Higher Education Inquirer : Search results for deportation

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query deportation. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, May 7, 2025

Columbia student Mohsen Mahdawi says "justice will prevail" after ICE release (CBS Mornings)

Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi spoke with CBS News in his first TV interview since his release from ICE custody. He spent 16 days in detention and now awaits deportation hearings for protesting the war in Gaza.

Wednesday, August 13, 2025

Silencing Higher Education: Trump’s War on Discourse About Genocide in Palestine

Academic institutions have long served as crucibles of free thought and protest. Yet under President Trump’s second term, universities have become battlegrounds in a sweeping campaign that conflates advocacy around the genocide in Gaza with antisemitism—and weaponizes Title VI and Title IX to stifle dissent. This article outlines the administration’s tactics, war crimes ramifications, and the universities ensnared so far.

War Crimes at Issue: Gaza Protests and U.S. Reaction

The conflict in Gaza has seen mounting allegations of genocide against Israel—claims underscored by protests on dozens of U.S. campuses. In response, the Trump administration has launched a social media “catch-and-revoke” system that uses AI to flag pro-Palestinian speech, leading to visa revocations and deportations—even targeting legal residents and green-card holders. Over 1,000 visa revocations were reported by mid-April 2025, rising to nearly 2,000 by mid-May—many later overturned by courts.

Activists such as Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University legal resident arrested during a protest, and Mohsen Mahdawi, detained during a citizenship interview, have been caught up in these actions—both cases widely criticized for infringing First Amendment rights. These responses reflect a concerted effort to equate peaceful protest with national-security threats under the guise of combating antisemitism.

Title VI Enforcement: Chilling Academic Freedom

Under a January 29, 2025 Executive Order, Trump directed federal agencies to squash antisemitism—including speech critical of Israel—by enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act against universities.

In March 2025, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights sent letters to 60 universities, warning of enforcement investigations over alleged antisemitism during pro-Gaza protests. This has had an unmistakable chilling effect on faculty, students, and campus activism.

Institutions Targeted and Financial Punishments

The administration’s pressure tactics have taken several forms.

Columbia University saw $400 million in federal grants and contracts canceled, tied to agencies including the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services. The university received an ultimatum to change discipline policies, suspend or expel protestors, ban masks, empower security with arrest authority, and restructure certain academic departments by March 20—under threat of permanent funding loss. Columbia ultimately settled for $200 million and restored funding.

George Washington University was accused by the DOJ of being “deliberately indifferent” to antisemitic harassment during spring 2024 protests, especially affecting Jewish, American-Israeli, and Israeli students and faculty, and was given a deadline of August 22 to take corrective action.

UCLA recently had $584 million in federal funding suspended over similar antisemitism-related accusations and affirmative action concerns.

Harvard University is in settlement talks over nearly $500 million in frozen federal funding, negotiating compliance with federal guidelines in exchange for restoring money. Harvard also faces a separate Title VI/IX complaint over $49 million in DEI grants, with claims of race- and sex-based discrimination.

Other institutions under investigation include Johns Hopkins, NYU, Northwestern, UC Berkeley, University of Minnesota, and USC.

Legal Backlash and Academic Resistance

Universities and academic organizations have begun to push back.

The AAUP has filed suit against Trump’s executive orders on DEI, calling them vague, overreaching, and chilling to speech. Some institutions, including Harvard, have resisted enforcement efforts, defending academic freedom and constitutional rights—even as they weigh risks to federal funding.

Legal experts argue that Title VI enforcement in this context may be unconstitutional if motivated by ideological suppression rather than actual antisemitism.

The Battle for Free Speech and Human Rights

Trump’s strategy effectively conjoins criticism of genocide and advocacy for Palestinian rights with civil rights violations—casting a chilling effect across campuses nationwide. The consequences are profound.

Academic autonomy is undermined when universities must trade institutional integrity for compliance with politically driven mandates. Student activism, especially from international and Palestinian voices, faces existential threats via visa policies and deportation tactics. Human rights accountability is sidelined when federal power is used to muzzle discourse about atrocities abroad.

