STM Blog
Harvard, like all Americans, can’t be punished by the government for speaking freely – and a federal court decision upholds decades of precedents saying so
The Trump administration’s funding cuts to Harvard were deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge, emphasizing that government cannot retaliate against institutions for their views. This ruling underscores the importance of protecting free speech and dissent in American democracy.
Last Updated on October 5, 2025 by Daily News Staff
Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin, Boise State University
When the federal government threatened to cancel billions in research funds from Harvard University – as it has also done to other research universities – the message was clear: Institutions that speak or think in ways elected officials dislike can expect to pay a price.
But in a recent ruling that underscored a principle at the heart of American democracy, a federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s move. The “government-initiated onslaught against Harvard was much more about promoting a governmental orthodoxy in violation of the First Amendment than about anything else,” U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs wrote.
The Harvard controversy began when the Trump administration announced plans to cut off billions in federal research funds because it objected to the university’s public positions, campus culture and some of its academic scholarship. No one contended that Harvard had mismanaged money or failed to meet grant requirements.
Instead, the White House said the school had done too little to eliminate so-called woke diversity, equity and inclusion – DEI – policies and alleged that antisemitism proliferated on campus, as evidenced by student demonstrations against Israel’s conduct in the Gaza war.
Along with the American Association of University Professors, Harvard filed suit in response to the funding cuts, arguing that the administration’s action was punitive and unconstitutional – a textbook case of retaliation. By canceling funding, the government was deploying financial pressure to silence disfavored speech. https://www.youtube.com/embed/rn77N4VGkcU?wmode=transparent&start=0 White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on April 15, 2025, spoke about President Donald Trump’s moves against Harvard.
Protection for dissent and disagreement
In striking down the funding cut, Burroughs ruled that the administration’s move violated the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly by limiting government intrusion. While government officials may disagree with Harvard’s speech – whether that means faculty scholarship, public statements or the culture of campus debate – they cannot retaliate by pulling federal support, the judge wrote.
As chair of a public policy institute devoted to strengthening deliberative democracy, I have written two books about the media and the presidency, and another about media ethics. My research traces how news institutions shape civic life and why healthy democracies rely on free expression.
The principle at work in the Harvard case is simple: Free speech protections don’t just apply to individuals in the town square or in places where public decisions are being made.
First Amendment rights extend to private institutions, even when their views or policies contravene official government opinions, and even when they receive funding from the government. Government reprisal does more than chill speech – it sets up a system where only state-approved viewpoints can flourish.
Supreme Court has seen this before
The ruling in Harvard’s favor follows a long legal tradition of Supreme Court rulings that bar the government from demanding ideological acquiescence in exchange for support.
In the case Speiser v. Randall that was decided in 1958, the court struck down a California law requiring veterans to sign loyalty oaths to receive tax exemptions. The decision created the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, a principle that forbids government from making the receipt of a government benefit or entitlement conditional in a way that interferes with the exercise of a constitutional right.
In Perry v. Sindermann, a 1972 decision, a professor was denied reappointment at a state college after criticizing administrators. Even without tenure, the court held, the government could not retaliate against him for protected speech.
And in Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, the court in 2001 invalidated restrictions that barred federally funded legal aid lawyers from challenging welfare laws. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that such limits “distort the legal system” by preventing some members of the bar from making arguments on behalf of their clients, while the government would face no similar restriction in promoting their own views.
Supreme Court’s contemporary signals
More recent cases show the court wrestling with the same question in new contexts.
The court’s 2013 decision in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International struck down a requirement that nonprofits adopt a government-approved position opposing prostitution in order to receive global health funding.
The government, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, could not make program funds dependent on grant-seeking groups adopting particular political or moral beliefs. In this case, that meant the Alliance for Open Society did not have to condemn sex work in order to qualify for public health funding.
