Last week, the Biden administration announced that it would unveil a second attempt at issuing blanket student loan forgiveness within the next few months. The announcement comes more than a year after its first attempt was blocked by the Supreme Court.

"The Biden-Harris Administration made a commitment to deliver student debt relief to as many borrowers as possible as quickly as possible," said Education Secretary Miguel Cardona in a statement last Wednesday. "And today, as we near the end of a lengthy rulemaking process, we're one step closer to keeping that promise."

The announcement builds on a release in April of draft rules that aim to enact student loan forgiveness primarily by expanding existing loan forgiveness programs. The Education Department says it has begun notifying borrowers about the coming rules and informing them about a deadline to opt out of forgiveness. 

The proposed rules target specific groups of borrowers, including borrowers who now owe more than they originally took out in loans due to accumulating interest, borrowers who have been in repayment for decades, and those who are eligible but not enrolled in existing forgiveness programs. Borrowers who enrolled in low-value degree programs, such as those that "failed to provide sufficient financial value, or that failed one of the Department's accountability standards for institutions" are also eligible for new forgiveness efforts. 

Last week's announcement also stated that those eligible would most likely receive forgiveness automatically, with no application or additional steps required.

If enacted, the rules could end up affecting even more borrowers than would have been affected by the Biden administration's first forgiveness plan. The Education Department predicts that if the proposed rules go into effect, the Biden administration would have made over 30 million borrowers eligible for forgiveness through its efforts over the last three years. In contrast, Biden's first attempt at blanket student loan forgiveness was predicted to impact just 27 million eligible borrowers.

"If finalized as proposed, these new rules would authorize relief for borrowers across the country who have struggled with the burden of student loan debt," reads last week's statement. "The Biden-Harris Administration has taken historic steps to reduce the burden of student debt and ensure that student loans are not a barrier to educational and economic opportunity for students and families."

The Education Department predicts that the finalized rules will be released sometime in the fall. However, with the election in November looming, it's doubtful whether the department can actually provide forgiveness before the end of Biden's term. And considering that legal challenges are almost certain to follow any attempt to enact large-scale loan forgiveness, it's unclear if there is any realistic chance that the Biden administration can enact this plan. At the moment, these latest efforts might be best thought of as a last-minute political stunt designed to energize young, college-educated voters rather than an earnest policy effort.

The post Biden Administration Says It Will Finalize Second Attempt at Blanket Student Loan Forgiveness This Fall appeared first on Reason.com.

More than half of Americans believe the First Amendment can go too far in the rights it guarantees, according to a new survey from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a First Amendment–focused nonprofit.

The survey, released on Thursday, asked 1,000 American adults a range of questions about the First Amendment, free speech, and the security of those rights. Fifty-three percent of respondents agreed with the statement "The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees" to at least some degree, with 28 percent reporting that it "mostly" or "completely" describes their thoughts.

Americans were further divided along partisan lines. Over 60 percent of Democrats thought the First Amendment could go too far, compared to 52 percent of Republicans.

"Evidently, one out of every two Americans wishes they had fewer civil liberties," Sean Stevens, FIRE's chief research adviser, said on Thursday. "Many of them reject the right to assemble, to have a free press, and to petition the government. This is a dictator's fantasy."

Further, 1 in 5 respondents said they were "somewhat" or "very" worried about losing their job if someone complains about something they said. Eighty-three percent reported self-censoring in the past month, with 23 percent doing so "fairly" or "very" often.

Just 22 percent of respondents said they believed the right to free speech was "very" or "completely" secure. But despite these concerns, over a third said they trusted the government "somewhat," "very much," or "completely" to make fair decisions about what speech is deemed "intimidating," "threatening," "harassing," and "indecent," among other labels.

In all, almost 7 out of every 10 respondents agreed that America is going in the wrong direction when it comes to free speech—though it's not clear whether respondents think our culture and government are becoming too tolerant, or not tolerant enough, of controversial speech.

This latest survey indicates that many Americans are concerned about the security of free speech rights, yet also eager to censor speech they personally find distasteful.

"Americans have little tolerance for certain forms of protected speech and a lot of tolerance for unprotected conduct, when it should be the other way around," Stevens said. "This poll reveals that the state of free speech in America is dire."

The post More Than Half of Americans Think the First Amendment Provides Too Many Rights appeared first on Reason.com.

Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich was released from Russian captivity on Thursday as part of the largest prisoner swap between Russia and Western nations in decades. Gershkovich had been imprisoned for nearly 500 days and was recently sentenced to 16 years in a penal colony.

Gershkovich was arrested in March 2023 while on assignment in Yekaterinburg, Russia. Russian authorities claimed he was obtaining information for the CIA, though the allegations against Gershkovich are widely assumed to be false and have been denied strenuously by the Journal. 

Gershkovich was released around 11:20 a.m. Eastern time at an airport in Ankara, Turkey. Several other prisoners were also released, including Russia-critical journalists Alsu Kurmasheva and Vladimir Kara-Murza, and American former Marine Paul Whelan, who had been imprisoned since 2018. Russian hit man Vadim Krasikov, who was imprisoned in Germany after receiving a life sentence for killing a Chechen rebel, was released back to Russia as part of the deal.

In total, the swap involved two dozen prisoners from at least six countries, according to The Wall Street Journal.

"The exchange is emblematic of a new era of state-sponsored hostage-taking by autocratic governments seeking leverage over rivals. It was negotiated as tensions soared between Russia and the West over the war in Ukraine," the Journal reported on Thursday. "It also offers sobering evidence of the asymmetry between the U.S. and Russia in this new, piratical order. [Russian President Vladimir] Putin can order foreigners plucked from restaurants and hotels and given lengthy prison sentences on spurious charges—something an American leader can't do."

While this is the largest prisoner swap the U.S. has engaged in in recent years to free citizens imprisoned in Russia, it isn't its first. In December 2022, WNBA player Brittney Griner was released in a swap for notorious Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout after being held for almost nine months on drug charges. While securing the release of Griner, Gershkovich, and other American citizens from wrongful Russian captivity is vital, it may also work to incentivize Russian authorities to continue jailing Americans on false charges.

"The deal that secured their freedom was a feat of diplomacy," President Joe Biden said shortly after Thursday's prisoner swap. "Some of these women and men have been unjustly held for years. All have endured unimaginable suffering and uncertainty. Today, their agony is over….I will not stop working until every American wrongfully detained or held hostage around the world is reunited with their family."

The post <i>Wall Street Journal</i> Reporter Evan Gershkovich Released From Russian Captivity appeared first on Reason.com.

Seven out of 10 college students say that speech can be just as damaging as physical violence, according to a new survey from the Knight Foundation, a journalism and free speech nonprofit. The survey, which polled more than 1,600 college students, also found that since 2016, college students' faith in the security of free speech rights has declined.

"2024 marks a crisis for free speech on college campuses as international conflicts, like the war in Gaza, and domestic strife come to a head, bringing urgent political and personal issues to center stage," the report states. "With campuses cracking down on protests, political leaders casting a questioning eye on the decisions of university administrators, and emerging technology making disinformation easier and faster to produce, the position of higher education as a forum for open discussion has never been more crucial or imperiled."

The Knight Foundation's survey asked students a wide range of questions on campus free speech and the First Amendment in general. The survey also asked students to identify their race, household income, and political affiliation. 

Sixty percent of students agreed with the statement "the climate at my school or on my campus prevents some people from saying things they believe, because others might find it offensive." The figure is up from 54 percent in 2016, but down from a high of 65 percent in 2021. Additionally, more than 1 in 4 agreed that it was more important for schools to "protect students by prohibiting speech they may find offensive or biased," rather than prioritizing allowing students to hear a wide range of viewpoints, including possibly offensive ones. Students were sharply divided by political opinion on this question, with 70 percent of Republicans, 53 percent of Independents, and 45 percent of Democrats supporting allowing offensive speech.

Why do so many students support censorship? It's not exactly clear, but the rest of the survey offers some clues. For example, 70 percent of students, including 82 percent of Democrats and 59 percent of Republicans, agreed that speech can be just as damaging as physical violence. Forty-four percent reported feeling uncomfortable in college because of "something someone said in reference to your race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation—whether or not it was directed at you," up from 25 percent in 2016. It's not clear, however, whether this increase is due to an uptick in genuinely offensive statements or increasing student intolerance towards mild political disagreements. 

On the bright side, increasing numbers of students opposed instituting policies like restrictive speech codes or providing safe spaces. Since 2017, support for speech codes has declined 23 percentage points, and support for safe spaces declined 15 percentage points. Support for disinviting potentially offensive speakers stayed roughly the same since 2017, declining by just three percentage points, to 25 percent after a brief jump to 42 percent in 2019.

"American society continues to be at a crossroads over how to apply First Amendment rights in the 21st century, particularly on college campuses," the report reads. "That is why it is essential that thought leaders, administrators, professors, and the public listen to the voices of college students as they grapple with issues of free speech in America and on campus."

The post 70 Percent of College Students Say Speech Can Be as Damaging as Physical Violence appeared first on Reason.com.

In 2024, the federal budget deficit is estimated to reach nearly $2 trillion, according to new projections released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) this week. In February, the agency predicted that the deficit would only be $1.58 trillion. However, spending increases have caused the projected deficit to increase by $400 billion, a staggering 27 percent hike. 

