In a statement shared on social media on March 28th, Helyeh Doutaghi, the Deputy Director of the Law and Political Economy Project at Yale Law School (YLS), revealed that her employment was terminated by the prestigious institution. The firing came just days before Muslims across the world marked the second Eid under the shadow of an ongoing genocide against Palestinian families. Doutaghi’s termination followed her outspoken criticism of Zionist policies in Palestine, igniting a wider conversation about free speech, academic freedom, and institutional silencing in American universities.
According to Doutaghi, the circumstances surrounding her firing raise critical questions about the role of elite educational institutions in suppressing dissent. She criticized universities like Yale, Cornell, Columbia, and Harvard for what she described as the normalization of "fascistic governance." In her statement, Doutaghi argued that these institutions were increasingly functioning as "sites of surveillance and oppression," actively collaborating with state apparatuses to criminalize resistance movements.
Doutaghi's termination was preceded by her being placed on administrative leave in February, following allegations of ties to Samidoun, the Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, which the U.S. government has labeled a terrorist-linked organization. Doutaghi has denied any unlawful affiliation with the group, asserting that she was never given an opportunity for a fair hearing before her abrupt dismissal. In her view, Yale’s actions exemplify a broader trend of academic institutions suppressing pro-Palestinian voices, especially as the geopolitical tensions surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict escalate.
In a chilling warning about the broader implications of her firing, Doutaghi emphasized the troubling precedent her case could set for academic freedom. "This sets a chilling precedent," she wrote. "If any Al bot – or anyone at all – accuses a Yale faculty or student of wrongdoing, that alone can now suffice to end their career." Doutaghi's comments draw attention to concerns about due process in academic settings, especially when external pressures—such as politically motivated surveillance or AI-generated campaigns—are used to target and silence critical voices.
The investigation into Doutaghi's alleged ties to Samidoun came to light after an article in Jewish Onliner, an Israeli publication. However, doubts have been raised about the credibility of the publication. Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Jewish Onliner might be an AI-generated bot with potential links to the Israeli government and military, further casting uncertainty on the investigation’s motives. Doutaghi’s attorney, Eric Lee, pointed out that the basis for the investigation was flimsy, with the sole evidence being an online article, raising serious questions about the fairness and transparency of Yale’s decision-making process.
Doutaghi has also linked her termination to broader shifts in U.S. policy, particularly under the Trump administration, which she claims has escalated attacks on noncitizen students and faculty supporting Palestinian human rights. For Doutaghi, her firing is symptomatic of a deeper crisis in American institutions, one that reflects the decline of what she calls "Western liberal democracy." She contends that these systems, despite their outward commitment to democracy and human rights, are built to serve the interests of the propertied classes, often at the expense of marginalized communities.
The implications of Doutaghi’s termination extend beyond her personal case, signaling a potentially dangerous precedent for academic freedom in the U.S. As universities increasingly become sites of ideological conformity, there is growing concern that dissenting voices—particularly those in solidarity with Palestine—are being systematically silenced. The firing raises questions about the extent to which academic institutions are willing to protect free speech in the face of external political and social pressures.
In the wake of Doutaghi’s dismissal, students, faculty members, and advocacy groups have rallied in support of her, condemning Yale’s actions as an affront to academic freedom. Protests have erupted at various campuses, demanding accountability from university administrators and calling for the protection of Palestinian human rights.
As the case continues to unfold, the larger debate about the role of universities in upholding democratic values, academic freedom, and social justice remains at the forefront. Doutaghi’s statement serves as a reminder of the precarious nature of dissent in today’s political climate, where even academic institutions that once stood as bastions of free thought and expression are increasingly vulnerable to the pressures of political influence and ideological control.
The question now facing the broader academic community is how to respond to the growing trend of censorship and silencing on campuses. Will institutions like Yale take a stand in defense of free speech, or will they continue to bow to external political and social pressures? The answers to these questions will have far-reaching consequences for the future of academic freedom in the United States.
In prestigious universities across the country, the figurehead of the institution—the president—has become a symbol of frustration and resentment among students, faculty, and staff. These figures, often once revered as academic leaders, are increasingly viewed as little more than corporate CEOs, prioritizing the interests of wealthy trustees and donors over the very people who make the university what it is: the students and the dedicated faculty and staff who carry out its mission.
At the heart of the growing discontent is the trend of university presidents restricting freedom of speech and assembly, stifling student activism, and limiting open debate in the name of "campus safety" or "institutional stability." Instead of acting as advocates for open discourse, many university presidents have aligned themselves with powerful corporate interests, turning their backs on the very values that once defined higher education. The administration's agenda is often dictated by the whims of major donors, whose influence can shape everything from university policy to the hiring and firing of professors.
The University of Chicago, long a beacon of academic freedom, has seen its leadership take a hard turn in recent years, placing increasing restrictions on student demonstrations and dissent. Under the guise of maintaining "campus order," the administration has been known to deploy private security to break up protests and limit public forums for free speech.
Harvard University, with its enormous endowment and prestigious reputation, has become another example of an institution where the president seems more concerned with appeasing donors than listening to the students and faculty. The administration has been criticized for prioritizing relationships with donors over addressing the deepening student debt crisis and growing concerns about inequality in higher education. The university has faced a wave of student-led protests demanding action on climate change, affordable tuition, and the rights of adjunct faculty, all of which were largely ignored or dismissed by the top administration.
Harvard’s massive endowment—reportedly the largest of any university in the world—has been a focal point of controversy. While it continues to grow, many argue that the university could be doing far more to address the financial burdens of its students, particularly the mounting debt facing undergraduates. Instead, the administration has focused on expanding its brand and maintaining its status as an elite institution, often prioritizing donor preferences and legacy admissions over efforts to make education more accessible. Legacy admissions, in which children of alumni are given preferential treatment, have been a point of contention, with critics arguing that this practice entrenches privilege and reduces opportunities for marginalized students.
Even at places like Princeton University, long considered a champion of academic freedom, President Christopher Eisgruber has come under fire for clamping down on student speech and assembly. While Princeton’s administration claims to support free expression, it has quietly enacted policies to restrict protestors’ access to the administration building, citing concerns about “disruption” and “disorder.” Eisgruber, who has connections to powerful alumni, has been accused of using his position to protect the interests of wealthy donors while ignoring the voices of those who are most directly affected by the university's policies.
The University of Southern California (USC) is another prime example of a university where the president’s priorities have come under increasing scrutiny from students, faculty, and staff. Under President Carol Folt, USC has become emblematic of a trend where the administration appears more aligned with wealthy donors and corporate interests than with the needs of its campus community.
Folt, who took over as USC's president in 2019, was thrust into the spotlight during a period of significant unrest. The university had already been embroiled in scandals—including the high-profile college admissions bribery scandal—and was facing criticism for its handling of sexual assault allegations within its medical school. Rather than addressing these issues head-on, many argue that Folt’s administration focused instead on securing funding from high-profile donors and expanding the university’s brand, while sidelining the concerns of students and faculty.
This prioritization of external donors is evident in USC’s massive fundraising campaigns, which often overshadow initiatives aimed at addressing student debt, affordability, or academic freedom. USC's endowment has grown exponentially under Folt’s leadership, but student loan debt continues to be a crippling issue for many Trojans, and the concerns of adjunct faculty members remain largely ignored.
