Lean budget threatens to spark public college turf war
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
At this May's meeting, after a presentation about an upcoming advertising campaign for state financial aid programs, Pedraja expressed concern that helping low-income students attend four-year schools would take money away from free community college.
Advertisement
'We are very concerned that shouting from the treetops that our public four-year institutions are free for certain students based on income will further deplete very limited financial aid for the whole system,' Pedraja said.
Advertisement
Pedraja said that financial aid money is expected to be tight next year, and free community college is codified in statute, while the MASSGrant Plus expansion is not. 'Not to take away from the importance of marketing toward these students and making education available for all, which I do believe, we ought to be cautious about over-promising to students who are most in need of support,' Pedraja said.
In a follow-up interview, Pedraja doubled down on his concern that the state is 'over-promising' by advertising free four-year college for low-income students. He again emphasized the distinction between free community college, which is codified in law, and other financial aid, which comes from a pot of money that can run out.
Practically, however, this is a distinction without a difference — at least legally, if not politically.
Pedraja is correct that free community college is codified in the
Department of Higher Education spokesperson Nicole Giambusso confirmed that free community college and the MASSGrant Plus expansion are both subject to annual appropriations.
The House and Senate budget proposals for fiscal 2026 both include money for all these programs, although the Senate's funding level is somewhat higher. State Senator Jo Comerford, Senate chair of the Joint Committee on Higher Education, said lawmakers see these programs as coming from different pockets of money. 'One does not cannibalize each other,' Comerford told me.
Advertisement
When free community college was established, expanding aid for all low-income students was seen as key to ensuring that students who are qualified to attend a four-year university won't be channeled into community college just because it's free. After all, according to
There are potential funding sources — like money collected from the surtax on income over $1 million — that could be tapped to keep both programs running.
'I don't think it should be either/or,' Bridgewater State University President Frederick Clark told me. 'I don't think the segments should be working at cross purposes. We should be leaning in to make sure funding is adequate for financial aid for all students.'
It is true that in a tight budget year, lawmakers have to make choices. Policy makers should be honest in crafting their budget around what can realistically be funded.
In our interview, Pedraja said he 'would love for everybody to have more access to higher education.' But the troubling implication of his statement is that if there is a Sophie's choice to be made, Massachusetts should prioritize aid for community college students, regardless of income, over low-income students at four-year schools.
If the state wants to help the most students achieve their academic potential, that is the wrong approach. Instead, the guiding principle should be helping each student attend the college that's right for them.
Advertisement
As these financial aid programs continue, state policy makers should collect data to determine their impact. Which aid programs are boosting college enrollment and also college completion rates and postgraduation employment? Are other ways of improving college success working, like
If hard choices have to be made about funding, they should be based on which programs most help students succeed.
Shira Schoenberg can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
Alina Habba Defies Judges' Ouster: 'Broken'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Alina Habba, former personal defense lawyer to President Donald Trump, is pushing back forcefully against efforts to remove her from her post as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey—vowing to fight what she describes as a politically motivated campaign to oust her. "To put it in really simple terms, it's a complicated mechanism—what's happening—and it's, frankly, I think, a broken one," she said during an interview with political commentator Benny Johnson. Why It Matters It comes after a panel of federal judges in New Jersey declined to extend Habba's term as the state's interim top prosecutor. Trump tapped Habba to serve as interim U.S. attorney in late March and nominated her on July 1 to be the U.S. attorney in a permanent capacity, which would have removed her interim status by the end of this week. But a DOJ spokesperson told The New York Times on Thursday that the president has withdrawn her nomination, which will allow her to continue serving in a temporary capacity. Alina Habba speaks before Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Allentown, Pa., Tuesday, Oct. 29, 2024. Alina Habba speaks before Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Allentown, Pa., Tuesday, Oct. 29, 2024. Matt Rourke/AP What To Know During the interview, Habba said the Senate's blue slip courtesy—a nonbinding tradition—is being used to block presidential appointments of U.S. attorneys, which she says effectively amounts to stalling or undermining the president's authority. The blue slip tradition is a Senate custom that gives home-state senators significant influence over federal judicial and U.S. attorney nominations in their state. It allows a senator to approve or block a nominee by returning or withholding a blue-colored form, known as the "blue slip," to the Senate Judiciary Committee. In Habba's case, both of New Jersey's Democratic senators, Cory Booker and Andy Kim, withheld their blue slips, signaling formal opposition and preventing her nomination from moving forward through the Senate Judiciary Committee. Booker and Kim allege that she has pursued politically motivated prosecutions against Democratic lawmakers to serve Trump's