SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
students
May Day: Day One of a Mass Youth Uprising
This system is not made for everyday working people, and the only way we can change things is if we start disrupting the status quo.
May 01, 2026
Today, for May Day, millions of students, educators, and workers are striking for our education, lives, and futures. This isn’t just a rally or march: Whether it’s shutting down corporate offices or leaving classrooms empty, we’re disrupting business as usual. And, young people are taking the lead.
Today isn’t a one-day strike. It’s day one of a mass youth uprising. Throughout history, we've seen students and workers on the front lines of anti-authoritarian movements, catalyzing mass societal action.
In the days leading up to May Day, we’ve seen that we’re already having an impact. In Durham, North Carolina, the Durham Public Schools announced last week that school was cancelled on May 1 because over 1,000 students and staff were projected to walk out of school that day. In Madison, Wisconsin, schools shut down after 70% of staff committed to this national day of action. A dozen more school districts have followed suit.
So when pundits ask, “Where are the young people?” The answer is, May Day. Across the country, people are growing increasingly frustrated with political and institutional leadership that are serving billionaires, not us. While the Trump administration commits war crimes in the Middle East, millions are stripped of their healthcare. While billionaires get handouts to build data centers, they claim we can’t solve our housing crisis. While college football coaches are paid million-dollar salaries, tuition to attend school continues to rise.
This May 1, we will strike in hundreds of thousands. In every corner of this country, you will see students walking out of class and workers striking from their jobs.
It’s extremely clear to young people like me: This system is not made for everyday working people, and the only way we can change things is if we start disrupting the status quo. If we’ve learned anything over the past few months, it’s that when people come together in masses, we are more powerful than the people in power, and we win. Specifically, when people practice mass noncooperation in their schools and cities, they win.
Mass noncooperation is the act of not giving in to their "business as usual." We hold the power because we make the system run, and we have the power to make it crumble. It means recognizing that the system only functions because of us, and choosing to withdraw that labor, that time, that participation is power we hold. It is not enough to protest on our days off, or repost a social media post. We need workers to stop going to work so billionaires lose money. We need students and educators to stop attending classes to show the power of those empty seats. We need to stop working for a system that is failing us, to show them that we can turn it all around if they keep ignoring our needs.
We’ve seen mass noncooperation work in the past. Earlier this year, after tens of thousands of people went on strike in Minneapolis following the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) commander in the city was removed from his role, and he himself said that the level of noncooperation from Minnesotans was stopping ICE from carrying out its goals. Now, we’re taking that action nationwide.
This May 1, we will strike in hundreds of thousands. In every corner of this country, you will see students walking out of class and workers striking from their jobs. You’ll hear chants and cheers for one another; you’ll feel hope and resilience. And when we do, we’ll show President Donald Trump and his billionaire friends that if they keep going with their agenda, we will stop their regime from operating. If they keep abducting our neighbors, if they keep choosing Wall Street over working people, if they keep starting wars instead of giving us healthcare—the kind of disruption they are seeing today will be a drop in the bucket.
We’re also sending a message to people across this country: We, working people, have the power. We run the economy, we fill the classrooms. If we stop cooperating, the billionaires can’t profit, and the oligarchs can’t rule. We have the power to win what we deserve: a world where we earn a livable wage, breathe clean air, and can afford necessities like education.
Today, on May 1, we say: No work. No school. No spending.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Students Stage Walkouts in Dozens of Spanish Cities to 'Stop the Genocide' in Gaza
"While young people like us are being killed and subjected to genocide in Palestine, we cannot be in class," said one protester in Madrid.
Oct 02, 2025
Tens of thousands of students walked out of classrooms in cities and towns across Spain on Thursday to protest Israel's ongoing US-backed genocide in Gaza and abduction of Global Sumud Flotilla members, dozens of whom are Spanish.
The National Students' Union organized Thursday's protests under the slogan "stop the genocide against the Palestinian people." Demonstrations, which took part in at least 39 cities and towns, varied in size from small groups to thousands who turned out in Barcelona and the capital Madrid, where students held banners with messages like "Stop Everything to Stop the Genocide," "All Eyes on the Global Sumud Flotilla," and "Free Palestine!"
"We're not going to look the other way," the union said in a statement. "The Palestinian cause is the cause of the youth and the millions who stand for human rights and social justice. That is why... we called the general student strike to empty the classrooms and fill the streets with dignity."
Maria, a Spanish student interviewed by Turkey's Anadolu Ajansı in Madrid, said: "While young people like us are being killed and subjected to genocide in Palestine, we cannot be in class. The whole world must do everything it can to stop this genocide.”
Another Madrid protester, Francesca—an Italian student studying in Spain—told Anadolu that “we must pressure governments to stop Israel."
"Allowing genocide in full view of the world is unacceptable," she added. "The killing of women, children, and students in Palestine must end."
In Barcelona—whose former leftist Mayor Ada Colau was among the dozens of Spaniards who set sail for Gaza from the port city—an estimated 6,500 students and others took to the streets Thursday.
"What I can do is be here, with my presence," student Donia Armani told El País. "The more people, the better; so the Palestinians will not be alone."