Furthermore, Folt’s administration has faced criticism for its efforts to suppress dissent on campus. For instance, student protests related to labor rights, housing issues, and calls for greater diversity on campus have been met with limited response or, at times, outright hostility. In 2022, when USC students protested the administration's handling of campus housing shortages, they were met with heightened security measures and a lack of genuine engagement from university leadership. These actions—along with Folt’s ties to the private sector, particularly her background in environmental policy and corporate leadership—have fueled perceptions that USC’s administration is more interested in protecting its brand than in creating an inclusive, participatory academic environment.
USC also exemplifies the growing disconnect between students, faculty, and administration when it comes to issues of free speech and assembly. Protests have become less frequent, as many students feel their voices will not be heard, and faculty members, particularly those in non-tenure track positions, are often too fearful of retribution to publicly criticize the administration.
The discontent with university leadership is not confined to the campus. In recent years, presidents from some of the nation's most elite institutions, including Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have faced intense scrutiny and backlash during hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives. These public hearings, aimed at addressing the growing issues of student debt, university funding, and the influence of wealthy donors on campus, have highlighted the widening disconnect between top university administrations and the communities they are supposed to serve.
During a House hearing in 2022, Lawrence Bacow of Harvard, along with MIT's President L. Rafael Reif and Penn's President Amy Gutmann, faced tough questioning from lawmakers who were deeply critical of how these institutions have handled student debt, tuition costs, and their ties to corporate interests. Bacow, in particular, faced pointed questions about Harvard's massive endowment and the university's refusal to use its resources to address skyrocketing tuition and student loan debt. Both Reif and Gutmann were grilled on how their institutions have prioritized securing donations from wealthy alumni and corporate entities over the well-being of students and faculty. The hearing exposed a troubling pattern where the presidents of these prestigious institutions seemed more concerned with maintaining their institutions' financial health than with addressing the needs of their campus communities.
Legacy admissions, a practice entrenched at many of these elite schools, also came under fire during the hearings. Critics argued that such policies perpetuate inequality, giving children of alumni—many of whom come from wealthy backgrounds—unfair advantages in the admissions process. This has contributed to the growing perception that these universities, while claiming to offer merit-based opportunities, are fundamentally shaped by privilege and corporate interests.
These public confrontations highlighted the growing frustration with university presidents who are seen as out of touch with the everyday realities facing students and faculty, as well as the increasing influence of money and corporate interests in higher education. The presidents of these universities, once seen as respected leaders, have become targets of anger and resentment, with many on Capitol Hill and on campus calling for a shift in how these institutions are governed.
These are just a few examples of elite universities where the power structure has shifted toward those who have the financial means to dictate the terms of the campus experience. As tuition costs rise and student loan debt becomes a crushing burden for many, university presidents seem more determined than ever to serve the interests of trustees and donors, rather than advocating for the people who should be their true constituents: the students, faculty, and staff who make up the heart of the academic community.
The impact of this shift has been profound. On campuses across the country, students are increasingly feeling that their voices don’t matter. Faculty members, once seen as the intellectual core of the institution, are being sidelined in favor of administrators who prioritize financial concerns over academic integrity. And staff members—many of whom are underpaid and overworked—are being pushed to the margins as well.
But it’s not just students who are feeling the heat. Faculty and staff have found their own platforms for protest increasingly under attack. At places like Yale University, where former President Peter Salovey faced criticism for neglecting the needs of faculty and for his lukewarm responses to issues like labor rights and the treatment of graduate workers, professors staged walkouts and organized petitions to voice their discontent with the administration's disregard for their well-being.
In this new era, university presidents are no longer the beloved leaders of intellectual discourse—they are the gatekeepers of corporate power, more concerned with securing funding from wealthy donors than with fostering an inclusive, open, and critical academic environment. The fallout from this shift is only growing, as campuses become hotbeds of dissent, with students, faculty, and staff increasingly questioning the direction of higher education and the people at the helm.
As the divide between administration and the campus community continues to widen, one thing is clear: the once-admired university president is now among the most hated figures on campus, seen not as a champion of academic values, but as an enforcer of an increasingly political and profit-driven agenda.
The faculty and national labor unions allege that the Trump
administration improperly canceled Columbia University’s federal funding
to compel speech restrictions on campus, damaging both vital scientific
research and academic discourse
NEW YORK– The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the AFT today sued the Trump administration
on behalf of their members for unlawfully cutting off $400 million in
federal funding for crucial public health research to force Columbia
University to surrender its academic independence. While the Trump
administration has been slashing funding since its first days in office,
this move represents a stunning new tactic: using cuts as a cudgel to
coerce a private institution to adopt restrictive speech codes and allow
government control over teaching and learning.
The plaintiffs,
who represent members of Columbia University faculty in both the
humanities and sciences, allege that this coercive tactic not only
undermines academic independence, but stops vital scientific research
that contributes to the health and prosperity of all Americans. The
terminated grants supported research on urgent issues, including
Alzheimer’s disease prevention, fetal health in pregnant women, and
cancer research.
The Trump administration’s unprecedented demands,
and threats of similar actions against 60 universities, have created
instability and a deep chilling effect on college campuses across the
country. Although the administration claims to be acting to combat
antisemitism under its authority to prevent discrimination, it has
completely disregarded the requirements of Title VI, the statute that
provides it with that authority–requirements that exist to prevent the
government from exercising too much unfettered control over funding
recipients. According to the complaint, the cancellation of federal
funds also violates the First Amendment, the separation of powers, and
other constitutional provisions.
“The Trump administration’s
threats and coercion at Columbia are part of a clear authoritarian
playbook meant to crush academic freedom and critical research in
American higher education. Faculty, students, and the American public
will not stand for it. The repercussions extend far beyond the walls of
the academy. Our constitutional rights, and the opportunity for our
children and grandchildren to live in a democracy are on the line,” said
Todd Wolfson, president of the AAUP.
“President
Trump has taken a hatchet to American ingenuity, imagination and
invention at Columbia to attack academic freedom and force compliance
with his political views,” said AFT President Randi Weingarten.
“Let’s be clear: the administration should tackle legitimate issues of
discrimination. But this modern-day McCarthyism is not just an illegal
attack on our nation’s deeply held free speech and due process rights,
it creates a chilling effect that hinders the pursuit of knowledge—the
core purpose of our colleges and universities. Today, we reject this
bullying and resolve to challenge the administration’s edicts until they
are rescinded.”
“We’re seeing university leadership across the
country failing to take any action to counter the Trump administration’s
unlawful assault on academic freedom,” said Reinhold Martin, president of Columbia-AAUP and professor of architecture.
“As faculty, we don’t have the luxury of inaction. The integrity of
civic discourse and the freedoms that form the basis of a democratic
society are under attack. We have to stand up.”
The complaint
alleges that the Trump administration’s broad punitive tactics are
indicative of an attempt to consolidate power over higher education
broadly. According to the complaint, the administration is
simultaneously threatening other universities with similar punishment in
order to chill dissent on specific topics and speech with which the
administration disagrees. Trump administration officials have spoken
publicly about their plans to “bankrupt these universities” if they
don’t “play ball.”
Universities have historically been engines of
innovation in critical fields like technology, national security, and
medical treatments. Cuts to that research will ultimately harm the
health, prosperity and security of all Americans.