Likewise, in Janus v. AFSCME from 2018, the court struck down an Illinois law that required public employees who chose not to join a union to still pay fees to support it. The state had argued that these “fair-share fees” were necessary because unions bargain on behalf of all workers. But the court said that forcing nonmembers to pay was a form of compelled speech – subsidizing union political organizing – that abridged the First Amendment.
While the context is very different from Harvard’s funding dispute, both cases highlight the same principle: The government cannot use money – whether through subsidies, grants or mandatory fees – as a way to compel or suppress expression. These rulings show that the First Amendment protections apply to government funding and policy questions that quietly shape who gets heard and who does not.
Long history of retaliation
While American myth celebrates the idea that the United States welcomes dissent, the government has a history of punishing protesters.
The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 criminalized criticism of the federal government. During World War I, the Espionage and Sedition Acts were used to imprison activists and silence newspapers. In the 1950s, Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s crusade against alleged communists extended to universities, with faculty losing jobs and having their careers destroyed.
In each of those episodes, dissent was framed as dangerous to national security or social stability. And in each case, the tools of government – whether criminal law, congressional investigations or funding threats – were used to discipline voices that strayed from the party line. The impulse to punish institutions for perceived ideological deviance is part of a recurring American story.
What’s distinctive today is how the tactic has been folded into the culture wars.
Where earlier generations of politicians used criminal prosecution or loyalty oaths, the contemporary fight often plays out in budget spreadsheets. Defund public radio. Cut university budgets. Zero out grants to the arts.
These are not just fiscal decisions; they are symbolic moves aimed at disciplining institutions seen by conservatives as too liberal or too critical.
Why this matters beyond the courts
The latest ruling may protect Harvard in this instance, but the larger conflict is not going away.
The legal decision confirms that retaliation violates the First Amendment, but political leaders may continue to test the boundaries. And among the public, the idea that universities should play along with official doctrine in exchange for continued government funding may eventually gain traction. That possibility feels especially real given Trump’s promises, echoed by Vice President JD Vance and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, to wield federal power against universities and civic groups they portray – often inaccurately – as leftist, radical or violent.
A society where public funding flows only to institutions aligned with those in power is not a free society. It’s one where government can shape the landscape of knowledge and debate to its own ends.
The Harvard decision offers a reminder: The First Amendment is not just about the right to speak without fear of jail. It’s also about ensuring that the government cannot punish speech indirectly by threatening livelihoods and institutions. That’s why this case matters to the future of free expression in American democracy.
Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin, Frank and Bethine Church Endowed Chair of Public Affairs, Boise State University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Link: https://stmdailynews.com/%f0%9f%93%9c-who-created-blogging-a-look-back-at-the-birth-of-the-blog/
STM Blog | Commentary | October 14, 2026
The viral allegations involving Texas Roadhouse and the treatment of Black customers raised an understandably disturbing question: Could diners trust that they were being served safely and respectfully?
After reviewing available coverage again on October 14, STM Daily News did not locate new verified evidence establishing that the alleged food tampering occurred. We also did not locate a publicly released final report from the outside firm the company said it hired.
The central distinction remains unchanged: the allegations have not been substantiated in the reporting reviewed, while Texas Roadhouse says its investigation points to a hoax.
What the available reporting says
In August, social media posts alleged that restaurant workers deliberately tampered with food served to Black customers. The claims circulated widely and prompted calls for a boycott. Texas Roadhouse said it had not identified current or former employees connected to the accusations.
In reporting updated August 26, KTXS noted that the viral post did not identify a particular restaurant location and that there was no verified evidence connecting the claims to a Texas Roadhouse employee.
The company told the outlet it had found no credible evidence of food tampering. It also said the original Facebook post had been deleted, some users had retracted posts amplifying the claims, and an outside firm had been engaged to investigate the accusations’ source and motives. These details come from August coverage, rather than a new October announcement.
What remains unresolved publicly
Our latest review did not locate a final outside investigation report that readers could examine. We therefore cannot describe that investigation as complete or independently assess its findings.
The company’s description of the claims as a hoax should continue to be attributed to Texas Roadhouse. Likewise, the allegations should not be repeated as though they describe a confirmed incident.
