US colleges revise rules on free speech in hopes of containing anti-war demonstrations

US colleges revise rules on free speech in hopes of containing anti-war demonstrations
Pro-Palestinian protesters march outside Columbia University in New York City on May 23, 2024. (AFP/File)
Short Url
Updated 16 August 2024
Follow

US colleges revise rules on free speech in hopes of containing anti-war demonstrations

US colleges revise rules on free speech in hopes of containing anti-war demonstrations
  • American Association of University Professors condemn “overly restrictive policies” that could discourage free expression
  • Many student protesters in the US vow to continue their activism, which has been fueled by Gaza’s rising death toll

NEW YORK: As students return to colleges across the United States, administrators are bracing for a resurgence in activism against the war in Gaza, and some schools are adopting rules to limit the kind of protests that swept campuses last spring.
While the summer break provided a respite in student demonstrations against the Israel-Hamas war, it also gave both student protesters and higher education officials a chance to regroup and strategize for the fall semester.
The stakes remain high. At Columbia University, President Minouche Shafik resigned Wednesday after coming under heavy scrutiny for her handling of the demonstrations at the campus in New York City, where the wave of pro-Palestinian tent encampments began last spring.
Some of the new rules imposed by universities include banning encampments, limiting the duration of demonstrations, allowing protests only in designated spaces and restricting campus access to those with university identification. Critics say some of the measures will curtail free speech.
The American Association of University Professors issued a statement Wednesday condemning “overly restrictive policies” that could discourage free expression. Many of the new policies require protesters to register well in advance and strictly limit the locations where gatherings can be held, as well as setting new limits on the use of amplified sound and signage.
“Our colleges and universities should encourage, not suppress, open and vigorous dialogue and debate even on the most deeply held beliefs,” said the statement, adding that many policies were imposed without faculty input.
The University of Pennsylvania has outlined new “temporary guidelines” for student protests that include bans on encampments, overnight demonstrations, and the use of bullhorns and speakers until after 5 p.m. on class days. Penn also requires that posters and banners be removed within two weeks of going up. The university says it remains committed to freedom of speech and lawful assembly.
At Indiana University, protests after 11 p.m. are forbidden under a new “expressive activities policy” that took effect Aug 1. The policy says “camping” and erecting any type of shelter are prohibited on campus, and signs cannot be displayed on university property without prior approval.
The University of South Florida now requires approval for tents, canopies, banners, signs and amplifiers. The school’s “speech, expression and assembly” rules stipulate that no “activity,” including protests or demonstrations, is allowed after 5 p.m. on weekdays or during weekends and not allowed at all during the last two weeks of a semester.
A draft document obtained over the summer by the student newspaper at Harvard University showed the college was considering prohibitions on overnight camping, chalk messages and unapproved signs.
“I think right now we are seeing a resurgence of repression on campuses that we haven’t seen since the late 1960s,” said Risa Lieberwitz, a Cornell University professor of labor and employment law who serves as general counsel for the AAUP.
Universities say they encourage free speech as long as it doesn’t interfere with learning, and they insist they are simply updating existing rules for demonstrations to protect campus safety.
Tensions have run high on college campuses since Oct. 7, when Hamas militants assaulted southern Israel and killed 1,200 people, most of them civilians, and took about 250 hostages.
Many student protesters in the US vow to continue their activism, which has been fueled by Gaza’s rising death toll, which surpassed 40,000 on Thursday, according to the territory’s Health Ministry.
About 50 Columbia students still face discipline over last spring’s demonstrations after a mediation process that began earlier in the summer stalled, according to Mahmoud Khalil, a lead negotiator working on behalf of Columbia student protesters. He blamed the impasse on Columbia administrators.
“The university loves to appear that they’re in dialogue with the students. But these are all fake steps meant to assure the donor community and their political class,” said Khalil, a graduate student at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs.
The university did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.
The Ivy League school in upper Manhattan was roiled earlier this year by student demonstrations, culminating in scenes of police officers with zip ties and riot shields storming a building occupied by pro-Palestinian protesters.
Similar protests swept college campuses nationwide, with many leading to violent clashes with police and more than 3,000 arrests. Many of the students who were arrested during police crackdowns have had their charges dismissed, but some are still waiting to learn what prosecutors decide. Many have faced fallout in their academic careers, including suspensions, withheld diplomas and other forms of discipline.
Shafik was among the university leaders who were called for questioning before Congress. She was heavily criticized by Republicans who accused her of not doing enough to combat concerns about antisemitism on the Columbia campus.
She announced her resignation in an emailed letter to the university community just weeks before the start of classes on Sept. 3. The university on Monday began restricting campus access to people with Columbia IDs and registered guests, saying it wanted to curb “potential disruptions” as the new semester draws near.
“This period has taken a considerable toll on my family, as it has for others in the community,” Shafik wrote in her letter. “Over the summer, I have been able to reflect and have decided that my moving on at this point would best enable Columbia to traverse the challenges ahead.”
Pro-Palestinian protesters first set up tent encampments on Columbia’s campus during Shafik’s congressional testimony in mid-April, when she denounced antisemitism but faced criticism for how she responded to faculty and students accused of bias.
The school sent in police to clear the tents the following day, only for the students to return and inspire a wave of similar protests at campuses across the country as students called for schools to cut financial ties with Israel and companies supporting the war.
The campus was mostly quiet this summer, but a conservative news outlet in June published images of what it said were text messages exchanged by administrators while attending a May 31 panel discussion titled “Jewish Life on Campus: Past, Present and Future.”
The officials were removed from their posts, with Shafik saying in a July 8 letter to the school community that the messages were unprofessional and “disturbingly touched on ancient antisemitic tropes.”
Other prominent Ivy League leaders have stepped down in recent months, in large part due to their response to the volatile protests on campus.
University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill resigned in December after less than two years on the job. She faced pressure from donors and criticism over testimony at a congressional hearing where she was unable to say under repeated questioning that calls on campus for the genocide of Jews would violate the school’s conduct policy.
And in January, Harvard University President Claudine Gay resigned amid plagiarism accusations and similar criticism over her testimony before Congress.
 


