Latest in Education News
Get up-to-date education news from our reporters
Bill targeting trans student athletes faces uncertain Senate fate
The bill would amend Title IX to prohibit transgender students from federally funded school sports.
read more
OpenAI’s prospective shift sparks uncertainty over educational access
Experts and users weigh in on ChatGPT’s potential shift toward a for-profit model.
read more
Amid threats of elimination, Trump’s education agenda remains unclear with pro-school choice secretary nomination
President-elect Trump’s pick of Linda McMahon as Secretary of Education underscores his push for school choice and aligns with his “Agenda47” campaign to overhaul public education, including calls to dismantle the Department of Education.
read more
House subcommittee cannot agree on what its role should be in primary and secondary education
Republicans and Democrats focused on completely different issues at Wednesday’s hearing, with one side focusing on curriculum and the other on infrastructure.
read more
DC Appears Poised to Create New Task Force to Improve Math Education
Local and national educators and advocates testified before the DC Council Committee of the Whole in support of a new bill that would create a task force to address the need for improved mathematics education in DCPS and DC public charter schools.
read moreRepublican senators slam delays for student financial aid forms
WASHINGTON – Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) announced Thursday that he and other senators are directing the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, to examine the delays surrounding the updates to the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form.
The Education Department said earlier this week that colleges and universities will now receive the key information during the first half of March instead of late January.
This new timeline further delays when students will receive their financial aid packages, and ultimately see whether they can afford college
Most college acceptance decisions come out in March or April, but the delay means that colleges won’t be able to send out aid packages until weeks afterward. Most colleges require students to accept offers by May 1, so it will be a tight turnaround for many high school seniors to see if their aid packages match up with their dream college.
The Department of Education had to fix a problem with the way it calculates how much a family can contribute to tuition. The Student Aid Index calculation replaced the Expected Family Contribution formula; however, the department initially did not correctly account for inflation.
The updated tables “will allow students to benefit from an additional $1.8 billion in aid and ensure that all students can access the maximum financial aid they are eligible for,” the Education Department said in a press release.
Cassidy, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, placed blame on the Biden administration, saying at a news conference on Thursday that it had “upside down priorities.”
The rollout of the new form was far bumpier than intended by the Department of Education.
It soft launched on Dec. 30 but was not fully available for students to fill out until Jan. 8. Last school year, the form was available starting Oct. 1.
Starting with the 2024-2025 award year, a normally tedious process was supposed to be simplified. The most noteworthy differences included a faster application process and an increase in eligibility for federal Pell Grants.
“We are moving the federal financial aid application into the 21st century,” said Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona, “putting affordable higher education within the reach of 610,000 students from families with low incomes.”
The latest changes to the form are a part of the FAFSA Simplification Act passed by Congress in 2020, so the Biden administration had roughly three years to implement the new system.
“If ever there was a time for the department to signal to the American people, listen, we squandered our dollars. But now we’re going to tighten our belts. And we’re going to do it right and come up with a solution to this problem that we created,” Cassidy said.
“Instead, it is kind of like, ‘Oh, I’m sorry, pitiful us.’”
Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Sen. Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va) and Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) joined Cassidy in underscoring their disappointment in the rollout.
“What we need is transparency for Iowa families, and that’s why I’m demanding an investigation,” Ernst said. “No more delay Department of Education. We need to get this straightened out right now.”
While there have been unexpected delays in the process, the Department of Education is committed to continuing to “provide regular progress updates to schools and stakeholders.”
More than 3.1 million FAFSA forms have been successfully submitted since the application launched.
Ahead of DEI ban, UTD grapples with student expression, transparency
For 15 years, three large boulders located on the University of Texas at Dallas campus were used to publicize events, display art and present political messages.
After Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attack of Israel, which killed about 1,200 people, and Israel’s subsequent assault on Gaza, which has killed more than 17,000 Palestinians, the boulders – dubbed the Spirit Rocks – became a campus hot spot in the pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian student messaging campaign. Sometimes, these designs changed in a matter of minutes.
At 2:16 a.m. on Oct. 12, the main boulder was painted with the Palestinian flag with the message, “Free Palestine.” Nine minutes later, the rock was painted over with the Israeli flag. By 2 p.m. on Oct. 12, it was split in half: the left with a pro-Israel message and the right with a pro-Palestinian message.
Student Government President Srivani Edupuganti said leading up to Thanksgiving break, political discourse around Israel and Gaza had died down, and the Spirit Rocks weren’t being painted over as frequently.
On Nov. 20, students planned to paint the Spirit Rocks for the Transgender Day of Remembrance. When they showed up, the three boulders were missing. In their place were three freshly planted trees.
“The fact that they were removed so sneakily left students under the impression that they were removed because of the Israeli and Palestinian discourse,” Edupuganti said.
In an email to students, staff and faculty, the Division of Student Affairs said the Spirit Rocks were removed because they “were not intended to be a display for extended political discourse.” The Division of Student Affairs did not respond to a request for a comment.
However, since their beginning in 2008, the Spirit Rocks have continually displayed political messages. As early as 2009, students painted the rocks to support the Iranian Green Movement. In 2011, students used the rocks to protest the arrest of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, and in 2015, students painted a design in support of the Black Lives Matter movement.
“It seems weird that now (the Middle East conflict), for some reason, was the breaking point, even though students have been civil and peaceful,” said Junior Anika Sultana.
UTD is one of many national universities grappling with student expression amidst the conflict in Gaza.
Jade Steinberg, soon to be UTD Hillel President, said UTD has also failed to take action after antisemitic events on campus. Steinberg said someone vandalized a student’s door, which had a mezuzah, a traditional Jewish doorpost decoration. Steinberg also said a Jewish student was called a slur on the way to class, and when UTD Hillel painted the Spirit Rocks, students shouted “baby killers.”
“We’ve tried to explain to (the administration) how we don’t necessarily feel safe or heard on campus,” Steinberg said. “And so far, unfortunately, nothing has really come of that besides the removal of the Spirit Rocks.”