“Columbia is the testing ground for the Trump administration’s tactic to force universities to yield to its control,” said Orion Danjuma, counsel at Protect Democracy. “We are bringing this lawsuit to protect higher education from unlawful government censorship and political repression.”
The
lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York and names as
defendants the government agencies that cut Columbia’s funding on March 7
and signed the March 13 letter to Columbia laying out the government's
demands required to restore the funding, including the Department of
Justice, Department of Education, Health and Human Services and General
Services Administration. The plaintiffs are represented by Protect
Democracy and Altshuler Berzon LLP.
Washington,
DC—The American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U)
today released the results of a national survey of faculty perceptions
and experiences related to academic freedom and civil discourse in
higher education. Funded by the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations and
conducted in partnership with the American Association of University
Professors and NORC at the University of Chicago, the survey was
administered online and included faculty of all ranks and disciplines at
public and private, two-year and four-year institutions throughout the
United States.
The survey found clear evidence that faculty value
diverse student perspectives, encourage civil discourse among students,
and support free speech in the classroom. Moreover, faculty see
educational value in classroom discussions of controversial topics or
issues and do not support censoring course materials. Overall, however,
the survey results point to a recent and ongoing decline in academic
freedom across American higher education—a decline perceived by more
than a third of all faculty members across a wide variety of indicators.
Faculty
today are concerned about growing restrictions on their academic
freedom and worry that expressing their views freely may lead to online
harassment or professional repercussions. In the current climate,
faculty are less willing to address controversial topics and more likely
to self-censor. The survey also found evidence of a chilling effect
produced by the spread of legislative restrictions, enacted since 2021,
on the teaching, learning, and discussion of so-called “divisive
concepts” related to race, gender, LGBTQ+ identities, and American
history.
“Without the academic freedom to explore significant and
controversial questions, higher education’s mission of advancing
knowledge and educating students for work, life, and citizenship cannot
be fulfilled,” said AAC&U President Lynn Pasquerella. “The results
of this national survey provide the most compelling evidence yet of the
significant and alarming erosion of academic freedom across American
higher education. The findings should serve as a wake-up call for campus
leaders, policymakers, and anyone who understands the vital role higher
education plays in improving the lives of individuals and communities,
driving innovation and economic growth, and sustaining our democracy.”
Selected Findings
More
than 1 in 3 faculty say they have less academic freedom today when it
comes to teaching content without any interference (35%), speaking
freely as citizens (36%), and speaking freely when participating in
institutional governance (38%).
More than half (53%) are
concerned about their ability to express what they believe as scholars
to be correct statements about the world and worry that their beliefs or
activities as faculty members may make them targets of online
harassment.
Significant percentages of faculty have faced
restrictions on what they can say in faculty and department meetings
(36%) or on social media (33%) and what they teach in their courses
(24%).
52% of faculty have altered the language in something
they have written in order to avoid controversy; most refrain from using
terms or words they believe might be perceived as offensive by their
students (62%), by administrators (57%), by other faculty members (57%),
or by institutional staff (54%).
53% believe classroom
discussion of controversial topics or issues should be encouraged and
should occur frequently because of its educational value.
93% believe faculty should intentionally invite student perspectives from all sides of an issue.
57%
encourage mutually respectful disagreement among the students in their
courses either “quite a bit” or “a great deal,” and 70% believe that the
amount of mutually respectful disagreement among their students is
“about right.”
Just 12% believe classroom discussions should be
halted if views are expressed that some students feel causes harm to
certain groups of people, and just 5% believe a required reading or
other assignment should be dropped if it includes such views.
“Our
hope is that this study inspires, in equal measure, both reflection and
action across higher education,” said the report’s coauthor, Ashley
Finley, Vice President for Research and Senior Advisor to the President
at AAC&U. “Though colleges and universities may lack influence over
legislative actions, there is much collective power in their ability to
address faculty mental health, encourage respectful discourse within and
beyond the classroom, and invite thoughtful debate about the meaning
and applications of academic freedom within institutions.”
The
survey was conducted online between December 7, 2023, and February 12,
2024, by NORC at the University of Chicago. The survey sample included
164,815 individuals who, during the preceding twelve-month period, had
instructional duties and/or served in a faculty role at a two- or
four-year public or private college or university in the United States.
The
survey instrument was developed under the guidance of a national
advisory group: Samuel Abrams, Sarah Lawrence College; Cory Clark,
University of Pennsylvania; Jonathan Friedman, PEN America; Isaac
Kamola, Trinity College; April Kelly, Elizabethtown College; Frederick
Lawrence, Phi Beta Kappa; Kenann McKenzie-DeFranza, Gordon College;
Demetri Morgan, Loyola University Chicago; and Andrew Seligsohn, Public
Agenda.
About AAC&U
The American Association of
Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) is a global membership
organization dedicated to advancing the democratic purposes of higher
education by promoting equity, innovation, and excellence in liberal
education. Through our programs and events, publications and research,
public advocacy, and campus-based projects, AAC&U serves as a
catalyst and facilitator for innovations that improve educational
quality and equity and that support the success of all students. In
addition to accredited public and private, two-year and four-year
colleges and universities, and state higher education systems and
agencies throughout the United States, our membership includes
degree-granting higher education institutions around the world as well
as other organizations and individuals. To learn more, visit www.aacu.org.
Reports have surfaced of a significant increase in the number of international student visas being revoked and students being detained across various universities in the United States. This follows heightened immigration scrutiny, particularly under the administration of Donald Trump. According to Senator Marco Rubio, more than 300 international student visas have been pulled in recent months, primarily targeting students involved in political activism or minor infractions. WeAreHigherEd has named 30 schools where students' visas have been revoked.
University of California System (UCLA, UC San Diego, UC Berkeley): Universities within the University of California system, which hosts a large international student population, have reported multiple visa cancellations. These revocations have affected students involved in pro-Palestinian protests, political activism, or perceived violations of U.S. immigration policies. For instance, the University of California has seen as many as 20 students affected in recent weeks.
Columbia University: At Columbia University, the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a student activist, has gained significant media attention. Khalil, who was detained and faced deportation, exemplifies the growing concerns over student rights and the growing impact of politically charged visa revocations.
Tufts University: Tufts University is currently battling the Trump administration over the case of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish graduate student whose visa was revoked. Her detention and the ensuing legal battles highlight the growing tensions between academic freedom and government policy. Tufts and its student body are advocating for Öztürk's release and seeking clarification on the legal processes involved.
University of Minnesota: At the University of Minnesota, one international graduate student was detained as part of an ongoing federal crackdown on visa violations. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions continue to raise concerns over the rights of international students to remain in the country, especially as visa renewals and compliance checks become more stringent.
Arizona State University: Arizona State University has also reported incidents of international students having their visas revoked without prior notice. These revocations have affected students from various countries, creating uncertainty within the international student community at the university.
Cornell University: At Cornell University, international students have similarly faced unexpected visa cancellations. This has raised concerns about the ability of universities to adequately support their international student populations, as students are left to navigate the complexities of visa status without sufficient notice or explanation.
North Carolina State University: North Carolina State University is another institution where international students have had their visas revoked without notice. The university has expressed concern over the lack of clarity from immigration authorities, which has left students in a precarious situation.
University of Oregon: The University of Oregon has experienced several cases of international students having their visas revoked. This has been particularly troubling for students who were actively pursuing their education in the U.S. and now face the prospect of deportation or being forced to leave the country unexpectedly.
