordered US embassies abroad to stop scheduling new visa interview appointments for foreign students and exchange visitors, according to an internal cable seen by news agencies.
The Verge
3 days ago
- General
- The Verge
A federal judge says Trump's rationale for trying to deport Mahmoud Khalil is probably illegal.
Khalil, a Columbia student, was arrested by ICE in March over his involvement in pro-Palestine activism despite being a permanent resident. Citing a Cold War-era law, administration officials claimed Khalil's presence in the country is detrimental to the US's foreign policy interest. In a 106-page ruling, judge Michael Farbiarz said the State Department never explained whether Khalil's activism 'affected US relations with any other country,' making the deportation effort 'unconstitutionally vague.' For now, Khalil remains detained in Louisiana.