Not locating a new public report does not establish whether investigative work has continued privately. It means the public information we found does not support a stronger conclusion.
Why careful wording still matters
For Black diners, allegations of racist mistreatment can strike a painful nerve. Everyone deserves to sit down for a meal without worrying that their race could make them a target.
Taking that concern seriously requires credible complaints to be investigated thoroughly. It also requires care before assigning blame to a restaurant, a location, or its workers.
Social media can spread a warning far beyond its original audience before anyone verifies the underlying claim. Once that happens, a correction or clarification may never reach everyone who saw the accusation.
That makes transparency essential. Restaurants should explain what they have investigated and what they can substantiate. Those sharing accusations should be equally willing to share corrections and acknowledge uncertainty.
For now, the responsible position is to keep the evidence and the allegations separate. If new, verifiable findings become public, they should be assessed on their merits.
Join the conversation: What do you look for before trusting a viral warning about a business? Share your thoughts in the comments, and keep the conversation respectful.
Editor’s note: This is an October 14 status review of previously reported allegations. It does not announce a new investigative finding.
Sources
- KTXS: Viral post alleges Texas Roadhouse mistreated Black customers; company responds — Includes the company’s statement and explains the lack of verified evidence connecting the allegations to an employee or location.
- Houston Chronicle: Texas Roadhouse investigates Facebook hoax alleging racist food tampering — Covers the company’s denial and its decision to hire an outside investigative firm.
- MySA: Texas Roadhouse faces social media backlash over viral allegations — Details how the claims spread and the restaurant chain’s response.
Related reading
- Snopes: Posts claim Texas Roadhouse servers contaminated Black customers’ food — Examines the viral allegations.
- Restaurant Business: Texas Roadhouse says post alleging racist practices was a hoax — Restaurant industry coverage of the controversy.
- Texas Roadhouse official website — Company information and customer contact options.
College Life
Is College Worth It? New U.S. News Rankings Put More Weight on What Graduates Earn
Is college worth it? MIT has taken the No. 1 spot in the 2027 U.S. News Best Colleges rankings, ending Princeton’s 15-year run. But a new Earnings by Major metric could be even more important for families asking whether college is worth the investment.
For millions of students and families, choosing a college increasingly comes down to a basic question: Is college worth it?
The latest U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges rankings are attempting to provide another piece of information to help answer that question.
The 2027 rankings place the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) at No. 1 among National Universities, ending Princeton University’s 15-year run at the top. But perhaps the bigger story for prospective students isn’t which university occupies the No. 1 position.
It’s a significant change in how U.S. News measures the value of attending college.
For the first time, the rankings include an Earnings by Major factor designed to examine what graduates earn after leaving school — and to compare those earnings with graduates who studied the same subjects elsewhere.
Is College Worth It? U.S. News Looks Beyond Graduation
College has traditionally been promoted as an investment in a person’s future. But as families confront tuition, housing expenses and the possibility of student debt, simply earning a degree may no longer be enough information when deciding where — or whether — to attend.
Students increasingly want to know what happens after graduation.
The new U.S. News Earnings by Major metric examines graduate earnings four years after graduation using data from the U.S. Department of Education’s College Scorecard.
Importantly, the system doesn’t simply compare the average salary of graduates from one university with another.
Instead, earnings are compared within specific academic disciplines.
That distinction matters.
A university graduating large numbers of engineers, computer scientists or students entering other relatively high-paying occupations could otherwise appear to produce stronger financial outcomes simply because of the subjects its students choose to study.
Comparing graduates within similar fields is intended to provide a clearer picture of how graduates from different institutions fare financially.
From Student Debt to Graduate Earnings
The new Earnings by Major metric replaces the Graduate Indebtedness factor previously used by U.S. News.
That represents an important shift in perspective.
Instead of focusing primarily on how much debt students accumulate, the new measure looks at one aspect of what students may receive financially from their education after entering the workforce.
