CREATORS: Trump Administration Continues Onslaught On Diversity

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
June 16, 2026

The United States of America is facing a full-throttle assault on the underpinnings of democracy. Since Jan. 20, 2025, freedom and diversity have been under attack.

On the Trump administration's first day, they went after diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). A White House directive dated Jan. 20, 2025, announced, "The Biden Administration forced illegal and immoral discrimination programs, going by the name 'diversity, equity, and inclusion,' into virtually all aspects of the Federal Government."

The so-called "immoral" conduct of the Biden administration consisted of promoting opportunities for all people to have a seat at the table.

According to The Hill, "The attacks on DEI threaten a wide range of policies that seek to realize the promise of civil rights law: to advance equal opportunity for all Americans. These benefit not only women, people of color and gay and transgender individuals, but also military veterans, people from impoverished or rural areas, religious minorities and first-generation professionals. DEI policies combat harassment and retaliation. They open the workplace to pregnant and caregiving employees and to persons with disabilities."

The administration has terminated DEI programs at government offices, with government contractors and grantees of federal funding. The Department of Education went so far as to require school districts to sign "oaths" that they will comply with the federal government's effort to cancel diversity.

The U.S. Supreme Court got things rolling before President Donald Trump was elected for a second time. On June 29, 2023, the Court ruled that the race-conscious admissions policies of Harvard and the University of North Carolina were unlawful under federal law. The Court found that Harvard and North Carolina's affirmative action programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This past March, Trump signed an Executive Order eliminating "diversity, equity and inclusion" practices by Federal contractors and their subcontractors, ensuring merit-based and efficient contracting and employment.

A lawsuit was filed in federal court by the attorneys general of 19 states and Washington, D.C., alleging that more than two dozen federal agencies are adding new terms to federal contracts that bar "any racially discriminatory DEI activities" without notice or explanation of exactly what is prohibited.

The suit claims that the executive order violates contractors' free speech rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell told Reuters, "This is yet another example of haphazard actions designed to confuse and intimidate rather than provide clear guidance to people and businesses — in this case federal contractors."

The administration has filed lawsuits and cut or threatened to limit billions of dollars in funding to coerce colleges and universities to capitulate on issues regarding diversity, equality and inclusion.

The Trump administration has threatened many elite institutions with "potential enforcement actions" for violations of Title VI, the federal statute prohibiting discrimination, relating to antisemitic discrimination and harassment.

The administration cut $400 million in funding to Columbia University, a focal point of pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campuses across the country. According to U.S. News and World Report, federal officials in April 2025 froze $2.2 billion in grants to Harvard University after warning the school that it was in violation of federal civil rights law.

Cornell University, Northwestern University, the University of Pennsylvania and Princeton University were among the schools that saw billions of dollars cut, frozen or suspended.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, the apparent point man in the effort to crush diversity, equity and inclusion, said some of the nation's top universities are "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination." According to Inside Higher Ed, Hegseth canceled, through a War Department order, opportunities for service members to participate in fellowships at schools like Princeton, Columbia, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Brown and Yale.

With the absence of diversity comes a loss of diverse perspectives, a reduction in creativity, decrease in innovation and a shocking reduction in critical thinking — creating in society, and maybe more specifically on college and university campuses, military bases and corporate boardrooms, silos of thought, values and beliefs.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book, "The Executioner's Toll," 2010, was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

Another one bites the dust: Penn caves after threat from Trump over funding

Professor Jonathan Zimmerman of  the University of Pennsylvania writes in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Nice university you got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.

That’s what the Trump administration has essentially been saying to my own employer, the University of Pennsylvania, regarding our decisions about trans female swimmer Lia Thomas. Back in April, the White House warned us that we risked losing federal funding if we didn’t strip Thomas of her records and apologize to swimmers who lost to her.

On Tuesday, we caved. And we will never live that down.

A university is supposed to be a place where free and untrammeled minds search for the truth, as best they can discern it. But in this sordid episode, we put all of that aside. Money talked, and everything else walked.