Sources:

Harvard, Trump Administration Near Deal for $500 Million Settlement
Trump administration says George Washington University violated law over Jewish students, faculty
Why Harvard Decided to Challenge Donald Trump
Columbia University Faces Ultimatum from Trump Administration
UCLA Funding Suspended by Trump Administration

Sunday, March 30, 2025

US CRACKS DOWN ON STUDENTS: VISAS REVOKED OVER SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS! (NLTV)

Hundreds of international students in the US have received emails from the Department of State (DOS) instructing them to self-deport after their F-1 visas were revoked due to campus activism or social media posts. This crackdown targets not just those who physically participated in activism, but also those who shared or liked 'anti-national' posts. Some Indian students may also be affected. The US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, confirmed the visa revocations, stating that over 300 visas had been revoked for "anti-national activities." He also launched an AI-powered app, "Catch and Revoke," to identify and cancel visas of students supporting designated terrorist groups like Hamas. New student visa applications are also under scrutiny, with applicants potentially being denied entry. The email sent to affected students warns them to self-deport, stating their visas were revoked under Section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It also informs students that staying in the US without lawful status could lead to fines, detention, or deportation, and they would need to apply for a new visa to return in the future.

Monday, June 9, 2025

Indian Student Handcuffed and Pinned to Ground at Newark Airport Before Deportation (One India)

A shocking video from Newark Airport shows an Indian student in handcuffs, pinned to the ground by U.S. authorities before being deported. The clip, shared by Indian-American entrepreneur Kunal Jain, has sparked outrage online. Jain described the young man as crying and being treated like a criminal, despite arriving with valid documents. He urged the Indian Embassy to intervene. Jain also claimed that similar incidents are now occurring frequently—3 to 4 deportations daily—often due to students being unable to explain their purpose in the U.S. properly at immigration.

Friday, March 28, 2025

State Department Responds to Questions About Student Visa Revocations

(Higher Education Inquirer) Can you tell us more about the process that the State Department is using to decide what student visas are revoked? Should students from particular countries, like Iran and China, be concerned? Besides pro-Palestinian activists, are there any other areas of activism that may be targeted, such as those concerned about climate change?

(US State Department)

The United States has zero tolerance for non-citizens who violate U.S. laws. Those who break the law, including students, may face visa denial, visa revocation, and/or deportation.

All visa applicants, no matter the visa type and where they are located, are continuously vetted. Security vetting runs from the time of each application, through adjudication of the visa, and afterwards during the validity period of every issued visa, to ensure the individual remains eligible to travel to the United States.

When considering revocations, the Department looks at information that arises after the visa was issued that may indicate a potential visa ineligibility under U.S. immigration laws. This can include everything from arrests, criminal convictions, and engaging in conduct that is inconsistent with the visa classification, to an overstay.

Given our commitment to and responsibility for national security, the Department uses all available tools to receive and review concerning information about possible ineligibilities.

Thursday, November 27, 2025

America Under Fire: Political Violence, Systemic Oppression, and the Role of Higher Education

The ambush shooting of two National Guardsmen near the White House on November 27, 2025, by Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national, is the latest in a growing wave of politically motivated violence that has engulfed the United States since 2024. Lakanwal opened fire on uniformed service members stationed for heightened security, wounding both. Federal authorities are investigating whether ideological motives drove the attack, which comes against a backdrop of escalating domestic and international tensions. This ambush cannot be understood in isolation. It is part of a larger pattern of domestic political violence that has claimed lives across ideological lines.

Conservative activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated at Utah Valley University during a campus event in September 2025. Minnesota state representative Mary Carlson and her husband were murdered in their home by a man impersonating law enforcement, while a state senator and spouse were injured in the same spree. Governor Josh Shapiro survived an arson attack on his residence earlier this year. Even Donald Trump was the target of an assassination attempt in July 2024. Added to this grim tally are incidents such as the 2025 Manhattan mass shooting, in which young professionals, including two Jewish women, Julia Hyman and Wesley LePatner, were killed, and the Luigi Mangione case, in which a former student allegedly killed a corporate executive in New York. Together, these incidents reveal a nation in which lethal violence increasingly intersects with politics, identity, and ideology.

The domestic escalation of violence cannot be separated from broader structures of oppression. Migrants and asylum seekers face detention, family separation, and deportation under the authority of ICE, often in conditions described as inhumane, creating fear and vulnerability among refugee communities. Routine encounters with law enforcement disproportionately harm Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and other marginalized communities. Excessive force and lethal policing add to communal distrust, reinforcing perceptions that violence is a sanctioned tool of the state. Political rhetoric compounds the problem. President Trump and other political leaders have repeatedly framed immigrants, political opponents, and even students as threats to national security, implicitly legitimizing aggressive responses and providing fodder for extremist actors.

The domestic situation is further complicated by U.S. foreign policy, which has often contributed to global instability while modeling the use of violence as an instrument of governance. In Palestine, military aid to Israel coincides with attacks on civilians and infrastructure that human-rights organizations describe as ethnic cleansing or genocide. In Venezuela, U.S. sanctions, threats, and proxy operations have intensified humanitarian crises and political instability. Complicity with the governments of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Russia enables human-rights abuses abroad while emboldening domestic actors who mimic state-sanctioned violence. These global policies reverberate at home, influencing public discourse, shaping extremist narratives, and creating a climate in which political and ideological violence is increasingly normalized.