Steinberg said the removal “lit a new fire” under the tension at UTD. Starting on Nov. 27, the Progressive Student Coalition organized a week of protests over the Spirit Rocks’ removal. Students gathered at the former site of the rocks, painted pebbles with the Palestinian and pride flag and drew pro-Palestinian art on the sidewalk by the student center.
Sultana said students are fearful UTD may take away other platforms for student expression. Fatimah Azeem, Editor-in-Chief of The Mercury, UTD’s independent student newspaper, said although the Spirit Rocks were not the only way to exercise free speech, they were the most popular and barrier-free.
“It’s not like anything else on campus,” Azeem said. “It’s not like putting up a flier, which can be taken down or putting up a bulletin board, which you have to get pre-approval for. (The Spirit Rocks) don’t have all these layers of bureaucracy.”
Azeem said the administration has been “evasive” when students and Mercury reporters approach with questions regarding the Spirit Rocks’ removal.
She said on Nov. 29, Vice President of Student Affairs Dr. Gene Fitch hosted an event with pizza to help students relax ahead of finals week. Students asked Fitch about the decision to remove the Spirit Rocks, Azeem said.
“He literally answered with, ‘I’m standing here serving pizza, thank you,’” Azeem said.
Sultana, who is also a graphic designer and contributor for The Mercury, said UTD students have felt left in the dark when it comes to campus speech.
“At this point, it’s really frustrating because whenever we go to admin for answers, they just run,” Sultana said. “And it’s not like the student body isn’t willing to compromise with them either.”
During Homecoming Weekend, Sultana said the administration requested students stop changing the Spirit Rocks’ design during the weekend. Sultana said students respected the administration’s wishes. The administration should work with students when making decisions that will impact campus life, Sultana said.
Edupuganti said the administration did not consult Student Government when deciding to remove the Spirit Rocks, even though they were a “Student Government-supported installation.”
“(The Spirit Rocks’ removal) is something that dealt a blow to that trust in the relationship,” Edupuganti said.
Student Government Senator Avinash Chivakula said the administration’s choice to remove the Spirit Rocks is indicative of a larger problem on campus. He said the removal has further fractured the trust students have in the administration’s ability to facilitate productive conversations around nuanced political issues.
“It’s very much a lack of administrative foresight,” Chivakula said. “And we’re going to see more of that, especially with SB 17 and a further lack of administrative cohesion.”
SB 17 comes amidst a national conservative opposition to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in higher education. The law prohibits Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices at public colleges and universities.
The law also prevents institutions from asking for DEI statements; giving preferential treatment in the hiring process based on race, sex or ethnicity; and requiring participation in DEI training.
SB 17 does not affect student organizations and academic course instruction.
Chivakula, however, said the burden to foster open conversations around DEI and politicized topics will fall unfairly on students. These issues are intimate and emotional, Chivakula said, but that doesn’t mean the university’s response should be suppression.
“A campus’s job is to facilitate opportunities for students to let out those emotions because I don’t think anger is inherently a bad thing,” Chivakula said.
Steinberg said the elimination of UTD’s DEI office will make students feel less confident in the administration’s ability to support minority students. It is more difficult for Hillel UTD to feel it has “allies” within the administration, Steinberg said, especially after the antisemitic incidents.
Since SB 17’s passing, Student Government has asked the UTD administration for greater transparency and clarity around its policies, Edupuganti said. In May, the Student Government passed a resolution asking for the administration to use an “open decision-making process” and use open forums to hear students’ input.
In November, the UTD Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion attended a Student Government meeting and presented on what will happen to different programs once SB 17 takes effect in 2024.
In a Nov. 29 email, Benson told students, faculty and staff the Office of Campus Resources and Support will replace the Office of DEI. The new office will “enhance student community-building and support employees and employee resource groups.” In the email, Benson said details were still being ironed out.
Azeem said since that email, the administration has been receptive to questions about DEI. But due to the uncertainty around SB 17, they may not be able to provide answers, she said.
Azeem said one step the administration can take to address campus unrest is reinstating the Spirit Rocks. Edupuganti said Student Government has passed a resolution calling for the reinstatement, but it has not gone to the president’s office yet.
Chivakula said UTD should be transparent around its administrative decisions so that the school can work toward its goal, which should be to foster growth amongst its student body.
“There’s no better place to talk about these topics than a campus where people are actively trying to learn and be better,” Chivakula said.
Changes to federal rules barring widespread transgender bans delayed again, with new timeline for next year
WASHINGTON — Transgender athletes in school sports left in limbo for months finally received an updated timeline from the Biden administration on its plan to update guidelines intended to protect them from discrimination.
In April, the Biden administration proposed a draft to update Title IX to include clear guidelines to protect for transgender athletes. Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination against students who attend schools that receive federal funding, has not previously addressed transgender student-athletes. But ever since then, the government has been inundated with comments about the proposed rule.
The Education Department delayed the release of the proposed rules in May and initially planned to release the guidelines in October. But since then, the guidelines have faced delays with no clear release date set. In early December the Education Department announced the guidelines are set to be released in March.
“The Biden administration has said they’re going to tell states they can’t just uniformly ban individuals not born female, from participating in female athletics,” said Stephen Vaughan, a law firm partner at Womble Bond Dickinson who specializes in Title IX. “In doing that, there will be a direct conflict between the law in many states and what the regulations require.”
With the 2024 election on the horizon, Republicans have sought to leverage the issue of trans athletes to win over voters. In the meantime, 23 states have passed laws to ban transgender athletes from participating in sports to allegedly protect female athletics.
The federal guidelines, once released, could overrule widespread bans popping up around the country that are a violation of Title IX. But the administration is facing intense backlash to the proposed rule, and federal courts have been drawn into the fight.
These updates on the guidelines are important to transgender advocates like Kaig Lightner.
Growing up, Lightner primarily identified as an athlete. Participating in softball, basketball, rowing and soccer, served as Lightner’s anchor as he navigated through life as a transgender person.
“If I had not had sports, I don’t think I would be alive,” said Lightner.
Sports provided Lightner an outlet to forget about the shame, hurt and trauma he experienced on a daily basis. Being on teams allowed him to be part of something larger than himself, he said. His mind would focus on becoming the fastest, strongest and best rather than the discrimination he faced from the outside world.