Armani's mother added, “The Palestinians are like a brotherly people, we feel a lot from the absurd images we see."
Ana, a 14-year-old student protesting in Barcelona, said: “I think it’s very bad what’s happening," adding that Israel does "not let food arrive and also bombs them, which causes many, especially small children, to die, and I am very sorry."
Thursday's walkouts took place as Israeli forces continued assaulting Gaza on Thursday, killing scores of Palestinians amid a backdrop of ongoing famine and forced displacement. Since October 2023, Israeli forces have killed at least 66,225 Palestinians in Gaza, although experts say the actual death toll is much higher. At least 168,938 other Palestinians have been wounded, and thousands more are missing and presumed dead.
Spain's socialist-led government has been a leading critic of Israel's genocide in Gaza, taking numerous proactive steps including cutting off arms transfers to the erstwhile ally, prohibiting the shipment of fuel to the Israeli military, formally recognizing Palestinian statehood, and backing South Africa's genocide case currently before the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
The Spanish Foreign Ministry says at least 30 Spaniards are among the many Global Sumud Flotilla activists seized by Israeli forces in international waters overnight Thursday while attempting to deliver desperately needed humanitarian aid to Gaza.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Tariffs Are Burdening US Families With 'Back-to-School Tax': Analysis
"Trump's back-to-school message to America's families is crystal clear: Don't expect help, just expect less," said one expert.
Aug 14, 2025
Families of students across the United States are facing significantly higher prices for basic supplies as the new school year begins, a cost burden that a new analysis blames on President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs and the massive Republican budget package he signed into law last month.
The analysis, conducted by The Century Foundation (TCF) and Groundwork Collaborative, estimates that prices for supplies such as index cards have surged by more than 40% this year.
Lunch staples have also gotten more expensive, with U.S. families set to pay roughly $163 more on average for juice boxes, strawberries, and other such items this year, according to the new analysis, which characterized the higher costs as a "back-to-school tax" imposed by the president.
"President Trump's policies are forcing families to foot higher bills for back-to-school essentials from binders and lunch-box staples to clothes, shoes, and even laptops," said TCF senior fellow Rachel West. "From his reckless tariffs to his budget law slashing food assistance and federal student loans, Trump's back-to-school message to America's families is crystal clear: Don't expect help, just expect less."
The analysis was released just as new economic data further underscored the impact of Trump's tariffs on prices across the economy, with wholesale prices registering their largest monthly gain since June 2022.
TCF and Groundwork's findings align with a recent survey by the research firm Deloitte, which found that nearly half of U.S. parents and caregivers believe lunch costs on school days will be higher this year than in 2024.
Liz Pancotti, Groundwork's managing director of policy and advocacy, said Thursday that "President Trump's tax and tariff policies have turned the back-to-school season into a budgeting nightmare for hardworking American families."
"From lunch boxes and notebooks to juice boxes and pencils, parents are being squeezed at every turn—paying more for the school supplies and meals their kids need to succeed," said Pancotti. "No family should have to struggle to afford the basics while the wealthy and well-connected cash in on massive tax breaks they do not need."
"Trump's tax and tariff policies have turned the back-to-school season into a budgeting nightmare for hardworking American families."
The budget law that Trump signed last month is set to deliver trillions of dollars in tax breaks largely to the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations while making unprecedented cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid.
Those programs are used in states across the country to determine eligibility for free or reduced-cost school meals, and cuts inflicted by the Trump-GOP law are expected to leave more than 18 million children across the U.S. without access to free school meals in the coming years.
"President Trump's policies—including his erratic, punitive tariffs—are squeezing families' budgets as they prepare to return to school," TCF and Groundwork said Thursday. "Not only has Trump failed to keep his promises to tackle high prices, but his massive budget law will soon drive costs even higher for back-to-school essentials as its cuts to programs that children, families, and college students depend on take hold."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Screening of Student Visa Applicants' Social Media Denounced as Attack on Free Speech
One First Amendment expert warned the new Trump administration policy will "inevitably chill legitimate political speech both inside and outside the United States."
Jun 19, 2025
International students will once again be able to apply for U.S. visas following a cable sent Wednesday from the U.S. State Department to embassies and consulates—but not without being subjected to what one political scientist denounced "ideological purity tests" imposed by the Trump administration.
Nearly a month after Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the agency was pausing all student visa interviews amid the Trump administration's sweeping push to rid American universities of foreign students who have publicly supported Palestinian rights—as well as Chinese students and those accused of having ties to the Chinese Communist Party—the State Department said applications will once again be accepted, but scholars' social media use will be rigorously reviewed for signs of "hostility" toward the United States.
Applicants for F academic visas, M visas for vocational students, and J visas for educational and cultural exchanges will be required at their visa interviews to make all of their social media accounts accessible to consular officers who conduct their interviews, so officers can search for "any indications of hostility towards the citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles of the United States."
Both new and returning student visas applicants will be subject to the new screenings, and consular officers were instructed in the cable to take "detailed case notes" about students' online presence.
"Take screenshots to preserve the record against possible later alteration or loss of the information," read the cable.