University of Texas: At the University of Texas, international students have faced visa issues, with several reports of revocations and detentions, affecting students who are working toward completing their degrees. This has sparked protests and advocacy efforts from both students and university administration, seeking more transparency in the process.
University of Colorado: The University of Colorado has similarly reported instances of international student visa revocations, particularly affecting those involved in political activism. The university has been working to support students impacted by these actions, although many are left in limbo regarding their ability to continue their studies.
University of Michigan: The University of Michigan has also been impacted by a wave of visa revocations. Similar to other institutions, students involved in political protests or activism have found themselves under scrutiny, facing the risk of detention or deportation. Students, faculty, and staff are pushing for clearer policies and legal protections to support international students, who are increasingly at risk due to the political environment.
The Broader Implications
These incidents of visa revocation and detentions are seen as part of a broader trend of increasing immigration enforcement under the Trump administration. Critics argue that these actions infringe upon students' rights, potentially violating freedom of speech and academic freedom. International students, especially those participating in protests or political discourse, have found themselves at risk of being detained or deported, with little prior notice or transparency regarding the reasons for such actions.
Moreover, the economic impact of these actions is significant. In 2023, a record 253,355 student visa applications were denied, representing a 36% refusal rate. This has major implications not only for the affected students but also for U.S. universities that rely heavily on international students for tuition revenue. The financial loss could be as much as $7.6 billion in tuition fees and living expenses, further emphasizing the broader consequences of these policies.
Legal and Administrative Responses
Many universities are rallying behind their international student populations, with advocacy efforts from institutions like Tufts University and Columbia University. These universities have criticized the abruptness of the visa cancellations and detentions, calling for more transparency and due process.
However, despite these efforts, the political climate surrounding U.S. immigration remains volatile, and it is unclear whether policy changes will result in more lenient or more restrictive measures for international students.
Conclusion
These stories underscore the fragile position of international students in the U.S. today. With incidents of detentions and visa revocations increasing, students face significant challenges navigating the complexities of U.S. immigration law, particularly those involved in political or activist circles. University administrations and students alike continue to call for clearer policies, protections for international student rights, and more transparent practices to avoid the unintended consequences of politically motivated visa actions.
This issue remains ongoing, with much at stake for both
Walt Heinecke (Waltheinecke@hotmail.com) (434) 825-1896
September 8, 2024
Charlottesville, VA
UVA students have launched a petition that has garnered over 500 signatures and counting demanding that the UVA administration drop University Judiciary Committee (UJC) charges against the five remaining protesters still facing such charges following local and state police’s violent break up of the UVA and community pro-Palestinian encampment on May 4th, 2024.
The petition notes that in addition to retraumatizing students attacked by police in riot gear, some wielding semi- and automatic weapons, the charges are unjust and arbitrary. Given that local authorities, including the Albemarle County Prosecutor Jim Hingeley, has determined that there is not enough evidence to proceed with criminal charges and all no trespass orders have been dropped, the administration seeks to use the UJC charges to further antagonize students who have otherwise been fully exonerated through due process.
The students protesting at the encampment and on May 4th sought to realize UVA’s mission of being both “good and great” by demanding this ethos apply to the University’s operations and that they divest from Israeli companies and those profiting from the genocide in Gaza. In making an example of these students, administrators aim to deny UVA faculty, staff, students, and Charlottesville community members of their first amendment rights and protections and instill a culture of fear around free speech and the right to protests at UVA.
The UJC charges also cause material harm to those students who cannot obtain diplomas and secure employment, effectively locking them out of the job market despite their successful completion of their degrees. Current students facing charges remain in limbo. As they start the academic year, they are unsure of what will happen in their cases and whether they will be able to finish the semester with their peers.
A local civil rights attorney representing one of the students facing UJC charges recently stated “It’s over the top. ‘Let’s prosecute them. Let’s put them in judicial proceedings. Let’s take away their right to get a diploma.’ What else do you want to do to them?”...All for a small, entirely peaceful demonstration for which the university can give no adequate, truthful answer to why it happened, how it happened and who, in fact, ordered it happening.” (Daily Progress, August 25, 2024)
In a recent Statement the American Association of University Professors (“AAUP Condenms Wave of Administrative Policies Intended to Crackdown on Peaceful Campus Protests”) stated: “College and university students are both citizens and members of the academic community. As Citizens, students should enjoy the same freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and right of petition that other citizens enjoy and, as members of the academic community, they are subject to the obligations that accrue to them by virtue of this membership. Faculty members and administration officials should ensure that institutional powers are not employed to inhibit such intellectual and personal development of students as is often promoted by their exercise of the rights of citizenship both on and off campus....Administrators who claim that “expressive activity” policies protect academic freedom and student learning, even as they severely restrict its exercise, risk destroying the very freedoms of speech and expression they claim to protect.”
In dropping the UJC charges, UVA administrators could join with peer institutions like the University of Chicago, which have dropped all charges against student protesters. Such actions would serve as the first step towards transparency and healing, actions that they refused to take over the summer in the immediate wake of their egregious decisions on May 4.
Since his emergence on the national political stage, Donald Trump has been a polarizing figure, bringing his brand of combative rhetoric and controversial policies to every corner of American society. One of the key arenas where his influence has been felt the most is in the realm of education. From 2016 to 2025, Trump’s war on education has manifested through a series of legislative actions, executive orders, and cultural provocations that aimed to reshape the American education system. These efforts have targeted everything from public schools to higher education institutions, and even the very curriculum taught to students.
The Deconstruction of Public Education
At the heart of Trump’s vision for education was the dismantling of traditional public schooling. During his first term as president, Trump and his allies sought to undermine the very foundation of public education by promoting privatization and school choice initiatives. His administration pushed for expanded funding for charter schools and private school vouchers, which would allow families to use public funds to pay for private education.
This movement gained momentum in 2017 when Betsy DeVos, a staunch advocate for school privatization, was appointed as Secretary of Education. Under her leadership, the Department of Education rolled back Obama-era regulations designed to protect students and promote equitable access to education. Critics argued that DeVos’s policies favored wealthy families and private institutions while leaving public schools underfunded and underserved, particularly in marginalized communities.
The Attack on College Campuses
Trump’s war on education wasn’t confined to K-12 schooling. Higher education was also a major battleground during his presidency and beyond. In his first few years in office, Trump took aim at what he saw as the liberal indoctrination of students on college campuses. His rhetoric about “political correctness” and “safe spaces” served as a rallying cry for conservative students and faculty, but also sparked fierce resistance from progressives and academics who felt that free speech and intellectual diversity were under threat.
Trump’s administration took several steps to curb what he described as “left-wing bias” in higher education. In 2019, he signed an executive order that threatened to withhold federal funding from universities that did not protect free speech, a move that critics viewed as a political stunt to rally his base. The Trump administration also rolled back protections for marginalized groups, including Title IX protections for transgender students, and shifted the Department of Education’s focus away from investigating discrimination and harassment cases in favor of addressing “free speech” concerns.
Curricular Controversies and Cultural Wars
The Trump era also saw an escalation of the culture wars, particularly with regard to the curriculum being taught in schools. Trump and his allies began to target lessons related to race, gender, and American history, framing them as divisive or unpatriotic. In 2020, following the Black Lives Matter protests, Trump launched the 1776 Commission, a response to what he viewed as a growing movement to “rewrite” American history. The commission’s purpose was to promote a more “patriotic” curriculum that would emphasize the positive aspects of American history, while downplaying the country’s legacy of slavery and racial inequality.