Senate GOP pushes ahead with budget bill that funds Trump’s mass deportations and border wall

Senate GOP pushes ahead with budget bill that funds Trump’s mass deportations and border wall
Updated 14 sec ago
Follow

Senate GOP pushes ahead with budget bill that funds Trump’s mass deportations and border wall

Senate GOP pushes ahead with budget bill that funds Trump’s mass deportations and border wall
  • This is the first step in unlocking Trump’s campaign promises — tax cuts, energy production and border controls — and dominating the agenda in Congress

WASHINGTON: Senate Republicans pushed ahead late Tuesday on a scaled-back budget bill, a $340 billion package to give the Trump administration money for mass deportations and other priorities, as Democrats prepare a counter-campaign against the onslaught of actions coming from the White House.
On a party-line vote, 50-47, Republicans launched the process, skipping ahead of the House Republicans who prefer President Donald Trump’s approach for a “big, beautiful bill” that includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts that are tops on the party agenda. Senate Republicans plan to deal with tax cuts later, in a second package.
“It’s time to act,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., on social media, announcing the plan ahead as the House is on recess week. “Let’s get it done.”
This is the first step in unlocking Trump’s campaign promises — tax cuts, energy production and border controls — and dominating the agenda in Congress. While Republicans have majority control of both the House and Senate, giving a rare sweep of Washington power, they face big hurdles trying to put the president’s agenda into law over steep Democratic objections.
It’s coming as the administration’s Department of Government Efficiency effort is slashing costs across government departments, leaving a trail of fired federal workers and dismantling programs on which many Americans depend. Democrats, having floundered amid the initial chaos coming from the White House, emerged galvanized as they try to warn Americans what’s at stake.
“These bills that they have have one purpose — and that is they’re trying to give a tax break to their billionaire buddies and have you, the average American person, pay for it,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer told AP. “It is outrageous.”
Schumer convened a private weekend call with Democratic senators and emerged with a strategy to challenge Republicans for prioritizing tax cuts that primarily flow to the wealthy at the expense of program and service cuts to US health care, scientific research, veterans services and other programs.
As the Senate begins the cumbersome budget process this week — which entails an initial 50 hours of debate followed by an expected all-night session with dozens if not 100 or more efforts to amend the package in what’s called a vote-a-rama — Democrats are preparing to drill down on those issues.
The Senate GOP package would allow $175 billion to be spent on border security, including funding for mass deportation operations and to build the wall along the US-Mexico border; a $150 billion boost to the Pentagon for defense spending; and $20 billion for the Coast Guard.
Republicans are determined to push ahead after Trump’s border czar Tom Homan and top aide Stephen Miller told senators privately last week they are running short of cash to accomplish the president’s mass deportations and other border priorities.
The Senate Budget Committee said the package would cost about $85.5 billion a year, for four years of Trump’s presidency, paid for with new reductions and revenues elsewhere that other committees will draw up.
Eyeing ways to pay for the package, Senate Republicans are considering a rollback of the Biden administration’s methane emissions fee, which was approved by Democrats as part of climate change strategies in the Inflation Reduction Act, and hoping to draw new revenue from energy leases as they aim to spur domestic energy production.