"This new State Department policy is a digital-age version of a policy that history has already discredited."
Students who are found to "demonstrate a history of political activism" will be flagged under the new social media guidelines, and consular officers are being directed to "consider the likelihood they would continue such activity in the United States."
Sarah Spreitzer, vice president of the American Council on Education, told The New York Times that the organization is "very worried that this is going to be some political litmus test that's going to be applied to students."
Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said the new policy will "inevitably chill legitimate political speech both inside and outside the United States."
"This policy makes a censor of every consular officer," added Jaffer.
The new screening procedures followed the Trump administration's detention of and efforts to deport several foreign students who publicly expressed support for Palestinian rights, including Columbia University organizers Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi, Tufts University student and op-ed author Rümeysa Öztürk, and Georgetown University academic Badar Khan Suri. The latter three scholars have been released from detention in recent weeks after court rulings, but Khalil remains imprisoned in Louisiana. A judge in New Jersey determined last month that his detention is "likely" unconstitutional and ruled last week that the Trump administration cannot detain or deport Khalil, who has not been charged with a crime, but he has yet to be released.
The State Department cable instructed embassies and consulates to flag any social media activity that displayed "advocacy for, aid, or support for foreign terrorists and other threats to U.S. national security" and "support for unlawful antisemitic harassment or violence."
The communication did not detail how officials should determine what online comments or activity would qualify. Trump administration officials have openly conflated students' involvement in protests against Israel's U.S.-backed assault on Palestinians in Gaza with antisemitic, pro-terrorist activity.
The cable also contained a threat to student visa applicants if portions of their social media accounts remain "set to private" during their interviews.
In those cases, the directive says, "you should treat the case as any other where an applicant fails to provide certain information on request."
A bolded sentence added, "You must consider whether such failure reflects evasiveness or otherwise calls into question the applicant's credibility."
Jaffer noted that "some of the 20th century's most significant artistic and intellectual figures, including Pablo Neruda, Doris Lessing, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and Graham Greene," were barred from entering the U.S. due to their ties to the Communist Party, after "ideological vetting" by U.S. officials.
"This new State Department policy," said Jaffer, "is a digital-age version of a policy that history has already discredited."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Students Like Grace Pay the Price If Trump Dismantles the Education Department
Stripping federal oversight will abandon the students who need it most.
Mar 13, 2025
For decades, the federal government has played a crucial role in ensuring that every child—regardless of disability, income, or background—has access to a quality education. That role isn’t just administrative; it’s a safeguard against discrimination, neglect, and the systemic failures that have historically left the most vulnerable students behind. Now, with the recent push to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, that safeguard is under attack.
As an education attorney, I’ve seen firsthand what happens when schools fail to meet their legal obligations—and who suffers most when oversight disappears. No group stands to lose more than the 7.3 million children with disabilities who depend on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for basic educational access. Without federal enforcement, that right isn’t just at risk—it could vanish overnight.
And the harm won’t stop there. Weakening the Department of Education means weakening the very mechanisms designed to prevent discrimination and protect students from systemic inequities. It means fewer safeguards, fewer resources, and fewer options for the millions of students who already face the greatest barriers to educational opportunity. The brunt of these cuts will fall hardest on Black and brown students, students with disabilities, English learners, LGBTQIA+ students, and low-income families—communities that have long relied on federal oversight as a necessary check against discrimination and neglect.
Without federal enforcement of the IDEA’s key provisions, Grace’s school district may well elect to discontinue her therapy sessions with impunity, leaving her unable to make progress much like her typically achieving peers.
The numbers tell the story. In Fiscal Year 2024, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) received a record-breaking 22,687 complaints—an 18% increase from the previous high of 19,201 complaints in FY 2023. The vast majority, year after year, involve allegations of disability discrimination. If anything, this surge in complaints underscores the urgent need for stronger civil rights enforcement in schools—not a retreat from it. Stripping away the department’s oversight would not only silence these complaints, but leave the most vulnerable students with nowhere to turn.
Consider Grace (a pseudonym), a bright, eight-year-old girl living in a small Massachusetts farming town. Born with cerebral palsy, Grace depends on physical therapy to navigate her school environment, and occupational therapy to master everyday tasks, like writing and eating independently. Through the provisions set forth in the IDEA, Grace’s family secured access to these vital services at her local public school—services they, like most families, would otherwise be unable to afford out of pocket.
Without federal enforcement of the IDEA’s key provisions, Grace’s school district may well elect to discontinue her therapy sessions with impunity, leaving her unable to make progress much like her typically achieving peers. Her parents, already stretched thin, would have no recourse. For Grace, and for millions of families across the country, what’s at stake isn’t just a matter of policy—it’s the ability to build a future on fair and equal ground for all.
The Lessons of History: Why Federal Oversight Matters
To grasp the significance of the U.S. Department of Education, we need only look to the past. Its oversight, enforcement, and technical assistance functions are not bureaucratic formalities—they are the guardrails that ensure students’ rights are more than just words on paper. Well before the enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), students with disabilities faced not only educational exclusion, but also deep-seated social marginalization.