In the following years, many states, particularly those led by Republican governors, passed laws banning the teaching of critical race theory (CRT) in public schools. These laws prohibited the teaching of concepts that might make students “uncomfortable” about America’s history of racism, and further entrenched the ideological divide over how history and social issues should be taught in the classroom. Trump’s rhetoric and policies had a direct impact on how schools and teachers navigated the increasingly charged political atmosphere.
The COVID-19 Pandemic and Its Impact on Education
Perhaps the most dramatic intersection of Trump’s policies and education came during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump consistently downplayed the severity of the virus and pushed for schools to reopen quickly, even as the pandemic raged across the nation. His administration provided little federal guidance or support for school districts struggling with the challenges of online learning and public health concerns. Trump’s insistence that schools should be open for in-person instruction became a point of contention, with many educators and parents concerned about the safety of students and staff.
While some states followed Trump’s call to reopen schools, others, especially in blue states, opted to remain virtual or implement hybrid models. This divide further exacerbated the political polarization over education, with Trump framing the debate as a fight between “freedom” and “control,” while critics argued that his policies endangered public health and undermined the long-term well-being of students.
Legacy of Division and Reshaping Education
As Trump’s presidency drew to a close, it became clear that his approach to education had left a lasting impact on the country. His administration’s policies had deepened the divisions between public and private schooling, amplified cultural and political debates about what students should learn, and exacerbated existing inequalities in the education system.
In 2024, as Trump continued to remain a significant force in American politics, the ideological battle over education remained unresolved. His push for school choice and privatization, along with his ongoing influence on local education policy, suggested that the “war on education” was far from over. States across the country continued to grapple with issues such as curriculum control, free speech on college campuses, and the role of government in funding education.
Dismantling the U.S. Department of Education
As Trump’s influence stretched into the second half of the decade, the war on education reached a dramatic new phase. In 2025, following his return to office, Trump signed an executive order that effectively began the process of dismantling the U.S. Department of Education. This move came as part of a larger effort to reduce the role of the federal government in everyday life, echoing Trump’s long-standing rhetoric of decentralization and states’ rights.
The department’s responsibilities were reassigned to various state agencies, with a strong emphasis on allowing individual states to shape their own educational policies without federal interference. This was seen by Trump as a victory for conservatives who had long criticized federal education policies for being too one-size-fits-all. Critics, however, argued that this dismantling of the department could lead to a patchwork of educational standards across the country, further entrenching inequalities in access to quality education.
Furthermore, the reduction in federal oversight had significant implications for funding, student protections, and the enforcement of civil rights in education. Many feared that without the Department of Education’s regulatory power, vulnerable students, including those from low-income backgrounds and marginalized communities, would suffer from a lack of protections and resources.
Cuts to Science and Research Funding
Trump’s policies also have had a significant impact on scientific research at major universities, with institutions like Johns Hopkins University and the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) facing severe cuts to critical research funding. Johns Hopkins University, one of the largest recipients of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, announced plans to eliminate over 2,000 positions in response to federal cuts, potentially losing over $100 million in research funding. This reduction in federal support, especially for scientific research, had major consequences for ongoing studies, from medical advancements to climate change research, affecting the broader academic community.
Meanwhile, the University of Pennsylvania also experienced significant financial strain due to cuts in federal contracts, which impacted their research funding and innovation. The Trump administration's cuts to science funding across the board resulted in a stifling of some of the nation’s top research institutions, creating ripple effects throughout the entire academic and scientific community. The loss of funding for groundbreaking research projects at these prestigious institutions further strained the ability of scientists to pursue critical work in fields such as public health, climate change, and cancer research.
Victory Against Columbia University
One of the most high-profile actions taken in the final phase of Trump’s war on education was his administration's attack on elite institutions, particularly Columbia University. As one of the most prestigious Ivy League schools in the U.S., Columbia had become a target for Trump’s criticisms of what he perceived as liberal bias on college campuses.
In 2025, Trump and his allies escalated their campaign against universities, particularly those with strong liberal reputations. Columbia was singled out due to its left-leaning faculty and student body, as well as its vocal support for progressive policies related to climate change, racial justice, and gender equality. The Trump administration levied significant threats of withdrawing federal funding from the university unless it adhered to a more conservative curriculum. Additionally, Trump’s education policy advisers launched investigations into the institution’s handling of free speech issues, particularly in relation to controversial speakers and protests on campus.
By March 2025, Columbia faced a stark financial crisis after losing $400 million in federal funding for its failure to address antisemitism on campus. The administration warned 60 other institutions about similar consequences unless they ensured the safety of Jewish students. In its eventual capitulation to the Trump Administration, Columbia allowed student activist Mahmoud Khalil to be arrested and sent to a detention facility in Louisiana. The decision further fueled national debates about the balance between free speech and university autonomy.
Education as the Frontline in America’s Cultural Battle
Looking back at Trump’s influence on education between 2016 and 2025, it’s clear that the battle over how America educates its children and young adults became a focal point for larger cultural, political, and ideological conflicts. Trump’s legacy in education is defined by attempts to reshape the system in his image—whether through pushing for privatization, engaging in culture wars over curriculum, or sowing division over the future of public education. The ultimate impact of his policies will continue to reverberate for years to come, shaping not just the educational landscape, but the future of American society itself.
Did
you know that Truthout is a nonprofit and independently funded by
readers like you? If you value what we do, please support our work with a donation.
Trump appears bent on ridding schools of dangerous practices like critical thinking and an unsanitized study of history.
In the initial days of his second term, President Donald Trump issued several executive orders “seeking
to control how schools teach about race and gender, direct more tax
dollars to private schools, and deport pro-Palestinian protesters.” On January 29, 2025, he signed the “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling”
executive order, which mandates the elimination of curricula that the
administration deems as promoting “radical, anti-American ideologies.”
This executive order is not just an attack on critical race theory or
teachings about systemic racism — it is a cornerstone of an
authoritarian ideology designed to eliminate critical thought, suppress
historical truth and strip educators of their autonomy. Under the guise
of combating “divisiveness,” it advances a broader war on education as a
democratizing force, turning schools into dead zones of the
imagination. By threatening to strip federal funding from institutions
that refuse to conform, this policy functions as an instrument of
ideological indoctrination, enforcing a sanitized, nationalistic
narrative that erases histories of oppression and resistance while
deepening a culture of ignorance and compliance.
Concurrently, President Trump issued the “Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families”
executive order, aiming to enhance school choice by redirecting federal
funds to support charter schools and voucher programs. This policy
enables parents to use public funds for private and religious school
tuition. While proponents claim that this legislation empowers parents
and fosters competition, in reality, it is a calculated effort to defund
and privatize public education, undermining it as a democratizing
public good. As part of a broader far right assault on education, this
policy redirects essential resources away from public schools, deepening
educational inequality and advancing an agenda that seeks to erode
public investment in a just and equitable society.
In the name of eliminating radical indoctrination in schools, a third executive order,
which purportedly aims at ending antisemitism, threatens to deport
pro-Palestinian student protesters by revoking their visas, warning that even those legally in the country could be targeted
for their political views. In a stark display of authoritarianism,
Trump’s executive order unapologetically stated that free speech would
not be tolerated. Reuters
made this clear in reporting that one fact sheet ominously declared: “I
will … quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on
college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never
before. 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.”