While the House and Senate budget resolutions are often considered simply statements of policy priorities, these could actually become law.
The budget resolutions are being considered under what’s called the reconciliation process, which allows passage on a simple majority vote without many of the procedural hurdles that stall bills. Once rare, reconciliation is increasingly being used in the House and Senate to pass big packages on party-line votes when one party controls the White House and Congress.
During Trump’s first term, Republicans used the reconciliation process to pass the GOP tax cuts in 2017. Democrats used reconciliation during the Biden presidency era to approve COVID relief and also the Inflation Reduction Act.
 

 


Brazil prosecutor charges Bolsonaro over failed coup bid

Brazil prosecutor charges Bolsonaro over failed coup bid
Updated 16 min 31 sec ago
Follow

Brazil prosecutor charges Bolsonaro over failed coup bid

Brazil prosecutor charges Bolsonaro over failed coup bid
  • Bolsonaro has denied the accusations and said he was the victim of “persecution”

BRASÍLIA: Brazil’s attorney general on Tuesday formally charged far-right former president Jair Bolsonaro and 33 others over an alleged coup attempt after his 2022 election loss.
Bolsonaro, 69, and his co-accused were hit with five charges over the alleged bid to prevent President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from taking office after a bitter election race.
Attorney General Paulo Gonet Branco filed the charges at the Supreme Court “based on manuscripts, digital files, spreadsheets and exchanges of messages that reveal the scheme to disrupt the democratic order,” his office said in a statement.
“They describe, in detail, the conspiratorial plot set up and executed against democratic institutions.”
One of the charges is for the crime of “armed criminal organization,” allegedly led by Bolsonaro and his vice presidential candidate Walter Braga Netto.
“Allied with other individuals, including civilians and military personnel, they attempted to prevent, in a coordinated manner, the result of the 2022 presidential elections from being fulfilled,” read the statement.
The prosecutor’s office based its decision on a federal police report of over 800 pages, released last year after a two-year investigation which found Bolsonaro was “fully aware and actively participated” in the plot to cling to power.
Bolsonaro has denied the accusations and said he was the victim of “persecution.”
According to the statement from Branco’s office, the plot began in 2021, with “systematic attacks on the electronic voting system, through public statements and on the Internet.”
During the second round of the presidential election in October 2022, security agencies were mobilized to “prevent voters from voting for the opposition candidate,” said the statement.
Those involved at this stage worked to facilitate “the acts of violence and vandalism on January 8, 2023,” when Bolsonaro supporters stormed the presidential palace, Congress and Supreme Court.
The attorney general’s office said the criminal organization headed by Bolsonaro had pressured army chiefs “in favor of forceful actions in the political scene to prevent the elected president from taking office.”
Investigations also showed a plot to assassinate Lula, vice president Geraldo Alckmin and a high-profile judge with “the approval of” Bolsonaro.
According to the statement, the January 8 riots by Bolsonaro supporters urging the military to intervene were “the final attempt.”
The Supreme Court will now weigh the charges and decide whether to initiate proceedings against Bolsonaro.
Hours before the charges were filed, Bolsonaro told journalists in the capital Brasilia that he had “no concern” about the possibility of being indicted.