As I’ve written elsewhere, throughout the 19th century, children with disabilities were largely seen as a private concern—a “private trouble” rather than a public responsibility. But as the early 20th century ushered in compulsory school attendance laws, this exclusionary paradigm began to shift. For the first time, children who had long been dismissed as “seemingly uneducable” were legally required to enroll in public schools, disrupting the longstanding pattern of social and educational isolation.
Yet, attendance did not guarantee access to meaningful education. From the 1950s through the early 1970s, the neglect and ableist hostility that had defined the prior century took on new forms within the nation’s public schools. Rather than providing necessary supports, many schools systematically segregated students with disabilities into poorly resourced and stigmatized classrooms.
The White House Committee on Special Classes condemned these environments as little more than dumping grounds for students with specialized needs. In response, parents and community advocates “lobbied aggressively to root out [the] entrenched discrimination” pervading public schools. Still, by the 1971-72 school year—just three years before IDEA’s passage—the scale of educational exclusion remained staggering: Seven states were educating fewer than 20% of their known children with disabilities, and in 19 states, fewer than a third. Only 17 states had even reached the halfway mark.
Without federal protections guaranteeing a right to education, disability rights activists fought to bring students with disabilities into standard educational environments. Drawing inspiration from Brown v. Board of Education, they argued that segregated special education classrooms, much like racially segregated schools, resulted in unequal and inferior educational experiences. Their efforts helped lay the groundwork for constitutional protections that, particularly at the district court level, affirmed the right of students with disabilities to receive a public education.
This federal intervention wasn’t about bureaucracy—it was about necessity. And yet, today, some lawmakers are pushing to strip away the very enforcement and oversight protections that helped bring an end to that era of exclusion and ableism.
The Bipartisan Stakes of Dismantling the Department of Education
Disability knows no boundaries. It cuts across race, class, geography, and political affiliation. It is an equalizer in its unpredictability, shaping lives in urban centers, suburban neighborhoods, and rural farming towns alike. Yet in the very communities where support for President Donald Trump was strongest, families may not realize how deeply this proposal could undermine their children’s futures.
Rural schools already operate under immense strain—stretched budgets, fewer specialized teachers, and the challenges of geographic isolation. For students with disabilities, these hurdles are even higher. Federal funding under the IDEA is a lifeline, covering nearly 15% of special education costs nationwide, amounting to billions in critical federal aid.
Dismantling the Department of Education isn’t just a bureaucratic maneuver—it’s a fundamental betrayal of the promise that every child deserves a fair chance at an education.
States like Nebraska, Indiana, and South Dakota—all of which invest disproportionately less in their rural school districts—depend on these federal dollars to meet even the most basic obligations to students like Grace. Yet in Nebraska, where the funding gap between rural and urban schools is widest, Trump won approximately 60% of the vote in the last presidential election.
For many rural families, these stakes aren’t theoretical. Losing federal protections could mean losing access to the nearest specialist—often hours away—or having nowhere at all to turn when their child needs critical services.
Block Grants: A Recipe for Inequity
As the push to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education gains momentum, leaders in Republican-led states are renewing calls to shift federal education funding to block grants—a move that would only deepen the crisis. While touted as a way to give states more flexibility, block grants come with fewer guardrails, making it easier for states to divert funds away from the students who need them most.
If enacted, this shift would further weaken federal oversight, making it far more difficult to enforce “maintenance of effort” (MOE) provisions, which ensure states uphold their own education spending. In a more decentralized system, the risk isn’t just mismanagement—it’s an abdication of responsibility, leaving vulnerable students at the mercy of shifting political priorities and budget shortfalls.
Consider Medicaid block grants as an analog and cautionary tale. States that received Medicaid waivers under block grant-style flexibility often shifted funds away from vulnerable populations to cover budget deficits. For example, in Tennessee, the state redirected Medicaid dollars meant for underserved communities to plug holes in unrelated health system budgets. Without federal oversight, similar reallocations of special education funding are not only possible, but likely.
Without these safeguards, history could repeat itself—not as a distant memory, but as a lived reality for millions of students. The lack of federal accountability would make it nearly impossible for families to challenge these decisions, leaving rural families, already underserved, at an even greater disadvantage.
A Call to Action: Protecting the Future for All Children
Dismantling the Department of Education isn’t just a bureaucratic maneuver—it’s a fundamental betrayal of the promise that every child deserves a fair chance at an education. The impact won’t be abstract. It will be felt in classrooms and kitchen-table conversations, in the quiet struggles of families left without recourse, and in the futures of children who will be denied the support they need to thrive.
This isn’t about politics; it’s about priorities. Federal oversight exists because history has shown what happens when states are left to decide, on their own, whose education matters. Without these protections, vulnerable students will once again be pushed to the margins, their futures dictated not by potential but by geography, circumstance, and political whim.
The question before us is simple: Do we honor our commitment to all children, or do we turn back the clock on decades of progress? For Grace, for her classmates, and for the generations to come, the answer must be clear. We must act—not out of partisanship, but out of principle. The future of our children, and of our country, depends on it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mahmoud Khalil’s Detention Brings Us to the Edge of a Dystopian Future
Trump decided to up the ante against young activists with this action against Khalil, hoping it gets wide publicity to cow any other students who may consider protesting any policies of his.