According to the CBO, 80 percent of the spike in the deficit can be blamed on four sources of government spending.

The largest source, responsible for $145 billion of the increase, is changes to the federal student loan program that have resulted in massive waves of federal student loan forgiveness and increased forgiveness going forward.

Second, the CBO's report details how the costs for "deposit insurance have increased by about $70 billion because the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is not recovering payments it made when resolving bank failures in 2023 and 2024 as quickly as CBO previously anticipated."

Third, an additional $60 billion in cost increases came from additional legislation. And lastly, $50 billion in increased spending came from higher-than-expected Medicaid costs.

The long-term outlook for the budget deficit has increased too. In February, the CBO estimated that in 2034, the deficit would climb to $2.5 trillion. Its latest estimate now places that number as over $2.8 trillion.

"For the 2025–2034 period, CBO now projects that if current laws generally remained unchanged, the cumulative deficit would be $22.1 trillion. That amount is $2.1 trillion (or 10 percent) more than the $20.0 trillion the agency projected this past February," reads the CBO's report. "Measured in relation to the size of the economy, federal debt at the end of 2034 is now projected to equal 122 percent of gross domestic product (GDP); in February, debt at the end of that year was projected to equal 116 percent of GDP."

If the deficit continues to increase as the CBO predicts, the outcome could be disastrous. 

"As debt grows unabated, there is the risk of a sudden loss of confidence in bond markets, with investors demanding much higher interest rates that could trigger a debt doom loop and broader fiscal crisis," Cato Institute researchers Romina Boccia and Dominik Lett warned this week. "Congress and the Biden administration should cut spending now while the economy is growing and conditions are favorable for deficit reduction, alleviating pressure on interest rates and the federal debt to grow, and before a fiscal crisis forces their hands."

The post Federal Budget Deficit Forecast Jumps $400 Billion, Fueled by Student Debt Forgiveness appeared first on Reason.com.

Pixar's Inside Out, released in 2015, was a delightful—if tear-jerking—journey through the mind of a precocious 11-year-old girl named Riley and the five emotions (Joy, Sadness, Anger, Fear, and Disgust) that attempted to pilot her subconscious through a disruptive cross-country move.

The first Inside Out arrived on the precipice of a major change in how American culture treats mental health. While the first film's handling of Riley's slump into depression felt boundary pushing, its sequel comes at a time when the risks of talking too much about mental health are starting to be examined. 

In Inside Out 2, Riley faces another mental health catastrophe. Two years have passed, and Joy—voiced by an energetic Amy Poehler—is still leading Riley's team of emotions. The now-teenage Riley has just graduated middle school with top marks, two best friends, and a solid self-concept lovingly curated by Joy. 

However, peace doesn't last for long. The night before Riley is set to attend a sleepaway hockey camp, puberty—coming in the form of a literal wrecking ball—blasts into her subconscious. As part of Riley's mental overhaul, she gets four new emotions: the bright orange, Animal-esque Anxiety (voiced by a jittery Maya Hawke), Ennui, Embarrassment, and Envy.

Riley's new emotions quickly take over, insisting that she needs more complex, sophisticated emotions to guide her, leaving the old crew literally bottled up, trapped in a dark vault in the back of Riley's brain.

Ruled by Anxiety, things quickly go south for Riley, who becomes convinced that the only way to ensure that she isn't lonely in high school is to get on her new school's competitive, championship-winning hockey team. As a result, she becomes crippled by self-doubt—and ends up alienating the friends she already has.

In order to save her from completely spiraling out of control, the old team of emotions must journey through the labyrinth of Riley's mind, back to her mental control panel before it's too late. 

For those familiar with the first film, Inside Out 2 hits many of the same beats as its predecessor. Riley faces a big life change, and to weather it, Joy has to learn to relinquish some control over Riley's mind. In the first film, that meant letting Riley feel sadness. In the sequel, the lesson is a bit more complicated: Joy learns that she needs to let Riley develop a multifaceted self-concept—one that includes acknowledgment of both her strengths and her flaws.

At a time when concern about skyrocketing rates of depression and anxiety among teenagers is at a high, Inside Out 2 ultimately presents a solution that wouldn't be amiss coming from Jonathan Haidt or Lenore Skenazy. 

In the film, Riley's emotions—especially Joy and Anxiety—ultimately serve a parental role, attempting to protect her and lead her to make good choices, while also having limited ability to control her actions. Riley can only become well-adjusted when her most active emotions learn to relinquish some control.

In Inside Out 2, it's not hard to see Anxiety as a stand-in for an ever-hovering helicopter parent. Anxiety is motivated by an earnest desire to secure Riley's future, but her relentless planning and prodding ultimately make Riley miserable. As in the first film, Joy too has to learn to let go—though that particular beat is slightly less straightforward than in the first Inside Out. 

While Inside Out 2 still has plenty of tear-jerking moments, the—ahem—emotional core of the film is less solid. The new emotions aren't as fully developed as their predecessors, and some of the old emotions end up getting lost in the shuffle. The climax of the film, too, doesn't have the same gut-punching impact as the first film's. However, while Inside Out 2 doesn't quite reach the heights of its predecessor, I found it hard to leave the theater with any hard feelings.

The post Is <i>Inside Out 2</i> Secretly About Helicopter Parenting? appeared first on Reason.com.

A Texas public library can't remove books simply because they discuss topics like "butts and farts," a federal court ruled last week. 

The case is one of the more bizarre instances of library censorship in recent years, but it nonetheless led to a decisive option from the majority, who found that it is unconstitutional to remove library books out of a "desire to limit access to ideas with which they [disagree]."

The legal battle began after Llano County Judge Ron Cunningham received complaints in 2021 concerning "pornographic and overtly sexual books in the library's children's section." The complainants were particularly upset about children's books about "butts and farts."

One of the aggrieved citizens, Llano resident Rochelle Wells, "had been checking out those books continuously for months to prevent others from accessing them."

Following the complaint, Cunningham told the library's director, Amber Milum, to remove the books from library shelves. After more complaints were lodged, Cunningham told the library director to also remove several other books that "depict any type of sexual activity or questionable nudity."

Milum later testified that she would not have removed the books as part of typical curation activities—she only removed them because of directions from county officials. 

Making matters worse, in January 2022, the county's library board was dissolved and replaced with new board members. Two of the complainers who successfully pressured Cunningham to order books removed were placed on the new board.

According to the opinion, the new board "implemented several policy changes, including prohibiting Milum from attending their meetings and requiring her to seek approval before purchasing any new books."

Seven library patrons brought a suit in 2022, arguing that the removal of the book was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Eventually, a lower court agreed, granting a preliminary injunction requiring defendants to return the removed books. However, the county appealed. Just this week, a panel of judges from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the plaintiffs.

Referencing other cases surrounding attempted library censorship, the majority opinion constructed a series of "rules" about how books can be removed from library collections. "Librarians may consider books' contents in making curation decisions," Judge Jaques Weiner Jr. wrote in the majority opinion. "Their discretion, however, must be balanced against patrons' First Amendment rights…a book may not be removed for the sole—or a substantial—reason that the decision-maker does not wish patrons to be able to access the book's viewpoint or message."

The motivation for removing targeted books from Llamo public libraries doesn't meet this test. The opinion notes that censors wanted the books gone simply because they didn't like their content. 

"Government actors may not remove books from a public library with the intent to deprive patrons of access to ideas with which they disagree," the opinion concludes. "Because that is apparently what occurred in Llano County, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim."

The post Texas Public Library Can't Remove Books About 'Butts and Farts,' Federal Court Rules appeared first on Reason.com.

A group of Burlington, Vermont, high school students were touring a local police department as part of a forensics class this week. In the middle of a presentation from a detective, the unthinkable happened: a masked gunman burst into the room and seemed to open fire.

The students were terrified. One says she dove on the ground, hurting her knee. Another says she reached for her phone to text her mother.

But soon, the students realized that they weren't actually being shot at. Instead, they were the victims of a bizarre "demonstration" from the local police.

According to Seven Days, a Vermont independent newspaper, the students had no idea that the presentation would involve a mock shooting. Students were watching a detective speak at the front of a room when they heard screams. Two women ran in, followed by a man wearing a ski mask, who—it seemed—began firing.

"I'm shaking and crying because I'm like, 'Oh my god, I'm gonna get shot,'" one student told Seven Days. "It felt so real."

The students eventually realized that the shooting was fake after police officers in the room failed to do anything to stop the apparent gunman.

While performing a fake mass shooting with high schoolers was obviously a terrible idea, it's unclear whether high school staff also share some blame for needlessly terrifying the students. 

The teachers told Seven Days that, while they knew officers would possibly demonstrate a "gunshot-related crime," they had no idea they wouldn't be warned first. However, in an email obtained by Seven Days, "teachers said officers told them that they'd previously used the lesson with college students and adults, and that they wanted the event to be 'as realistic as possible.'"

In a statement, police claimed that school staff had agreed to the content of the demonstration and that it would include "fake firearms in a mock shooting." 

"Do you think that sort of incident would be ok for your group of students?" police asked school employees on May 23. "It is about as real life as you can get, and is certainly exactly the sort of thing we deal with most frequently."