By gutting federal oversight, he is handing the fate of education to
reactionary state legislatures and corporate interests, ensuring that
knowledge is shaped by a state held captive by billionaires and far
right extremists. This is the logic of authoritarianism: to hollow out
democratic institutions and replace education with white Christian
propaganda and a pedagogy of repression. At issue here is an attempt to
render an entire generation defenseless against the very forces seeking
to dominate them.
What we are witnessing is not just an educational crisis but a
full-scale war on institutions that not only defend democracy but enable
it. What is under siege in this attack is not only the critical
function of education but the very notion that it should be defined
through its vision of creating a central feature of democracy, educating
informed and critically engaged citizens.
These executive actions represent an upgraded and broader version of
McCarthyite and apartheid-era education that seeks to dictate how
schools teach about race and gender, funnel more taxpayer dollars into
private institutions, and deport Palestinian protesters. The irony is
striking: The White House defends these regressive measures of
sanitizing history, stripping away the rights of transgender students
and erasing critical race theory as efforts to “end indoctrination in
American education.” In truth, this is not about the pursuit of freedom
or open inquiry, nor is it about fostering an education that cultivates
informed, critically engaged citizens. At its core, this agenda is a
deliberate attack on education as a public good — one that threatens to
dismantle not only public institutions, but the very essence of public
and higher education and its culture of criticism and democracy. The
urgency of this moment cannot be overstated: The future of education
itself is at stake.
In the raging currents of contemporary political and cultural life,
where fascist ideologies are rising, one of the most insidious and
all-encompassing forces at play is the violence of forgetting — a plague
of historical amnesia. This phenomenon, which I have referred to as “organized forgetting,”
describes the systemic erasure of history and its violent consequences,
particularly in the public sphere. This is especially evident in the
current historical moment, when books are banned in
libraries, public schools and higher education across countries, such
as the United States, Hungary, India, China and Russia. Ignoring past
atrocities, historical injustices and uncomfortable truths about a
society’s foundation is not merely an oversight — it constitutes an
active form of violence that shapes both our collective consciousness
and political realities. What we are witnessing here is an assault by
the far right on memory that is inseparable from what Maximillian
Alvarez describes as a battle over power — over who is remembered, who
is erased, who is cast aside and who is forcibly reduced to something
less than human. This struggle is not just about history; it is about
whose stories are allowed to shape the present and the future. Alvarez captures this reality with striking clarity and is worth quoting at length:
Among the prizes at stake in the endless war of politics is history
itself. The battle for power is always a battle to determine who gets
remembered, how they will be recalled, where and in what forms their
memories will be preserved. In this battle, there is no room for neutral
parties: every history and counter-history must fight and scrap and
claw and spread and lodge itself in the world, lest it be forgotten or
forcibly erased. All history, in this sense, is the history of empire — a
bid for control of that greatest expanse of territory, the past.
Organized forgetting also helped fuel the resurgence of Donald Trump,
as truth and reason are being systematically replaced by lies,
corruption, denial and the weaponization of memory itself. A culture of
questioning, critique and vision is not simply disappearing in the
United States — it is actively maligned, disparaged and replaced by a
darkness that, as Ezra Klein
observes, is “stupefyingly vast, stretching from self-destructive
incompetence to muddling incoherence to authoritarian consolidation.”
This erosion affects institutions of law, civil society and education
— pillars that rely on memory, informed judgment and evidence to foster
historical understanding and civic responsibility. The attack on the
common good goes beyond the distractions of an “attention economy”designed
to distort reality; it reflects a deliberate effort to sever the ties
between history and meaning. Time is reduced to fragmented episodes,
stripped of the shared narratives that connect the past, present and
future.
This crisis embodies a profound collapse of memory, history,
education and democracy itself. A culture of manufactured ignorance —
rooted in the rejection of history, facts and critical thought — erases
accountability for electing a leader who incited insurrection and
branded his opponents as “enemies from within.” Such authoritarian
politics thrive on historical amnesia, lulling society into passivity,
eroding collective memory and subverting civic agency. This is
epitomized by Trump’s declaration
on “Fox & Friends” that he would punish schools that teach students
accurate U.S. history, including about slavery and racism in the
country. The call to silence dangerous memories is inseparable from the
violence of state terrorism — a force that censors and dehumanizes
dissent, escalating to the punishment, torture and imprisonment of
truth-tellers and critics who dare to hold oppressive power accountable.
At its core, the violence of forgetting operates through the denial
and distortion of historical events, particularly those that challenge
the dominant narratives of power. From the colonial atrocities and the
struggles for civil rights to the history of Palestine-Israel relations,
many of the most significant chapters of history are either glossed
over or erased altogether. This strategic omission serves the interests
of those in power, enabling them to maintain control by silencing
inconvenient truths. As the historian Timothy Snyder
reminds us, by refusing to acknowledge the violence of the past,
society makes it far easier to perpetuate injustices in the present. The
politics of organized forgetting, the censoring of history and the
attack on historical consciousness are fundamental to the rise of far
right voices in the U.S. and across the world.
With the rise of regressive memory laws, designed to repress what
authoritarian governments consider dangerous and radical interpretations
of a country’s past, historical consciousness is transformed into a
form of historical amnesia. One vivid example of a regressive memory law
was enacted by Trump during his first term. The 1776 Report,
which right-wingers defended as a “restoration of American education,”
was in fact an attempt to eliminate from the teaching of history any
reference to a legacy of colonialism, slavery and movements which
highlighted elements of American history that were unconscionable,
anti-democratic and morally repugnant. Snyder highlights the emergence
of memory laws in a number of states. He writes in a 2021 New York Times article:
As of this writing, five states (Idaho, Iowa, Tennessee, Texas and
Oklahoma) have passed laws that direct and restrict discussions of
history in classrooms. The Department of Education of a sixth (Florida)
has passed guidelines with the same effect. Another 12 state
legislatures are still considering memory laws. The particulars of these
laws vary. The Idaho law is the most Kafkaesque in its censorship: It
affirms freedom of speech and then bans divisive speech. The Iowa law
executes the same totalitarian pirouette. The Tennessee and Texas laws
go furthest in specifying what teachers may and may not say. In
Tennessee teachers must not teach that the rule of law is “a series of
power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups.”… The
Idaho law mentions Critical Race Theory; the directive from the Florida
school board bans it in classrooms. The Texas law forbids teachers from
requiring students to understand the 1619 Project. It is a perverse
goal: Teachers succeed if students do not understand something.
A major aspect of this forgetting and erasure of historical memory is the role of ignorance,
which has become not just widespread but weaponized in modern times.
Ignorance, particularly in U.S. society, has shifted from being a
passive lack of knowledge to an active refusal to engage with critical
issues. This is amplified by the spectacle-driven nature of contemporary
media and the increasing normalization of a culture of lies and the
embrace of a language of violence, which not only thrives on distraction
rather than reflection, but has become a powerful force for spreading
bigotry, racial hatred and right-wing lies. In addition, the mainstream
media’s obsession with spectacle — be it political drama, celebrity
culture or sensationalist stories — often overshadows the more
important, yet less glamorous, discussions about historical violence and
systemic injustice.