Higher education sits at the nexus of these domestic and global pressures. Universities and colleges are not merely observers; they are active participants and, in some cases, victims. The assassination of Charlie Kirk on a campus underscores that institutions of learning are no longer insulated from lethal political conflict. Alumni, recent graduates, and professionals—such as the victims of the Manhattan shooting—are affected even after leaving school, revealing how closely academic networks intersect with broader societal risks. International and refugee students, particularly from Afghan and Middle Eastern communities, face heightened anxiety due to restrictive immigration policies, anti-immigrant rhetoric, and the real threat of violence. Faculty teaching topics related to immigration, race, U.S. foreign policy, or genocide are increasingly targeted by harassment, threats, and institutional pressures that suppress academic freedom. The cumulative stress of political violence, systemic oppression, and global conflicts creates trauma that universities must address comprehensively, both for students and faculty.

Higher education cannot prevent every act of violence, nor can it resolve the nation’s deep political fractures. But it can model ethical and civic engagement, defending inquiry and speech without succumbing to fear or political pressure. It can extend support to vulnerable communities, promote critical thinking about the domestic roots of political violence and the consequences of U.S. foreign policy, and foster ethical reflection that counters the normalization of aggression. Silence or passivity risks complicity. Universities must recognize that the threats affecting campuses, alumni, and students are interconnected with broader systems of power and oppression, both domestic and global.

From the White House ambush to Charlie Kirk’s assassination, from the Minnesota legislators’ murders to the Manhattan mass shooting, from Luigi Mangione’s high-profile killing to systemic violence enforced through ICE and police overreach, and amid the influence of incendiary political rhetoric and U.S. complicity in violence abroad, the United States is experiencing an unprecedented convergence of domestic and international pressures. Higher education sits at the center of these converging forces, and how it responds will shape not only campus safety and academic freedom but also the broader civic health of the nation. The challenge is immense: to uphold democratic values, protect communities, and educate students in a society increasingly defined by fear, extremism, and violence.

Sources

Reuters. “FBI probes gunman’s motives in ambush shooting of Guardsmen near White House.” The Guardian. Coverage on suspect identification and political reaction. AP News. Statements by national leaders following attacks. Washington Post. Analysis of domestic violent extremism and political violence trends. People Magazine. Reporting on Minnesota legislator assassination. NBC/AP. Statements by Gov. Josh Shapiro after Charlie Kirk’s killing. Utah Valley University and local ABC/Fox affiliates on the Kirk shooting. Jewish Journal, ABC7NY. Coverage of Manhattan mass shooting and Jewish victims. Reuters. Luigi Mangione case and court proceedings. Human Rights Watch / Amnesty International reports on Palestine, Venezuela, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. Brookings Institute. Analysis of political violence and domestic extremism. CSIS. “Domestic Extremism and Political Violence in the United States.”

Saturday, April 26, 2025

Trump Versus Academia, April 25, 2025 (Bryan Alexander)

Here's my latest Trump and academia vlog report. If you’re new to this series, these videos are where I summarize what the Trump administration has been doing to higher education, and how colleges and universities have responded. Here are the latest developments since the last video, as of today, April 25, 2025.

Previous episodes here:

• Trump and higher education: report fr... 1 The Federal level

Executive orders:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidenti...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidenti...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidenti...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheet...
https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-r...

EEOC texts:

https://theintercept.com/2025/04/23/t...

National Science Foundation canceled grants:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/22/sc...

NSF’s director resigned: https://www.science.org/content/artic...

National Institutes of Health canceled The Women’s Health Initiative: https://www.science.org/content/artic...

Deportations and visa revocations of international students: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/g...

XKCD comic: https://xkcd.com/3081/

Democratic members of Congress visiting Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/04/2...

Legal challenges:

https://apnews.com/article/internatio...
https://abc7chicago.com/post/us-stude...
https://katu.com/news/local/federal-j...
https://wgme.com/news/local/aclu-file...

In previous videos I’ve paused to read the names of academics seized or threatened with deportation by these offices, the names of people like Rasha Alawieh. Yunseo Chung. Alireza Doroudi. Doğukan Günaydın. Mahmoud Khalil. Leqaa Kordia. Rumeysa Ozturk. Kseniia Petrova. Ranjani Srinivasan. Badar Khan Suri. Momodou Taal. 2 Academic reactions Trump on Harvard and one lawyer on Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTr...