agenda. During Habba's tenure as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, Mayor Ras Baraka of Newark was charged with trespassing following a congressional visit to an immigration detention facility. The case was dropped days later, and a federal judge condemned the arrest as a "worrisome misstep," warning it should not be used as a political tool. Meanwhile, Representative LaMonica McIver was charged with assaulting federal agents during the same protest. McIver and critics called the prosecution politically motivated, especially given her congressional oversight role. Legal experts observed the case appeared "spectacularly inappropriate," claiming Habba bypassed required DOJ supervisory approval for charges against elected officials. Habba also launched investigations into Democratic Governor Phil Murphy and Attorney General Matt Platkin, focused on New Jersey's decision to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement—a move viewed by critics as aligned with Trump's political priorities. But Habba said the decision to remove her from her post was an attempt to thwart President Trump's powers. "What we're seeing is a systemic problem, where they are using the blue slip courtesy—it's not a law—as a mechanism to block the appointment of U.S. attorneys by the president, per the Department of Justice," Habba said. "That puts those U.S. attorneys in a position where they're kind of stuck. You're in this freeze, and you can't get out. Then they'll run the clock on you, and basically, what ends up happening is they're attempting to thwart the president's powers. "What we saw in my situation, the Senate minority leader sent direct instructions on Twitter telling the judges to vote and block me. Once it's out of Senate ownership, the judges can vote to keep you. I stepped down as interim and am now the acting attorney.. You have 120 days in the interim, I stepped down the day before." Trump has the power to remove U.S. attorneys who have been appointed by judges. A panel of federal judges in New Jersey ruled on Tuesday to replace Habba with her handpicked top deputy in the U.S. attorney's office, Desiree Leigh Grace, after her 120 day term was up. Soon after the court's decision, the Justice Department, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, fired Grace and accused the judges of political bias meant to curb the president's authority. In response, Trump's team withdrew Habba's nomination for the permanent role—allowing her to resign as interim U.S. Attorney, then be appointed First Assistant U.S. Attorney, and automatically ascend to the role of acting U.S. Attorney under relevant vacancy laws, extending her tenure for another 210 days. What People Are Saying Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, previously told Newsweek in a statement: "President Trump has full confidence in Alina Habba, whose work as acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey has made the Garden State and the nation safer. The Trump Administration looks forward to her final confirmation in the U.S. Senate and will work tirelessly to ensure the people of New Jersey are well represented." What Happens Next Habba will remain in her role as interim U.S. attorney in New Jersey for at least the next 210 days.
Hamilton Spectator
6 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Immigration judges fired by Trump administration say they will fight back
CHICAGO (AP) — Federal immigration judges fired by the Trump administration are filing appeals, pursuing legal action and speaking out in an unusually public campaign to fight back. More than 50 immigration judges — from senior leaders to new appointees — have been fired since Donald Trump assumed the presidency for the second time. Normally bound by courtroom decorum, many are now unrestrained in describing terminations they consider unlawful and why they believe they were targeted. Their suspected reasons include gender discrimination, decisions on immigration cases played up by the Trump administration and a courthouse tour with the Senate's No. 2 Democrat. 'I cared about my job and was really good at it,' Jennifer Peyton, a former supervising judge told The Associated Press this week. 'That letter that I received, the three sentences, explained no reason why I was fired.' Peyton, who received the notice while on a July Fourth family vacation, was appointed judge in 2016. She considered it her dream job. Peyton was later named assistant chief immigration judge in Chicago, helping to train, mentor and oversee judges. She was a visible presence in the busy downtown court , greeting outside observers. She cited top-notch performance reviews and said she faced no disciplinary action. Peyton said she'll appeal through the Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent government agency Trump has also targeted. Peyton's theories about why she was fired include appearing on a 'bureaucrat watchdog list' of people accused by a right-wing organization of working against the Trump agenda. She also questions a courthouse tour she gave to Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois in June. Durbin blasted Peyton's termination as an 'abuse of power,' saying he's visited before as part of his duties as a publicly-elected official. The nation's immigration courts — with a backlog of about 3.5 million cases — have become a key focus of Trump's hard-line immigration enforcement efforts. The firings are on top of resignations, early retirements and transfers, adding up to 106 judges gone since January, according to the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, which represents judges. There are currently about 600 immigration judges. Several of those fired, including Peyton, have recently done a slew of interviews on local Chicago television stations and with national outlets, saying they now have a platform for their colleagues who remain on the bench. 'The ones that are left are feeling threatened and very uncertain about their future,' said Matt Biggs, the union's president. Carla Espinoza, a Chicago immigration judge since 2023, was fired as she was delivering a verdict this month. Her notice said she'd be dismissed at the end of her two-year probationary period with the Executive Office for Immigration Review. 