To give back to young athletes experiencing the same discrimination he faced as a kid, Lightner founded Portland Community Football club, the only soccer club in the country with all-gender inclusive teams.
“We have to think about the kids,” Lightner said, who is now 43 years old. “If the support I had received was suddenly taken away from me as a young kid, I would have been devastated.”
Lightner’s story, like several other transgender athletes, reflects the realities they’ve faced in sports: backlash at the state and federal levels.
Laws blocked and could go to Supreme Court
Temporary injunctions in Arizona, Idaho, West Virginia and Utah continue to block enforcement of many state laws. As new legislation and litigation continue to develop in states across the country, many believe this is just the beginning of a long legal battle that could ultimately end up in the hands of the conservative Supreme Court.
As uncertainties continue to rise about how the Supreme Court might rule, many look at previous cases as an indication of what to expect.
In 2020, the conservative Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County case, ruled that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating against their employees on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
“I think the Bostock decision probably surprised many who would have expected the Supreme Court to go a different way,” Vaughan said. “But what doesn’t surprise me is that if we’re seeing individuals engaging in discriminatory practices against someone, regardless of their identity, those impacted are still human beings and they’re to be protected.”
While Bostock expanded protections for transgender employees, Vaughan said he doesn’t expect a future case for transgender athletes to be as clear.
But that decision relied heavily on Title VII, which protects employees from discrimination; protections for transgender athletes fall under Title IX, which protects students. Therefore, Vaughan said he believes their arguments could be different.
Numerous groups have opposed having transgender student-athletes participate in female sports, arguing that allowing transgender athletes to participate discriminates against women in violation of Title IX.
“I think ultimately, a lot of people are deciding to go against women’s rights and rights that women have fought for for so many years,” said Paula Scanlan, spokeswoman for the conservative group Independent Women’s Forum. “Title IX was passed 51 years ago, and this would be moving backward if they decide to rewrite what it means to be a woman.”
The guidelines the Education Department proposed, however, would allow schools the “flexibility to develop team eligibility criteria that serve important educational objectives, such as ensuring fairness in competition or preventing sports-related injury.”
The Independent Women’s Forum, a national organization that is fighting transgender-inclusive efforts in school sports, believes that over the years the government has “unconstitutionally twisted the law beyond recognition.”
Citing instances of transgender athletes winning competition, including former University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas, who was the first transgender athlete to win an NCAA Division I national championship, some politicians and groups believe allowing transgender athletes to participate creates an unfair advantage.
“We’ve always had female and male categories in sports to provide opportunities for everyone,” Scanlan said. “If there were no such thing as these categories, sports would be dominated by males.”
Scanlan pointed to natural advantages male athletes have including overall strength and body structures that she said highlight the difference between men and women.
“Being a female athlete is something that takes a lot of time and dedication,” Scanlan said. “We believe that girls’ scholarships should only go to girls and they should not be taken by male individuals. We have the rights to our own spaces and our own sports teams.”
Congress steps into the fight
The views of the Independent Women’s Forum have dominated Congress as the GOP has worked to pass legislation.
Days after the Biden administration released the notice of proposed rulemaking, House GOP members passed the “Protecting Women and Girls in Sports Act” in a 219-203 party-line vote, solidifying the GOP’s stance on the issue.
Democrats in the House urged the Democratic-led Senate to kill the bill, and Democratic senators successfully blocked their colleagues from passing legislation. President Joe Biden had also vowed to veto the bill if it reached his desk.
“There’s a lot we could be doing to protect women in sports: addressing sexual harassment, discrimination in pay and other working conditions,” said Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.). “The bill that my Republican colleagues passed will not do that.”
As GOP lawmakers continue to fight for bans to protect female athletics, Bonamici said she believes these recent bans are tied to trends of rising discrimination in Congress against members of the LGBTQ community, particularly transgender women.
The bill, which would prohibit any student-athlete whose biological sex at birth was male from participating in athletic programs for women and girls, makes no mention of the participation on men’s teams of athletes whose biological sex at birth was female.
“It’s striking that they only care about transgender women, and they don’t care about transgender men,” Bonamici said. “Theirs is just a very narrow-minded, uninformed view of who transgender people really are.”
Pointing to book bans and minimal access to gender-affirming care, Bonamici said these attacks on transgender youth are based on “very egregious misinformation about what’s actually happening.”
Bonamici, who voted against the bill in April, has been joined by her Democratic colleagues as she stands by the protection of transgender athletes in sports.
“Sometimes you win and sometimes you don’t,” Bonamici said as she challenged claims about unfairness.
Studies show that transgender youth continue to face an increased risk of suicide and poor mental health, which is something Bonamici said she believes bans would only worsen.
As she awaits the rule-making changes from the Biden administration, she said she hopes others look at Lightner’s work within her district to create an inclusive team environment for all, as an example of what can be achieved.
“I think a lot of people haven’t really met a transgender person that they know of,” Bonamici said. “They’re just people, being who they are and living as their true selves, which in the United States of America everyone should have the freedom to do while being free from discrimination.”
For-profit colleges caught in regulatory tug-of-war
WASHINGTON — The Biden administration has taken aim at the for-profit college industry with a new rule to help prevent students from being saddled with massive debts. The fate of the program, however, could lie in who occupies the White House in 2025.
In September, the Department of Education announced its final Gainful Employment Rule (GER), which compels for-profit institutions and certificate programs to demonstrate that students who attend their schools fare better than if they had not attended.
Experts say the rule will save taxpayer dollars and hold for-profit institutions accountable. The Biden administration predicts the plan will protect approximately 700,000 students; however, the plan has not garnered support from both sides of the political aisle.
The GER, which was first enacted by the Obama administration in 2014, limits a student’s debt based on the borrower’s income, but the Trump administration abandoned this rule.
The Biden administration reinstated the rule and added a new provision requiring half of the graduates of the college programs to have higher earnings than someone who only has a high school diploma, which is about $25,000 nationally, but varies by state.
If a school fails these measures twice in a three-year period, it lose federal aid eligibility, which is a serious blow to their profits. According to estimates from the Brookings Institution, all for-profit colleges generate at least 70 percent of revenue from federal sources.