Mar 12, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump and his police-state goons are trying to frighten people who dare even come close to people protesting his or Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies. This is how dictators intimidate citizens, how freedom dies, and is a clear violation of our Constitution.
And, in all probability, this is just the beginning of what historians will someday define as a very ugly episode in American history.
Mahmoud Khalil, a Syrian-born Palestinian green card-holder who graduated from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs with a master’s degree and is married to an American who’s now eight-months pregnant, was seized from his New York residence over the weekend and transported to a barbarous detention facility in Louisiana.
Will students—groaning under the weight of more than a trillion dollars in debt—find the courage to take to the streets like my generation did almost 60 years ago?
He had previously worked for the British Embassy in Beirut, where he’d earned his undergraduate degree in computer science at the Lebanese American University. A legal permanent resident of the United States, he has not been accused of breaking any law.
The day before his seizure, he’d appealed directly to Katrina Armstrong, interim president of Columbia University, according to reporting at Zeteo, writing on March 7, the day before he was snatched away from his family and transported over a thousand miles away:
Since yesterday, I have been subjected to a vicious, coordinated, and dehumanizing doxxing campaign led by Columbia affiliates Shai Davidai and David Lederer who, among others, have labeled me a security threat and called for my deportation.
Their attacks have incited a wave of hate, including calls for my deportation and death threats. I have outlined the wider context below, yet Columbia has not provided any meaningful support or resources in response to this escalating threat.
I haven’t been able to sleep, fearing that ICE or a dangerous individual might come to my home. I urgently need legal support, and I urge you to intervene and provide the necessary protections to prevent further harm.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution—which applies to every “person” in the United States, not just U.S. citizens—is unambiguous:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (emphasis added)
As Ann Coulter—yes, that Ann Coulter—wrote on Xitter:
There’s almost no one I don’t want to deport, but, unless they’ve committed a crime, isn’t this a violation of the First Amendment?
Speaking of that, first President George Washington noted:
If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.
Benjamin Franklin was equally explicit:
Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government: When this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins.
But Donald Trump was having none of it; speech with which he disagrees is to be brutally punished:
“ICE proudly apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas student on the campus of Columbia University,” the president bragged on his Nazi-infested social media site. “This is the first arrest of many to come.”
Khalil’s “crime” appears to have been his taking on the role of a high-profile negotiator between protesting students and the university, trying to achieve a peaceful resolution of the anti-Gaza-bombing students’ complaints.
As The New York Times reported:
Mr. Khalil’s arrest drew outrage from students and faculty at the university. Joseph Howley, a classics professor at Columbia, described him as brave, yet mild-mannered and gentle—a “consummate diplomat” who worked to find middle ground between protesters and school administrators.
Mr. Howley, who has known Mr. Khalil for about a year, having met him after Mr. Khalil began speaking out in campus protests, said he was frustrated by depictions of Mr. Khalil as a dangerous person.
“This is someone who seeks mediated resolutions through speech and dialogue,” he said. “This is not someone who engages in violence, or gets people riled up to do dangerous things. So it’s really disturbing to see that kind of misrepresentation of him.”
Dictatorial regimes around the world have a long history of opposing peaceful protest, particularly by students. Young people in Russia who speak out against President Vladimir Putin’s brutal invasion and ongoing bombing campaign against civilians in Ukraine, for example, are frequently imprisoned for multiple years in barbaric gulags.
This is because student protests have a long history of successfully producing profound social and political change. It’s unlikely, for example, that the Vietnam War would have resolved when and the way it did without the student protests Louise and I participated in during the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Student protests have, for example, a long and storied history including:
- Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) protests against segregated lunch counters in the South that led to the Civil Rights Act of 1965;
- The Free Speech Movement at UC Berkeley (1964-65), led by Mario Savio, which inspired student movements across the nation;
- Greta Thunberg’s Fridays for Future movement, which sparked youth protests across the world;
- The Soweto Uprising of 1976 saw thousands of Black South African students protest against apartheid; the brutal response drew international attention, bolstering the global anti-apartheid movement;
- The Iranian Student Revolution of 1979, which led to the Shah fleeing the country;
- The 1989 student-led Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, which led to a peaceful transition to democracy in that nation; and
- The student-led Hong Kong Umbrella Movement of 2014 which, although it was eventually sadistically crushed, helped awaken the world to the brutality of the Chinese Communist regime.
Even former President Richard Nixon, wannabe fascist that he was, didn’t consider arresting and deporting students for speaking out, although former President Ronald Reagan’s far more subtle solution was to end free college and thus raise the stakes for student protestors who could lose scholarships or get thrown out of school saddled with massive debt and no degree.
Trump decided to up the ante even further with this action against Khalil, hoping it gets wide publicity to cow any other students who may consider protesting any policies of his; it’s extremely unlikely this type of action will be limited to protests against what Human Rights Watch, Médecins Sans Frontières, and Amnesty International have called Israel’s genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing on the West Bank: He doesn’t want students in America protesting in any way at any time.
