红杏视频

CONCORD, N.H. 鈥� In a victory for academic freedom and education equity, the U.S. Department of Education conceded the end of its February 14, 2025, 鈥淒ear Colleague鈥� directive that sought to restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in schools and higher education institutions nationwide. Upon the U.S.鈥檚 concession that the directive and subsequent certification requirement are vacated 鈥� meaning they are formally nullified 鈥� the district court issued a final ruling today, permanently invalidating the directive and preventing the government from enforcing, relying on, or reviving it. As a result, the challenged guidance is no longer in effect and cannot be enforced against anyone, anywhere nationwide. 鈥淭his ruling affirms what educators and communities have long known: celebrating the full existence of every person and sharing the truth about our history is essential,鈥� said Sharif El-Mekki, CEO at The Center for Black Educator Development. 鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision protects educators鈥� livelihoods and their responsibility to teach honestly. At a time when many communities are facing severe teacher shortages, this signals that teachers can enter and stay in the profession, bringing their full selves to the classroom and fostering inclusive environments that prepare students for the future. 鈥淎cross the country, educators do everything in their power to support every student, so each feels safe, seen, and is prepared for the future. Donald Trump and Linda McMahon tried to use politically motivated attacks and vague directives to stifle speech and erase essential teaching and learning in our schools and universities. The courts rejected that attack on public education. While Trump and McMahon want to ban diversity, equity, and inclusion, educators know these values are at the core of our nation. Diversity is our uniqueness and our strength. Equity means every student gets what they need, when they need it, and in the way that serves them best. And inclusion means all students are seen, valued, respected, and have access to opportunities and support,鈥� said Becky Pringle, president at the National Education Association. "The Trump administration鈥檚 unlawful Dear Colleague Letter and certification requirement have now been vacated and abandoned, underscoring how badly Trump and McMahon overreached in their attempt to interfere with curriculum and instruction. Educators, parents, and community leaders will continue to organize, mobilize, and take action to protect our students and their futures." In an earlier ruling in the case, District Court Judge Landya McCafferty previously found that the directive鈥檚 鈥渋solated characterizations of unlawful DEI鈥� conflicted with the term鈥檚 meaning, stating that DEI is generally understood as fostering 鈥渁 group culture of equitable and inclusive treatment.鈥� The court further held that plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that the directive was vague, viewpoint discriminatory, and unlawfully imposed new legal obligations for educators and schools. 鈥淭his ruling ensures that educators can engage in scholarship and teach history, literature, and other subjects where race, gender, and the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion appear, without fear of arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement, said Sarah Hinger, deputy director of the 红杏视频 Racial Justice Program. 鈥淚t affirms that educators must be free to teach and that students have a right to a full and honest education that reflects the diversity of their communities and prepares them to participate in our democracy.鈥� "We are deeply grateful to the courageous NEA-New Hampshire member educators who stood up for their students and their profession by participating in this lawsuit. Their actions and the rulings from courts on this issue reaffirm that every student deserves the opportunity to learn in a school where they are valued, seen, and supported for who they are, not erased by political agendas. And their leadership sends a clear message that educators, not politicians, belong at the center of decisions about teaching and learning. We will continue to fight alongside our members for schools that serve all students,鈥� said NEA-New Hampshire President Megan Tuttle. Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the 红杏视频 of New Hampshire, said, 鈥淭oday is a victory for academic freedom, the free speech rights of educators, and for New Hampshire students who have a right to an inclusive education free from censorship. Every student, both in the Granite State and across the country, deserves to feel seen, heard, and connected in school 鈥� and that can't happen when classroom censorship laws and policies are allowed to stand." The lawsuit was filed last year by the 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of New Hampshire and the 红杏视频 of Massachusetts on behalf of the National Education Association (NEA), and the National Education Association鈥揘ew Hampshire. The Center for Black Educator Development as well as several New Hampshire School Districts later joined the case as plaintiffs.

This case asks whether, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court鈥檚 holding in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard College, a university may refuse to administer a privately funded scholarship set aside for Black students majoring in the physical sciences and redirect those funds to first-generation students instead. The district court denied the University鈥檚 petition to do so, and the case is now on appeal before the Iowa Supreme Court. The Court鈥檚 decision could have significant implications for other private scholarships that address the lasting effects of segregation.  

From protecting your privacy to ensuring new technology accounts for inclusivity, 红杏视频 experts explain what鈥檚 at stake in the AI policy sphere and the steps advocates and lawmakers can take to regulate AI

WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, President Trump issued an executive order attacking state regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). The order builds on the administration鈥檚 previous efforts, including its 鈥淎I Action Plan,鈥� which directed agencies to ensure that AI development is 鈥渦nencumbered.鈥� The order directs federal agencies to withhold funding from states if they enact regulations that are more than 鈥渕inimally burdensome.鈥� It also establishes a task force to file lawsuits against states鈥� AI regulations and threatens to withhold critical broadband funding. In response, Cody Venzke, senior policy counsel with the 红杏视频, issued the following statement: 鈥淧resident Trump鈥檚 executive order doubles down on a dangerous policy that the Republican-led Congress has rejected not once, but twice: displacing states from their critical role in ensuring that AI is safe, trustworthy, and nondiscriminatory. Bipartisan groups of governors, attorneys general, and lawmakers have opposed these efforts for good reason: Although AI might bring substantial benefits, it also carries substantial risks, and America will not win the AI 鈥榬ace鈥� if the AI used by the government, employers, schools, and health care providers is hallucinatory, unreliable, and dangerous. For this reason, it is no surprise that the first attempt at attacking state AI laws was defeated in a landslide 99-1 vote in the Senate. 鈥淢oreover, the executive order is not just dangerous, it鈥檚 unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has made clear that the president may not unilaterally and retroactively change the conditions on federal grants to states after the fact. Each of those grants are an agreement between states and the federal government, and threatening to withhold funds for schools, broadband buildout, nutritional support, and more for unrelated AI policy fights will unnecessarily harm the American people.鈥