Latest news with #Walberg
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Few seem to love Columbia's deal with Trump
Columbia University's decision to comply with Trump administration demands in exchange for federal funding has caused shockwaves, with many voices on both sides of the issue expressing anger and frustration. In its agreement, Columbia will pay $220 million in legal fees to the Trump administration, along with implementing several policy changes regarding speech and student protections on campus. Following this, they will receive $400 million in withheld federal funds. Some critics of the decision argue that it will affect the independence of the university and will effectively silence pro-Palestinian speech. Others say the decision does not go far enough in protecting Jewish students on campus. David Hozen, a law professor at Columbia, criticized the reforms, calling them 'as unprincipled as they are unprecedented' and arguing that the deal was a 'legal form to an extortion scheme.' Elisha Baker, co-chair of the pro-Israel student group Aryeh, was also critical, writing to the Columbia University Spectator that the reported deal 'would completely ignore the structural and cultural reforms we need and effectively tell the world of higher education that discrimination is okay if they can afford it.' Sabiya Ahamed, a staff attorney at Palestine Legal, chastised Columbia for 'choosing to pander to a lawless administration' and not protecting students and staff who 'are bravely speaking out against a genocide.' Ahamed, who has worked with several Columbia students facing disciplinary measures, also accused the university of 'agreeing to operate like an arm of the state to censor and punish speech the Trump administration doesn't like.' Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, blamed Columbia for the deal existing at all. 'The need for a federal settlement underscores Columbia's lack of institutional willingness to effectively respond to antisemitism,' Walberg said in a statement. Walberg said the committee will 'closely monitor Columbia's purported commitment' to the deal and would 'develop legislative solutions to address antisemitism.' Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., meanwhile, called the decision an 'outrageous and embarrassing $200 million capitulation' and a 'repugnant extortion scheme' in a post on X. Nadler said that 'Columbia needs to do a better job at protecting its students against antisemitism on campus,' but said the deal 'will not, in any way, improve the situation on campus for Jewish students. Columbia's students, faculty, staff, and larger community deserve better than this cowardly decision.' One voice of support for the deal came from economist and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, who called it an 'excellent template for agreements with other institutions including Harvard,' in a social media post. Summers said the deal lets Columbia keep its 'academic autonomy,' praised its 'ongoing reform with respect to anti-Semitism,' and claimed that 'normality is restored' at the campus. Acting school President Claire Shipman, in an email sent last week to the university community, suggested that any such deal with the Trump administration would be the beginning of a broader effort to address issues on campus. 'In my view, any government agreement we reach is only a starting point for change,' she wrote. The post Few seem to love Columbia's deal with Trump appeared first on
Chicago Tribune
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Northwestern University president to appear again before Congress in August
Northwestern University President Michael Schill is slated to appear for a second time before a congressional committee over alleged antisemitism on campus. Schill will participate in an interview with the House Committee on Education & Workforce on Aug. 5, according to a Northwestern spokesperson. Committee Chairman Tim Walberg, R-Mich., first sent a letter to Schill to testify in April, accusing Northwestern of failing to fulfill its commitment to protect Jewish students. Crain's Chicago Business first reported the news. The Committee on Education & Workforce did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Schill last appeared before Congress in spring 2024, weeks after students erected a pro-Palestinian encampment on campus as part of a nationwide movement. Schill reached a deal with protesters five days into the demonstration, allowing the encampment to continue peacefully for several weeks. Since Schill's last testimony, Walberg said, congressional leaders have not received any documentation or updates on the university's efforts to combat antisemitism. 'The Committee seeks to understand both this disturbing climate of antisemitism at Northwestern as well as the University's apparent failure to protect Jewish students, and therefore seeks to conduct a transcribed interview with you,' Walberg wrote. A university spokesperson disputed those claims in a statement, noting that Northwestern took 'significant steps to address antisemitism' before the 2024-25 school year. The university released a report in March that outlined those efforts, including updating the student code of conduct and creating mandatory antisemitism training. 'Reports of antisemitism on campus this academic year were down significantly, and we are confident that our actions have made Northwestern a safer and more welcoming place for everyone, including our Jewish students,' the statement said. Northwestern is among several elite universities that have come under fire from the Trump administration for antisemitism and diversity, equity and inclusion policies. The federal government has frozen more than $790 million in federal funding to Northwestern amid ongoing civil rights investigations. When Schill appeared before the House committee last year, he was grilled for hours on his handling of Northwestern's encampment. Several leaders of Ivy League schools resigned following testimony at a similar congressional hearing in late 2023.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
House GOP China hawks urge Duke to end its relationship with Chinese university
Two Republican critics of China are urging Duke University to end its partnership with a Chinese institution with close ties to the country's government. Rep. John Moolenaar and Rep. Tim Walberg said in a letter Wednesday to Duke that the partnership with Wuhan University helps facilitate the transfer of technology and skills to China. 'Wuhan University is not an ordinary academic institution,' they wrote in the letter to Duke President Vincent Price. 'It is a direct extension of the Chinese military and intelligence apparatus.' The letter from Moolenaar, who is chair of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, and Walberg echoes familiar government concerns about China's efforts to develop its economy with knowledge and technology from the U.S., often in the forms of research partnership with American institutions and companies. Duke confirmed in a statement that it had received the letter, and said the university would work 'to further educate Congress about Duke's global education mission.' Duke Kunshan University, near Shanghai, enrolls about 3,000 students, many of whom spend time and do research at the U.S. school's main campus in Durham, North Carolina. That's what Walberg and Moolenaar find troubling. They pointed to a 2024 joint report from the Select Committee on China and the House Education and Workforce Committee that found American research funding had contributed to technological and military advancements in Beijing. 'Given the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) well-documented efforts to exploit U.S. academic openness, this partnership creates a direct pipeline between U.S. innovation and China's military-industrial complex,' the pair wrote. Duke is one of many elite institutions caught in President Donald Trump's ongoing assault on higher education. Layoffs as a result of cuts to grants and contracts are likely, the university hinted in April. And Duke is already rolling out a voluntary buyout program as it readies for lower federal funding levels. Also this week, Moolenaar and Walberg joined Texas Republicans Roger Williams and Brian Babin in pushing university systems in California and New York to monitor small business grant programs for Chinese influence. 'American universities must be vigilant against foreign influence and infiltration — especially when partnered with small businesses developing cutting-edge technology,' Moolenaar said in a statement. 'This investigation is about safeguarding national security and making sure U.S. innovation benefits America, not the CCP.'
Politico
15-05-2025
- Business
- Politico
House GOP China hawks urge Duke to end its relationship with Chinese university
Two Republican critics of China are urging Duke University to end its partnership with a Chinese institution with close ties to the country's government. Rep. John Moolenaar and Rep. Tim Walberg said in a letter Wednesday to Duke that the partnership with Wuhan University helps facilitate the transfer of technology and skills to China. 'Wuhan University is not an ordinary academic institution,' they wrote in the letter to Duke President Vincent Price. 'It is a direct extension of the Chinese military and intelligence apparatus.' The letter from Moolenaar, who is chair of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, and Walberg echoes familiar government concerns about China's efforts to develop its economy with knowledge and technology from the U.S., often in the forms of research partnership with American institutions and companies. Duke confirmed in a statement that it had received the letter, and said the university would work 'to further educate Congress about Duke's global education mission.' Duke Kunshan University, near Shanghai, enrolls about 3,000 students, many of whom spend time and do research at the U.S. school's main campus in Durham, North Carolina. That's what Walberg and Moolenaar find troubling. They pointed to a 2024 joint report from the Select Committee on China and the House Education and Workforce Committee that found American research funding had contributed to technological and military advancements in Beijing. 'Given the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) well-documented efforts to exploit U.S. academic openness, this partnership creates a direct pipeline between U.S. innovation and China's military-industrial complex,' the pair wrote. Duke is one of many elite institutions caught in President Donald Trump's ongoing assault on higher education. Layoffs as a result of cuts to grants and contracts are likely, the university hinted in April. And Duke is already rolling out a voluntary buyout program as it readies for lower federal funding levels. Also this week, Moolenaar and Walberg joined Texas Republicans Roger Williams and Brian Babin in pushing university systems in California and New York to monitor small business grant programs for Chinese influence. 'American universities must be vigilant against foreign influence and infiltration — especially when partnered with small businesses developing cutting-edge technology,' Moolenaar said in a statement. 'This investigation is about safeguarding national security and making sure U.S. innovation benefits America, not the CCP.'
Forbes
02-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Student Loan Shock — Payments May Increase By $5,000 Per Year Under New Law, Warns Group
UNITED STATES - APRIL 29: Chairman Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich. chairs the House Educaiton Committee ... More markup for the markup of the Fiscal 2025 Budget Resolution on Tuesday, April 29, 2025. Walberg spoke out in favor of massive student loan reform, which was approved by committee Republicans this week. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images) A student loan borrower advocacy organization is raising alarm bells over Republican plans to remake the federal student loan repayment system, warning that if it's enacted, the reforms could dramatically raise costs for working families who carry student loan debt. Earlier this week, a key House committee passed a sweeping bill intended to slash government spending associated with federal student aid programs. The legislation is one piece of a much broader effort by Republican lawmakers to extend and expand tax cuts through a process called budget reconciliation. The costs of those tax cuts, which could be several trillion dollars, would be offset in part by $330 billion in cuts to federal student loan repayment and forgiveness programs. GOP leaders argue that the cuts will streamline the federal student loan repayment system and make college more affordable. But borrower advocates have warned that the changes, if enacted, could be catastrophic, causing sharp payment increases for many Americans. 'Today, House Republicans showed their hand—tens of millions of students and working families across the country will see an affordable higher education pushed further out of reach and be forced to pay President Trump's government thousands of dollars more per year so that right-wing lawmakers can deliver trillions in tax cuts to Elon Musk and his billionaire buddies," said Student Borrower Protection Center policy director Aissa Canchola Bañez in a statement on Monday. 'Instead of bringing down the cost of college, House Republicans want to punish millions of borrowers desperately trying to repay their debts, pushing them further into the red while allowing some of the most predatory actors in higher ed to profiteer at their expense." Here's what student loan borrowers should know. One of the central features of the House GOP bill is the repeal of the SAVE plan, as well as all other current IDR plans (including Income-Based Repayment, Income-Contingent Repayment, and Pay As You Earn) for student loan borrowers who take out loans after July 1, 2026. Meanwhile, current borrowers who have been enrolled in more affordable IDR programs like SAVE, PAYE, and a newer version of IBR would be forced into a more expensive version of IBR under the terms of the bill, increasing their payments. The student loan payment shock would be particularly acute for borrowers who had enrolled in the SAVE plan. SAVE was created by the Biden administration in 2023 to provide borrowers with much more affordable payments and a pathway to faster student loan forgiveness. But critics of the plan said it was too generous, and essentially operated as a costly backdoor student loan forgiveness plan. 