Let me be clear: Reasonable people can and do differ about whether Penn should have allowed Thomas to compete on its women’s swim team back in 2021 and 2022. It’s a complicated question, and I still don’t know how to answer it.

But here’s what I do know: We should not have capitulated to the White House by removing Thomas’ individual swimming records and promising to apologize to athletes who might have been harmed by her participation on the women’s squad.

We did win a reprieve from the government, which agreed to restore the $175 million in grants that it paused back in March because Thomas had competed on the women’s team. But what does it profit a university if it gains the whole world of federal dollars and loses its own soul?

As president J. Larry Jameson noted in his letter to the Penn community, the university was following NCAA eligibility rules — and the federal Title IX law, “as then interpreted” — when it let Thomas swim on the women’s team. Jameson went on to write that “some student athletes were disadvantaged by these rules,” and he pledged to apologize to them.

You read that right: Penn is going to apologize for following the law.

To be sure, some laws are unjust. Slavery was legal across the United States when the nation was born. Women were mostly barred from voting and from inheriting property. And millions of Black Americans were segregated in communities and schools — again, by law — until the civil rights era.

Universities were deeply implicated in all of these matters. And, to their credit, many of them have acknowledged the same and promised to make amends. Most notably, Georgetown University apologized for its role in the 1838 sale of 272 enslaved African Americans to pay off a debt at the school. Together with the Jesuits, the religious society that founded Georgetown, the university also gave $27 million to a foundation that assists descendants of the people who were sold.

Meanwhile, students at Georgetown voted to add a new fee each semester of $27.20 per student, and to donate the proceeds to healthcare and education programs in Maryland and Louisiana, where many of the known descendants of the 272 enslaved people now live.

One day, allowing Thomas to swim on the women’s team might be viewed as a profound injustice, as well. But in the here and now, most students, faculty, and administrators at Penn don’t see it that way. We’re not apologizing because we think we did something wrong. We’re apologizing to save our own skins.

That’s understandable, but it’s also deeply cynical. It’s the kind of thing that happens in authoritarian countries, where you have to echo the party line to stay in the government’s good graces.

Penn is going to apologize for following the law.

Ditto for Penn’s decision to restore individual records and titles to female athletes who lost to Thomas, as the Trump administration had demanded. By Tuesday afternoon, our website already showed other athletes owning the school’s top times in Thomas’ events.

You might argue that’s fair and just, given the physical advantages Thomas enjoyed. And you might be right. Like I said, it’s an open question.

But there is no question — none — about why Penn made this call: to avoid the wrath of Donald Trump. And that’s what I call cowardice.

In his letter announcing the agreement that Penn reached with the Trump administration, Jameson said that he remains “dedicated to preserving and advancing the University’s vital and enduring mission.” I’m sure he does. But if that mission includes an unwavering quest for truth, the agreement made a mockery of it. Shame on us.

To read more CLICK HERE

DOE sues New York for allegedly violating civil rights law with Native American mascot ban

The US Department of Education (DOE) announced Friday that New York state has violated federal civil rights law by banning Native American school mascots while permitting mascots derived from other ethnic groups, reported Jurist. This comes after the DOE launched an investigation into the state’s mascot controversy last month.

The investigation was launched after The Native American Guardians Association (NAGA) filed a complaint with the DOE’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR), alleging that the New York Department of Education (NYDOE) and the New York Board of Regents (BOR) are violating federal civil rights law by forcing the Massapequa School District to eliminate its “Chiefs” mascot based on its association with Native American culture. In 2023 the BOR voted unanimously to adopt a NYDOE regulation that prohibits the use of Indigenous team names, mascots, and logos by public schools. Four Long Island school districts filed a federal lawsuit challenging the regulation, claiming that it violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment. The lawsuit was dismissed by a federal district court judge in March, finding that the school districts did not provide enough evidence that the policy infringed on First Amendment rights.