As a result, we stand on the edge of the fulfillment of Washington’s and Franklin’s explicit warnings of a possible dystopian future.
Will students—groaning under the weight of more than a trillion dollars in debt—find the courage to take to the streets like my generation did almost 60 years ago?
Will Trump next go after student protestors who are American citizens?
Will any elected Republicans find their spine, courage, or principles to defy his takedown of the work our Founders fought and died for?
As they say in the radio business, stay tuned…
Keep ReadingShow Less
Targeting 'Criticism of Israeli War Crimes,' Trump Kills $400 Million in Columbia University Contracts
"You can't appease the Zionists," said one critic. "Stop playing the game—refuse the terms."
Mar 07, 2025
Columbia University administrators garnered widespread condemnation last year for overseeing a violent crackdown on students who protested against U.S. support for Israeli war crimes in Gaza, but those actions against pro-Palestinian students didn't stop the Trump administration from cutting contracts and grants for the school on Friday.
The White House announced it was canceling contracts and funding for the Ivy League university shortly after Columbia officials began sending notices to students who have participated in Palestinian solidarity protests decrying Israel's bombardment of Gaza and the West Bank.
A senior named Maryam Alwan was accused by the school of "discriminatory harassment" for writing an op-ed in the student newspaper joining the call for divestment from Israel, while another student was contacted by a new disciplinary committee—established specifically to discipline students who express criticism of Israel—for hosting an art exhibit that focused on last year's demonstrations.
But in a move that one civil liberties advocate said was aimed at coercing all colleges into "censoring student speech," the Trump administration announced it was pulling the grants and contracts because Columbia hasn't done enough to clamp down on alleged antisemitism on campus.
"Universities must comply with all federal antidiscrimination laws if they are going to receive federal funding. For too long, Columbia has abandoned that obligation to Jewish students studying on its campus," Education Secretary Linda McMahon said.
One critic advised Columbia administrators that the news of the canceled funding was proof that "you can't appease the Zionists" by oppressing pro-Palestinian students.
Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told The Associated Press the move was unconstitutional and meant to stop student's "advocacy that isn't MAGA-approved, like criticizing Israel or supporting Palestinian rights."
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, added that while Trump "claims to be protecting Jews" by pushing Columbia to take more aggressive action against Palestinian rights supporters, "this is clearly about suppressing criticism of Israeli war crimes."
The news came days after U.S. Senate Republicans held the latest hearing on what they claim is antisemitism on college campuses. One Jewish student at Tufts University, Meirav Solomon, who was invited by Democrats to testify at the hearing, pointed out that Trump's gutting of the Department of Education has left all students without a way to lodge complaints of discrimination with the agency's Office of Civil Rights—eliminating "a crucial avenue for Jews and other minorities to advocate for our rights."
Meanwhile, noted Solomon, Republicans on the committee had nothing to say about Trump ally Elon Musk's apparent Nazi salute at an inauguration event in January.
On Friday, the advocacy group Bend the Arc: Jewish Action said Trump's cancellation of Columbia's grants, "falsely in the name of Jewish safety, actively puts Jews in danger."
"History has shown that a strong democracy is what keeps Jews safest," said the group. "At the core of strong democracies are free speech and education."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Threatens Campus Protesters With Imprisonment
"Trump here is is referring to pro-Palestine protests so you won’t hear a peep from conservatives or even pro-Israel liberals," said one journalist.
Mar 04, 2025
In a move that one critic said was likely preemptively targeted at "protests against the long list of horrific measures" President Donald Trump plans to impose as well as Palestinian rights demonstrations, the president on Tuesday threatened students with imprisonment if they take part in "illegal protests" on campus.
Trump didn't cite any law or executive authority that would permit him to order the arrest of students who exercise their First Amendment right to participate in protests, noted Enzo Rossi of the University of Amsterdam.
"What does "'illegal' mean?" wrote Rossi. "An occupation? A sit-in? Ignoring arbitrary police commands?"
In addition to threatening students with imprisonment, the president said he would end federal funding for "any college, school, or university that allows illegal protests."
The threat came nearly a year after nationwide campus protests began over Israel's U.S.-backed bombardment of Gaza, with students assembling on their campuses and setting up encampments to demand that administrators divest from weapons manufacturers and other companies profiting from Israel's apartheid policies and attacks on Palestinians.
Those protests, though protected under the U.S. Constitution, were the subject of major crackdowns by police in New York City, Los Angeles, Atlanta, and other cities, with more than 3,100 students, faculty members, and supporters arrested for demonstrating against the U.S. government's broadly unpopular support for Israel's slaughter of Palestinians.
Former U.S. President Joe Biden said last year that he supported non-violent protests but suggested student demonstrators were causing "chaos" and signaled support for the nationwide police crackdown.
An analysis last May by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project found that 97% of the demonstrations were non-violent—but pro-Israel academics and politicians from both sides of the aisle repeatedly condemned the protests.
Alejandra Caraballo, a clinical instructor at Harvard Law Cyberlaw Clinic, said that "a lot of cowards in academia will use [Trump's directive] as an excuse to crack down on campus protest," as many university officials did last year.