"I think these students will be fine with this simulation," school employees replied, according to a statement from police. "We will give a heads up to parents and students."

No matter how you slice it, there's not much educational utility to having a fake gunman commit a "mock shooting" in a room full of unaware high school students. However, it's far from the first time that police have gone overboard with educational demonstrations like this. In 2019, police in Indiana shot elementary school teachers with airsoft guns during an active shooter training drill. Those teachers filed a lawsuit.

The post Vermont Cops Terrorize High School Students With 'Mock Shooting' appeared first on Reason.com.

For nearly a decade, the transit authority in Washington, D.C., has faced controversy over restrictive guidelines governing advertisements in the city's subways and busses. Now, it might have to scrap some of them.

The controversial rules prohibit any ad that is "issues-oriented" or "intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions." The guidelines also single out religious ads, prohibiting "advertisements that promote or oppose any religion, religious practice or belief."

Last month, a D.C. district court ruled in favor of a Christian group seeking to challenge the rules, placing a preliminary injunction on part of the guidelines that ban ads "intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions."

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) first enacted the controversial rules after an anti-Islam activist attempted to buy an advertisement depicting Muhammad in 2015.

In 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union sued WMATA over the guidelines, joined by plaintiffs ranging from vegan group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. That case is still ongoing. In 2018, however, a D.C. district court ruled against a request for a preliminary injunction against WMATA's rules.

But the ACLU has joined another lawsuit challenging the guidelines on First Amendment grounds—this time, to much better success. This latest lawsuit was filed in December 2023 by WallBuilders, an organization that aims to educate the public "concerning the Godly foundation of our country," according to legal records.

When WallBuilders attempted to purchase ads to go in WMATA busses, reading "Christian? To find out about the faith of our founders, go to wallbuilders.com." WMATA rejected the ads, citing their guidelines. When WallBuilders resubmitted the ads, omitting all text except "visit wallbuilders.com," they were still rejected.

WallBuilders sued. On May 21, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the District Court of D.C. granted WallBuilder's motion for a preliminary injunction, halting enforcement on the part of the guidelines that prohibited advertisements seeking "to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions."

"WMATA is permitted to retain considerable discretion in evaluating the intent and purpose of an ad…but this discretion must be coupled with objective, workable standards," wrote Howell. "Put simply, the utterly undefined use of the phrase '[a]dvertisements intended to influence . . . regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions,' coupled with the lack of any definitions or official guidance and WMATA's inconsistent application of [the guideline], makes clear that [it] is not a reasonable restriction on speech."

The ruling is a major victory for a whole range of controversial groups who want to buy ads on D.C. buses and subways. It also sends a clear message to WMATA: While it can place some restrictions on the content of ads, its rules have to be well-defined and narrowly tailored. 

The post D.C.'s Rules for Subway Ads Are Blocked in Federal Court appeared first on Reason.com.

On Tuesday, Harvard officials announced that the university would adopt a formal stance of ideological neutrality on political events and other controversial issues. The decision comes after months of tumultuous campus protests over the war between Israel and Hamas.

Earlier this month, a faculty-led working group published a report that strongly recommended adopting a neutral stance on topics that do not directly concern the university itself.

"The university has a responsibility to speak out to protect and promote its core function. Its leaders must communicate the value of the university's central activities. They must defend the university's autonomy and academic freedom when threatened," the report stated. "The university and its leaders should not, however, issue official statements about public matters that do not directly affect the university's core function."

The report hinted at what is likely the prevailing reason behind Harvard's push toward neutrality—the immense pressure faced by school officials to weigh in on Hamas' October 7 attack against Israel, and the ongoing war in Gaza. The report noted how, if officials make statements about one topic unrelated to the university's core function, the school opens itself up to demands it comment on every other controversy.

"If the university and its leaders become accustomed to issuing official statements about matters beyond the core function of the university, they will inevitably come under intense pressure to do so from multiple, competing sides on nearly every imaginable issue of the day," said the report. "This is the reality of contemporary public life in an era of social media and political polarization."

Survey results released last week by The Harvard Crimson indicate widespread faculty support for neutrality. The survey found that more than 70 percent of Arts and Sciences faculty supported a shift to formal neutrality and more than half reported feeling "somewhat negatively" or "negatively" about "the current state of academic freedom at Harvard"

The announcement was met with widespread praise from free expression advocates.

"For better or worse, what Harvard does, others follow," Angel Eduardo, senior writer and editor at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, wrote on Tuesday. "The principles outlined in the Institutional Voice Working Group's report don't just bode well for Harvard's future on free speech and academic freedom—they may also signal a significant sea change in colleges across the country."

On Wednesday, Syracuse University also announced that it would adopt the recommendations of a similar working group and take an official neutral stance.

"We embrace the guiding principle that the remedy for speech that some may find hurtful, offensive, or even hateful is not the disruption, obstruction, or suppression of the free speech of others, but rather more speech," a statement from the university reads. "Except under the most extraordinary circumstances and with the sole purpose of protecting its mission of discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge, the University does not make institutional statements or pronouncements on current controversies."

The post Harvard Announces It Will Stop Releasing Political Statements appeared first on Reason.com.

Will AI kill the five-paragraph essay? To find out, I asked my ninth grade English teacher.

The five-paragraph essay is a mainstay of high school writing instruction, designed to teach students how to compose a simple thesis and defend it in a methodical, easily graded package. It's literature analysis at its most basic, and most rigid, level.

A typical five-paragraph essay asks students to pick a simple thesis, usually from a list of prompts, and compose a short introductory paragraph, followed by three paragraphs each laying out a different piece of supporting evidence, followed by a final paragraph—usually beginning, "In conclusion…."

Critics argue this assignment kills student creativity and turns writing into an exercise in pure drudgery. I tend to agree, remembering my time spent composing five-paragraph essays as soul-rending—forcing me to focus on sticking to a formula and a restrictive prompt rather than actually analyzing the books I was reading.

But the sudden ubiquity of large language models such as ChatGPT threatens to upend this status quo.

"I am *shocked* by how good OpenAI's new chat" is, University of Toronto professor Kevin Bryan tweeted after the first release of ChatGPT. "You can no longer give take-home exams/homework."

To test this hypothesis, I sat down in front of ChatGPT and gave it a classic freshman-year English prompt: "Please write me an approximately 500-word, five-paragraph essay discussing the role of Newspeak in controlling the people of Oceania in George Orwell's novel, 1984. Please use MLA formatting and include 1–2 quotes per paragraph."

In response, it spit out an—ahem—six-paragraph, 588-word essay.

"In George Orwell's dystopian novel '1984,' the ruling Party of Oceania employs Newspeak as a potent tool for controlling the thoughts and behaviors of its citizens," the essay begins. "Newspeak, a language designed to limit freedom of expression and thought, serves as a mechanism for the Party to maintain its authoritarian rule and suppress dissent. Through the manipulation of language, the Party effectively restricts the ability of individuals to articulate dissenting ideas, ultimately consolidating its power over the population."

And then I sent it to my ninth grade English teacher.

Corey Craft taught English at the Alabama School of Fine Arts for nine years and now serves as an instructor in the school's creative writing department. A decade ago, I first read 1984 for his class.

"I'd give this essay a mid-level B—an 85," he told me. "Is the content OK? Sure. It's a little surface-level…but it gets the major points right."

Yet he also noted the essay's impressive vocabulary—phrases such as "linguistic manipulation" and "reshape historical narratives"—would sound some alarm bells. "There are words and concepts used in this paper that I would find suspicious coming from the average ninth grader," Craft added.

ChatGPT also made another glaring fumble—producing a six-paragraph essay, despite my multiple attempts to rephrase the prompt so it would stick to just five paragraphs.

While the typical ninth grade cheater might not be clever enough to fix these mistakes—Craft says he sometimes sees plagiarism where students have copy-pasted text without changing the font or text color—it's only a matter of time before tools such as ChatGPT work out these kinks.

Much to the chagrin of the five-paragraph essay's harshest critics, myself included, it doesn't look like ChatGPT will spell the end of the assignment. While five-paragraph essays are achingly dull, they do serve a simple purpose—they match the median student's ability level, even if it means leaving behind the significant minority of kids who can barely read by eighth grade and infuriating a small cohort of nerds who end up getting degrees in Renaissance literature.

There simply isn't an obvious alternative to the five-paragraph essay—and certainly not one that is somehow immune from inevitable AI mimicry. In a ChatGPT-saturated world, teachers will likely resort to giving students handwritten, in-class five-paragraph essays instead of ditching the assignment entirely—even if this is "more of a pain for the student to complete and more of a pain for the teacher to grade," Craft notes.

In short, rather than reshape writing instruction, educators will find new, less technology-dependent ways to keep doing the same thing.

"That may take trial and error," Craft says, "but that's part of the fun of the job."

The post Rethinking the 5-Paragraph Essay in the Age of AI appeared first on Reason.com.

One of the most persistent myths in K-12 education is the idea that high-poverty schools are near-universally, significantly underfunded. However, the truth is much more complicated. As it turns out, poor districts get more money in almost every state—and school spending has an incredibly weak relationship with school quality in the first place.