“The idea is that students will probably be less likely to enroll in those programs because they will no longer have access to the aid that they need to afford them, which will redirect students into programs that are more affordable and have better outcomes,” said Lydia Franz, a policy associate for the Institute for College Access & Success, a nonprofit that advocates for students to receive affordable and quality higher education.
Unlike nonprofit universities, for-profit institutions are not required to invest students’ tuition back into the school. They function as a business, meaning investors and stakeholders can make financial gains from the school. As a result, for-profit institutions are often more expensive.
Representatives of the for-profit sector say the gainful employment regulation unfairly targets their industry. Jason Altmire is president of Career Education College and Universities, a national association representing over 1,100 campuses. He said several programs at public and nonprofit colleges do not yield high wages after graduation, yet they are not subject to the same rules.
Plus, he said some research does not acknowledge the nuances in the for-profit industry, like the outcomes of students from four-year, primarily online for-profit schools and shorter programs offered by career-oriented for-profit schools. It’s not comparing “apples to apples,” he said.
“The problem with the gainful employment regulations is they apply almost exclusively only to for-profit schools,” Altmire said. “We believe that accountability measures should apply to all schools in all sectors, every type of school so that all students can have the benefit of those protections.”
Because the rule is set to take effect July 1, 2024, the earliest a college program will lose federal aid is 2026.
This comes at a time where many institutions in the sector are already facing slumping enrollments, state and federal lawsuits, and bankruptcy. Cazenovia College, Holy Names University and Living Arts College, which all closed in the spring, are among the for-profit institutions that have shut their doors.
College closures often come unexpectedly and have damaging effects on students, causing many to end their pursuit of a college degree, according to a 2022 report from the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association. Of the 467 closed institutions the report examined, 50 percent were private, for-profit, two-year colleges, and 28 percent were private, for-profit, four-year colleges.
Harry Holzer, a public policy professor at Georgetown University, said experts can disagree on specific measures used to regulate the for-profit college industry, but there should be legislation in place.
“It’s reasonable for the federal government to say, ‘You want this public money, you better have at least some minimal level of results and not stick unknowing consumers with the defaults and debts,’” he said.
However, regulatory action will depend on who wins the 2024 presidential election.
Former President Donald Trump, who has a huge lead in Republican primary polling, did away with the rule during his term, and other leading voices in the party share his view.
In an open letter, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), chairwoman of the Education and the Workforce Committee, and Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah), chairman of the Higher Education and Workforce subcommittee on development, wrote the rule uses “arbitrary metrics” and “overly burdensome and unnecessary requirements.”
Both lawmakers also receive the highest contributions from the for-profit industry, with Foxx bringing in $125,650 and Burgess accepting $29,754 during the 2021-2022 election cycle, according to data from OpenSecrets.
“I welcome accountability and transparency in postsecondary education,” Foxx wrote in a press release. “It is desperately needed. But this regulatory package is simply the same witch hunt we’ve seen the Biden administration carry out over the last two years to undercut an entire sector of institutions that serves the needs of veterans, minorities, and other disadvantaged students that Democrats claim they care about.”
However, Franz said for-profit institutions often hurt rather than help these populations. She said the for-profit sector warrants stricter regulations due to its clear history of leaving students with worse outcomes.
Other institutions that serve minority populations, like Historically Black Colleges and Universities and community colleges, do not produce these same results, she said. Their students graduate and are able to pay off their debts at higher rates.
“There is bipartisan acknowledgment that the rule will have a significant impact, but those views vary widely across constituencies,” Franz said, who identified common themes in the thousands of public comments the Education Department received about the new gainful employment policy.
The previous rule already had a significant effect on the sector, said Sandy Baum, a nonresident senior fellow at the Urban Institute’s Center on Education Data and Policy. In 2010, 1.7 million students attended a for-profit institution as compared to about 800,000 in 2021, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.
Baum ascribes that decrease, in part at least, to for-profit institutions trying to improve and become more responsible.
“[Before] they were enrolling anybody who would sign on the dotted line,” she said, noting that she was describing a widespread – but not universal – practice. “They would go to homeless shelters and recruit people because all they wanted was their money, and it didn’t matter if they dropped out quickly.”
Despite the topic not being inherently political, she said gainful employment has become divisive due to powerful lobbying groups. When the Obama administration first tried to introduce policy on gainful employment, it faced legal disputes for four years before the final rule was published.
Altmire, who served three terms in the House of Representatives, said there will likely be a new lawsuit to protest Biden’s updated rule.
In the meantime, Altmire fears the effects of this rule could go even further regardless of who serves in the White House.
“If you look at a different president, maybe a Republican president, who doesn’t hold community colleges or public universities or elite universities in high regard, these same types of rules could very easily be weaponized against those kinds of schools,” Altmire said.
Published in conjunction with 
Fund schools to fight back: Democratic lawmakers unveil book ban legislation
WASHINGTON – Pushing back against book bans across the country, Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) was joined by his Democratic colleagues as he introduced the ‘Fight Book Bans Act’ on Tuesday.
“The far right, fascist, MAGA extreme has caught up to the fact that their agenda is unpopular with young people, because it turns out young people don’t want fascism,” Frost said. “Instead of changing their policies to appeal to young people, they want to change the way young people learn in schools to try to change what they think.”
As books containing content about race, sexuality and gender continue to be pulled off shelves across the country, school boards and districts have come under fire as parents remain split about their role in their children’s education. While Republican lawmakers claim that parents should have a choice in the content their children have access to, Democrats believe that these controversies are further straining an education system that is already underserved.
Citing the cost schools have to pay to investigate controversial books, Frost said he believes schools need to be equipped with funding to fight back against censorship and authoritarian control. To do this, the bill would fund school districts up to $100,000 to oppose challenges against materials in their libraries.
Frost was joined by his Democratic colleagues including Rep. Jaimie Raskin (D-Md.), Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), in their attempt to take the first steps to protect free speech around the country.
“We live in a society where there is a free circulation of ideas, discussion and dialogue,” Raskin said. “You’ve got to defend the full thing. You can’t just defend the speech that you love. That’s easy. You’ve got to defend the speech that you hate.”