In its subsequent investigation, the OCR concluded that New York’s policy was in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it bans names, mascots, and logos based on Native American race and national origin, but does not ban those “that appear to have been derived from other racial or ethnic groups, such as the ‘Dutchmen’ and the ‘Huguenots.'” Title VI prohibits discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex or national origin” in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon stated in Friday’s press release:

Rather than focus on learning outcomes, the New York Department of Education and Board of Regents has set its sights on erasing Massapequa’s history—while turning a blind eye to other districts’ mascots that are derived from or connected to other racial or ethnic groups. We will stand with the people of Massapequa until commonsense is restored and justice is served, and until New York comes into compliance with federal law.

The OCR states that New York must rescind the regulation prohibiting the use of Indigenous mascots. The OCR also demands that the state issue letters of apology to Indigenous tribes which acknowledge the BOR “violated Title VI by discriminating against Native Americans” and “silenced the voices of Native Americans and attempted to erase Native American history.” If these conditions are not met within ten days, the DOE notes that it may refer the matter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for enforcement proceedings, and federal funding may be pulled from the state.

This comes amidst a spate of legal actions surround the DOE. Last month, a federal judge in New Hampshire granted a preliminary injunction that blocks the DOE from withholding federal funding from schools that implement diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. In March, a coalition of Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for sweeping layoffs across the DOE, stating that the layoffs represent an illegal dismantling of an agency created by Congress. Executive Order 14242, signed March 20, outlines President Donald Trump’s intention to close the DOE.

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: States Look to Their Own Constitutions for Guidance on Racial Equality

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
May 13, 2025

In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that held racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality. Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote the majority opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson.

Six justices joined with Brown, who opined that although the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed the legal equality of all races in the United States, "it was not intended to prevent social or other types of discrimination."

The much-maligned decision in Plessy remained in effect about education for 58 years. Finally, on May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education — which held that the "separate but equal" doctrine was unconstitutional in the context of public schools and educational facilities.

The Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9-0 decision in favor of Brown. The Court ruled that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal," and therefore laws that impose them violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Brown paved the way for minority students to have a fair and equal education. In 1974, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act was established, prohibiting discrimination against faculty, staff and students. This included racial segregation of students and required school districts to take action to overcome barriers to students' equal participation.

However, 69 years after Brown, the Supreme Court rejected affirmative action at schools of higher education, declaring that the race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina were unlawful, eliminating a pillar of higher education.

In Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and SFFA v. University of North Carolina, the Brown decision was often quoted in the 230 pages of opinions.

The Supreme Court held that state laws cannot favor one race over another, that the equal protection clause requires equal treatment under the law for everyone "without regard to race or color." The decisions turned the Brown decision on its head. Affirmative action — which had been used to level the playing field for minority students was now considered to be imposing discriminatory practices on white prospective students.

The landmark decision in Brown, which overturned a legacy of racism in this country, was used to rationalize an argument eliminating affirmative action. The decisions in Harvard and North Carolina will, as Adam Liptak wrote in The New York Times, "(A)ll but ensured that the student population at the campuses of elite institutions would become whiter and more Asian and less Black and Latino."

Then came President Donald Trump's second term. Almost immediately upon taking office, a letter went out to state education leaders across the country, suggesting Title I funding — targeted to schools with a high proportion of low-income students — would be cut if the use of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (DEI) programs continued.

School and state officials were asked to sign a certification or "loyalty oath" and return it to the U.S Department of Education acknowledging they are complying with the directive. The oath has been challenged in court.

In light of an unsympathetic Supreme Court and an administration bent on rewriting the history of discrimination in this country, advocates for racial equality are fighting back. They have turned to state constitutions and state courts to fight "resegregation."

State judges in New Jersey and Minnesota have interpreted their respective state constitutions as imposing responsibility on the state to remedy racial discrimination. Expect more states to look to their state constitution for relief, while other states relish the federal government's undoing of years of progress toward racial equity.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner's Toll, 2010 was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino

To visit CREATORS CLICK HERE

Organizations file suit to stop dismantling of Department of Education

The Trump administration’s campaign to dismantle the Education Department drew a pair of court challenges on Monday, as opponents called the plan an attempt to evade congressional authority, reported The New York Times.

The first lawsuit was filed in federal court in Massachusetts by the American Federation of Teachers, a teachers union; the American Association of University Professors; and two public school districts in Massachusetts. Within hours the N.A.A.C.P., the National Education Association union and other critics had brought a case of their own in federal court in Maryland.