This week, USA Today published another example of fearmongering, giving a Thursday article the inexplicable headline, "Enrichment only for the rich? How school segregation continues to divide students by income." However, the research the article presents doesn't exactly show the apocalyptic outcomes implied by the headline. In fact, the research it cites concluded that "poverty rates do not have a clear relationship" with local and state funding.

Reporter Alia Wong's article is filled with heartwrenching stories of schools with "regular lockdowns and the sound of gunfire in the lobby," where "classrooms lacked basic supplies and teachers didn't notice how often [a student] skipped class. Desks tended to be broken and textbooks decades old."

While these situations are tragic, the reality is a bit more complex. Not only is the funding gap between wealthier and poorer schools found by the researchers smaller than you might think—it disappeared when dividing schools based on their poverty rates. Further, other research shows that school funding, and thus the chaotic, neglectful state of many failing schools, has basically no relationship with school quality. 

The study, from education think tank Bellwether, examined schools in 123 metropolitan areas and classified districts into lower, middle, and wealthy based on how much local income and property values differed from the average in their metro area. The researchers did this in order to study funding differences between schools in the same area—meaning that some districts in the lowest category (what they called Opportunity Outsiders) are not actually high-poverty schools.

In all, researchers found that wealthy districts received the most total funding in their metro area just 39 percent of the time. However, they did find a modest, but significant funding gap between wealthier and poorer schools. The median Opportunity Outsider school spent $14,287 per pupil, while the median wealthy school (called Economic Elite) spent $16,702. 

However, this gap all but vanished when the researchers reclassified schools not based on relative wealth but on their actual poverty rates. The study concluded that "poverty rates do not have a clear relationship with the amount of state and local revenue that districts receive."

So do the schools poor kids actually go to receive less funding? Not according to this study. Only the schools that are among the poorest in their metro area—which includes plenty of schools in wealthy areas, where the relatively poorest school has only average poverty—that face a funding gap. 

And that's only accounting for local and state funding. When you include federal funding, the situation becomes even better for high-poverty schools. According to research from the Urban Institute, when considering "federal, state, and local funding, almost all states allocate more per-student funding to poor kids than to nonpoor kids." Just three states, Nevada, Wyoming, and Illinois have a "weakly" regressive funding structure. 

If so many states allocate more money to poor districts, why do low-income schools have worse results? As it turns out, per-pupil spending doesn't seem to impact school quality all that much. One 2012 report by Harvard and Stanford researchers, found that, on average, an extra "$1000 in per-pupil spending is associated with an annual gain in achievement of one-tenth of 1 percent of a standard deviation," an increase the researchers say is "of no statistical or substantive significance."

This isn't to say that funding doesn't matter at all. Rather, low-income school districts tend to spend their funding less responsibly. 

"More money can help schools succeed, but not if they fritter those extra resources in unproductive ways," Jay Greene, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Reason last year. "There are many common ways that schools blow resources. Wasteful schools tend to hire more non-instructional staff while raising the pay and benefit costs for all staff regardless of their contribution to student outcomes."

Despite the headlines pointing to the contrary, high-poverty school districts aren't generally underfunded and funding gaps aren't responsible for lackluster academic performance. That's not to say we shouldn't be concerned when poorer schools receive lower funding, but rather that the issues in underperforming schools almost certainly won't be fixed by throwing more cash at the problem.

The post Are Poor Schools Underfunded? It's More Complex Than You'd Think. appeared first on Reason.com.

Across the nation, college administrators are cracking down on pro-Palestenian speech. In Texas, police violently broke up peaceful protests, and one college even reportedly told students that they couldn't use the phrases "Israel," "Zionism," or chant in Arabic. At Brandeis University, police shut down a pro-Palestine protest because its president said it had "devolved into the invocation of hate speech."

While progressives have tended to support campus censorship efforts in recent years, an article in Vox by writer Eric Levitz argues that the left should embrace free speech—and that its push to censor speech in the name of inclusion and social justice was misguided. 

"Should students concerned with social justice rethink their previous skepticism of free speech norms, for the sake of better protecting radical dissent? I think the answer is yes." wrote Levitz. "There is reason to believe that progressives would be better equipped to resist the present crackdown on pro-Palestinian advocacy had social justice activists not previously popularized an expansive conception of harmful speech."

Levitz's article also argues that rejecting censorship could lead the left to find more allies when their ideas are on the chopping block.

"In a world where right-of-center intellectuals had more cause for believing that their defense of leftists' free expression would be reciprocated," Levitz wrote, "it seems plausible that opposition to the Antisemitism Awareness Act might be a bit more widespread and its prospects for clearing the Senate somewhat dimmer."

While Levitz's piece is refreshing, its support for free speech isn't about adopting a new appreciation for the principles of free expression, regardless of political viewpoint. It's about adopting the best policies to protect left-wing ideas.

Save several paragraphs reminding progressives that debate is necessary for finding the truth and that "the more insulated any ideological orthodoxy is from critique, the more vulnerable it will be to persistent errors," Levitz's argument is pragmatic in nature. He spends most of the piece—correctly—arguing that if progressives had been willing to take a stand against censorship of right-wing beliefs, the current norms allowing for the censorship of pro-Palestine activists would not have been set in place. 

However, if your reason to defend speech is purely practical and self-interested, it becomes much easier to indulge in exceptions to your free speech principles. Surely, allowing the censorship of the most offensive, unproductive viewpoints couldn't be used to justify the suppression of your own, much better, ideas, right?

Levitz even hints at such exceptions. "If adopting a permissive attitude toward campus speech entailed significant costs to progressive causes, then doing so might be unwise," he wrote, later adding, "Defending free speech and standing up for the disempowered may sometimes be competing objectives."

When your defense of free speech comes from a core, universal principle, calls for censorship are unthinkable. This is why, for example, it's so frustrating to see Levitz group the First Amendment nonprofit the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) with a long list of "conservatives" who have spoken out against censorship of pro-Palestinian activism. 

FIRE—and everyone else smeared as "conservative" for standing up against censorship—doesn't begrudgingly defend left-wing speech so that right-wing speech will stay protected—they're a nonpartisan organization that defends First Amendment rights because they believe fiercely in the importance of free speech.

Perhaps the biggest flaw is that Levitz's piece still doesn't make the core realization that there can be true, principled, defenders of free speech—those who truly think a nation with more ideas and more voices, even offensive ones, is better than one with fewer. Instead, he sees speech protections as a kind of truce, a decision from both the left and right to leave each other alone so they can both best further their political goals.

We would have a better, more functional world if more people—left or right—were willing to passionately defend the free speech rights of those with whom they disagree. However, getting to that world requires that people let go of the idea that censorship is ever a good idea, not merely that it's impractical. 

The post <i>Vox</i> Wants Progressives To Support Free Speech for the Wrong Reasons appeared first on Reason.com.

Is college worth it? Well, it depends on what degree you're getting and where you're getting it, according to a new paper from the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP), an economic opportunity think tank.

While more than three-quarters of all bachelor's degrees have a positive return on investment (ROI), according to the paper, master's and associate degrees are much riskier bets—with many costing students in the long run.

The paper, by Senior Fellow Preston Cooper, examined data from over 50,000 degree and certificate programs at thousands of American colleges and universities. Cooper's analysis looked at how much students were earning immediately after graduation, as well as how much they were making 10 years later. The paper also took into account a student's chance of dropping out when calculating a degree program's ROI.

In all, Cooper found that 31 percent of students are enrolled in a program with a negative ROI—meaning that "the earnings benefits of the degree are unlikely to fully compensate students for the cost and risk of pursuing post-secondary education."

However, different kinds of degrees were more likely to have a negative ROI than others. For example, 77 percent of bachelor's degrees and doctoral and professional degrees have a positive ROI. In contrast, just 57 percent of master's and associate degree programs have a positive ROI. 

For bachelor's degrees, fine arts, education, and biology programs had the lowest median ROI, while engineering, computer science, and nursing degrees gave students the highest long-term rewards.

However, where college students were enrolled also mattered when it came to ROI. For example, an English degree from the University of Virginia has a $581,925 positive return on investment—climbing to over $600,000 when only including students who graduated on time. In contrast, students at Virginia Commonwealth University—another public university—who majored in English have a negative $30,000 ROI, with just a $3,624 benefit for those who end up graduating on time.

"When choosing a college and program of study, students should evaluate several key variables that contribute to ROI. The most important is earnings after graduation," Cooper writes. "Besides starting salary, another critical factor is the institution's completion rate. While students' individual ability and motivation affects their likelihood of completion, research shows that college quality also has an impact on completion rates."

Cooper also pointed out just how much federal dollars go toward funding low-value degree programs. He found that 29 percent of the federal funding that went to the programs he studied went to programs with a negative ROI.

"That figure includes $37 billion in Pell Grants, $47 billion in loans to undergraduates, and $39 billion in loans to graduate students," Cooper writes. "Because ROI is negative for these programs, it's unlikely that most of those loan dollars will be repaid." 

This latest paper paints a detailed picture of the kinds of concerns prospective students and their families should take into account when deciding whether to enroll in college. While bachelor's degrees are still a good bet overall, students need to consider what they'll really get out of both the major they want to study and the school they've been accepted into.

The post Nearly Half of All Masters Degrees Aren't Worth Getting appeared first on Reason.com.

Following persistent technical issues with this year's updated, streamlined Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form, the Education Department has announced a $50 million program to help more students complete the form—next year.