Published in conjunction with 
Lawmakers call for urgent overhaul of UN-supported Palestinian education
WASHINGTON — House representatives and experts are calling for urgent changes to United Nations humanitarian agencies involving Palestinian youth education on Israel over fears that the programs are spreading antisemitism.
“Hatred is taught,” said Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “It’s being taught with aggressiveness every single day to the youngest of Palestinians. That is child abuse.”
Other members of the committee also accused the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) of perpetuating antisemitic narratives. Rep. Kathy Manning, D-N.C., said UNRWA is among the bodies of the U.N. that has a “single-minded, negative focus on Israel.”
UNRWA did not respond to several requests for comment. According to its website, UNRWA has operated in the Middle East for nearly 75 years “providing free basic education for some 543,075 Palestine refugee children.” The U.S. reinstated funding for UNRWA after Donald Trump halted American-backed finances during his presidency.
Lawmakers said they recognize UNRWA is a backbone to humanitarian assistance offered in Gaza, but asserted that bias and discrimination run rampant in their curricula.
“Many U.N. agencies provide essential services, such as vaccines for children, in countries where neither the host government nor any alternative can or will provide those services,” said Manning. “At the same time, I have also long raised concerns about the problematic content in textbooks used by UNRWA schools in the West Bank and Gaza. We will continue to insist that this content be removed.”
In efforts to address this, the House passed the Peace and Tolerance in Palestinian Education Act last Wednesday. The law requires the U.S. secretary of state to annually oversee educational materials in schools in Gaza or governed by the Palestinian Authority.
Jonathan Schanzer, senior vice president for research at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, said that congressional actions can’t stop at observation.
“What is taught comes down to the teacher,” he said. “And we know many staff have an affiliation or affinity for Hamas that has to change.”
Hillel Neuer, executive director of U.N. Watch, also shared Schanzer’s sentiment, citing a U.N. Watch report released Monday that claimed UNRWA teachers made statements that celebrated the Hamas attacks.
“The U.N. has failed,” Neuer said. “Its actions only incentivize Hamas to continue their strategy using Palestinians as human shields and maximizing casualties.”
Committee members said they warned of increasing levels of antisemitism in the U.N. in response to the Israel-Hamas war. Smith among others called for the disbandment of UNRWA entirely.
But Jonathan Lincoln, interim director for the Center for Jewish Civilization, said “replacing UNRWA with other U.N. agencies is unrealistic due to its entirely unique operational structure.”
“Despite its shortcomings, the U.N. is far too important an organization for the US to disengage from,” Lincoln testified. “This is for the sake of Palestinians, Israelis and the world.”
Ranking Member Susan Wild, D-Pa., called for “robust, pro-active diplomacy on the stage.” Manning said this could be achieved if the U.S. continues to be part of the conversation with UNRWA.
“U.N. agencies are imperfect. And in certain cases they’re even seriously flawed,” Manning said. “At the same time, the United States tends to have more influence when we have a seat at the table.”
Israel-Hamas war prompts lawmakers to debate limit free speech on college campuses, with Cornell incident in spotlight
WASHINGTON — Jewish students and faculty members implored lawmakers on Wednesday to condemn antisemitic incidents and push back against hateful language on college campuses as Congress grapples with flared tensions related to the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas.
There has been a documented increase in threats against Jewish, Palestinian, Muslim, Middle Eastern and South Asian people, and groups on both sides say universities have not been productive spaces for debates on these political issues.
“Jewish students are being physically threatened and have legitimate cause to fear for their safety on campuses across the country,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler said during the House Judiciary Committee hearing. “There’s no excuse for that kind of violence at any school, against any student.”
The veteran Manhattan Democrat, who is Jewish, is making his call for more protections for Jewish students two weeks after Patrick Dai, a student at Cornell University, posted a series of antisemitic comments online, including a threat to “shoot up” a dining hall frequented by Jewish students. Dai, whose according to his family has dealt with mental illness, has been arrested and federally charged for posting the threats online.
Cornell student Amanda Silberstein, who serves on Chabad Cornell’s board, said she believes the increased tensions following Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks on southern Israel contributed to Dai’s decision to post hate speech online.
“It’s evident that the sentiment created on campus by professors and students alike, of pervasive and just widespread antisemitism and anti-Israel rhetoric has created such an atmosphere that has enabled [Dai] to make these comments,” Silberstein said.
Silberstein said social media has “been fueling the fire” on campus by allowing students to falsely think they can hide behind a “veil of anonymity” without fear of repercussions.
“Your words have consequences,” she said. “All students should take that to heart.”
After the arrest, Cornell observed Nov. 3 as a “Community Day” to help students process the stress.
Nationally, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has reported 54 cases of antisemitic incidents on college campuses since Oct. 7.
“As a Cornell alum and a father of three children, I can guarantee you that if this is how this university is going to approach antisemitism, my children will not be attending Cornell,” said Rep. Wesley Hunt, a Texas Republican.
Students from other schools, including the state University of Buffalo and the University of Iowa, also testified about the atmosphere on college campuses.
Democratic lawmakers expressed concerns about how far their Republican colleagues were willing to go to prevent all forms of discrimination.
In March, President Joe Biden requested a 27 percent increase in funding for the Office of Civil Rights to protect equal access to education by enforcing civil rights legislation. As Republican lawmakers finalize a budget proposal for fiscal year 2024, Democrats said they are anticipating to see those funds slashed.
“If my Republican colleagues were serious about this issue, they would fully fund that request,” Nadler said. “Their promises about antisemitism and their actions disconnect in other ways as well.”
On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights released a letter, reminding schools of their legal obligations under Title VI to provide all students a learning environment free from discrimination based on race, color or national origin.
Witnesses and lawmakers at the hearing also clashed over the difference between free speech and statements promoting violence.
Public universities operate under broad First Amendment protections for students and faculty. For example, they can protest and hand out flyers as long as the speech does not escalate into targeted harassment or threats, according to the ACLU.