The challenges came four days after President Trump signed an executive order that directed the education secretary, Linda McMahon, to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the department.”

The day after the order, Mr. Trump announced that the Small Business Administration would assume control of the government’s $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio, and that the Health and Human Services Department would oversee nutrition programs and special education services.

To read more CLICK HERE

Creators: On the 70th Anniversary of Brown, School Segregation Continues

Matthew T. Mangino
Creators
May 20, 2024

This past week marked the U.S. Supreme Court setting aside, a portion of, certainly one of the worst decisions in the Court's 235-year history.

In 1896, the high court issued a ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson that held racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal."

In 1892, Homer Plessy, a mixed-race resident of New Orleans, deliberately violated Louisiana's Separate Car Act of 1890, which required "equal, but separate" railroad accommodations for white and non-white passengers. Plessy was charged with boarding a "whites-only" car. Judge John Howard Ferguson refused to throw out the charge against Plessy and Plessy's case ended up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court issued a 7-1 decision against Plessy, ruling that the Louisiana law did not violate the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, stating that although the 14th Amendment established the legal equality of whites and Blacks it did not, and could not, require the elimination of all "distinctions based upon color." The decision legitimized the "Jim Crow" laws that reestablished racial segregation after Reconstruction.

Justice John Marshall Harlan was the lone dissent, writing that the U.S. Constitution "is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." The Separate Car Act's separating passengers by race was a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The disgraceful decision in Plessy remained in effect with regard to education for 58 years. Finally on May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education — which held that the "separate but equal" doctrine was unconstitutional in the context of public schools and educational facilities — severely weakening Plessy but not specifically overruling the decision.

The Brown case began in 1951 when the public school system in Topeka, Kansas, refused to enroll a local Black man's daughter at the school closest to her home. Oliver Brown's daughter was instead required to bus to a segregated Black school down the road.

Brown and 12 other local Black families in similar situations filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Board of Education, alleging that its segregation policy was unconstitutional.

A special three-judge panel of the U.S District Court for the District of Kansas heard the case and ruled against Brown, relying on Plessy v. Furgeson. The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court by the NAACP's chief counsel, and future member of the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall.

The Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9-0 decision in favor of Brown. The court ruled that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal," and therefore laws that impose them violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The decision, announced 70 years ago this month, overturned the specious "separate but equal" doctrine and opened the door to full and fair education for all students regardless of race.

But, according to ABC News, seven decades later, "while racial mandates no longer dictate enrollment, schools across the country remain segregated for a variety of reasons."

"A lot of the folks with economic means, who are more likely to be white, are now sending their kids to private schools at a higher rate," University of California Merced associate professor Whitney Pirtle, told ABC News.

At the time of Brown v. Board of Education, charter and magnet schools — publicly funded institutions that can differ from traditional district schools — did not exist.

Magnet schools were created to encourage voluntary desegregation by attracting diverse students with a shared interest or learning style. The result was not as encouraging. According to an ABC News' analysis, (Magnet schools) "are more than twice as likely as non-magnet schools to have at least one racial group represented at double its district rate."

The same analysis found that charter schools also pull money from those school districts that need it most. Today, segregation continues through private, magnet and charter schools.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book "The Executioner's Toll, 2010" was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

Education Department plans overhaul of DeVos era Title IX regulations

The Education Department announced plans to hold public hearings on how schools should handle sexual misconduct cases as the first step in a planned overhaul of Title IX regulations, reported NBC News.

In a letter released by the Education Department, the hearing is described as a chance for students, parents, school officials and advocates to weigh in before the Biden administration offers its proposal for how K-12 schools and colleges receiving public funding must respond to allegations of sexual assault and harassment. The department has not yet announced a timeline for the hearing but plans to share more details in the coming weeks. The hearing will occur over multiple days and include a virtual component, a department official said.

After the hearing, the department intends to begin a formal process known as "proposed rule-making" to rewrite the Title IX rules, which would include another round of public comments.