Israel-Gaza war fuels record level of anti-Muslim hatred in Britain, monitoring group says

Police officers stand near a cordon at Manchester Victoria Station, in Manchester. (AFP)
Police officers stand near a cordon at Manchester Victoria Station, in Manchester. (AFP)
Updated 19 February 2025
Follow

Israel-Gaza war fuels record level of anti-Muslim hatred in Britain, monitoring group says

Police officers stand near a cordon at Manchester Victoria Station, in Manchester. (AFP)
  • The surge in hate incidents against Muslims due to Islamophobia has also been linked to the killing of three young girls in the northern English town of Southport last summer, Tell MAMA said

LONDON: The number of anti-Muslim incidents in Britain rose to a new high in 2024, according to data compiled by monitoring organization Tell MAMA, which said the war in Gaza had “super-fueled” online hate.
Tell MAMA said it verified 5,837 anti-Muslim hate cases — a mix of both online and in-person incidents — last year, compared with 3,767 cases the year before and 2,201 in 2022.
The organization’s data goes back to 2012 and is compiled using data-sharing agreements with police forces in England and Wales.
“The Middle East conflict super-fueled online anti-Muslim hate,” the group said in a statement, adding that “the Israel and Gaza War, the Southport murders and riots ... created a surge in anti-Muslim hate cases reported to Tell MAMA from 2023-2024.”
Its director Iman Atta described the surge as unacceptable and deeply concerning for the future.
Tell MAMA (Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks) describes itself as an independent, non-governmental organization which works on tackling anti-Muslim hatred.
Separate data last week showed levels of hatred toward Jews across Britain have also rocketed to record levels in the wake of the October 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza.
The surge in hate incidents against Muslims due to Islamophobia has also been linked to the killing of three young girls in the northern English town of Southport last summer, Tell MAMA said.
False reports spread on social media that the killer, who has since been sentenced to at least 52 years behind bars, was a radical Islamist migrant, leading to racist riots involving far-right and anti-immigration groups across the country.
“We urge the public to stand together against hatred and extremism, and we urge those in positions of influence and public authority to consider how their language risks stereotyping communities,” Atta said, calling for coordinated government action to tackle anti-Muslim hate.

 


US Catholic bishops sue Trump administration for halt in funding for refugee settlement

President Donald Trump speaks at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2025. (AP)
President Donald Trump speaks at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2025. (AP)
Updated 19 February 2025
Follow

US Catholic bishops sue Trump administration for halt in funding for refugee settlement

President Donald Trump speaks at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2025. (AP)
  • The lawsuit said the government is attempting to “pull the rug out” from under the program, causing it longstanding damage