This intellectual neglect allows for a dangerous cycle to persist,
where the erasure of history enables the continuation of violence and
oppression. Systems of power benefit from this amnesia, as it allows
them to maintain the status quo without having to answer for past
wrongs. When society refuses to remember or address past injustices —
whether it’s slavery, imperialism or economic exploitation — those in
power can continue to exploit the present without fear of historical
accountability.
To strip education of its critical power is to rob democracy of its transformative potential.
The cultural impact of this organized forgetting is profound. Not
only does it create a void in public memory, but it also stunts
collective growth. Without the lessons of the past, it becomes nearly
impossible to learn from mistakes and address the root causes of social
inequalities. The failure to remember makes it harder to demand
meaningful change, while reproducing and legitimating ongoing far right
assaults on democracy.
The violence of organized forgetting is not a mere act of neglect; it
is a deliberate cultural and intellectual assault that undercuts the
foundations of any meaningful democracy. By erasing the past, society
implicitly condones the ongoing oppression of marginalized groups and
perpetuates harmful ideologies that thrive in ignorance. This erasure
silences the voices of those who have suffered — denying them the space
to speak their truth and demand justice. It is not limited to historical
injustices alone; it extends to the present, silencing those who
courageously criticize contemporary violence, such as Israel’s
U.S.-backed genocidal war on Gaza, and those brave enough to hold power
accountable.
The act of forgetting is not passive; it actively supports systems of
oppression and censorship, muffling dissent and debate, both of which
are essential for a healthy democracy.
Equally dangerous is the form of historical amnesia that has come to
dominate our contemporary political and cultural landscape. This
organized forgetting feeds into a pedagogy of manufactured ignorance
that prioritizes emotion over reason and spectacle over truth. In this
process, history is fragmented and distorted, making it nearly
impossible to construct a coherent understanding of the past. As a
result, public institutions — particularly education — are undermined,
as critical thinking and social responsibility give way to shallow,
sensationalized narratives. Higher education, once a bastion for the
development of civic literacy and the moral imperative of understanding
our role as both individuals and social agents, is now attacked by
forces seeking to cleanse public memory of past social and political
progress. Figures like Trump embody this threat, working to erase the
memory of strides made in the name of equality, justice and human
decency. This organized assault on historical memory and intellectual
rigor strikes at the heart of democracy itself. When we allow the
erasure of history and the undermining of critical thought, we risk
suffocating the ideals that democracy promises: justice, equality and
accountability.
A democracy cannot thrive in the absence of informed and engaged
agents that are capable of questioning, challenging and reimagining a
future different from the present. Without such citizens, the very
notion of democracy becomes a hollow, disembodied ideal — an illusion of
freedom without the substance of truth or responsibility. Education, in
this context, is not merely a tool for transmitting knowledge; it is
the foundation and bedrock of political consciousness. To be educated,
to be a citizen, is not a neutral or passive state — it is a vital,
active political and moral engagement with the world, grounded in
critical thinking and democratic possibility. It is a recognition that
the act of learning and the act of being a citizen are inextricable from
each other. To strip education of its critical power is to rob
democracy of its transformative potential.
Confronting the violence of forgetting requires a shift in how we
engage with history. Intellectuals, educators and activists must take up
the responsibility of reintroducing the painful truths of the past into
public discourse. This is not about dwelling in the past for its own
sake, but about understanding its relevance to the present and future.
To break the cycles of violence, society must commit to remembering, not
just for the sake of memory, but as a critical tool for progress.
Moreover, engaging with history honestly requires recognizing that
the violence of forgetting is not a one-time event but a continual
process. Systems of power don’t simply forget; they actively work to
erase, rewrite and sanitize historical narratives. This means that the
fight to remember is ongoing and requires constant vigilance. It’s not
enough to simply uncover historical truths; society must work to ensure
that these truths are not forgotten again, buried under the weight of
media spectacles, ideological repression and political theater.
Ultimately, the violence of forgetting is an obstacle to genuine
social change. Without confronting the past — acknowledging the violence
and injustices that have shaped our world — we cannot hope to build a
more just and informed future. To move forward, any viable democratic
social order must reckon with its past, break free from the bonds of
ignorance, and commit to creating a future based on knowledge, justice
and accountability.
The task of confronting and dismantling the violent structures shaped
by the power of forgetting is immense, yet the urgency has never been
more pronounced. In an era where the scope and power of new pedagogical
apparatuses such as social media and AI dominate our cultural and
intellectual landscapes, the challenge becomes even more complex. While
they hold potential for education and connection, these technologies are
controlled by a reactionary ruling class of financial elite and
billionaires, and they are increasingly wielded to perpetuate
disinformation, fragment history and manipulate public discourse. The
authoritarian algorithms that drive these platforms increasingly
prioritize sensationalism over substance, lies over truth, the
appropriation of power over social responsibility, and in doing so,
reinforce modes of civic illiteracy, while attacking those fundamental
institutions which enable critical perspectives and a culture of
questioning.
The vital need for collective action and intellectual engagement to
reclaim and restore historical truth, critical thinking and social
responsibility is urgent. The present historical moment, both
unprecedented and alarming, resonates with Antonio Gramsci’s reflection
on an earlier era marked by the rise of fascism: “The old world is
dying, and the new world struggles to be born; now is the time of
monsters.”
In the face of a deepening crisis of history, memory and agency, any
meaningful resistance must be collective, disruptive and
unapologetically unsettling — challenging entrenched orthodoxies and
dismantling the forces that perpetuate ignorance and injustice. This
struggle needs to be both radical in its essence and uncompromising in
its demands for social change, recognizing education as inseparable from
politics and the tangible challenges people face in their everyday
lives. In this collective effort lies the power to dismantle the
barriers to truth, rebuild the foundations of critical thought, and
shape a future rooted in knowledge, justice and a profound commitment to
make power accountable. Central to this vision is the capacity to learn
from history, to nurture a historical consciousness that informs our
present and to reimagine agency as an essential force in the enduring
struggle for democracy. This call for a radical imagination cannot be
confined to classrooms but must emerge as a transformative force
embedded in a united, multiracial, working-class movement. Only then can
we confront the urgent crises of our time.
We’re resisting Trump’s authoritarian pressure.
As
the Trump administration moves a mile-a-minute to implement right-wing
policies and sow confusion, reliable news is an absolute must.
Truthout
is working diligently to combat the fear and chaos that pervades the
political moment. We’re requesting your support at this moment because
we need it – your monthly gift allows us to publish uncensored,
nonprofit news that speaks with clarity and truth in a moment when
confusion and misinformation are rampant. As well, we’re looking with
hope at the material action community activists are taking. We’re
uplifting mutual aid projects, the life-sustaining work of immigrant and
labor organizers, and other shows of solidarity that resist the
authoritarian pressure of the Trump administration.
As we work to dispel the atmosphere of political despair, we ask that you contribute to our journalism. Over 80 percent of Truthout’s
funding comes from small individual donations from our community of
readers, and over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring
monthly donors.
8
days remain in our fundraiser, and you can help by giving today.
Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.
This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.
Notable actions the Department of Education has already taken include:
Dissolution of the Department’s Diversity & Inclusion Council, effective immediately;
Background:The Diversity & Inclusion Council was established following Executive Order 13583 under then - President Obama.President Trump has rescinded the Executive Orders that guide the Council and issued a new Executive Order, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,”
that terminates groups like the Diversity & Inclusion Council. DEI
documents issued and related actions taken by the Council have been
withdrawn.