The department will also issue question-and-answer-style guidance in the coming weeks to advise schools how to adhere to the current Title IX rules.

During the presidential campaign, Joe Biden vowed to scrap the Trump administration's new regulation on campus sexual misconduct, which took effect in August under Title IX, a gender equity law. Former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos had said she had designed the new rules to offer a clearer, fairer process to adjudicate sexual assault complaints; victims' rights advocates criticized the regulation for narrowing the definition of sexual harassment and limiting the incidents schools could investigate.

Biden signed an executive order last month directing Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to review and consider rewriting the regulation.

"Today's action is the first step in making sure that the Title IX regulations are effective and are fostering safe learning environments for our students while implementing fair processes," Cardona said in a statement Tuesday morning.

Cardona has not indicated the specific policies the Biden administration intends to propose or change.

Democratic lawmakers and advocates for sexual assault victims had already started pressuring the Biden administration to quickly act on changing the Title IX rules. Some welcomed Tuesday's announcement.

"This is a critical next step in protecting survivors in school and ensuring Title IX's promise of ending sex discrimination is realized," said Fatima Goss Graves, president of the National Women's Law Center, a nonprofit advocacy group. "So I'd see this step as a victory and a testament to the student survivors who have continued to so bravely fight for campuses where they can be safe and treated fairly and with dignity."

Federal rule-making can be a lengthy process — sometimes taking over a year — but it is more lasting than executive orders or policy statements and more difficult for future administrations to reverse. Under DeVos, the Education Department used the same rule-making process to set up the current Title IX regulation on campus sexual misconduct.

The framework implemented by DeVos prevents schools from launching Title IX investigations into allegations of assaults that take place off campus, uses a narrower definition of sexual harassment compared to workplace standards and requires schools to presume that accused students are innocent at the outset of investigations.

DeVos' rules were widely condemned by victims' rights advocates, who said some elements, such as requiring colleges to allow accused students to cross-examine their accusers through third parties, would discourage people from reporting assaults. Many trade groups for K-12 schools and universities were also critical, arguing that the rules would turn their institutions into courtrooms.

Advocates for accused students praised DeVos' policies as ensuring evenhanded responses to assault allegations on campuses. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit that focuses on due process on college campuses, said last month that it would not rule out suing to block a Biden administration rewrite of Title IX rules.

 To read more CLICK HERE

MCN/USA TODAY: An investment in education is an investment in crime prevention

Matthew T. Mangino
More Content Now-USA TODAY NETWORK
February 5, 2021

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf recently unveiled, as part of his 2021-22 budget, a plan to invest $1.3 billion in public schools. As part of the initiative the governor has also taken on a taboo subject - increased taxes.

“My legislative plan is an investment in Pennsylvania’s students, but really it’s an investment in the future for all of us - for every Pennsylvanian,” said Wolf.

Investments are typically made with an eye toward cashing in. Can an investment in education pay dividends?

Several years ago the Alliance for Excellent Education reported that America could save billions of dollars in annual crime costs if school districts could raise the male high school graduation rate. While graduation rates have increased according to a 2019 Alliance report, males and “historically underserved students” have lagged behind.

“The nation needs to focus dollars and efforts on reforming school climates to keep students engaged in ways that will lead them toward … a career and away from crime and prison,” said Bob Wise, president of the Alliance for Excellent Education and former governor of West Virginia. “The school-to-prison pipeline starts and ends with schools.”

There was a time when disruptive students were sent to see the principal. Today in some school districts, the disruptive student is handcuffed and ushered off to court. The school-to-prison pipeline is overflowing with students.

According to the Washington Post, more than 3 million students each year are suspended or expelled from school across the United States. Federal data, though limited, show that nearly a quarter of a million students are annually referred to law enforcement.

There is an indirect correlation between educational attainment and arrest and incarceration rates - particularly among males. According to data compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 56% of federal inmates, 67% of inmates in state prisons, and 69% of inmates in local jails did not complete high school.

The Alliance for Excellent Education found that increasing the male graduation rate would decrease crime nationwide. Annual incidences of assault, larceny, motor vehicle thefts and burglaries could see significant reductions.