The metric examines employed federal financial aid recipients whose highest degree is a bachelor’s degree.
According to U.S. News, the approach is intended to reduce the influence of family financial advantages and provide a better indication of the economic value institutions may contribute to graduates.
That doesn’t mean earnings alone determine whether a college education is worthwhile.
But for a student potentially investing tens of thousands of dollars — and several years of their life — knowing how graduates in a particular major perform economically can be an important part of the decision.
MIT Takes the No. 1 Spot
Against that changing methodology, MIT moved into the No. 1 position among National Universities in the 2027 rankings.
The top three are:
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- Princeton University
- Harvard University
Princeton’s move to second place ends a run at No. 1 that began with the 2012 edition of the rankings.
Among National Liberal Arts Colleges, Williams College remained No. 1, followed by Amherst College at No. 2. Bowdoin College, Claremont McKenna College, Pomona College and Swarthmore College tied for third.
Nearly 1,700 institutions were evaluated in the 2027 edition.
Outcomes Are Becoming a Bigger Part of the Equation
The addition of graduate earnings is part of a broader emphasis on student outcomes in the U.S. News methodology.
U.S. News says outcomes now account for more than half of a school’s total score.
Institutions can be evaluated using as many as 17 weighted measures, including graduation and retention rates, social mobility for lower-income students, post-graduate earnings, faculty resources and academic peer assessments.
The shift reflects a changing conversation surrounding higher education.
For generations, students were often encouraged to focus heavily on getting into the most prestigious college possible. Today’s students may also be asking more practical questions:
How much will it cost?
How much financial aid will I receive?
How much debt might I have when I graduate?
What do graduates in my intended major earn?
And perhaps most importantly:
Will the investment pay off for me?
College Value Isn’t Just About Salary
Graduate earnings can provide useful information, but salary shouldn’t be treated as the sole measurement of the value of higher education.
Different careers have dramatically different compensation structures.
A graduate pursuing teaching, public service, social work, the arts or nonprofit work may earn less than someone entering engineering, finance or technology while still considering their education worthwhile.
There are also benefits of higher education that are difficult to capture in a salary statistic.
That’s why students comparing schools may want to look beyond an institution’s overall ranking and examine factors such as net price after financial aid, scholarships, graduation rates, student debt, internship opportunities, career placement, location and the strength of the program they actually intend to study.
The best-known university isn’t automatically the best financial or educational choice for every student.
Economic Diversity Also Gets Attention
The 2027 rankings also highlight economic diversity among highly ranked institutions.
According to U.S. News, MIT and Princeton rank third and fourth, respectively, among the top 25 National Universities in the percentage of students receiving federal Pell Grants.
Pell Grants generally assist undergraduate students with significant financial need and typically do not have to be repaid.
Among the top 25 National Liberal Arts Colleges, Amherst College ranked highest for economic diversity under the U.S. News measure.
A New Ranking Looks at In-State Value
U.S. News is also placing additional attention on affordability for students considering public universities.
The 2027 edition introduces a Best Value Schools for In-State Students ranking, which evaluates public universities based on academic quality and affordability for residents.
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill took the No. 1 position in the inaugural ranking.
That category could be particularly relevant to families deciding whether the prestige associated with attending a private or out-of-state university justifies potentially higher costs compared with attending a public institution in their home state.
The Rankings Look Different This Year
There is another important caveat when comparing the 2027 results with previous years.
Changes to the Carnegie Classification framework resulted in approximately 20% of previously ranked institutions moving into different U.S. News categories.
Because some colleges are now being compared against different groups of institutions, their 2027 rankings may not be directly comparable with previous years.
The changes also expanded eligibility, allowing additional institutions specializing in areas such as engineering, business and health to enter the rankings.
U.S. News also introduced an undergraduate economics specialty ranking while continuing rankings covering areas such as social mobility, innovation, historically Black colleges and universities, artificial intelligence programs, internships, undergraduate research and study-abroad opportunities.