The chunk of funding is aimed at "expand[ing] the availability of advisers, counselors, and coaches to support students and contributors through the FAFSA applications," according to a Monday press release.

"We are determined to close the FAFSA completion gap," Deputy Secretary of Education Cindy Marten said. "The funding we're announcing today will support states, districts, and community-based groups [to] build capacity and leverage their power to ensure that every student who needs help paying for college turns in their FAFSA form."

FAFSA is required for any college students seeking federal grants or loans. Most colleges also use the form to determine how much institutional financial aid to offer students. In a typical year, over 15 million students and their families fill out the FAFSA form. But as of late April, successful applications are down 24 percent this year due to ubiquitous technical bugs in the updated form.

This year's issues stem from the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, which mandated that the Education Department release a simplified version of the FAFSA form. The updated form was released in December—more than two months later than the typical release date. Almost immediately, the form was plagued with errors and bugs that made it nearly impossible to complete for many students.

FAFSA's own website details many of the issues with the form since its release. While most can be fixed with complicated "workarounds," some kept affected students from filling out the form for months. In March, the Education Department even announced that they had incorrectly calculated the completed forms of 200,000 students, leading to some possibly receiving more generous financial aid offers than they were actually eligible for.

Instead of publicly committing to solving these issues for next year's form, the Education Department is attempting to ameliorate its mistakes by throwing money at the problem. Why make a better FAFSA when you can pay people to shepherd students and their families through an infuriatingly complex process?

According to USA Today, the Education Department usually releases a draft version of next year's FAFSA in February or March, but that hasn't happened yet—hardly a good sign for next year's form.

While it's unclear whether students will have a smoother FAFSA experience next year, at least they can say they've gotten an apology. 

"I apologize to the students and families that have had to deal with delays," Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said during a congressional hearing this week. "I know how frustrating that is."

The post The Government's Solution to FAFSA Chaos: Spend $50 Million More appeared first on Reason.com.

On Wednesday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed a bill banning the sale or production of lab-grown meat in the state. While a press release framed the bill as an attempt to advance Floridans' freedom by protecting them from the "World Economic Forum's goal of forcing the world to eat lab-grown meat and insects," all the legislation really does is stile competition for the state's meat producers. 

"Today, Florida is fighting back against the global elite's plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish or bugs to achieve their authoritarian goals," DeSantis said in a Wednesday press release. "Our administration will continue to focus on investing in our local farmers and ranchers, and we will save our beef."

Cultivated, or "lab-grown," meat has been available in the United States on an extremely limited basis, generally limited to individual restaurants, since last year, after the Food and Drug Administration approved two different kinds of cultivated chicken for sale.

However, despite DeSantis' supposed fears about a lab-grown meat takeover, the small cultivated meat industry is struggling. The product isn't currently available anywhere in the United States, let alone in Florida.

Nonetheless, the governor signed Senate Bill 1084, which enacts a wide-ranging ban on cultivated meat, making it illegal "for any person to manufacture for sale, sell, hold or offer for sale, or distribute cultivated meat in" Florida. Violators of the law face misdemeanor penalties, and businesses caught selling the product could have their licenses suspended.

"We must protect our incredible farmers and the integrity of American agriculture," Florida Commissioner of Agriculture Wilton Simpson said in the press release. "Lab-grown meat is a disgraceful attempt to undermine our proud traditions and prosperity, and is in direct opposition to authentic agriculture."

However, it seems DeSantis is the real authoritarian in this situation. Instead of letting Floridians decide for themselves whether they want to try lab-grown meat, DeSantis is having the state step in, all in the name of protecting Floridians from an imaginary threat to their freedom.

Florida's lab-grown meat ban is a perfect marriage of protectionism and the culture war. By framing the tiny lab-grown meat industry as a left-wing threat, DeSantis can justify giving government kickbacks to the meat industry, all while protecting meat producers from a source of future competition. Wednesday's press release goes so far as to brag about a litany of recently passed legislation that "support[s] the state's agriculture and meat industry."

Unfortunately, Florida isn't the first state to ban cultivated meat. Alabama passed a ban on lab-grown meat last month, and legislation to ban the product is pending in Arizona and Tennessee. Italy banned it last year.

The post DeSantis Signs Bill Banning Lab-Grown Meat in Florida appeared first on Reason.com.

In 2021, Whittier, California, police arrested Victor Manuel Martinez Wario on an outstanding warrant related to a 2012 child molestation conviction. The only problem? Police had arrested the wrong person. However, despite Wario frequently telling police he didn't have any warrants out for his arrest, they didn't bother to check—leaving Wario imprisoned for five days. 

Now, Wario is suing, claiming that police negligence amounted to a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The officer's actions caused Wario to suffer "emotional and mental trauma," according to the suit. "He also missed time at work, and was unable to provide care to his disabled fiancée."

In March 2021, Wario was pulled over by several Whittier police officers for a minor traffic violation. During the stop, police mistakenly found that he had an active warrant out for his arrest. Even though Wario denied that he had any active warrants, he was still arrested and booked into a nearby jail.

According to the lawsuit, during the booking process, police told Wario that the warrant originated from Wario's failure to register as a sex offender and "check in with the probation department" after a 2012 conviction for child molestation. Wario again "adamantly told them that they had the wrong person," the complaint reads. But, again, no one decided to double-check that the police had arrested the correct person.

Two days later, Wario was transferred to another jail. This time, "he was assigned special housing for custodies with child molestation cases, given a specially colored jumpsuit indicating his status as a sex offender, and a wristband was placed on his wrist also showing that his case involved child molestation," the suit reads. "Because of his perceived status as a convicted child molester, Mr. Wario was in serious jeopardy of being attacked by fellow inmates."

That day, he was taken to be arraigned. During a brief discussion with his attorney, he again insisted that he was the wrong person. However, when the attorney relayed this to Judge Mary Lou Villar, she set a $30,000 bail and refused to release Wario.  

"She ordered a fingerprints expert to appear in court the following week to take his fingerprints and verify his identity," the suit reads. 

However, the following day, someone finally took basic measures to check Wario's claims. According to the suit, "the Deputy District Attorney assigned to the case obtained the booking photo of the actual defendant in the case and determined that it was not Mr. Wario."

It took another day for Wario to be released—five days after his arrest.

On Tuesday, Wario filed a lawsuit against the Whittier Police Department, claiming that his false arrest was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, arguing that police had no reasonable basis for arresting and jailing him.

"No reasonable conclusion could be drawn that such an arrest and confinement was reasonable," his suit reads. "No objective facts readily available and known to Defendants could have reasonably led them to conclude that Plaintiff was a fugitive from justice stemming from a 2012 child molestation case."

The post California Cops Locked an Innocent Man in a Sex Offender Unit for 3 Days appeared first on Reason.com.

In February, police officer John Barton arrested Twyla Stallworth in Andalusia, Alabama, because she refused to give him her photo identification. The only problem? Barton had no legal basis to demand Stallworth fork over her I.D. 

Stallworth's arrest is just the latest in a series of false arrests in Alabama that have stemmed from a misinterpretation of the state's 2006 "stop and identify law," which allows police, when they have reasonable suspicion that a crime is taking place, to demand individuals provide their name, address, and an explanation of their actions—but not their photo I.D.

It's not entirely clear how Barton ended up at Stallworth's home on February 23. A lawsuit filed by Stallworth earlier this month does not provide background on the incident, and video filmed by Stallworth's 18-year-old son Jermari starts after Barton had come to Stallworth's door. According to USA Today, Stallworth's lawyers say that the confrontation started when she called to complain about a neighbor's loud music.

However, even if Barton had some reason to believe Stallworth might have been committing a crime—something that is possible but seems unlikely given Stallworth was in her own home—he still wouldn't have been able to demand her I.D.

"Give me an I.D. or go to jail," Barton told Stallworth, who incredulously responded, "I'm going to jail for not providing my I.D."

In the video of the incident, Barton is seen pushing Jermari away and attempting to handcuff Stallworth.

"Don't push my son! What's wrong with you? You will not push my son!" Stallworth yelled.

A struggle ensued, during which Barton "physically assaulted Ms. Stallworth by shoving her down on a couch," according to the lawsuit.

After Stallworth had been arrested, video shows Jermari asking Barton to see the statute he claims Stallworth violated: "I actually want to see this law in play," he says. 

The statute, which Barton pulled up on his phone, allows police to "stop any person abroad in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or other public offense and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions."

"I don't see where it says anything about an I.D.," Jermari says. "It says your name, address, and an explanation."

"She failed to identify," Barton replied.

"I mean it doesn't specifically, you know, say an I.D.," Jermari added before Barton cut in: "I know, but I'm not going to argue with you either."

Despite Stallworth's son pointing out the obvious—that Stallworth hadn't broken the Alabama identification law—she was still charged with "obstruction, resisting arrest, and eluding," according to the lawsuit. The charges have since been dropped.

On March 8, Mayor of Andalusia Earl Johnson issued a formal apology to Stallworth, saying, "I would like to apologize to Twyla Stallworth for her arrest in February. All charges against Ms. Stallworth are being dropped." Johnson noted that Barton "has been disciplined for failing in his duty to know the law."