Boycotting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L...

Research Council of Norway: https://www.theguardian.com/education...

I hope this video summary has been of use to you. Please share your thoughts, additions, and other reactions in the comment box below. If you don’t feel you can comment publicly, please reach out to me directly through the contact link at the end of today’s show notes. Given the pace of events, I’ll try to post these videos more frequently. This is a rough, dark time for those of us in higher education. It seems likely to get worse. I hope we can help each other out - and fight. Please take care, everyone. https://bryanalexander.org/contact-br...

Intro and outro sound: https://freesound.org/people/envirOma...

Thursday, March 27, 2025

We’re taking it to the courts and the streets--and we need you (Todd Wolfson, AAUP)

The Trump administration’s assaults on education, science, campuses, and communities across the United States are unprecedented, and require an unprecedented response. We are fighting with you and for you in the streets, on campus, and in the courts.

While there are some exceptions, the truth is clear: We cannot count on college administrations to take a stand and take the lead in defending our campuses and communities. Instead, faculty and unions are leading the fight and we need you in it.

This week alone, the AAUP, working in partnership with our chapters, the AFT, and other allies, filed three lawsuits against the Trump administration.

—We sued the administration for its illegal revocation of $400 million in federal funding from Columbia University. We believe that the funding cuts and related demands, which undermine critical scientific and medical and suppress speech, are an unlawful attack on the First Amendment and academic freedom and must be stopped.

—We filed suit to protect free speech rights across colleges and universities against the chilling effect of the Trump administration’s immigration deportation policies.

—We filed a legal action to stop the dismantling of the Department of Education and mass firings that will decimate the crucial services that benefit every person residing in the US.

We cannot win these lawsuits, protect academic freedom, and defend higher education without you. AAUP members have stepped up to provide information and testimony, and they have put themselves on the line as public participants in these legal cases.

We need you with us—please join now. If you're not an active or retired teacher, researcher, graduate student, or similar, you can join as a supporter--just choose "associate member" as you go through the join process.

In solidarity,
Todd Wolfson, AAUP President

P.S.—We need you in the streets, too! On April 8, please join us in a National Day of Action to stand up for education and research.

Tuesday, January 21, 2025

Student Booted from PhD Program Over AI Use (Derek Newton/The Cheat Sheet)

336: Student Says He Was Expelled Over False Accusation of AI Use

Issue 336

This one is going to take a hot minute to dissect. Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) has the story.

The plot contours are easy. A PhD student at the University of Minnesota was accused of using AI on a required pre-dissertation exam and removed from the program. He denies that allegation and has sued the school — and one of his professors — for due process violations and defamation respectively.

Starting the case.

The coverage reports that:

all four faculty graders of his exam expressed “significant concerns” that it was not written in his voice. They noted answers that seemed irrelevant or involved subjects not covered in coursework. Two instructors then generated their own responses in ChatGPT to compare against his and submitted those as evidence against Yang. At the resulting disciplinary hearing, Yang says those professors also shared results from AI detection software. 

Personally, when I see that four members of the faculty unanimously agreed on the authenticity of his work, I am out. I trust teachers.

I know what a serious thing it is to accuse someone of cheating; I know teachers do not take such things lightly. When four go on the record to say so, I’m convinced. Barring some personal grievance or prejudice, which could happen, hard for me to believe that all four subject-matter experts were just wrong here. Also, if there was bias or petty politics at play, it probably would have shown up before the student’s third year, not just before starting his dissertation.

Moreover, at least as far as the coverage is concerned, the student does not allege bias or program politics. His complaint is based on due process and inaccuracy of the underlying accusation.

Let me also say quickly that asking ChatGPT for answers you plan to compare to suspicious work may be interesting, but it’s far from convincing — in my opinion. ChatGPT makes stuff up. I’m not saying that answer comparison is a waste, I just would not build a case on it. Here, the university didn’t. It may have added to the case, but it was not the case. Adding also that the similarities between the faculty-created answers and the student’s — both are included in the article — are more compelling than I expected.

Then you add detection software, which the article later shares showed high likelihood of AI text, and the case is pretty tight. Four professors, similar answers, AI detection flags — feels like a heavy case.

Denied it.

The article continues that Yang, the student:

denies using AI for this exam and says the professors have a flawed approach to determining whether AI was used. He said methods used to detect AI are known to be unreliable and biased, particularly against people whose first language isn’t English. Yang grew up speaking Southern Min, a Chinese dialect. 