'I am personally committed to my career. We're not political appointees,' she told AP. 'I'm entitled to a reason.' She believes the firings have disproportionately affected women and ethnic minorities, including people with Hispanic-sounding surnames like hers. She plans to take legal action before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has also shifted focus under Trump. 'There's a very strong pattern of discriminatory factors,' she said. Espinoza thinks another reason could be her decision to release a Mexican immigrant falsely accused of threatening to assassinate Trump. Ramón Morales Reyes was accused of a writing a threatening letter by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. But the claims quickly fell apart as Wisconsin authorities determined that Morales Reyes was actually framed by a man who had previously attacked him. Espinoza said she felt pressure with public scrutiny, media coverage and Noem's statements about Morales Reyes, which weren't corrected or removed from social media. 'It's hard to silence the noise and just do your job fairly when there's so much distraction,' she said. 'I think I did. And I stand by my decision as having been a fair one to release an individual who I believe was twice victimized.' The Executive Office for Immigration Review, part of the Justice Department that oversees the immigration courts, declined to comment on the firings through an agency spokesperson. Peyton said she isn't sure that working as an immigration judge is still her dream job. 'It's important that everyone in our country knows what's happening in our immigration courts,' she said. 'The Department of Justice that I joined in 2016 is not the same one now.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
San Francisco Chronicle
6 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Immigration judges fired by Trump administration say they will fight back
CHICAGO (AP) — Federal immigration judges fired by the Trump administration are filing appeals, pursuing legal action and speaking out in an unusually public campaign to fight back. More than 50 immigration judges — from senior leaders to new appointees — have been fired since Donald Trump assumed the presidency for the second time. Normally bound by courtroom decorum, many are now unrestrained in describing terminations they consider unlawful and why they believe they were targeted. Their suspected reasons include gender discrimination, decisions on immigration cases played up by the Trump administration and a courthouse tour with the Senate's No. 2 Democrat. 'I cared about my job and was really good at it,' Jennifer Peyton, a former supervising judge told The Associated Press this week. 'That letter that I received, the three sentences, explained no reason why I was fired.' Peyton, who received the notice while on a July Fourth family vacation, was appointed judge in 2016. She considered it her dream job. Peyton was later named assistant chief immigration judge in Chicago, helping to train, mentor and oversee judges. She was a visible presence in the busy downtown court, greeting outside observers. She cited top-notch performance reviews and said she faced no disciplinary action. Peyton said she'll appeal through the Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent government agency Trump has also targeted. Peyton's theories about why she was fired include appearing on a 'bureaucrat watchdog list' of people accused by a right-wing organization of working against the Trump agenda. She also questions a courthouse tour she gave to Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois in June. The nation's immigration courts — with a backlog of about 3.5 million cases — have become a key focus of Trump's hard-line immigration enforcement efforts. The firings are on top of resignations, early retirements and transfers, adding up to 106 judges gone since January, according to the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, which represents judges. There are currently about 600 immigration judges. Several of those fired, including Peyton, have recently done a slew of interviews on local Chicago television stations and with national outlets, saying they now have a platform for their colleagues who remain on the bench. 'The ones that are left are feeling threatened and very uncertain about their future,' said Matt Biggs, the union's president. Carla Espinoza, a Chicago immigration judge since 2023, was fired as she was delivering a verdict this month. Her notice said she'd be dismissed at the end of her two-year probationary period with the Executive Office for Immigration Review. 'I am personally committed to my career. We're not political appointees,' she told AP. 'I'm entitled to a reason.' She believes the firings have disproportionately affected women and ethnic minorities, including people with Hispanic-sounding surnames like hers. She plans to take legal action before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has also shifted focus under Trump. 'There's a very strong pattern of discriminatory factors,' she said. Espinoza thinks another reason could be her decision to release a Mexican immigrant falsely accused of threatening to assassinate Trump. Ramón Morales Reyes was accused of a writing a threatening letter by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. But the claims quickly fell apart as Wisconsin authorities determined that Morales Reyes was actually framed by a man who had previously attacked him. Espinoza said she felt pressure with public scrutiny, media coverage and Noem's statements about Morales Reyes, which weren't corrected or removed from social media. 'It's hard to silence the noise and just do your job fairly when there's so much distraction," she said. 'I think I did. And I stand by my decision as having been a fair one to release an individual who I believe was twice victimized.' Peyton said she isn't sure that working as an immigration judge is still her dream job. 'It's important that everyone in our country knows what's happening in our immigration courts,' she said. 'The Department of Justice that I joined in 2016 is not the same one now.'
