Last week’s death of Jason Arday—the youngest black professor in the University of Cambridge’s history—who was accused of widespread plagiarism, has created a firestorm of reactions.

Some say Arday was targeted by racially motivated reactionaries who unfairly used him to dunk on diversity, equality, and inclusion. Cambridge Chancellor Chris Smith called the media investigations into Arday a “racist feeding frenzy,” and Simon Woolley, principal of Homerton College at Cambridge, said Arday had been subjected to a “vicious witch hunt,” reports the BBC. Others have gone a step further, calling for a crackdown on press freedoms.

“Freedom of the press should never have been freedom to own and dominate the press. (And push constant misinformation and lies.),” Zack Polanski, leader of the Green Party, wrote on X. “Media regulation. Now.”

After prominent journalist Andrew Neil challenged Polanski’s proposal and called it “fascism,” Polanski decided to double down by saying, “A few billionaires owning the majority of the press and behaving however they want is not a free press. Change is coming.”

The proposed press censorship is dystopian in itself, but Polanski’s claim that the “billionaires” own “the majority” of the press is less true today than it ever has been. According to Ofcom, the British media regulator, more than half of U.K. adults use social media to get their news. In 2025, Press Gazette reported that 11 major national newspapers were suffering double-digit, year-on-year circulation declines, with several losing around a fifth or more of their print readership. In other words, the media landscape is now far more decentralized than ever, and the barrier to entry is far lower (thanks in large part to the billionaires who have created the technology and platforms to do so).

This has not stopped progressive zealots from virtue signaling and joining the demand for press censorship. Writer Will Self wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Andy Burnham, calling on the government to “establish a full independent public inquiry” and for the police to begin “impounding computers.” He assures readers that “this is not an attack upon a free press,” but that “you don’t have to be innocent to possess a right not to be collectively destroyed.”

Polanski and several Labour members of Parliament have signed an open letter demanding press regulation. The letter accuses the press of racism and calls for a government investigation by the Independent Press Standards Organisation into the accusations against Arday. Clive Lewis, a Labour politician, said that the articles about Arday “reached way beyond what could be reasonably considered in the public interest,” and that “Accountability cannot mean turning a human being into public sport.” He is one of 53 parliamentarians who have signed the letter.

These calls for censorship are not merely hypothetical. Last year, Jack Grove, a reporter for Times Higher Education (THE), investigated Arday’s extraordinary claims—including academic plagiarism, raising 5 million pounds for charity and running 30 marathons in 35 days. Arday hired a defamation firm and reported Grove to the police, who then told Grove that he must not contact Arday again as “it was affecting his mental health.”

THE decided not to run the story. “While I was personally disappointed,” Grove later wrote, “I understood; by this point, Arday’s solicitors had been in touch with THE and it was clear that the story could tie the publication up in months of expensive litigation.”

The plagiarism rumors eventually reached Nathan Cofnas, a former researcher at Cambridge and now a Substack blogger, who investigated the claims himself and subsequently broke the story.

Perhaps, had the police not spent months investigating Grove, and had Grove been allowed to publish his findings, the story would have taken a different turn. The claims could have been “raised by a reputable sector publication, staffed by trained and conscientious journalists, which has no desire to inflict damage on the sector,” writes Grove. “Instead, the legal threat meant they were picked up by a Substack blogger who knew the potency of what he had found and was ready to draw conclusions that I do not agree with.”

Of course, Arday’s death is a tragedy, but the press have every right to ask questions. Arday was a high-profile academic who has advised the British government on the national school curriculum. He testified before parliamentary committees, worked at a taxpayer-funded institution, and was reportedly working on projects that received millions of pounds of taxpayer cash.

As Reason’s Robby Soave noted earlier this week, “if we start policing people for asking totally legitimate questions of public figures, like a notable academic, then we are quickly going to render important institutions—like academia—immune to criticism. That would be a terrible mistake, quite obviously.”

Press freedom is essential to a free society. Without it, people are prevented from obtaining necessary information in the public interest, and bad actors cannot be held accountable. The irony is that, while some politicians now argue that tighter press restrictions are needed to prevent another case like Arday’s, it was arguably censorship that inflicted greater harm.

The post Censors Seize on Jason Arday's Death as Excuse To Demand More Censorship appeared first on Reason.com.

There’s a quiet revolution happening in K-12 education, driven by parents and teachers who say they’ve had enough.

Jessica Zivkovic knows the feeling. “Ultimately I got to a point where I knew that we needed a whole overhaul,” she says, “and I could not bring about the change within the system.”

A handful of states are pushing school choice to the max. “There are a lot of eyes on Florida right now,” says Tiffany Thenor. “We are kind of the pioneers of this universal voucher.”

In the Sunshine State, about 14 percent of students attend a charter school and roughly 15 percent use state vouchers or education savings accounts, and traditional public schools are gradually losing students. It’s like a slowly deflating balloon. And the teachers union says it’s reckless.

“What we’re seeing in Florida—it feels like an abandonment of public schools,” says Andrew Spar, president of the Florida Education Association.

But it’s not slowing down.

Is this the future of American education?

The students at WonderHere in Lakeland, Florida, start their days with farm chores, gardening, and outdoor play. “I like my school. It’s fun. I like that we have animals and we get to play outside,” says Eva, one of the students. William, another student, adds that farm life “teaches you how to be more responsible”—that if you touch something you’re not supposed to, “it could end up costing the lives of some of the animals.”