This is far from the first time that Alabama cops have misinterpreted the state's "stop and identify" law, wrongfully arresting individuals for not forking over their photo identifications. A man who was watering his neighbor's plants was arrested after refusing to give an officer his I.D. in May 2022. Last October, a federal court refused to grant qualified immunity to police officers who arrested a mechanic who refused to provide a government I.D. in 2019.

"The police are free to ask questions, and the public is free to ignore them," wrote 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Charles R. Wilson in that last case. "Any legal obligation to speak to the police and answer their questions arises as a matter of state law."

The post Alabama Woman Arrested for Refusing To Give a Cop Her I.D. appeared first on Reason.com.

On Friday, the Biden administration unveiled final Title IX regulations, nearly two years after the administration proposed dramatic changes to how colleges handle sexual assault allegations. The new rules largely mirror proposed regulations released last year and will effectively reversing Trump-era due process reforms. 

According to the final regulations, accused students will lose their right to a guaranteed live hearing with the opportunity to have a representative cross-examine their accuser. This is accompanied by a return to the "single-investigator model," which allows a single administrator to investigate and decide the outcome of a case.

Further, under the new rules, most schools will be required to use the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, which directs administrators to find a student responsible if just 51 percent of the evidence points to their guilt. Schools are also no longer required to provide accused students with the full content of the evidence against them. Instead, universities are only bound to provide students with a description of the "relevant evidence," which may be provided "orally" rather than in writing. 

This is a stunning rollback of due process rights for accused students. Under the new regulations, a student can be found responsible for sexually assaulting a classmate because a single administrator believed there was a 51 percent chance he had committed the assault, and this conclusion can be reached without ever allowing the accused student to know the full evidence against him or providing a hearing during which he could defend himself.

The rules also represent a continuing partisan tension in education policy. Following President Barack Obama's 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter, which first mandated campus sexual assault tribunals, regulations have flip-flopped consistently along party lines. In 2020, the Trump administration introduced broad due process rights for accused students while prohibiting schools from taking many cases that occurred off-campus. Today's reforms mark the third major change to Title IX regulations in as many presidents.

"Justice is only possible when hearings are fair for everyone. So today's regulations mean one thing: America's college students are less likely to receive justice if they find themselves in a Title IX proceeding," the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) said in a Friday statement. "When administrators investigate the most serious kinds of campus misconduct, colleges should use the time-tested tools that make finding the truth more likely. But the new regulations no longer require them to do so."

So far, the new rules have been met with widespread praise from victims' rights groups.

"Students who experience sexual violence or discrimination shouldn't have to weigh our safety against our ability to go to class or participate in campus life," said college student Emily Bach in a press release from Know Your IX, a campus sexual assault awareness group. "The Biden Administration's updated Title IX rule will make sure that students who experience harm can come forward and seek support without jeopardizing our ability to graduate on time or get a degree."

But contrary to what many victims' rights activists say, due process rights for accused students are essential, not contrary, in treating campus sexual assault as a pressing issue. College sexual assault victims should be taken seriously—but taking their accusations with the gravity they deserve also means providing those they accuse with the right to defend themselves in kind.

Even if Title IX hearings don't have the gravity of criminal proceedings, they have the potential to upend accused students' lives. Students have been expelled, had their degrees revoked, or even been deported after being found responsible for a Title IX violation. 

If we want university investigations into sexual assault allegations to maintain any sheen of legitimacy, we can't entrust the power to inflict such severe penalties to a single administrator working behind closed doors. Instead, we need a process that puts due process front and center—any other system quickly becomes shamefully untrustworthy.

The post New Title IX Rules Erase Campus Due Process Protections appeared first on Reason.com.

Several inmates in an Oklahoma prison say they were locked in filthy shower stalls, some as small as 2 feet by 2 feet,* for days on end. In a lawsuit filed last week, the inmates claim that this treatment caused "severe physical and emotional suffering," and was an obvious violation of their Eighth Amendment rights.

According to the suit, staff at the Great Plains Correctional Center locked several inmates in small shower stalls for extended periods, without access to basic amenities like adequate food and water. Most were placed in 3-foot by 3-foot shower cells, though at least one was confined in an even smaller space. Confinement periods listed in the suit ranged from 24 hours to four days. 

The suit describes harrowing conditions for inmates held in the shower stalls. They allege they were placed in stalls filled with human feces and deprived of bathroom breaks. Additionally, several inmates say the only water they had access to was scalding hot shower water.

One prisoner confined in the shower stalls says he was repeatedly pepper sprayed during his detention in the ad hoc solitary cell. Another inmate claims that he was left without clothing, and had to borrow a shirt from an inmate in an adjoining stall—a shirt he later used to attempt suicide. That same inmate claims that he wasn't confined for any formal disciplinary infraction, but instead because guards knew that he was a sex offender.

"This systemic practice, akin to an unofficial custom, involved the use of shower stalls for extended confinement, often without even a bucket for defecating or any drinking water save scalding water from the shower," the suit reads. "The conditions were recognized by some members of the prison staff as violations of civil and human rights…some sympathetic staff members attempted to address these harsh conditions but faced internal conflict."

According to the suit, the state of Oklahoma launched an investigation into prisoner treatment at the facility in August 2023—around the same time as many of the alleged confinements. Shockingly, this investigation found that several different Oklahoma facilities regularly locked inmates in shower stalls.

While the state's investigation eventually led to the end of shower cell confinement, the suit argues that inmates are still owed unspecified damages. 

"The Plaintiffs were subject to prolonged confinement in feces-laden shower cells, under conditions lacking basic amenities like restroom facilities, proper bedding, a space to sit or lie down, drinking water, as well as basic humane treatment, which amounted to cruel and unusual punishment," the suit reads. "Despite the obvious and egregious nature of these conditions, the Defendants showed deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs' health, safety, and basic human rights."

*CORRECTION: This piece previously misstated the size of the shower stalls.

The post Oklahoma Prisoners Say They Were Locked In Filthy, Tiny Shower Stalls for Days appeared first on Reason.com.

This week, the University of Southern California (USC) announced that the college's valedictorian, Asna Tabassum, would be barred from speaking at commencement. The school cited concerns that Tabassum, who had recently come under fire for an anti-Israel social media post, would create safety concerns.

USC announced that Tabassum had been selected as the school's valedictorian on April 4, after choosing her from among over 100 students with a GPA of 3.9 or higher.

But less than two weeks later, the school announced that Tabassum would not be allowed to speak at commencement, following complaints from several USC student groups over Tabassum's social media postings. Namely, many cited a link in Tabassum's Instagram bio that calls Zionism a "racist settler-colonial ideology that advocates for a jewish ethnostate built on palestinian land" and calls for "the complete abolishment of the state of israel."

"Unfortunately, over the past several days, discussion relating to the selection of our valedictorian has taken on an alarming tenor," Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs Andrew Guzman wrote in a letter to USC students and faculty. "The intensity of feelings, fueled by both social media and the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, has grown to include many voices outside of USC and has escalated to the point of creating substantial risks relating to security and disruption at commencement."

Rather than directly citing the political content of Tabassum's speech, USC officials made nebulous claims that her speech might imperil student safety.

"While this is disappointing, tradition must give way to safety," wrote Guzman. "This decision is not only necessary to maintain the safety of our campus and students, but is consistent with the fundamental legal obligation—including the expectations of federal regulators—that universities act to protect students and keep our campus community safe."

Ironically, Guzman argued that the decision had nothing to do with free expression concerns. "To be clear: this decision has nothing to do with freedom of speech," he wrote. "There is no free-speech entitlement to speak at a commencement. The issue here is how best to maintain campus security and safety, period."

However, Guzman is hardly convincing. 

"Implicit in the idea of a campus committed to robust expressive rights is that administrators won't censor their students just because they have controversial views," wrote Alex Morey, an attorney for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). "Here, USC should have been palms up about any genuine security threats, with administrators first doing everything in their power to provide adequate security for the event so it could proceed. Canceling it should be a last resort."

While it's easy to view this censorship as reflective of USC taking a side in the Israel-Hamas war, the reality is much more mundane. USC, like many colleges, is primarily concerned with avoiding controversy at all costs—not with taking a side in a complex political debate. For example, just last year, the school banned a Jewish professor from campus after he was filmed calling Hamas "murderers" and calling protesting students "ignorant"—though the sanctions against him were eventually reversed under pressure.

The cancellation of Tabassum's speech presents a clear example of just how risk-averse university administrations tend to be. When controversy arises—either from the left or right—the prevailing response is censorship, rather than a principled stand for free expression.

The post USC Cancels Valedictorian's Speech Over Bogus 'Safety Concerns' appeared first on Reason.com.

"I fixed student loan programs to reduce the burden of student debt for nearly four million Americans," President Biden bragged during his State of the Union address on Thursday night. "Such relief is good for the economy because folks are now able to buy a home, start a business, even start a family."

Despite failing to enact blanket student loan forgiveness, Joe Biden has still managed to forgive more than $130 billion in federal student loans since taking office in 2021—and due to a series of Education Department rule changes, even more loans are set to be forgiven in the coming years.

While Biden lauded his forgiveness scheme as "good for the economy," Biden's student loan reforms are in fact likely to make degrees more expensive to obtain in the coming years.