Journalist Jeremy Scahill pointed out right-wing policymakers' and commentators' frequent claims that they aim to defend "free speech on campus"—a rallying cry that tends to target progressive ideologies.
"If Trump or [Vice President] JD Vance or any of these hypocrites who claim to be free speech warriors actually believed in free speech, they would vociferously defend speech they hate, including pro-Palestine/anti-genocide speech," said Scahill. "But they don't. This has been the con from the start with that crowd."
Self-proclaimed "free speech absolutists" like Tesla CEO and Trump ally Elon Musk "would be going mad" if Biden had suggested protests "by conservative students or pro-life groups" were illegal, added journalist Mehdi Hasan.
Trump's statement came weeks after he signed an executive order that was purported to "combat antisemitism" by threatening international students with deportation if they join campus protests that the president characterized as consisting of "pro-Hamas vandalism and intimidation."
On Monday, the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Education, and the U.S. General Services Administration announced they were reviewing $51.4 million in federal contracts for Columbia University, which was a center of the student protests last year.
Students occupied school buildings last spring to demand Columbia divest from Israel. The Trump administration on Tuesday accused administrators of "ongoing inaction" against antisemitism on campus.
The agencies were acting under Trump's executive order, which also created a multi-agency Task Force to Combat Antisemitism.
Author Jeff Sharlet said college professors on Tuesday should speak out against Trump's latest threat in their classrooms, and suggested the president's ultimate goal is to militarize university campuses.
"This is targeted first at international students, but it's deliberately broad enough to lay groundwork for a scene Trump and [Defense Secretary Pete] Hegseth have fantasized: troops on campus."
Keep ReadingShow Less
My Best Friend Died By Firearm Suicide; Here’s Why I Advocate for Stronger Gun Safety Laws
With just one month until election day, it’s time for American voters to come together and elect leaders who will fight to protect our communities from gun violence.
Oct 05, 2024
Warning: This piece discusses suicide, gun violence, and mental health. If you or someone you know is in crisis, please call or text 988, or visit 988lifeline.org/chat to chat with a counselor from the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.
Last year, I received a text that would change my life forever. I was told that my close friend, Jordan, had died by firearm suicide. Calls from classmates came crashing in and emails from my school flooded my inbox. A wave of shock rushed over me and it felt like time had frozen, even as I watched the world continue on.
My school held an assembly to honor Jordan’s memory, but it all became a blur between the tears, hugs, tissues, and funeral.
Jordan holds a special place in my heart. Not only because we were on the same lacrosse team, but because she was a shining light and a good friend. She was always there for me when I needed her, but little did I know Jordan was battling a thunderstorm on the inside.
Amidst all my grief, there was a part of me that was also angry because politicians sent their condolences, but no action was taken. I wanted something to change.
There are thousands of students and young people just like me across the country who are committed to creating a future free from gun violence.
The tragedy of this story isn’t just about Jordan; it’s the fact that her story is not unique. When there are over 3,000 young people who die by gun suicide in an average year, something has to change. Stronger gun safety measures, like secure storage requirements, in our country can save lives and prevent more friends and families from feeling the pain I’ve felt.
Firearm suicide has a deadly and devastating impact on my generation. Over the past decade, gun suicide rates for young people have increased faster than any other age group, reaching a near-record high. When it comes to attempted suicide, guns are especially deadly. We have to do more to reduce easy access to guns in a moment of crisis since the majority of people who survive a suicide attempt don’t go on to attempt again.
Those statistics should be a wake-up call for every gun owner, politician, and person in the United States on why it’s so important to prevent firearm access for someone contemplating suicide. That’s where laws like secure storage requirements come in.
Secure storage is the practice of gun owners making their homes and communities safer by storing their guns securely. This means storing a firearm unloaded, locked, and separate from ammunition. Research shows that most firearm suicides attempted by youth occur at home, and households that securely store guns and ammunition reduce this risk by 78% comapared to those that don’t.
There is a direct correlation between securely storing a gun at home and saving a life from firearm suicide. That’s why we need lawmakers at every level of government to increase awareness around secure storage practices and pass laws that require gun owners to store their guns securely.
With just one month until election day, it’s time for American voters to come together and elect leaders who will fight to protect our communities from gun violence. From electing Vice President Harris and Governor Walz at the top of the ticket to voting for gun sense candidates down ballot, these are the candidates that are fighting to end gun violence while the other side is doing absolutely nothing.
Even in the face of tragedy, I still have hope. Firearm suicide, just like all forms of gun violence, is preventable.
After the loss of my best friend, I felt devastated and I wanted to find a community that shared my similar experiences. I soon discovered Students Demand Action, the nation's largest youth-led gun prevention group, and started a chapter at my school. Since then, I have been actively involved in fighting for gun violence prevention in California, and I’m just getting started.
We should all be aware of the warning signs and how to help when someone is in crisis. Whether it’s having a private conversation to let someone know you’re there for them or sharing mental health resources, that one step could save a life.