In Pennsylvania, and across the country, the potential savings from an increase in the male high school graduation rate could save literally hundreds of millions of dollars in crime-related costs and produce millions in earnings and tax revenue from individuals who are employed rather than incarcerated.

There is more to the crime and education connection than just coursework and passing grades. The combination of largely unnoticed actions undertaken by individual schools affects education climates for millions of students in thousands of schools across the country. These school climates, in turn, often profoundly affect student performance.

The school-to-prison pipeline is fueled, in part, by “zero-tolerance” policies that accelerate the involvement of the criminal justice system in routine school disciplinary practices. The involvement of law enforcement in traditional matters of school discipline has soared as school districts across the country expanded the use of armed police officers in schools.

The nightly news is flooded with stories like the 7-year-old North Carolina boy with autism, whose mother said he was overwhelmed by the “comings and goings in his classroom,” and began spitting inside his special needs school.

The “school resource officer” arrived on the scene, put the boy in handcuffs, and pinned him to the ground, according to body-cam footage of the September 2018 incident that was recently published by WSOC-TV.

This pattern is all too familiar. Just this week, police pepper sprayed a 9-year-old New York girl during a family disturbance outside of school.

An investment in education is an investment in crime prevention. The potential to save money, generate revenue and minimize the anguish that comes with victimization is too important to ignore.

To visit the column CLICK HERE

MCN/USA TODAY NETWORK: An investment in education is an investment in crime prevention

Matthew T. Mangino
MCN/USA TODAY NETWORK
February 5, 2021

Gov. Tom Wolf recently unveiled, as part of his 2021-22 budget, a plan to invest $1.3 billion in public schools. 

Investments are typically made with an eye toward cashing in. Can an investment in education pay dividends?

Several years ago the Alliance for Excellent Education, which advocates for raising the high school graduation rate, reported that America could save billions of dollars in annual crime costs if school districts could raise the male high school graduation rate. While graduation rates have increased according to a 2019 Alliance report, males and "historically underserved students" have lagged behind. 

There was a time when disruptive students were sent to see the principal. Today in some school districts, the disruptive student is handcuffed and ushered off to court. The school-to-prison pipeline is overflowing with students.

According to the Washington Post, more than 3 million students each year are suspended or expelled from school across the United States. Federal data, though limited, shows that nearly a quarter of a million students are annually referred to law enforcement. 

There is an indirect correlation between educational attainment and arrest and incarceration rates — particularly among males. According to data compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 56% of federal inmates, 67% of inmates in state prisons, and 69% of inmates in local jails did not complete high school. 

The Alliance for Excellent Education found that increasing the male graduation rate would decrease crime nationwide.

In Pennsylvania, and across the country, the potential savings from an increase in the male high school graduation rate could be literally hundreds of millions of dollars in crime-related costs and produce millions in earnings and tax revenue from individuals who are employed rather than incarcerated. 

There is more to the crime and education connection than just coursework and passing grades. The combination of largely unnoticed actions undertaken by individual schools affects education climates for millions of students in thousands of schools across the country. These school climates, in turn, often profoundly affect student performance. 

An investment in education is an investment in crime prevention. The potential to save money, generate revenue and minimize the anguish that comes with victimization is too important to ignore.

Matthew T. Mangino is the former district attorney of Lawrence County and an adjunct professor at Thiel College in Mercer County.

To visit the column CLICK HERE

 

Pennsylvania DAs Call for Early Education Funding

Pennsylvania District attorneys urged state and federal lawmakers to increase funding for early education programs for at-risk children in an effort to boost high school graduation rates and reduce the prison population, reported the Pottsville Mercury.

“We can continue with the status quo, which is leading too many people to failure in school, involvement in crime and incarceration at huge cost to Pennsylvania taxpayers,” said Delaware County District Attorney Jack Whelan, standing in front of the State Correctional Institution in Chester. “Or we can take a different course, leading more kids to success in school, increased high school graduation and savings to taxpayers for years to come.”

Whelan said that in Pennsylvania, $1.9 billion is spent each year to house approximately 50,000 prison inmates. In Delaware County alone, he said, it costs taxpayers about $45 million to fund Delaware County prison.