Dissolution of the Employee Engagement
Diversity Equity Inclusion Accessibility Council (EEDIAC) within the
Office for Civil Rights (OCR), effective immediately and pursuant to
President Trump’s Executive Order “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing”;
Cancellation of ongoing DEI training and service contracts which total over $2.6 million;
Withdrawal of the Department’s Equity Action Plan;
Placement
of career Department staff tasked with implementing the previous
administration’s DEI initiatives on paid administrative leave; and
Identification
for removal of over 200 web pages from the Department’s website that
housed DEI resources and encouraged schools and institutions of higher
education to promote or endorse harmful ideological programs.
Rachel
Oglesby most recently served as America First Policy Institute's Chief
State Action Officer & Director, Center for the American Worker. In
this role, she worked to advance policies that promote worker freedom,
create opportunities outside of a four-year college degree, and provide
workers with the necessary skills to succeed in the modern economy, as
well as leading all of AFPI’s state policy development and advocacy
work. She previously worked as Chief of Policy and Deputy Chief of Staff
for Governor Kristi Noem in South Dakota, overseeing the implementation
of the Governor’s pro-freedom agenda across all policy areas and state
government agencies. Oglesby holds a master’s degree in public policy
from George Mason University and earned her bachelor’s degree in
philosophy from Wake Forest University.
Jonathan Pidluzny – Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Programs
Jonathan
Pidluzny most recently served as Director of the Higher Education
Reform Initiative at the America First Policy Institute. Prior to that,
he was Vice President of Academic Affairs at the American Council of
Trustees and Alumni, where his work focused on academic freedom and
general education. Jonathan began his career in higher education
teaching political science at Morehead State University, where he was an
associate professor, program coordinator, and faculty regent from
2017-2019. He received his Ph.D from Boston College and holds a
bachelor’s degree and master’s degree from the University of Alberta.
Chase Forrester – Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations
Virginia
“Chase” Forrester most recently served as the Chief Events Officer at
America First Policy Institute, where she oversaw the planning and
execution of 80+ high-profile events annually for AFPI’s 22 policy
centers, featuring former Cabinet Officials and other distinguished
speakers. Chase previously served as Operations Manager on the
Trump-Pence 2020 presidential campaign, where she spearheaded all event
operations for the Vice President of the United States and the Second
Family. Chase worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee
during the Senate run-off races in Georgia and as a fundraiser for
Members of Congress. Chase graduated from Clemson University with a
bachelor’s degree in political science and a double-minor in Spanish and
legal studies.
Steve Warzoha – White House Liaison
Steve
Warzoha joins the U.S. Department of Education after most recently
serving on the Trump-Vance Transition Team. A native of Greenwich, CT,
he is a former local legislator who served on the Education Committee
and as Vice Chairman of both the Budget Overview and Transportation
Committees. He is also an elected leader of the Greenwich Republican
Town Committee. Steve has run and served in senior positions on numerous
local, state, and federal campaigns. Steve comes from a family of
educators and public servants and is a proud product of Greenwich Public
Schools and an Eagle Scout.
Tom Wheeler – Principal Deputy General Counsel
Tom
Wheeler’s prior federal service includes as the Acting Assistant
Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, a
Senior Advisor to the White House Federal Commission on School Safety,
and as a Senior Advisor/Counsel to the Secretary of Education. He has
also been asked to serve on many Boards and Commissions, including as
Chair of the Hate Crimes Sub-Committee for the Federal Violent Crime
Reduction Task Force, a member of the Department of Justice’s Regulatory
Reform Task Force, and as an advisor to the White House Coronavirus
Task Force, where he worked with the CDC and HHS to develop guidelines
for the safe reopening of schools and guidelines for law enforcement and
jails/prisons. Prior to rejoining the U.S. Department of Education, Tom
was a partner at an AM-100 law firm, where he represented federal,
state, and local public entities including educational institutions and
law enforcement agencies in regulatory, administrative, trial, and
appellate matters in local, state and federal venues. He is a frequent
author and speaker in the areas of civil rights, free speech, and
Constitutional issues, improving law enforcement, and school safety.
Craig Trainor – Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office for Civil Rights
Craig
Trainor most recently served as Senior Special Counsel with the U.S.
House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary under Chairman Jim
Jordan (R-OH), where Mr. Trainor investigated and conducted oversight of
the U.S. Department of Justice, including its Civil Rights Division,
the FBI, the Biden-Harris White House, and the Intelligence Community
for civil rights and liberties abuses. He also worked as primary counsel
on the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited
Government’s investigation into the suppression of free speech and
antisemitic harassment on college and university campuses, resulting in
the House passing the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. Previously, he
served as Senior Litigation Counsel with the America First Policy
Institute under former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Of Counsel
with the Fairness Center, and had his own civil rights and criminal
defense law practice in New York City for over a decade. Upon graduating
from the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, he
clerked for Chief Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York. Mr. Trainor is admitted to
practice law in the state of New York, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Madi Biedermann – Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Communications and Outreach
Madi
Biedermann is an experienced education policy and communications
professional with experience spanning both federal and state government
and policy advocacy organizations. She most recently worked as the Chief
Operating Officer at P2 Public Affairs. Prior to that, she served as an
Assistant Secretary of Education for Governor Glenn Youngkin and worked
as a Special Assistant and Presidential Management Fellow at the Office
of Management and Budget in the first Trump Administration. Madi
received her bachelor’s degree and master of public administration from
the University of Southern California.
Candice Jackson – Deputy General Counsel
Candice
Jackson returns to the U.S. Department of Education to serve as Deputy
General Counsel. Candice served in the first Trump Administration as
Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, and Deputy General Counsel,
from 2017-2021. For the last few years, Candice has practiced law in
Washington State and California and consulted with groups and
individuals challenging the harmful effects of the concept of "gender
identity" in laws and policies in schools, employment, and public
accommodations. Candice is mom to girl-boy twins Madelyn and Zachary,
age 11.
Joshua Kleinfeld – Deputy General Counsel
Joshua
Kleinfeld is the Allison & Dorothy Rouse Professor of Law and
Director of the Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative
State at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law. He writes and
teaches about constitutional law, criminal law, and statutory
interpretation, focusing in all fields on whether democratic ideals are
realized in governmental practice. As a scholar and public intellectual,
he has published work in the Harvard, Stanford, and University of
Chicago Law Reviews, among other venues. As a practicing lawyer, he has
clerked on the D.C. Circuit, Fourth Circuit, and Supreme Court of
Israel, represented major corporations accused of billion-dollar
wrongdoing, and, on a pro bono basis, represented children accused of
homicide. As an academic, he was a tenured full professor at
Northwestern Law School before lateraling to Scalia Law School. He holds
a J.D. in law from Yale Law School, a Ph.D. in philosophy from the
Goethe University of Frankfurt, and a B.A. in philosophy from Yale
College.
Hannah Ruth Earl – Director, Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships
Hannah
Ruth Earl is the former executive director of America’s Future, where
she cultivated communities of freedom-minded young professionals and
local leaders. She previously co-produced award-winning feature films as
director of talent and creative development at the Moving Picture
Institute. A native of Tennessee, she holds a master of arts in religion
from Yale Divinity School.