There are thousands of students and young people just like me across the country who are committed to creating a future free from gun violence. Guns are the leading cause of death for my generation, meaning youth firearm suicide is just one piece of a much larger puzzle. When guns are accessible to anyone, anywhere, at any time—no one is safe.
But even in the face of tragedy, I still have hope. Firearm suicide, just like all forms of gun violence, is preventable. Joining Students Demand Action allowed me to turn my pain into purpose and together, we can end America’s gun violence epidemic by creating a future for our generation that’s free from gun violence.Keep ReadingShow Less
Student Researchers Expose Fossil Fuel Ties at US Universities
"It's time for our universities to become real climate leaders," said one organizer, "and cut ties with the fossil fuel industry once and for all."
Sep 19, 2024
Students at universities and colleges across the U.S. have long demanded that their schools cut ties with the fossil fuel industry as planetary heating has increasingly been linked to extreme weather and pollution-causing emissions have continued.
New findings released by student researchers with the Campus Climate Network on Wednesday, said the organization, "add more detail and evidence to what these students have already been campaigning for—fossil fuel funding has no place in universities' climate research."
The students spoke at a virtual press conference titled "Big Oil's Stain on Our Universities," presenting research compiled in six reports regarding fossil fuel industry ties at Columbia University, Princeton University, Cornell University, American University, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and University of California San Diego.
The six institutions have collectively received more than $108 million in direct funding to the fossil fuel industry, published more than 1,500 academic articles and papers funded by oil giants, and count 10 people affiliated with the industry among the members of their university governance boards, according to the research—which follows the first-ever literature review of investigations into Big Oil's links to higher education, published in the peer-reviewed journal WIREs Climate Change earlier this month.
Columbia and Princeton were by far the biggest recipients of fossil fuel money, accepting more than $43 million each from companies and their foundations.
Sunrise Columbia, the Sunrise Movement's chapter at the university, published a report presented at Wednesday's press conference, detailing how Hess Corporation—an oil and gas company acquired by Chevron—was the largest fossil fuel donor to the prestigious university. The company contributed more than $15 million to Columbia from 2005-24.
Koch Family Foundations, "which have spent hundreds of millions to finance groups promoting climate denial," and liquefied natural gas (LNG) firm Cheniere Energy were also major contributors.
Fossil fuel money at Columbia has gone toward funding the Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), the School of International and Public Affairs, and the university's Climate School—which "powers innovative research in the science, consequences, and human dimensions of climate change."
"CGEP, the Climate School, and Columbia repeatedly claim to produce unbiased, reputable research to advance climate solutions. Many of our findings directly contradict these missions."
The Climate School has received $741,967 from fossil fuel giants since it was established in 2020.
"CGEP, the Climate School, and Columbia repeatedly claim to produce unbiased, reputable research to advance climate solutions," reads the report. "Many of our findings directly contradict these missions—from Columbia being named explicitly by a BP [vice president] as essential for their outreach and influence to being specifically mentioned as a producer of biased research, Columbia has fallen short," said Sunrise Columbia.
At Princeton, student researchers wrote that the university "legitimizes and financially supports the fossil fuel industry," continuing to invest "approximately $700 million in privately held fossil fuel companies without justification," even after divesting its endowment of fossil fuel holdings worth $1 billion.
The report notes that the school's New Jersey campus "has not been spared" from extreme weather that's growing more frequent as the planet gets hotter and scientists warn that limiting planetary heating to 1.5°C is getting less likely.
"Last summer, our campus was shrouded by smoke from incinerated Quebecois pine trees, smoke that turned the sky a burning orange. Outdoor workers on and off campus were hit hardest," wrote the students. "Floods nearby destroyed transport infrastructure and made it harder for our community members to come to campus to work or to learn. Scorching temperatures at the start of each fall semester make it difficult to think."
But while students, faculty, and staff have suffered the effects of fossil fuel extraction, major fossil fuel companies including BP, Exxon, Shell, and TotalEnergies have spent more than $43 million on research at Princeton, funding papers containing "explicit applications for continued or expanded fossil fuel use."
At the virtual press conference on Wednesday, Campus Climate Network research manager Maddie Young said the articles detailed in the six reports focus primarily on methods for fossil fuel extraction, methods and "benefits" of "false solutions" like carbon capture, and extending and upholding "the social license of the fossil fuel industry to operate."
"So these might be articles that are connected to healthcare or health research and promote the image of corporate social responsibility connected to the fossil fuel industry," said Young, "and allow them to continue to leverage these relationships to universities and to greenwash their own image and present themselves as socially responsible."
The student researchers recommended that Princeton prohibit all research funding from the industry and complete divestment from all oil, gas, and coal companies, as well as cut ties with Petrotiger, a fossil fuel company that Princeton "appears to own," having earned nearly $140 million in the last 10 years in investment income and direct contributions.
"These recommendations are all within Princeton's power to achieve," said the student researchers. "The university must act upon these items with the urgency the climate crisis demands."
Young, who is also a student organizer at American University, said the student-authored reports are "only the beginning—we have a strong, national student movement that will continue to expose and cut the ties with Big Oil."
“It's time for our universities to become real climate leaders," said Young, "and cut ties with the fossil fuel industry once and for all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy