Tag: universities

Florida Votes to Ban Illegal Immigrants from Public Colleges and Universities

The Florida State Board of Education voted 6–1 on Tuesday to prohibit illegal immigrants from enrolling in the state’s 28 public colleges and adult education programs.

Under the new policy, institutions within the Florida College System will only admit U.S. citizens or individuals lawfully present in the country. Applicants must attest to their legal status and provide supporting documentation before enrolling. The rule also applies to adult general education programs, including GED classes.

This action builds on last year’s repeal of in-state tuition benefits for illegal immigrants. Governor Ron DeSantis and state leaders have stated that Florida’s public resources, funded by the state’s hardworking taxpayers, should prioritize American citizens and legal residents, rather than individuals who entered the country illegally.

The Florida Board of Governors, which oversees the state’s 12 public universities, advanced a similar measure last week. Beginning with the 2027–2028 academic year, individuals unlawfully present in the United States will be ineligible for initial enrollment at selective public universities. A final vote is still pending, but the proposal is expected to move forward.

These policies send a strong message to other states and the federal government: Florida will not subsidize or reward illegal immigration through taxpayer-funded higher education.

As expected, left-wing activist groups, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Democratic lawmakers criticized the reform, describing it as «cruel.» Critics argue that the policy could reduce institutional revenue and negatively affect students who grew up in Florida despite lacking legal immigration status.

However, supporters argue that illegal immigrants should not compete with legal residents for limited spaces and resources at public institutions. They also contend that Florida taxpayers already bear significant costs associated with illegal immigration, making the policy a logical step toward enforcing federal immigration law at the state level and restoring policy priorities.

According to supporters, taxpayer-funded higher education for illegal immigrants is a policy that Florida voters have repeatedly rejected, a position they say aligns with Governor DeSantis’s record on border security and the rule of law.

Florida now joins a small group of states taking firm action on illegal immigration in higher education. The broader question is whether states can—and should—protect their sovereignty, their citizens, and their fiscal stability through similar measures.

Keep reading

Unfair! University of California, Riverside Grant Funding Favors Illegal Aliens Over Americans

According to a report from Campus Reform, the University of California, Riverside’s Undocumented Student Programs offers up to $9,000 annually through its Butterfly Project Fellowship to “DREAMers, students from mixed-status families, and undocu allies,” while a comparable graduate research grant for U.S. citizen graduate students provides up to $4,000 per year.”

This program rewards lawbreakers while punishing American citizens, something which is entirely unfair.

“According to fellowship materials reviewed by Campus Reform, the Butterfly Project Fellowship provides up to $9,000 annually to illegal alien graduate students, with awards disbursed through the Financial Aid Office.”

There shouldn’t be incentives at American academic institutions for foreign nationals who break our laws, and the fact that there are is an outrage that rewards lawlessness.

Recipients of this insane “fellowship” are also given the opportunity to attend college and “Undocumented Student Programs events while continuing to advance their graduate research.”

“A comparable funding opportunity for American citizens available through UCR is the Dissertation Research Grant, administered by the university’s Graduate Division. The grant provides up to $2,000 per application during both the fall and spring quarters, allowing recipients to receive up to $4,000 annually.”

That’s a considerably lower amount than what illegal aliens get and shows a disparity.

Keep reading

“We’re Running Out of Oil”: The Lie Used to Support the Green Energy Agenda

In 1874, the state geologist of Pennsylvania, then the nation’s leading oil producer, warned that the U.S. had only four years of oil remaining. Forty years later, in 1914, when oil still hadn’t run out, the federal government said the U.S. had only a ten-year supply remaining. In 1940, the government announced that reserves would be depleted within a decade and a half.

An article published on August 3, 1966, reported that “a geologist stuck a figurative dipstick into the United States’ oil supplies Tuesday and estimated that the country may be dry in 10 years,” placing the projected date of U.S. exhaustion at 1976. The most widely cited doomsday prediction came in 1972, when the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth report calculated that global petroleum reserves, growing at then-current consumption rates, would be exhausted within 20 years, implying oil would run out by 1992.

For the past several decades, the claim that oil will run out has been used to promote the green energy transition, framing the use of solar and wind power as necessary to preserve human life. However, the people and institutions promoting the “oil is running out” narrative are the same people and institutions advancing the climate crisis narrative. As with other forms of propaganda, new vocabulary had to be invented, including the term “peak oil.

Peak oil is the theory that global oil production rises to a maximum point and then declines irreversibly as a finite resource is depleted. Yale Environment 360 reported that Rystad Energy expects natural gas production to peak and decline as renewables take over, and that the International Energy Agency (IEA) in 2021 called on oil companies to immediately end oil prospecting and pull back on production as part of a net-zero pathway explicitly grounded in the “peak oil” framing.

The context of the Yale report, and the peak oil claim in general, is somewhat dishonest. If they really believed the world was running out of oil, they wouldn’t need to warn anyone or demand that we stop looking for or producing oil. Instead, they could simply wait ten or twenty years, or whatever the latest prediction is, until oil runs out naturally. At that point, the world would transition to green energy out of necessity, and the climate advocates would win. The fact that they continue pushing the issue suggests they don’t really believe oil is running out.

A Cambridge University Press academic text states plainly that the peak oil belief is a myth, “at least for the next decades,” and warns that peak oil framing can backfire on climate advocates because the oil industry echoes the peak oil argument to convince governments to approve, and even assist with, new fossil fuel projects whenever prices spike. Effectively, the article presents circular logic. It suggests that the peak oil argument should be abandoned to prevent the oil industry from drilling for new oil, which would prevent the world from running out of oil.

All of the peak oil predictions had a common flaw: they made straight-line mathematical projections, assuming that no alternatives or solutions would be found. Each treated known reserves and existing extraction methods as fixed, when, in practice, both variables continued to change simultaneously.

Keep reading

The Kids Are Not Okay With AI, And They Know It…

Eric Schmidt hadn’t finished the word “artificial” before the booing started.

The former Google CEO stood at the University of Arizona’s commencement last month, ready to deliver the kind of speech he had probably given a dozen times before: AI as the next great transformation, graduates as its rightful authors.

He got as far as telling them the technology would “touch every profession, every classroom, every hospital, every laboratory, every person, and every relationship you have.” The boos rose before he could finish his own sentence. “I can hear you,” he said gently. The boos continued, as did Schmidt, who was unable to fully conceal the awkward embarrassment.

He wasn’t the only one. A week earlier, at Middle Tennessee State University, Big Machine Records CEO Scott Borchetta told graduates that “AI is rewriting production as we sit here.” The boos from graduates started immediately. He responded with tough love: “I know it. Deal with it.” But the boos only grew louder.

A week before that, real estate executive Gloria Caulfield barely got through the phrase “next industrial revolution” at the University of Central Florida before the crowd erupted. “Okay, I struck a chord,” she said, turning around with her hands up in disbelief and clearly caught off guard.

They were all caught off guard. This isn’t how graduations usually go.

Older generations had their own frustrations with the people steering their world, but they rarely stood up at their own commencement, in front of their families, and told a stranger they didn’t believe them or what they had to say about their future.

It would be easy to read the response as simple nerves about a tough job market and leave it there. But when you look more closely at how this generation actually lives with technology, their worldview takes a different form.

A recent Gallup survey found that Gen Z’s use of AI has leveled off, but their feelings about it have not. Excitement has fallen 14 points in a year, to just 22 percent. And anger has climbed 9 points, to 31 percent. Even among those who use it every day, enthusiasm dropped by 18 points over 12 months. Eight in ten now believe AI will make learning harder. Forty-two percent believe it will hurt their ability to think carefully. Only a quarter believe it will help. Nearly half say the risks of AI in the workplace now outweigh the benefits, which is a sharp rise from the year before. And when asked whose work they actually trust, 69 percent said human work. Only 3 percent said AI’s work alone.

A separate Gallup study found that 47 percent of college students have seriously considered changing their major because of what AI is doing to the job market. Sixteen percent have already changed. The students who use AI most, such as in technology, business, and engineering, are also the ones most likely to be reconsidering whether they picked the right field at all.

The kids know the use of artificial intelligence is built into every device they touch throughout their day. It is being wired to replace the skills they were once told to seek in every career they had been advised to pursue.

Keep reading

Tennessee Taxpayers to Pay $1.9 Million Settlement to Fired Professor Who Celebrated Charlie Kirk’s Assassination

The University of Tennessee has agreed to pay former assistant professor Tamar Shirinian $1.9 million to settle a lawsuit after she was fired over a social media post celebrating the death of Turning Point CEO and conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Under the settlement, approved by the University of Tennessee System Board of Trustees, Shirinian will not return to her teaching position.

The agreement still requires approval from Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and Gov. Bill Lee.

“My client is pleased that the parties reached a resolution,” Shirinian’s attorney, Robb Bigelow, said.

“We believe the resolution reflects the seriousness of the issues while allowing everyone to move forward.”

Keep reading

“White Time”: Dutch Professor Argues That Time Itself Is Racist

We have previously discussed how many professors seem to compete in finding new forms of racism in every facet of society and education. Astrophysics, math, runoffs, science, statistics, and meritocracy have all been denounced as racist. In this academic cottage industry, professors secure publications and speaking opportunities by identifying racism in the expressions, images, or entire fields. It was, therefore, only a matter of time before time itself was declared racist.

Zakia Essanhaji, a professor of “organizational ethnography” at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, is the latest to make the case against “white time.”

Her recent paper titled “Academic time theft: stealing time, producing racialized inclusion in Dutch academia” builds on prior work condemning time as racist.

Rutgers Women’s and Gender Studies/Africana Studies Professor Brittney Cooper has also written about how time is racist. Mainstream media has positively cooed at the suggestion, including an interview with NPR. Cooper claimed that “white people own time” after framing the concept of time in “histories of European and Western thought.”

There is also apparently black time: “Time has a history, and so do black people. But we treat time as though it is timeless, as though it has always been this way, as though it doesn’t have a political history bound up with the plunder of indigenous lands, the genocide of indigenous people and the stealing of Africans from their homeland.”

Likewise, in “The Chronopolitics of Racial Time,” Jamaican academic Charles W. Mills described the  “Euro-chronometer” as a Western-centric, linear timeline.

These works are often heavily laden with jargonistic narratives. In one study from Brazil, academics argue that “thinking of time outside and against the Euro-chronometer requires decolonial epistemologies that have the potential to disrupt racist chronologies.”

Professor Essanhaji continues this scholarship by “drawing on critical race theory and decolonial scholarship on chronopolitics and white time.” She applies with earlier work “to academic time theft to theorize how universities extract, fragment and defer the time of academics of colour through racialized institutional processes.”

“White time is not simply the time of the privileged, but the power to define temporality and progress itself. It is the colonization of time, known as the system of modernity/coloniality. As Vazquez […] argues, this system is maintained by erasing cyclical or relational understandings of time, ensuring that time is perceived as racing towards unattainable, more modern futures. In that sense, white time is both prescriptive and pre-emptive, foreclosing alternative futures and experiences of the past by delegitimizing other temporalities.”

Academics have long argued that non-white histories and figures are often “erased’ in scholarship. Such arguments have led to a move away from Western works or classics in favor of non-Western sources in higher education. However, the time scholarship suggests that the very construct of time has been shaped and furthers white domination and privilege.

In Professor Essanhaji’s work, this scholarship is used to challenge the demands placed on minority academics in publishing and other measures of academic achievement. Again, the work is heavily layered with jargonistic language. Here are her findings:

“The analysis identifies three mechanisms of academic time theft. First, prolonged uncertainty operates through racialized precariousness that keeps academics of colour in a condition of academic probation through insecure contracts and housing precarity. Second, ongoing disruption emerges through everyday racism that fragments attention, diverts emotional and intellectual labour, and interrupts academic continuity. Third, recursive evaluation operates through the continual resetting of inclusion and promotion criteria, producing perpetual states of “not yet” recognition and deferred academic futures. Together, these mechanisms sustain racialized temporal regimes in which academics of colour are positioned as perpetually “almost there” while white institutional time remains uninterrupted.”

These authors largely cite each other with little attention to countervailing viewpoints. It becomes a closed, self-perpetuating system as academics invite one another to speak at their universities and feed off one another. Few academics are willing to challenge such scholarship. Indeed, as we have discussed, departments have largely purged their ranks of conservative or contrarian voices.

As shown in this latest scholarship, the work in this area jettisons such “colonial” or “white” forms of analysis in favor of storytelling:

“I depart from a critical race perspective, employing counter-storytelling to construct (counter)narratives grounded in the lived experiences of people of colour. This method recognizes the connections between the historical impacts of colonialism and contemporary exclusions within organizations. By highlighting the experiences of people of colour navigating the university’s racism, I seek to provide rich accounts that reflect on how time is racialized and experienced in Dutch universities.”

Keep reading

Illegal! University Of California Los Angeles Prioritizes Illegal Aliens for $7,000 Immigration Activism Summer Fellowship

According to Campus Reform, “The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) is offering students a $7,000 stipend through its “Dream Summer” fellowship, a summer program that trains participants in immigrant rights advocacy and social justice activism.”

In other words, UCLA is rewarding illegals for law-breaking.

“The university describes the fellowship as a program that “positions immigrant youth as agents of change within the immigrant rights movement” and “empowers immigrant youth to become the next generation of social justice leaders.”

This program practices discrimination, as has sadly become the norm at many universities.

Woke credentials come before academics at this school.

”We strongly encourage and prioritize applications from undocumented applicants who identify as LGBTQIA+, Black, API, and/or Indigenous, as well as other individuals directly impacted by the immigration system,” the fellowship website states.

In other words, at UCLA, ‘Straight White men need not apply.’

Keep reading

Insanity: SUNY Albany Continues To Offer up to $24K for ‘equity,’ ‘belonging,’ and social justice projects

As first reported at Campus Reform, “The University at Albany (UAlbany), part of the State University of New York (SUNY) system, has continued to fund inclusion-focused projects through its ‘Division of Inclusive Excellence’ office, offering individual grants up to $4,000 for initiatives centered on equity, belonging, and social justice through 2026.”

In other words, they refuse to comply with the executive order from President Trump against DEI.

WOKE remains a major problem on many campuses, with SUNY Albany being one of many.

“The public university’s ‘Inclusive Excellence Transformation Awards’ provide funding for projects designed to promote what the university describes as ‘a campus climate of equity.’”

University materials say the awards support “new or ongoing programs” focused on “historically underrepresented groups,” and advancing “the university’s mission of fostering diverse and inclusive excellence.”

This Woke DEI ideology was rejected by America at the polls, yet despite that, the schools continue in many cases to promote this.

“In 2026, the university selected six projects to receive Inclusive Excellence funding.”

Keep reading

University of Colorado, Boulder Students for Justice in Palestine Honor Man Who Burned Jewish Woman to Death

In June of 2025,  one of Joe Biden’s illegals attacked Jews in Boulder, Colorado, during a walk to call attention to the hostages still being held by Hamas terrorists at the time.

During the attack, he injured 13 people, including a Holocaust survivor, and killed a dog.

The suspect, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, who is Egyptian and in the country on an expired visa,  was initially charged with 16 counts of attempted murder in the first degree.

One of his victims, 82-year-old Boulder, Colorado resident Karen Diamond, suffered third-degree burns from the attack and, after fighting for her life for three weeks in the hospital, succumbed to her injuries and died.

In May 2026, Soliman was sentenced to life in prison without parole, plus thousands of additional years on other charges (first-degree murder, attempted murder, assault, use of incendiary devices, animal cruelty, etc.). He faces separate federal hate crime charges.

Despite his barbaric acts, University of Colorado, Boulder Students for Justice in Palestine have chosen to honor a “man who sacrificed his comfort and his proximity to empire, willingly expending his own liberty in attaining his objective.”

Jonathan Turley shared on X, “At the University of Colorado, Boulder Students for Justice in Palestine, honored the “man who sacrificed his comfort and his proximity to empire, willingly expending his own liberty in attaining his objective.” The man? Mohamed Sabry Soliman who burned to death a Jewish woman…”

Keep reading

Yale’s Echo Chamber: The Ivy League’s Most Extreme Ideological Imbalance Exposed

A new report from the Buckley Institute lays bare the deep political homogeneity gripping the governing bodies of America’s elite universities. Titled “The Echo Chamber on Top: Governance in the Ivy League,” the analysis reveals a striking disconnect between these institutions and the broader American public they claim to serve.

Across the eight Ivies, registered Democrats dominate governing boards at a roughly 6-to-1 ratio over Republicans (66.5% Democrat vs. 11.2% Republican, with the rest unaffiliated). Political donations tell an even clearer story: trustees funneled at least $85.5 million to Democratic causes compared to just $22.4 million for Republicans. Yet one institution stands out for its purity of progressive thought: Yale University.

Yale’s Corporation—the university’s primary governing body—boasts zero registered Republicans. According to the report, 88.2% of identified trustees are registered Democrats, with the remainder unaffiliated. Its political giving is the most lopsided in the League: roughly a 50-to-1 ratio favoring Democrats ($5.8 million to Democrats vs. $102,000 to Republicans).

This is not mere coincidence but the culmination of a self-reinforcing cycle. Past Buckley research documented an 82.3% Democratic faculty at Yale (just 2.3% Republican) and similar skews in the admissions office and Divinity School. When the people who hire professors, set admissions standards, approve budgets, select presidents, and steer institutional strategy all hail from the same narrow ideological lane, groupthink becomes inevitable. Dissenting perspectives—essential for rigorous inquiry and true intellectual diversity—are simply absent from the room where decisions are made.

Conservatives have long warned that elite higher education has drifted far from its mission of pursuing truth and preparing citizens for a pluralistic society. The result is declining public trust: Gallup shows confidence in colleges plummeting from 57% in 2015 to 36% recently, with 70% of Americans believing higher education is heading in the wrong direction. Yale, with its $40+ billion endowment and sky-high tuition, exemplifies the problem: an insular elite increasingly out of touch with the country that funds and sustains it.

Keep reading