Whelan, Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman, Philadelphia District Attorney R. Seth Williams, Chester County District Attorney Thomas Hogan and Cumberland County District Attorney David J. Freed, president of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, spoke at the event sponsored by Fight Crime: Invest in Kids organization.

Williams called on lawmakers to support President Barack Obama’s proposal to spend $75 billion over the next 10 years on early childhood education, as opposed to spending $75 billion every year to house prisoners.

“This report demonstrates that every $100 invested in early childhood education will save us $700 in prison costs here in Pennsylvania,” Williams said. “This building behind me is a temple, a testimony of what the failure to invest in education will get you.”

To read more Click Here

Dropouts and Crime, the Correlation is Clear

As many states prune their education budgets it is worth considering the impact of fewer dollars being spent on education. A decline in academic achievement means an increase in students who fail to finish high school.

High school dropouts face many hardships ranging from lower incomes to higher rates of incarceration. According to the Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 1972–2008, compiled by the National Center for Education Statistics,
the median income for people ages 18 through 67 who had not completed high school was roughly $23,000 in 2008. By comparison, the median income for people ages 18 through 67 who completed their education with at least a high school diploma, including a General Educational Development (GED) certificate, was approximately $42,000. Over a lifetime, this translates into a loss of approximately $630,000 in income.

An income on average 40 percent lower than an educated counterpart may not necessarily seem like a reason to turn to a life of crime, but estimates from the most recent data available indicate that approximately 34 percent of federal and state inmates and 50 percent death row inmates lack a high school diploma. Estimates for those 25 and older indicate that during the same years 15 percent of the general population were dropouts.

Educational failure and crime rates correspond. Policymakers would do well not to ignore public safety when considering the impact of cuts in education funding.

To read more: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011012.pdf

NYC to Cut 4,000 Teachers: Will Crime Rates be Affected?

New York City plans to layoff 4,000 teachers as part of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s new budget. The mayor says he has no other options after state lawmakers cut education funding. The teacher layoffs would save only $270 million out of a $65.7 billion budget.

Mike Alberti writing for the web site Remapping Debate points out that a modest tax increase could easily fund the retention of all 4,000 teachers. However, the Republican mayor says he will follow the example of the Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo who has declared a de facto moratorium on new taxes for state government.

How modest would the tax increase be to save the teachers? A household with an adjusted gross income of $300,000 would pay about $365 a year more in taxes. Anyone making less than $200,000 a year would play nothing. Yet, lawmakers in New York City would opt to lay off 4,000 teachers.

The layoff will undoubtedly have an impact on pre-school programming, academic achievement and graduation rates. All three in turn have an impact on community safety and crime rates.

A 40-year study of the Perry Preschool Program in Ypsilanti, Michigan, showed that children left out of the program were five times more likely to become chronic offenders by age 27 than those who participated. Similarly, studies of the Chicago Child Parent Center early education program showed that kids left out of the program were 70% more likely to have been arrested for a violent crime by age 18 than those who participated.

“Far too often, today’s dropouts are tomorrow’s criminals,” Monroe County District Attorney Michael Greene told fightcrime.org. “We want kids earning diplomas instead of rap sheets. We know that high quality preschool is an investment that can help us achieve this goal.”

Nearly 70% of all inmates in our nation’s prisons failed to earn a high school diploma. Research shows that high school dropouts are three-and-a-half times more likely than graduates to be arrested and eight times more likely to be incarcerated. In New York, 31 percent of students fail to graduate on schedule.

“It just isn’t acceptable that 31% of our students fail to graduate each year,” said state director Meredith Wiley. “But that is the state average. In many of our cities, it is actually much worse. All over the state kids are failing.” In New York City—48% are failing to get their high school diplomas.

New York City has experienced an unprecedented decline in crime. Has education contributed to the decline? The cutback in education funding may provide a glimpse into the connection between educational achievement and crime.

To read more: http://www.fightcrime.org/state/new-york/news/new-york-law-enforcement-dropout-rates-fueling-violent-crime-2