WASHINGTON: Catholic bishops sued the Trump administration on Tuesday over its abrupt halt to funding of refugee resettlement, calling the action unlawful and harmful to newly arrived refugees and to the nation’s largest private resettlement program.
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops says the administration, by withholding millions even for reimbursements of costs incurred before the sudden cut-off of funding, violates various laws as well as the constitutional provision giving the power of the purse to Congress, which already approved the funding.
The conference’s Migration and Refugee Services has sent layoff notices to 50 workers, more than half its staff, with additional cuts expected in local Catholic Charities offices that partner with the national office, the lawsuit said.
“The Catholic Church always works to uphold the common good of all and promote the dignity of the human person, especially the most vulnerable among us,” said Archbishop Timothy Broglio, president of the USCCB. “That includes the unborn, the poor, the stranger, the elderly and infirm, and migrants.” The funding suspension prevents the church from doing so, he said.
“The conference suddenly finds itself unable to sustain its work to care for the thousands of refugees who were welcomed into our country and assigned to the care of the USCCB by the government after being granted legal status,” Broglio said.
The conference is trying to keep the program going, but it’s “financially unsustainable,” he said, adding that it’s trying to hold the US government to its “moral and legal commitments.”
The conference is one of 10 national agencies, most of them faith-based, that serve refugees and that have been sent scrambling since receiving a Jan. 24 State Department letter informing them of an immediate suspension of funding pending a review of foreign-aid programs.
The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, notes that the resettlement program isn’t even foreign aid. It’s a domestic program to help newly arrived refugees — who arrive legally after being vetted overseas — meet initial needs such as housing and job placement.
“USCCB spends more on refugee resettlement each year than it receives in funding from the federal government, but it cannot sustain its programs without the millions in federal funding that provide the foundation of this private-public partnership,” the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit said the government is attempting to “pull the rug out” from under the program, causing it longstanding damage.
The lawsuit names the departments of State and Health and Human Services as well as their respective secretaries, Marco Rubio and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Both departments have roles in delegating resettlement work to the bishops conference.
There was no immediate reply in court from those departments.
The USCCB said it is still awaiting about $13 million in reimbursements for expenses prior to Jan. 24.
As of Jan. 25, it said, there were 6,758 refugees assigned by the government to USCCB’s care that had been in the country less than 90 days, the period of time for which they’re eligible for resettlement aid.
The conference said suspending the resettlement effort will only prolong the time it takes for refugees to find employment and become self-sufficient.
 

 


Trump moves to widen IVF access, risking conservative fury

Trump moves to widen IVF access, risking conservative fury
Updated 19 February 2025
Follow

Trump moves to widen IVF access, risking conservative fury

Trump moves to widen IVF access, risking conservative fury

PALM BEACH, United States: US President Donald Trump moved Tuesday to increase access to in vitro fertilization, a move likely to be welcomed by many Americans but which risks a backlash from conservatives and the religious right.
The Republican leader signed an executive order giving his advisers 90 days to find recommendations for protecting IVF access and “aggressively” reducing out-of-pocket and insurance costs for the treatment.
“My Administration recognizes the importance of family formation, and as a Nation, our public policy must make it easier for loving and longing mothers and fathers to have children,” the order stated.
“Americans need reliable access to IVF and more affordable treatment options,” it continued.
Trump told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, shortly after signing the order, that “I think the women and families, husbands, are very appreciative of it.”
The president — whose billionaire top donor and ally Elon Musk has had several children by IVF — has long held conflicting stances on reproductive rights.
He frequently boasts about appointing Supreme Court justices who ended federal protections for abortion access in 2022, a seismic move that made him a hero to the anti-abortion movement, which has driven conservative voters to the polls for decades.
But he drew fury from that same movement when, during last year’s presidential campaign, he announced that in a second term he would ensure free IVF, and claimed to be the “father of IVF.”
At the time Trump voiced worries that Republicans were out of step with voters on the issue.
Republicans are divided on fertility treatments such as IVF, with many hailing them as a boost to American families.
Others, with strong beliefs that life begins at conception, oppose IVF because the procedure can produce multiple embryos, not all of which get used.
Almost every Senate Republican voted against assuring IVF access in a vote in June last year — including then-Ohio senator JD Vance, now Trump’s vice president.
Reproductive rights activists had feared that the Supreme Court decision on abortion threatened IVF, especially after a court in Alabama last year ruled that frozen embryos could be considered people, leading to several clinics briefly pausing treatments.
Trump’s Democratic rival Kamala Harris had put reproductive rights at the heart of her election platform, warning that Trump’s moves on abortion also jeopardized access to fertility treatments.