Silberstein raised the issue of the phrase “from the river to the sea” commonly chanted at rallies by pro-Palestinian activists in a reference to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — an area that includes Israel as well as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The expression in its entirety is “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”; it has been flagged as antisemitic by the ADL, which describes it as a call for the “dismantling of the Jewish state.”
Silberstein contended that calling for such actions amount to the “genocide of the Jewish people,” a characterization that was has been challenged. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., a Palestinian-American lawmaker, was formally censured by her House colleagues on Tuesday night after using the phrase, which she described as “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate.”
In a tense exchange, Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., and Silberstein discussed the relationship between conduct and speech. Silberstein said action often follows words, citing Dai’s comments after marchers on Cornell’s campus had chanted “from the river to the sea.”
McClintock asked Silberstein whether the legality of speech advocating violence depends “on your viewpoint.”
“Who’s to decide, though, whose viewpoint is legal and illegal?” McClintock said. “In a free society, we put all those viewpoints (out in public) and let the people make the judgment themselves.”
The committee hearing itself was frequently interrupted by Palestinian supporters. Ten protesters were arrested for crowding or obstructing a public building, media reports said.
At the start of the hearing, pro-Palestine protesters waited in the back of the room — some with duct tape over their mouths with the word “Gaza” written on it. The protesters interrupted opening remarks, holding up posters with messages like “Free speech includes Palestinians” and “Stop silencing Palestinian students.”
Students who supported Palestinians said they have feared for their safety and losing out on employment opportunities. On college campuses, pro-Palestinian students often speak to reporters solely on the condition of anonymity over worries about “doxxing,” or having their personal information exposed online. Anonymous online blacklists such as Canary Mission compile names and pictures of those organizers deem to be critical of Israel — and some of those profiled have been questioned by the FBI.
Following pressure on college administrators to investigate campus chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine, the ACLU last week penned an open letter in opposition to what it described as universities backpedaling on free speech. Republican lawmakers — who in the past have loudly protested what they see as the squelching of conservative voices on campus — have introduced legislation barring federal funding to schools they say promote antisemitism, citing SJP activities as an example.
The House’s vote to censure Tlaib was also raised during the hearing, by protesters and lawmakers alike.
“It’s ironic that we’re holding this hearing today about censorship and speech on campus, but last night MAGA Republicans and others censured the only Palestinian voice in the House of Representatives because they didn’t like what she had to say,” said Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga.
Johnson was joined by other Democratic lawmakers in the room as he said Tlaib didn’t advocate for violence but merely stated a different point of view, similar to what he believes is happening on college campuses.
“We’re not setting a very good example here in Congress,” Johnson said.
Published in conjunction with 
Congress Moves to reform Palestinian schools, remove anti-zionist rhetoric
WASHINGTON — As war wages in the Middle East, the House of Representatives looks to pass the Peace and Tolerance in Palestinian Education Act. The bill requires the State Department to annually assess school curriculums in the West Bank and Gaza and report its findings to Congress. It would determine whether textbooks and lesson plans “encourage violence toward other countries or ethnic groups” and if the U.S. should intervene.
Introduced by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), the bill has garnered mass bipartisan support. Representatives cited different examples of textbook passages and homework assignments containing anti-Israel sentiments. One was a fourth-grade math problem that had students calculate the total number of “martyrs” in the two intifadas.
“This [war] is the outcome of generations of children in Gaza and the West Bank being taught to embrace death and terrorism,” Sherman said.
However, independent studies show a slightly different story.
According to a report from Yale University, Israeli and Palestinian textbooks show nearly equal amounts of political bias. 87% of Israeli textbooks exclude reference to the state of Palestine completely, while 94% of Palestinian textbooks exclude Israel completely. These include maps that don’t label the other country and incorrect borders. Both countries “fail to describe information about the other’s history, culture or religion,” according to the Yale report. No examples were found of “dehumanizing characteristics of personal traits of Jews or Israelis.”
A major concern of lawmakers is that Palestinian schools are partly funded by the United States. It had previously provided over $200 million for educational assistance. These funds go to the hundreds of United Nations-sponsored schools across the West Bank and Gaza. U.N. schools cannot create their own textbooks and are required to use educational materials from the nation they’re in.
Currently, these schools are being used as shelter for over 400,000 Palestinians whose homes have been destroyed. Israeli airstrikes have bombed four of these schools, killing 35 UNRWA staff and at least 30 students since the war began.
“It will take genuine and courageous efforts to go back to the roots of this deadly deadlock and offer political options that are viable and can enable an environment of peace, stability and security,” said the Commissioner-General of the UNRWA, Philippe Lazzarini.
Parents’ choice, not educators: GOP fights against sexual content in schools
WASHINGTON — Saying they want to protect students from explicit content in school, Republican lawmakers on October 18, 2023, pushed for parents to have more power over educators in deciding the materials used in schools.
As books containing LGBTQ+ and Black stories continue to be taken off shelves in school libraries across the country, the debate around the role of parents in education has intensified in school districts. With this increase in tension, parental rights advocacy groups, including Moms for Liberty, have seen an increase in membership as parents push for the inclusion of their voices in curriculum decisions for their children.
Citing the apparent destruction of parental trust in the public education system, Republican lawmakers in the Education and Workforce Committee commended advocates for their work as they expressed their distaste in what they said is a system allowing young children to read sexual content prematurely.
“I am very proud of the engagement of parents who recognize the rotten filth that is being pushed on our innocent, vulnerable children…,” Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah) said. “Moving forward, our Republican majority will work to stop the entrapment of children in institutions who prioritize sexual indoctrination instead of reading, writing, thinking and succeeding.”
Across the aisle, Democrats said the worst possible solution would be the infringement of First Amendment rights.
“One of the things that I see is the erosion of that public institution,” Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said. “Part of it is trying to control what people read and don’t read… I think that is a huge threat to public education.”
As a former school board member in Arizona, Rep. Grijalva said he is concerned about the impact of book bans on communities of color.
In his time on the school board, Grijalva represented a diverse community where he said students had a hard time relating to traditional learning materials. Failing to see themselves represented in the curriculum, he said students in his district struggle to remain engaged.
“Our schools are becoming more diverse,” Dr. Jonathan Friedman, Director of Free Expression and Education Programs at PEN America, said. “Research shows that young people are going to be more engaged in learning in schools when their libraries and the books they have access to reflect their identities and a range of their life experiences.”
Beginning the hearing with a content warning for those in the audience, Republican lawmakers and witnesses used graphic language to establish a connection between the apparent discomfort created in the audience and the discomfort children experience while reading these books.
Witnesses described the oral sex, rape, incest and sodomy depicted in the most controversial books, which they said have been made readily available to their children in their school’s libraries.
After her 3-year-old son came home with a book depicting “drag queens and leather,” Lindsey Smith, the chair of a local chapter of Moms for Liberty in Maryland, was prompted to investigate other sexually explicit books in schools. Through these investigations, she was made aware of Maia Kobabe’s memoir “Gender Queer,” a book with an innocent cover which deceives young readers about the content inside, she said.
“In the pages of this graphic novel, we see a sexual fantasy play out,” Smith said. “We see the sexual position of two young adults with both parties’ private parts all being displayed.”
Kobabe’s memoir, which depicts their journey through childhood as they come out as nonbinary, has been praised by some parents as an appropriate portrayal of sex and gender identity issues facing children today. Smith, however, said the graphic novel goes against Maryland’s minor indecency and obscenity laws, which prohibit individuals from showing minors obscene images.
“Mentioning details of this book feels wildly inappropriate in a Congressional hearing,” said the Superintendent of Wyoming’s Department of Education, Megan Degenfelder. “Why then is it available to our children?”
Degenfelder said she was upset with the sexually explicit materials in schools, but added she was equally concerned that these books were coming from taxpayer dollars. Degenfelder was joined by lawmakers in her calls for parents to push for more oversight in school library catalogs, instead of seeking more oversight from the federal government.
“Age appropriate content moderation by local school officials is a right deeply ingrained in the principle of localism and federalism,” Chairman Rep. Aaron Bean (R-Fla.) said. “Federalizing the book review process by putting it in the hands of D.C. bureaucrats, thereby taking parents out of the equation, would be the worst possible solution.”
As Democrats expressed their concerns, they said they fear their Republican colleagues have gone too far.
“We don’t have students testifying today Mr. Chairman, but their voices should be heard…,” said Ranking member, Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) as she read letters from students across the country. “‘Hiding away things that make us uncomfortable doesn’t make them go away. Even if we don’t talk about it, racism, sexual assault, genocide and many other complex issues will still exist. We have to face the discomfort to keep it from happening again.’”
Published in conjunction with
Self-censoring in schools increases as teachers fear backlash, new study reveals
WASHINGTON — Educators across the country have experienced negative impacts on their ability to teach due to the national discourse around book bans, a study published by First Book Research & Insights on Tuesday found. The study, which surveyed 1,500 educators around the nation, found that while two-thirds of respondents expressed negative impacts on their teaching lives, only one-third of respondents were subject to book bans in their districts.
“We’re at this moment where there are hard bans out there, but actually more pernicious may be the soft bans where there’s a bit of self-censorship happening,” said Lisa Guernsey, senior editor and strategic advisor at New America, a policy-driven think tank. “Educators aren’t so sure they’re going to put that book on their syllabi this year because they aren’t sure they want to get that call or deal with any anger that might emerge.”
To commemorate Banned Books Week, an annually held advocacy campaign for open accessibility to information, New America held the event ‘From Book Bans to Inclusive Education’ on Tuesday. Joined by educators, parents and authors, the event examined the state of the American education system amidst rising concerns around the banning of books in schools. As challenges to curriculum erupt across the country, panelists discussed the indirect impact felt by educators who are not subject to bans and the new burden on teachers to self-censor their material to prevent facing backlash in the future. To prevent self-censorship, the panelists said, teachers must be provided with leadership training to empower them to fight for their curriculum.
“Many times, teachers aren’t feeling confident and ask themselves, ‘Should I choose this book?’” said Professor of Education at the University of Richmond, Ma’asehyahu Isra-Ul. “A lot of times they end up second guessing themselves because we haven’t empowered them with the tools to have conversations.”
Instead of backing away from challenging conversations about race, sexuality and religion in their classrooms, Isra-Ul said he believes these conversations will help empower teachers to provide their students with the literature they need to succeed.
“A lot of times we hear, ‘You’ve gotta do what’s best for kids,’ but, when’s the last time you talked to one?” Isra-Ul said. “We’ve lost what the main thing is, which is our students. What are our students asking for?”
Natasha Tarpley, author of the best-selling picture book “I Love My Hair!”, said she believes students want to see their lives represented in the literature they consume.
“Growing up, I was really shy. Books were my way to see the world, but they were also my way to figure out who I was,” Tarpley said. “When I was reading these books, I wasn’t seeing myself, and that made it difficult.”
For Tarpley, children’s books are a place where kids can connect the pieces of who they are. She said books can become a “tool of resistance” when kids are able to create their own sources of power by exploring their interests, concerns, fears and passions. When these “tools of resistance” become topics of controversy, however, she said it places a burden on the children most vulnerable.
“There’s a lot of nurturing that needs to happen for the children whose life experiences are being banned,” Tarpley said. “These children are seen to be less important because society wants to protect the sanctity of other children’s emotions.”
Howard University PhD student Maika Moulite said book bans hurt students of color by reinforcing hierarchies in society, while representation can increase student engagement and help solve educational inequities.
“If you don’t see yourself reflected in the stories, then you are less inclined to read, and if you are less inclined to read, the opportunities you will have later on might also decline,” Moulite said. “If we want young people to get to the hallowed halls of academia, there has to be a stretching of that critical thinking muscle and a lot of that comes through reading books.”
Democrats relaunch the Green New Deal for public schools
WASHINGTON — Recent studies have found that climate change disrupts the education of 40 million students a year. Due to environmental disasters like the Maui wildfires and deteriorating infrastructure, those numbers are only expected to go up. For Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), a former public school teacher, this is an unacceptable reality.
“Our public schools are literally falling apart across the country. Children are going to school with lead in the water,” said Bowman.
On Thursday, Bowman, alongside Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), relaunched the Green New Deal for Public Schools. The bill aims to reduce public school carbon emissions to zero by running on renewable energy sources. Schools would receive green retrofits, such as community gardens and labs, to teach about sustainability, science, and technology. Schools would be able to hire more teachers and staff while reducing class sizes. The bill would also prioritize low-income schools for these upgrades.
The bill is co-sponsored by more than 70 House lawmakers. At a press conference on Thursday, Bowman and Markey were joined by several other representatives, including Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). All of them stressed the urgency of the climate crisis and the importance of a bold response.
“In these halls, the definition of cost is different than the rest of our country,” Rep. Frost said. “For them, cost is just dollars and cents, but for us, cost is human life.”
Frost represents Florida, which he describes as one of the states most vulnerable to climate change. Just last month, extreme temperatures and a lack of proper ventilation closed over 1800 public schools across the state. Reps. Bowman, Velázquez and Schakowsky are also former teachers.
Bowman said the bill presents a holistic solution to the deterioration of schools – focusing not just on climate, but on health, safety, and the well-being of students.
According to Bowman, the proposal is estimated to cost $1.6 trillion over 10 years. He said the funding would come from taxes on the uber-wealthy and corporations, as well as a redistribution of funds from the defense budget to education.
“Our budget is a reflection of our values. And our values for several decades have been rooted in mass incarceration, gun violence, imperialism, and self-destruction,” said Bowman. “It’s time for a new American revolution where our values are rooted in our children, in education, and a love for humanity.”
House Republicans have said the Green New Deal will only hurt the country further. “This Green New Deal monstrosity increased inflation, imposed new taxes on energy cost and drove energy prices higher,” Rep. Ted Cruz (D-Fla) tweeted this month. However, no version of the Green New Deal has been passed thus far.
This message has garnered national support from teachers’ unions. “These are the investments we must make to make every public school in America a safe, welcoming and joyful place where educators are respected and supported, parents are happy to send their kids, and students thrive,” said Randi Weingarten, the President of the American Federation of Teachers.
And, according to research from the University of Pennsylvania, the bill would make a significant impact on schools. This legislation would eliminate 78 million metric tons of CO2 annually and fund 1.3 million jobs annually.
“Young people might be only 20% of our population, but they are 100% of our future,” said Sen. Markey.
Two students take on the Education Department in a landmark Supreme Court case
WASHINGTON – In a second, lesser-known case, the Supreme Court this week heard oral arguments from individual borrowers about whether they have the legal standing to challenge the Department of Education’s student-debt relief plan. The court also considered whether the federal plan was properly authorized by statute and adopted in accordance with proper procedures.
This was the second of two cases brought against the Biden administration on an estimated $400 billion student-loan relief program to come before the court on Tuesday.
The case, Department of Education v. Brown, was originally filed by two student loan borrowers, Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor, who claim they were improperly denied the opportunity to provide feedback on the Department of Education’s student-loan forgiveness plan that the Biden administration announced in August 2022. Brown was not able to take advantage of the Department of Education’s student-debt relief plan because she had taken out private student loans not backed by the government, while Alexander Taylor qualified for $10,000 but not the full $20,000 available under the Biden program.
The judge in the federal court in the Northern District of Texas determined that Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona had exceeded his authority in creating this program and thus nullified the forgiveness program nationwide.
In one aspect of the case, however, he did rule for the government, saying that it was not required to go through a notice-and-comment process under the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solution (HEROES) Act, a law from 2003 that allows the government to waive or modify loan provisions in response to a national emergency.
During the hearing, the justices were particularly interested in understanding the injury claimed by the respondents. They also asked many questions about the fairness of the student-debt relief plan, given the criteria for eligibility and the extent of aid available.
Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, who represents the federal government’s interests, expressed concern that ruling for the original petitioners would set a precedent that could be used to block other agency actions without merit. Prelogar explained that petitioners, who do not stand to benefit from a ruling on Education Department’s action, should not be allowed to assert injury and interfere with the agency’s ability to regulate.
Michael Connolly, who represents the students who sued, argued that the Department of Education used the HEROES Act as an excuse not to adopt the program through negotiated rulemaking and notice-and-comment procedures.
According to Connolly, if the HEROES Act does not apply, then there is “no dispute that the program is procedurally improper.” He also noted that by choosing the HEROES Act route, the Department of Education had prevented stakeholders from having a say in how the program is administered.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts raised a question on fairness during the hearing. He presented a hypothetical scenario involving two high school students who cannot afford college: one takes out a loan, while the other starts a lawn care service and takes out a bank loan. Roberts questioned the government’s decision to cancel the loan of the college student, who is proportionally better off after college than the other student who took out a loan for a lawn care service. Justice Samuel A. Alito echoed Roberts’ fairness concerns and questioned the unequal treatment of individuals who did not receive comparable relief. He acknowledged the possibility that their interests were outweighed by those who benefitted, or that they were considered less deserving of support.
Responding to the justices’ concerns, Prelogar argued that Congress had already determined that during national emergencies that impact borrowers, the secretary of education is authorized to provide relief. She also stated that it was Congress’ responsibility to define the individuals who qualify for any relief program, and in this case, the secretary acted appropriately in granting relief to those who met the criteria.
In an exchange with Prelogar, Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised the issue of social inequality and fairness. She highlighted that while everyone suffered during the pandemic, different people received different benefits based on their eligibility under different relief programs. She argued that inherent unfairness exists in society because resources are limited, and every law has its boundaries.
“Every law has people who encompass it or people outside it. And that’s not an issue of fairness. It’s an issue of what the law protects or doesn’t,” she explained.
Connolly emphasized that the students’ procedural rights were violated, resulting in financial harm, and argued that the law mandates that the education secretary provides them with a chance to voice their concerns.
On the other hand, Prelogar maintained that if the Supreme Court decides to consider the merits of the case, it should reject the assertion that the peititioners’ procedural claim is invalid because of the clear statutory exemption by Congress, which specifically waived the secretary from following such procedures when issuing waivers and modifications under the HEROES Act.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the case before its term ends this summer.
.
Medill Today | March 4, 2025