When the Education Department announced its original plan to forgive up to $20,000 in federal student loans per borrower in 2022, they also ushered in several, less attention-grabbing rule changes to the federal student loan program. Chief among them was a major change to income-driven repayment (IDR), a popular way for lower-income borrowers to repay their loans.

Under the REPAYE plan, previously the most popular IDR plan, borrowers were required to make regular monthly payments of 10 percent of their discretionary income (calculated as earnings above 150 percent of the federal poverty rate) for 20 years in order to receive forgiveness. But in 2022, Biden announced the Education Department would replace the REPAYE plan. 

In its place, the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan is a significantly more generous alternative, only requiring monthly payments of 5 percent of borrowers' discretionary income (now calculated as earnings above 225 percent of the federal poverty rate), with forgiveness after just 10 years for balances less than $12,000. Late or incomplete payments would still count during the required repayment period, unlike under the REPAYE plan.

While income-driven repayment plans are generally targeted at low-income borrowers who might not be able to afford a traditional repayment plan, the SAVE plan is so generous that it is likely to attract a wide swath of wealthier borrowers. With borrowers required to pay back such a small portion of their loans, universities have a clear incentive to boost prices and encourage students to enroll in the SAVE plan.

"The system has gotten so generous that it's not really a loan anymore," Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity told Reason. "It's more like a grant. And I think at that point, you'll start to see colleges saying, 'Hey, students aren't going to have to pay back their loans in full. So why don't we raise our prices, have students take out more loans, and the loans will just get forgiven by taxpayers?'"

In all, the new IDR plan is estimated to cost taxpayers nearly as much as Biden's original attempt at forgiving $475 billion over the next decade (blanket forgiveness was estimated to cost up to $519 billion). While Biden claimed that his recent forgiveness would help swaths of Americans "buy a home start a business even start a family," it certainly isn't typical taxpayers—the majority of whom do not have the benefits of a college degree, or the student loans to match—who will end up benefiting.

Ultimately, Biden's loan forgiveness efforts are best thought of as a purely political attempt to cater to a large portion of the Democratic base. Forgiving student loans does nothing to make it easier to attend college without taking on student loans—or for young Americans to reach the middle class, regardless of their educational path.

The post Biden Is Wrong About Student Debt Forgiveness appeared first on Reason.com.

Less than a month after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos created for in vitro fertilization treatment are children, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey has signed a law protecting access to IVF treatment in the state. 

In February, the Alabama Supreme Court handed down a controversial ruling, deciding that frozen embryos would count as children under a 19th-century Alabama wrongful death statute. Justice Tom Parker used extensive quotes from the Bible and Christian theology to justify his decision. "The doctrine of the sanctity of life is rooted in the Sixth Commandment," which prohibits murder, Parker wrote. "All human beings bear the image of God," he continued, "and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory."

IVF is an infertility treatment involving the fertilization of multiple eggs with the goal of inserting them afterward in a woman's uterus, where they may hopefully implant and grow into a healthy baby. As Reason's Ronald Bailey put it shortly after the ruling was released, "Since the implantation of any specific embryo is far from guaranteed, IVF often involves creating several embryos that are stored in liquid nitrogen that could be made available for later attempts at achieving pregnancy." Parents often have to choose whether to leave their remaining frozen embryos in storage (at a cost) or to have the IVF clinic discard them.

The ruling caused near-immediate chaos, with three IVF providers in the state shutting down operations, citing confusion over the legal implications of the court's decision. The ruling quickly garnered widespread outrage, even among many who are avowedly pro-life.

"We want to make it easier for people to be able to have babies, not…make it harder….And the IVF process is a way of giving life to even more babies," Texas Gov. Greg Abbott told CNN in February. "What I think the goal is is to make sure that we can find a pathway to ensure that parents who otherwise may not have the opportunity to have a child will be able to have access to the IVF process."

Soon after the ruling was handed down, Alabama legislators moved quickly to introduce bills that would protect access to IVF treatment in the state. Senate Bill 159, which Ivey signed Wednesday, ultimately passed with a large bipartisan majority. 

"No action, suit, or criminal prosecution for the damage to or death of an embryo shall be brought or maintained against any individual or entity when providing or receiving services related to in vitro fertilization," the bill states. "No criminal prosecution may be brought for the damage to or death of an embryo against the manufacturer of goods used to facilitate the in vitro fertilization process or the transport of stored embryos."

"The overwhelming support of [the bill] from the Alabama Legislature proves what we have been saying: Alabama works to foster a culture of life, and that certainly includes IVF," Ivey said in a statement on March 6. "I am confident that this legislation will provide the assurances our IVF clinics need and will lead them to resume services immediately."

After the bill's signing, two of the three closed clinics announced that they would restart IVF treatments.

Alabama's IVF protection bill will likely assuage fears that access to fertility treatments could be seriously impacted by state-level court rulings. Even in a state where abortion is banned from conception, attacks on IVF remain incredibly unpopular—and stridently pro-life legislators still recognize the importance of safeguarding fertility medicine. 

The post Alabama Governor Signs Bill Protecting IVF Treatments appeared first on Reason.com.

A 78-year-old woman whose home was mistakenly raided by a Denver SWAT team will now receive a nearly $3.8 million payout. The large sum comes as a result of a 2020 Colorado law that banned qualified immunity protections for police officers in the state, making civil rights lawsuits against police significantly more likely to succeed. 

On January 4th, 2022, Ruby Johnson, a retired postal worker, was sitting in her Denver home when she heard a police airhorn loudly commanding that she leave her home with her hands up. Johnson, who had recently showered and was only wearing a bathrobe, left her house to find a Denver SWAT team gathered outside her door.

The SWAT team had been sent to Johnson's home as part of an effort to recover a vehicle that had been stolen the previous day. According to Johnson's lawsuit, the stolen car had an iPhone inside, and the Find My app feature indicated that the phone was near Johnson's house. 

While the police officers had obtained a warrant to search Johnson's home, they did so using an affidavit that allegedly provided "false characterization" of how reliable the Find My app is, overstating how sure the police could be that the iPhone—and the truck—would be at Johnson's house.

According to Johnson's lawsuit, after receiving this warrant, the SWAT team aggressively searched her home, causing considerable damage to her belongings. Making matters worse, even though Johnson gave police her garage door opener and told them how to enter the garage's front door, police used a battering ram to enter the garage, destroying the door and door frame. Ultimately, the SWAT team found no sign of the truck or any other criminal activity. The officers left and later told Johnson's children that the department wouldn't pay Johnson for the considerable damage caused to her home.

Johnson filed a lawsuit with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado in December 2022, alleging that the search was unlawful under the Colorado Constitution.

"Officers combed through Ms. Johnson's home for hours and found no evidence of anything even remotely connected to any criminal activity. The illegal search succeeded only in leaving the innocent Ms. Johnson traumatized," the complaint states. "Ms. Johnson's privacy, sense of safety, and peace in her home have been shattered since her house became the scene of a militarized criminal investigation. This illegal search has destroyed Ms. Johnson's sense of safety and security in the home that has been her castle for forty years."

On Monday, the ACLU of Colorado announced that Johnson had been awarded $3.76 million, including $1.26 million in compensatory damages and $2.5 million in punitive damages. In a press release, the ACLU largely credited the passage of a 2020 law that revoked police qualified immunity protections—which typically prevent law enforcement from being sued for Constitutional violations—for the victory.

"This is a small step toward justice for Ms. Johnson, but it is a critical case under our state's Constitution, for the first time affirming that police can be held accountable for invading someone's home without probable cause," Tim Macdonald, ACLU of Colorado Legal Director said on Monday. "The ACLU worked hard in the summer of 2020, with lots of other stakeholders, to create a right to sue for violations of the state Constitution."

The post 78-Year-Old Grandmother Awarded $3.8 Million After Illegal SWAT Raid appeared first on Reason.com.

Earlier this week, protestors at the University of California, Berkeley, violently shut down an event organized by a Jewish student group, which featured Israeli attorney Ran Bar-Yoshafat. Protestors organized by the student group Bears for Palestine prevented students from entering the building where the talk was supposed to take place, chanted "Long live the intifada," and broke glass doors.

Several students who attempted to attend the event claim they were physically assaulted by the protestors. One attendee claims she was grabbed by the neck and another says he was spit on.

"It was an extremely frightening experience," Berkeley student Veda Keyvanfar told Fox News on Wednesday. "The door to the venue was ripped out of my hand by a mob of protesters and my hand was injured in the process…we are allowed as students to host any type of speaker, and to attend any event we want to, we are not in the wrong at all."

The disruption wasn't simply a protest that got out of hand—it was a pre-planned attempt to prevent the event from going forward. An Instagram post from Bears for Palestine about the event said "We are 'combatting the lies' by SHUTTING IT DOWN," adding that Bar-Yoshafat "is a genocide denier, and we will not allow for this event to go on."

The event was canceled after university officials determined that they couldn't guarantee student safety "given the size of the crowd and the threat of violence," according to a university statement. Students attending the event had to be escorted out the back of the building. According to the Associated Press, the local police department received multiple calls over the event, and a university spokesperson confirmed that the school was opening a criminal investigation into students' behavior.

So far, the Berkeley administration has taken a strong stance against the students who disrupted Monday's event. 