Although it’s not specified, it is likely that Yang is referring to the research from Stanford that has been — or at least ought to be — entirely discredited (see Issue 216 and Issue 251). For the love of research integrity, the paper has invented citations — sources that go to papers or news coverage that are not at all related to what the paper says they are.

Does anyone actually read those things?

Back to Minnesota, Yang says that as a result of the findings against him and being removed from the program, he lost his American study visa. Yang called it “a death penalty.”

With friends like these.

Also interesting is that, according to the coverage:

His academic advisor Bryan Dowd spoke in Yang’s defense at the November hearing, telling panelists that expulsion, effectively a deportation, was “an odd punishment for something that is as difficult to establish as a correspondence between ChatGPT and a student’s answer.” 

That would be a fair point except that the next paragraph is:

Dowd is a professor in health policy and management with over 40 years of teaching at the U of M. He told MPR News he lets students in his courses use generative AI because, in his opinion, it’s impossible to prevent or detect AI use. Dowd himself has never used ChatGPT, but he relies on Microsoft Word’s auto-correction and search engines like Google Scholar and finds those comparable. 

That’s ridiculous. I’m sorry, it is. The dude who lets students use AI because he thinks AI is “impossible to prevent or detect,” the guy who has never used ChatGPT himself, and thinks that Google Scholar and auto-complete are “comparable” to AI — that’s the person speaking up for the guy who says he did not use AI. Wow.

That guy says:

“I think he’s quite an excellent student. He’s certainly, I think, one of the best-read students I’ve ever encountered”

Time out. Is it not at least possible that professor Dowd thinks student Yang is an excellent student because Yang was using AI all along, and our professor doesn’t care to ascertain the difference? Also, mind you, as far as we can learn from this news story, Dowd does not even say Yang is innocent. He says the punishment is “odd,” that the case is hard to establish, and that Yang was a good student who did not need to use AI. Although, again, I’m not sure how good professor Dowd would know.

As further evidence of Yang’s scholastic ability, Dowd also points out that Yang has a paper under consideration at a top academic journal.

You know what I am going to say.

To me, that entire Dowd diversion is mostly funny.

More evidence.

Back on track, we get even more detail, such as that the exam in question was:

an eight-hour preliminary exam that Yang took online. Instructions he shared show the exam was open-book, meaning test takers could use notes, papers and textbooks, but AI was explicitly prohibited. 
Exam graders argued the AI use was obvious enough. Yang disagrees. 
Weeks after the exam, associate professor Ezra Golberstein submitted a complaint to the U of M saying the four faculty reviewers agreed that Yang’s exam was not in his voice and recommending he be dismissed from the program. Yang had been in at least one class with all of them, so they compared his responses against two other writing samples. 

So, the exam expressly banned AI. And we learn that, as part of the determination of the professors, they compared his exam answers with past writing.

I say all the time, there is no substitute for knowing your students. If the initial four faculty who flagged Yang’s work had him in classes and compared suspicious work to past work, what more can we want? It does not get much better than that.

Then there’s even more evidence:

Yang also objects to professors using AI detection software to make their case at the November hearing.  
He shared the U of M’s presentation showing findings from running his writing through GPTZero, which purports to determine the percentage of writing done by AI. The software was highly confident a human wrote Yang’s writing sample from two years ago. It was uncertain about his exam responses from August, assigning 89 percent probability of AI having generated his answer to one question and 19 percent probability for another. 
“Imagine the AI detector can claim that their accuracy rate is 99%. What does it mean?” asked Yang, who argued that the error rate could unfairly tarnish a student who didn’t use AI to do the work.  

First, GPTZero is junk. It’s reliably among the worst available detection systems. Even so, 89% is a high number. And most importantly, the case against Yang is not built on AI detection software alone, as no case should ever be. It’s confirmation, not conviction. Also, Yang, who the paper says already has one PhD, knows exactly what an accuracy rate of 99% means. Be serious.

A pattern.

Then we get this, buried in the news coverage:

Yang suggests the U of M may have had an unjust motive to kick him out. When prompted, he shared documentation of at least three other instances of accusations raised by others against him that did not result in disciplinary action but that he thinks may have factored in his expulsion.  
He does not include this concern in his lawsuits. These allegations are also not explicitly listed as factors in the complaint against him, nor letters explaining the decision to expel Yang or rejecting his appeal. But one incident was mentioned at his hearing: in October 2023, Yang had been suspected of using AI on a homework assignment for a graduate-level course. 
In a written statement shared with panelists, associate professor Susan Mason said Yang had turned in an assignment where he wrote “re write it, make it more casual, like a foreign student write but no ai.”  She recorded the Zoom meeting where she said Yang denied using AI and told her he uses ChatGPT to check his English.
She asked if he had a problem with people believing his writing was too formal and said he responded that he meant his answer was too long and he wanted ChatGPT to shorten it. “I did not find this explanation convincing,” she wrote. 