Public Universities, HBCUs and Social Mobility
Among public National Universities, the University of California, Berkeley and UCLA tied for the No. 1 position, followed by the University of Michigan–Ann Arbor.
The top three Historically Black Colleges and Universities were:
- Spelman College
- Howard University
- Tuskegee University
For social mobility among National Universities, Florida International University and the University of California, Riverside tied for No. 1, with Oakland City University ranked third.
These categories illustrate another reason students may want to look deeper than a school’s overall national position. Different rankings can reveal institutions performing particularly well in areas that may matter more to an individual student.
So, Is College Worth It?
There isn’t one answer that applies to every student.
The cost of attending, financial aid, chosen major, career goals, likelihood of graduating and potential debt can dramatically change the financial equation.
A college with a famous name and high national ranking could be a poor financial choice for one student while a less prominent public university with generous financial aid could be an excellent investment for another.
That’s what makes the addition of Earnings by Major noteworthy.
Instead of asking only “Which college ranks highest?”, prospective students now have another reason to ask a much more personal question:
“What am I paying for — and what could I realistically get in return?”
MIT replacing Princeton at No. 1 makes the headline.
But for students and parents trying to decide whether college is worth the cost, the growing emphasis on outcomes, affordability and post-graduation earnings may ultimately be the more important story.
Source: U.S. News & World Report, 2027 Best Colleges rankings, released September 22, 2026.
U.S. News & World Report press release:
MIT Claims No. 1 Spot in U.S. News 2027 Best Colleges Rankings PR Newswire
Stay Informed with STM Daily News
From education and personal finance to technology, lifestyle, transportation and the stories shaping our everyday lives, STM Daily News keeps you informed about what matters — and why it matters. Get more news, useful insights and the latest updates by visiting STM Daily News and subscribe to stay connected to the stories worth knowing.
Forgotten Genius Fridays
Sarah Boone Improved the Ironing Board by Thinking About the Sleeve
Sarah Boone didn’t invent the first ironing board. The New Haven dressmaker patented a clever improvement shaped for pressing sleeves and fitted clothing.
Forgotten Genius | STM Daily News
Try ironing a sleeve on a wide, flat board. The fabric bunches, the seams curve, and pressing one side can leave a crease on the other. For dressmaker Sarah Boone, that everyday frustration presented a problem she could solve.
Working in New Haven, Connecticut, Boone designed an ironing board shaped for sleeves and fitted garments. Her board was narrow enough for a sleeve to slip over it, allowing one side to be pressed without flattening the other. Its curved edges followed the lines of a sleeve’s seams, while its supports helped position the board for different uses.
Boone filed her patent application in 1891. On April 26, 1892, she received U.S. Patent No. 473,653 for her improvement.
Boone did not invent the first ironing board. What she patented was a thoughtful redesign for a particular task. That distinction makes her achievement more interesting: she understood how the tool was used, recognized where it fell short, and changed its shape to make the work easier.
The patent drawing brings her idea to life. Instead of the broad surface most people picture when they hear “ironing board,” Boone’s design looks almost like the part of a garment it was meant to support. It is a practical solution from someone who knew the job firsthand.
That is the heart of Sarah Boone’s story. Invention does not always begin with an entirely new machine. Sometimes it begins when a person doing familiar work asks a better question: What would this tool look like if it truly fit the task?
Boone answered with a design—and secured a place in the history of Black innovation.
References:
Sarah Boone’s Original Ironing Board Patent — U.S. Patent No. 473,653, granted April 26, 1892. Includes her description, construction details, and original drawings.
USPTO: Beyond Baker’s List—Black Innovation Then and Now — Identifies Boone as a New Haven dressmaker who patented an improved ironing board shaped for bodices and sleeves.
USPTO: Found on Baker’s List — Background on Henry Baker’s work documenting Black patent holders, providing historical context for the Forgotten Genius series.
Explore more inventors and innovators in STM Daily News’ Forgotten Genius series.
Sources: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; Sarah Boone’s original 1892 patent, available through Google Patents.