"We deeply respect the right to protest as intrinsic to the values of a democracy and an institution of higher education," reads a Tuesday statement from Chancellor Carol Christ and Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Benjamin Hermalin. "Yet, we cannot ignore protest activity that interferes with the rights of others to hear and/or express perspectives of their choosing. We cannot allow the use or threat of force to violate the First Amendment rights of a speaker, no matter how much we might disagree with their views."

Videos of the protestors have received significant social media attention, leading to calls to expel or discipline students who engaged in the disruption.

"Everyone has a right to due process. But violent rioters have no place at any institution devoted to the fearless pursuit of truth. Certainly not at Berkeley, home of the Free Speech Movement," Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) President Greg Lukianoff and FIRE senior writer Angel Eduardo wrote in a recent column in The Free Press."Violence is not extreme speech, but the antithesis of speech—and the antithesis of what higher education is supposed to be all about."

Lukianoff and Eduardo are right—if you care about securing university students' free speech rights, punishing disruptive and violent protestors is absolutely necessary. While students have the right to peacefully protest an event, preventing individuals from hearing a speaker, damaging a building, and physically assaulting attendees obviously crosses a line into unprotected conduct. 

The only way to prevent speaker disruptions is for administrators to take a clear stand against them, and punish those responsible. When universities crack down on disruptive or violent protest tactics, they set a precedent, and send a clear message to student activists who are planning on protesting an event: that disruptive, speech-quashing conduct won't be tolerated.

The post Berkeley Students Violently Shut Down Event Featuring Israeli Attorney appeared first on Reason.com.

Pennsylvania police officers have reached a settlement with a woman who says she underwent an unnecessary and humiliating strip-search after she was pulled over for a minor traffic violation. 

According to a lawsuit filed in 2021, Holly Elish was traveling through Bentlyville, Pennsylvania, on her way home from work when she was pulled over by local police officer Brian Rousseau.

When Rousseau pulled Elish over, he quickly asked for consent to search her vehicle, which Elish denied. According to the lawsuit, Rousseau responded that "he had the right to search her vehicle." Soon after, a second police officer arrived on the scene. The two men again asked to search Elish's vehicle, telling her that even more officers would soon arrive.

"Fearing for her safety and knowing that the police did not have justification to search her vehicle yet were insistent and intimidating in attempting to do so, Ms. Elish allowed the vehicle search to occur under duress and coercion," the complaint states.

The officers searched Elish's car but found no sign of drugs, illegal weapons, or other contraband. However, that wasn't enough for the officers to let Elish go. A female police officer—unnamed in the suit—had arrived on the scene, and after having a brief conversation with the other officers began to strip-search Elish.

The officer "began the strip search by physically and visually inspecting Ms. Elish's breasts," according to the complaint. Elish then had "to remove her pants and underwear to her ankles and 'squat' to the ground, during which she bent down to the ground with one knee and performed a visual cavity inspection."

The complaint further states that the female police officer "began to put gloves on her hands stating to Ms. Elish, 'I'm sorry. This is the worst part of my job.'" However, the suit states that, just before physically searching Elish, she asked her "Do you know why they want me to do this?" Elish responded that she didn't know and that she was "simply on her way home from work to pick up her child."

Following this interaction, the female officer refused to search Elish. She was eventually allowed to leave, though Rousseau did later write Elish a citation for driving five miles per hour over the speed limit. That citation was dropped, though, when Rousseau failed to appear at the hearing.

Elish filed a lawsuit against the two male officers in November 2021. After a more than three-year legal battle, including a civil trial, a settlement was reached in the case, though the exact terms of the settlement have not yet been revealed.

"This warrantless search culminated in a minor traffic violation for driving five miles per hour over the posted speed limit, for which Ms. Elish was subsequently found not guilty," the complaint read. "As a direct and proximate cause of this search, Ms. Elish suffered mental anguish, embarrassment, and [humiliation]."

The post Pennsylvania Police Settle Lawsuit With Woman Forced to Undergo 'Humiliating' Strip-Search appeared first on Reason.com.

On Wednesday, the Biden Administration announced $1.2 billion in additional student loan forgiveness for more than 150,000 borrowers. This particular round of forgiveness was previously announced last month, though the exact cost of the debt relief was not previously known.

"The Biden-Harris Administration has now approved nearly $138 billion in student debt cancellation for almost 3.9 million borrowers through more than two dozen executive actions," a Wednesday press release stated. "From Day One of his Administration, President Biden vowed to fix the student loan system and make sure higher education is a pathway to the middle class—not a barrier to opportunity."

This latest slate of forgiveness is part of the Education Department's sweeping changes to how the federal government handles student loan repayment. As part of the Biden Administration's original attempt to forgive up to $20,000 in federal loans per borrower, they also made several major changes to other student loan programs. Most notably, they introduced the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE), a new income-driven repayment (IDR) program designed to be much more generous than previous IDR plans.

For example, under the REPAYE plan, which was the most popular IDR plan before SAVE replaced it, monthly payments were set at 10 percent of borrowers' discretionary income, defined as earnings above 150 percent of the federal poverty line, with forgiveness coming after 20 years of consistent payments. 

For borrowers in the new SAVE plan, their monthly payment is only 5 percent of their discretionary income, which is now defined as income above 225 percent of the federal poverty line. If the borrower's balance is less than $12,000, they'll now get forgiveness after just 10 years.

As part of the SAVE plan rollout, the Education Department announced last month that any borrowers who have been paying back their loans for 10 years or more, under any program, and have a remaining balance of less than $12,000 can enroll in the SAVE plan and get automatic forgiveness. While the original announcement did not estimate how much forgiveness would be dolled out, Wednesday's update released the staggering $1.2 billion price tag.

This recent glut of loan forgiveness shows how, even if Biden's attempt at blanket loan forgiveness was defeated at the Supreme Court last year, that doesn't keep his administration from spending billions on student loan forgiveness. Biden's one-time student loan forgiveness proposal was estimated to cost taxpayers more than $500 billion, but the estimated cost of the SAVE plan over the next decade is almost as much, coming in at $475 billion. 

While the Supreme Court halted Biden's most outrageous attempt to forgive massive amounts of federal student loans, the Education Department's wide authority to make sweeping changes to student loan policy means that widespread debt forgiveness—and the huge bill to taxpayers—is here to stay.

The post The Biden Administration Has Forgiven Another $1.2 Billion in Federal Student Loans  appeared first on Reason.com.

This week's featured article is "The Real Student Loan Crisis Isn't From Undergraduate Degrees" by Emma Camp.

This audio was generated using AI trained on the voice of Katherine Mangu-Ward.

Music credits: "Deep in Thought" by CTRL and "Sunsettling" by Man with Roses

The post <I>The Best of Reason</I>: The Real Student Loan Crisis Isn't From Undergraduate Degrees appeared first on Reason.com.

Every year, thousands of New York City families are subjected to invasive home searches as part of child abuse and neglect investigations. While less than 7 percent of these investigations lead the agency to file claims of abuse or neglect, a new lawsuit alleges that the city's Administration for Children's Services (ACS) workers often make misleading—or outright false—threats to coerce parents to allow ACS to conduct warrantless searches of their homes.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed on Tuesday, ACS employs a widespread policy of coercing families under investigation to allow case workers into their homes. ACS workers allegedly often tell families that they "must" or "have to" let them search their homes, insist that they do not need a warrant for the search, and even threaten to take noncompliant parents' children away. 

Even though ACS workers are technically legally required to obtain a warrant to search homes, the agency very rarely seeks them. According to the suit, of the almost 53,000 investigations conducted by ACS in 2023, it only sought 222 court orders to search families' homes.

"Even assuming ACS completed only one home search during each investigation (it typically conducts several), ACS sought court orders for just 0.4% of home entries," the suit states. "This means over 99.5% of home searches that ACS conducts are 'presumptively unreasonable' under the Fourth Amendment."

Once inside a family's home, the suit claims that ACS workers engage in incredibly invasive tactics, looking "inside medicine cabinets, under beds, in closets and dresser drawers, in the refrigerator, and in cupboards." Even more troubling, strip searches of children are common, with workers demanding that children lift up their shirts or pull down their pants. Over the course of an investigation—the average length is 60 days—families are typically subjected to these searches more than once.

The agency itself seems self-aware about the impact of these coercive techniques. According to one 2020 report by the National Innovation Service, ACS policy "incentivizes [staff] to be invasive and not tell parents their rights." The report noted how "the experience of an investigation, even when an allegation is ultimately determined to be unfounded, too often traumatizes parents and children."

Further, agency leadership has also acknowledged that many reports of child abuse and neglect are completely unfounded, as individuals are allowed to make anonymous reports. A 2023 letter from the New York City Bar went so far as to state that a "significant percentage of" child abuse hotline callers "make false reports, for the purpose of harassment."

In all, the suit argues that ACS' policy of using coercive tactics to enter families' homes without a warrant constitutes a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, arguing that the agency's "failure to adequately train or supervise ACS caseworkers regarding the protection of parents' Fourth Amendment rights" has directly led ACS workers to use manipulative, false tactics to persuade families to allow them to "conduct warrantless, non-exigent searches of Plaintiffs' and class members' homes."

The post NYC Child Protection Agency Uses 'Coercive Tactics' To Bully Parents Into Allowing Warrantless Searches appeared first on Reason.com.