I’m sorry — what now?

Yang says he was accused of using AI in academic work in “at least three other instances.” For which he was, of course, not disciplined. In one of those cases, Yang literally turned in a paper with this:

“re write it, make it more casual, like a foreign student write but no ai.” 

He said he used ChatGPT to check his English and asked ChatGPT to shorten his writing. But he did not use AI. How does that work?

For that one where he left in the prompts to ChatGPT:

the Office of Community Standards sent Yang a letter warning that the case was dropped but it may be taken into consideration on any future violations. 

Yang was warned, in writing.

If you’re still here, we have four professors who agree that Yang’s exam likely used AI, in violation of exam rules. All four had Yang in classes previously and compared his exam work to past hand-written work. His exam answers had similarities with ChatGPT output. An AI detector said, in at least one place, his exam was 89% likely to be generated with AI. Yang was accused of using AI in academic work at least three other times, by a fifth professor, including one case in which it appears he may have left in his instructions to the AI bot.

On the other hand, he did say he did not do it.

Findings, review.

Further:

But the range of evidence was sufficient for the U of M. In the final ruling, the panel — comprised of several professors and graduate students from other departments — said they trusted the professors’ ability to identify AI-generated papers.

Several professors and students agreed with the accusations. Yang appealed and the school upheld the decision. Yang was gone. The appeal officer wrote:

“PhD research is, by definition, exploring new ideas and often involves development of new methods. There are many opportunities for an individual to falsify data and/or analysis of data. Consequently, the academy has no tolerance for academic dishonesty in PhD programs or among faculty. A finding of dishonesty not only casts doubt on the veracity of everything that the individual has done or will do in the future, it also causes the broader community to distrust the discipline as a whole.” 

Slow clap.

And slow clap for the University of Minnesota. The process is hard. Doing the review, examining the evidence, making an accusation — they are all hard. Sticking by it is hard too.

Seriously, integrity is not a statement. It is action. Integrity is making the hard choice.

MPR, spare me.

Minnesota Public Radio is a credible news organization. Which makes it difficult to understand why they chose — as so many news outlets do — to not interview one single expert on academic integrity for a story about academic integrity. It’s downright baffling.

Worse, MPR, for no specific reason whatsoever, decides to take prolonged shots at AI detection systems such as:

Computer science researchers say detection software can have significant margins of error in finding instances of AI-generated text. OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, shut down its own detection tool last year citing a “low rate of accuracy.” Reports suggest AI detectors have misclassified work by non-native English writers, neurodivergent students and people who use tools like Grammarly or Microsoft Editor to improve their writing. 
“As an educator, one has to also think about the anxiety that students might develop,” said Manjeet Rege, a University of St. Thomas professor who has studied machine learning for more than two decades. 

We covered the OpenAI deception — and it was deception — in Issue 241, and in other issues. We covered the non-native English thing. And the neurodivergent thing. And the Grammarly thing. All of which MPR wraps up in the passive and deflecting “reports suggest.” No analysis. No skepticism.

That’s just bad journalism.

And, of course — anxiety. Rege, who please note has studied machine learning and not academic integrity, is predictable, but not credible here. He says, for example:

it’s important to find the balance between academic integrity and embracing AI innovation. But rather than relying on AI detection software, he advocates for evaluating students by designing assignments hard for AI to complete — like personal reflections, project-based learnings, oral presentations — or integrating AI into the instructions. 

Absolute joke.

I am not sorry — if you use the word “balance” in conjunction with the word “integrity,” you should not be teaching. Especially if what you’re weighing against lying and fraud is the value of embracing innovation. And if you needed further evidence for his absurdity, we get the “personal reflections and project-based learnings” buffoonery (see Issue 323). But, again, the error here is MPR quoting a professor of machine learning about course design and integrity.

MPR also quotes a student who says:

she and many other students live in fear of AI detection software.  
“AI and its lack of dependability for detection of itself could be the difference between a degree and going home,” she said. 

Nope. Please, please tell me I don’t need to go through all the reasons that’s absurd. Find me one single of case in which an AI detector alone sent a student home. One.

Two final bits.

The MPR story shares:

In the 2023-24 school year, the University of Minnesota found 188 students responsible of scholastic dishonesty because of AI use, reflecting about half of all confirmed cases of dishonesty on the Twin Cities campus. 

Just noteworthy. Also, it is interesting that 188 were “responsible.” Considering how rare it is to be caught, and for formal processes to be initiated and upheld, 188 feels like a real number. Again, good for U of M.