'The Biden-Harris administration's foolish actions in the federal student loan program exacerbated this budgetary catastrophe,' said Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI) in a statement on the House floor earlier this week. 'From their radical 'SAVE' loan repayment plan to the never-ending repayment pause, Democrats are intent on forcing taxpayers to pay for free college. Dumping more federal money into a broken system doesn't mean that system will work. In fact, government spending on higher education has reached record highs yet millions of students benefiting from those funds will ultimately end up with a degree that doesn't pay off or fail to finish school altogether.' Under the proposed legislation, the SAVE plan and the other IDR programs would be replaced by a new income-driven plan called the Repayment Assistance Plan, or RAP. While RAP would operate in a similar way as the other programs, with monthly payments calculated based on a borrower's income and family size, the terms are not nearly as generous as the other plans, and especially when compared to SAVE. Borrowers would also not qualify for student loan forgiveness under the new plan until after 30 years in repayment – far longer than the 2o or 25 year repayment terms under SAVE, ICR, IBR, and PAYE. In a letter submitted to Chairman Walberg on Monday, the Student Borrower Protection Center warned that if the GOP proposal becomes law, many Americans will experience sharp increases in their monthly student loan payments, potentially costing them thousands of dollars more per year. 'Eight million borrowers last made payments under the SAVE plan in July 2024 and have had their ability to pay suspended for approximately nine months as a result of partisan lawsuits challenging the program,' said the SBPC in its letter. Under the terms of the new bill, "These borrowers will experience an immediate and unprecedented payment shock as their monthly payments jump from $0 per month to $431 for a typical single student loan borrower with a college degree—an annual increase of more than $5,000.' The SBPC wrote that a typical federal student loan borrower in a family of four, with an income of $80,263 and an undergraduate federal student debt balance of $38,374, would have had payments of $33 per month under the SAVE plan. But because of the eligibility parameters for the new GOP income-driven plan, they would not be eligible to repay their loans based on their income if the new bill becomes law. Instead, they would be placed in a Standard plan with payments of around $431 per month. The SBPC estimated that the family in this example would pay upwards of $4,700 more per year on their student loans than they would have under the SAVE plan if the GOP bill becomes law. 'Families across income levels will pay more money each month under the current proposal than under the SAVE plan,' wrote the SBPC. 'Additionally, the current proposal would impose higher monthly payments for borrowers and their families than almost every other payment plan.' Jason Delisle, a higher education and student loan expert at the Urban Institute, posted an analysis of the RAP plan on X that disputed this. Delisle indicated that monthly payments for middle-income borrowers would be comparable to the PAYE and new IBR plans, and payment under RAP could possibly be even slightly lower. But when compared to the SAVE plan, payments under RAP would almost universally be higher across the board. Furthermore, payments under the RAP plan would be higher for low-income borrowers than under any existing IDR option. That is because RAP has a minimum monthly payment requirement – a unique feature that is not part of ICR, IBR, PAYE, or SAVE. Under each of those plans, families living below the poverty line would have no monthly payment obligation. But that's not the case for the RAP plan. 'The bill reflects how out of step the drafters are with low-income Americans," said Abby Shafroth, co-director of advocacy at the National Consumer Law Center, in a statement on Tuesday. "House Republicans propose charging low-income students more interest by ending the subsidized loan program for students with financial need; more than tripling monthly bills for borrowers currently enrolled in SAVE; and requiring that even families living below the poverty line reallocate $120 each year from funds that would otherwise go towards food, rent, or medication or face default.' The full House has not yet passed the GOP proposal. The unveiling of the legislative text and passage by the Education and Workforce Committee is just the next step in what will be a lengthy process over the next several months to enact this, and many other separate proposals, through the budget reconciliation process. And whatever the House ultimately passes would need to be squared with whatever version of the bill the Senate passes (it's unclear at this stage whether GOP leaders in the House and Senate are aligned on these specific student loan reform plans). But Republican leaders in Congress hope to pass the reconciliation bill by this summer. The SBPC warned that passing the bill in its current form could be disastrous for borrowers, as the economy increasingly is flashing warning signs. 'As the committee considers this legislation, it is clear that a vote for this bill is a vote to saddle millions of borrowers across the country with more student loan debt, at the same moment that a slowing economy, a reckless trade war, and spiraling costs of living squeeze working families from every direction,' the group warned in its letter.