The MPR article wraps up that Yang:

found his life in disarray. He said he would lose access to datasets essential for his dissertation and other projects he was working on with his U of M account, and was forced to leave research responsibilities to others at short notice. He fears how this will impact his academic career

Stating the obvious, like the University of Minnesota, I could not bring myself to trust Yang’s data. And I do actually hope that being kicked out of a university for cheating would impact his academic career.

And finally:

“Probably I should think to do something, selling potatoes on the streets or something else,” he said. 

Dude has a PhD in economics from Utah State University. Selling potatoes on the streets. Come on.

(Editors note: This article first appeared at Derek Newton's The Cheat Sheet.)

Tuesday, February 4, 2025

Thoughts On Trump Signing Executive Orders: Dismantle Of DEI, Mass Deportation (Breakfast Club Power 105.1)

Sunday, November 20, 2022

University of California Academic Workers Strike For Economic Justice

This space was here to lend a voice to the 48,000 academic workers from the University of California system who started their strike on November 14th. Graduate student workers remained on the picket line for nearly six weeks before voting yes to an agreement on December 23.

This group of UC employees was not the first or the last collective of academic workers to strike, but their struggle has become a model for other academic union campaigns. The Higher Education Inquirer has been in solidarity with this effort for economic justice, where unfair labor practices are commonplace and systemic.

The outcome of the long University of California strike was a solid victory for democratic action--but not surprisingly, some of the most vulnerable workers received the least in return for their efforts.

There were many takeaways--lessons learned--in this long fight--a fight that was years in the making--and that must continue. Imagine if adjuncts, students, rank-and-file workers, organized labor, and other related communities fought just as hard (and smart) to reduce homelessness, hunger, hate and violence, debt, and precarity.

Elite Universities and the Systematic Exploitation of Labor

US mainstream media have rarely acknowledged the plight of non-tenured academic workers--who go by a number of titles. This precariat teaches undergraduate students and does much of the research at universities, including elite US universities, for modest wages and limited job security.

While elite private and public schools have gained enormous power and wealth, many contingent academic laborers often struggle just paying their bills. Grad student workers have shared stories of living in their cars, commuting long distances, and enduring other hardships while working through school.

In order to get economic justice, academic workers have struggled for union representation and equitable labor contracts--with limited results.

The original strikers consisted of four bargaining units with about 48,000 workers:

*Academic student employees (teaching assistants/readers/tutors) UAW2865

*Graduate student researchers SRU-UAW

*Postdoctoral scholars and Academic researchers UAW5810

Image from Fair UC

Workers versus Elites

At the first draft of this article (11-20-22), the union and their bosses, the University of California Regents, were far from a settlement. We expected UC officials to engage in a variety of anti-union strategies despite claims that they were bargaining in good faith. True to form, that's what happened.

Mainstream local media attention has occurred, but few sources have given much thought to the history of politics, academic power, and wealth--and their links to poor labor conditions: long and irregular hours, low-wages, and wage theft at University of California campuses.

Organized workers in the UC system have also had to fight systemic harassment and intimidation, systemic racism, and threats of deportation. In the not-too-distant past, UC workers claimed the UC system spent millions of dollars on union busting firms and employed "activist response teams" that included police officials and administrators to watch striking workers.

Governor Gavin Newsom and the 18 Regents of the UC system represent the major political and economic interests of the State of California--and the adversaries of labor. In this situation they have an enormous amount of power but were mostly invisible to the media.

California History

According to University of California Santa Barbara labor historian Nelson Lichtenstein, about 10 percent of the UC's budget is funded by the State of California, down from more than 50 percent in its peak year, 1963. Other elite universities have replicated this model.

Californians have also experienced growing inequality (including high rents and college tuition) for more than a half century, since the rise of Ronald Reagan (1967-1975) and the movement to reduce taxes and defund higher education.

During Reagan's second term as Governor of California, a 1973 California Supreme Court ruling opened the floodgates for landlords to charge unaffordable rents.

Proposition 13 (1978), which limited residential and commercial property taxes, added insult to injury. And Proposition 209 (1996) was a near fatal blow to equality and social justice in the Golden State.

Labor and the UC System

UAW Local 2865, the union of teaching assistants, graduate student instructors, tutors, and readers in the University of California system was formed in 2000. UAW 5810, the union of postdoctoral scholars and academic researchers, was formed in 2008.

By 2018, UAW 2865 grew to majority membership statewide and won a new contract with new rights in several areas.

In July 2021, the UC system boasted that it had grown to $168 Billion in assets. Four months later, 6,000 UC part-time lecturers prepared to strike for better wages and more stability. Median wages for the contingent lecturers were $19,000 a year. The settlement between the UC system and University Council-American Federation of Teachers (UC-AFT) called for a 30 percent increase in wages over 5 years with promises of more stability.

UAW 2865 has attempted to negotiate with the UC system--who for weeks offered concessions that would not even cover inflation. Worker salaries vary, but some make as little as $24,000 a year, in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, where housing is extremely unaffordable.

Bargaining for a Fair UC document lists worker proposals and UC's proposals.

The 2022 Strike

As the strike has developed, the system has employed a number of tactics, including divide and conquer actions and a number of appeals to the media and the public. We expect the mainstream media to side more with the system it serves rather than the people who do the hardest work but get the lowest pay.

Initially, many senior faculty and other unions serving the University of California refused to cross picket lines in solidarity with the UAW strikers.

Stanford University marching band spells out "UAW" during Stanford-Cal football game on November 19, 2022 at California Memorial Stadium. Image courtesy Rafael Jaime, President of UAW 2865.

Second week of the strike. UC workers at the University of California, San Diego, November 21, 2022

Week 3 of the strike. UC workers at UCLA, November 27, 2022

On November 29th, the UAW 5810 gained a tentative agreement and received significant wage increases for postdocs and academic researchers--12,000 of the 48,000 workers. Meanwhile, the UC system had made no additional concessions to lower status graduate student workers.

On November 30, UC officials made few concessions to the graduate students. Student Researchers United (SRU) and UAW 2865 bargaining teams made major concessions, to include:

Dropping dependent healthcare coverage completely
Dropping the childcare subsidy from $6,000 per quarter to $3,300
Dropping the base wage demand from $54,000 to $43,000

Week 3 letter from UCSC4COLA to UC workers encouraging them to continue and informing them that they can expect pushback from a number of fronts.

Fox News used the UC strike as a reason to attack liberal higher education and labor power, noting the layers of administrative bloat at elite universities, the salaries of tenured professors, and the schools' reliance on foreign students--but using an ahistorial, white supremacist frame.

On December 1, strikers occupied the UC Berkeley Chancellor's Office, leaving the next morning.

On December 2, one thousand UC faculty asked Governor Gavin Newsom to support the academic workers in winning their demands.

Week 4 of the UC Strike (Finals Week). Hundreds of workers in Sacramento and sit-ins at two President's offices, December 5, 2022. That night, police arrested 17 UC protestors in Sacramento, for trespassing.

On December 5, the UK Guardian published an opinion piece by renowned labor historian and University of California, Santa Barbara professor Nelson Lichtenstein calling the UC strike "by far the largest and most important strike in the history of American higher education." That night, 17 protestors were arrested at the University of California President's Office in Sacramento, for trespassing.

On December 6, the UC strike received 6 minutes of attention from the PBS News Hour. UC strikers began planning for a "long-haul" strike and would continue to withhold their labor (grading exams) as finals weeks ends. At least 400 UC Faculty Senate members have also agreed not to break the picket line, leaving more than 30,0000 grades uncompleted.

On December 7, 10 strikers were arrested after entering the office of UC Regent & Chair of the UC Investment Committee Richard Sherman demanding fair contracts.

On Friday December 9, the UAW unions and administrators agreed to mediation. The Associated Press reported that the postdocs and researchers would not return to work until all the bargaining units had gotten an agreement. NBC News (print version) highlighted the effects of the strike on disrupting the university's operations and hurting undergraduates, with the workers struggle buried in the article. Other news outlets framed the story as a disruption causing stress to undergraduates.

In week 5, the number of strikers were reduced as 12,000 postdocs and academic researchers crossed the picket line after reaching an agreement with the Regents the previous week. Remaining strikers, who had received little attention from the Regents, vowed not to stop, preparing for a large event, the Regents Romp, at UCLA on Wednesday, December 14. Workers continued to be arrested as they spoke out about their economic hardships.

On December 16, the graduate student workers reached a Tentative Agreement (TA) with the University of California but remained on the picket line until a new contract was ratified.

On December 23, the strike ended after the agreement with graduate student workers was ratified. According to the LA Times, 68 percent of the graduate student researchers (SRU) voted yes to the agreement, with a vote of 10,057 to 4,640. UAW 2865, the union of teaching assistants, tutors and other student academic workers, approved their agreement with 61.6 voting yes, 11,386 to 7,097. For future workers, the gains were substantial, more than 50 percent over two years. Some workers, however, said the TA did not lift them out of poverty.

Search This Blog