WonderHere was started 10 years ago by public school teachers Tiffany Thenor and Jessica Zivkovic. Zivkovic describes the moment she knew the system was broken: “I was teaching second grade at a different school, and our administration said that they did not want any use of crayons, scissors, coloring pages, any sort of crafting in the classroom—like everything should be paper and pencil. And this is 7-year-olds.”

She compares it to a scene in the film Matilda: “It felt like Ms. Trunchbull is coming down the hall and you have to hide all of your colorful things and all of the fun crafts and all the color. Because that’s not allowed. Those are the moments that just really taught me that the system was so broken.”

They started WonderHere as a private school. Today, it operates out of two converted homes on a 10-acre property. The curriculum incorporates teaching practices from Montessori, the child-centered educational philosophy known as Reggio Emilia, and academic standards from Finland. There are just 120 students on the Lakeland campus.

“We have a 12-to-1 student-teacher ratio,” says Thenor, “and that allows for our teachers to be able to personalize each student’s learning, to meet with them one-on-one each day, to make sure that they are taking notes and being observant of their learning behaviors and their interests.”

WonderHere began accepting state vouchers in 2023 after Florida made them available to all students seeking an alternative to their zoned schools. Thenor says 95 percent of their Florida students now use a voucher.

“It’s been a huge blessing for us to be able to accept students with the Florida Empowerment Voucher,” says Zivkovic. “When we started WonderHere, we never wanted it to be a place that was only for families who could afford it.”

Florida’s vouchers, worth about $8,000, almost completely cover WonderHere’s $9,000 annual five-day tuition.

Colossal Academy in Fort Lauderdale is also part of the “microschool” movement, replicating the feel of the one-room schoolhouse, with kids of different ages together in one setting. State vouchers enable more families to send their kids here.

“It’s been a godsend, literally,” says parent Sadiqa Glusman. “We wouldn’t be able to afford going here.”

The vouchers cover about half the cost of Colossal’s full-time tuition. The average secular private day school tuition nationwide is $49,000 a year. By contrast, three-quarters of microschools nationwide charge less than $10,000, according to a National Microschooling Center survey.

“Today’s emerging schooling models are nothing like typical private schools,” says Kerry McDonald, the author of Joyful Learning: How to Find Freedom, Happiness, and Success Beyond Conventional Schooling.

“School choice mechanisms certainly make alternative education options more financially accessible to more families, and that leads more families to look around and see what’s available to them, which then leads more potential founders to go ahead and respond to that demand for something new and different by opening a new school or space,” McDonald says.

Families can also spend money from their education savings accounts at homeschool “co-ops,” which became popular when public schools shut down during COVID. McDonald notes that “many of these new schools and hybrid learning communities and homeschool collaboratives…were sprouting all across the country, primarily created in many cases by former public school teachers who left the classroom either during COVID or shortly thereafter, and began creating their own learning communities focused around individualized, flexible, student-centered education.”

The national homeschooling rate has been increasing at about 5 percent a year, more than double the pre-pandemic rate. Microschooling is also growing, serving an estimated 750,000 U.S. students, though the line between microschooling and homeschooling can be blurry. Microschools serve a disproportionate share of “students with learning differences whose needs aren’t being met in traditional schooling environments,” according to a 2025 report by the RAND Corporation.

The founder of Colossal Academy is Shiren Rattigan, a former Chicago public school teacher. It started as a homeschool pod during the pandemic.

“It’s March 2020 and people just didn’t know what to do,” she recalls. “We started with four students, and I thought, ‘OK, well, if you pay me less than what you’re paying the Montessori school, it’ll still make my salary, and I only have to be responsible for four children.’ And so I did, and the students were like, ‘Can we go to the beach?’ And I’m like, ‘yeah, hop in the car. ‘ They’re like, ‘can we start gardening?’ I’m like, ‘whatever you need.’ That just completely opened my eyes into the possibilities of what we should be calling school—everything in the world could actually be their classroom.”

The actual academic instruction is a blend of in-person and self-directed virtual learning.

Rattigan says the model is especially well-suited to kids who don’t thrive in traditional settings, “whether it be like super hyperactive boys that don’t want to sit still—and they shouldn’t have to, right? The learning environment needs to allow and forgive and give grace for our students that need to move.”

Seventy percent of Florida students attended district-run public schools last year. That’s down from 86 percent 25 years ago. That means the traditional public schools have a lot less money.

Spar says public schools have absorbed the financial hit. “There was about $260 or $280 million that got withheld from public schools. And those withholdings were because the voucher program needed more money.”

Florida state Sen. Don Gaetz (R–Pensacola) supports school choice but also became a leading critic of how Florida has administered its voucher and education savings account program after a state auditor report cited a “myriad of accountability challenges.” At a Senate committee hearing, Gaetz noted: “They cannot locate 30,000 students that they’re paying for. That’s $270 million that we’re paying for students, which on any given day of the week, we can’t find.”

Gaetz introduced a bill that would separate the funding of vouchers and education savings accounts from district school funding to better track the money. “I introduced the bill because as a strong supporter of school choice, I wanted to make sure that school choice wasn’t besmirched by the way that the Family Empowerment Scholarship legislation had rolled out,” says Gaetz, a former school superintendent.

In some cases, public schools are getting state money to educate students who are also receiving vouchers. Gaetz says “$1 to 2 million” may also have gone to fund education savings accounts for students who don’t exist. One private school is accused of taking voucher money for students who never attended. According to the state auditor, the state failed to recoup between roughly $10 million and $59 million in overpayments.

“By mixing all the money we began a chain of accounting problems and financial management problems,” says Gaetz.

Some school choice advocates oppose Gaetz’s bill on the grounds that separating out voucher funding will make it easier to cut. Gaetz isn’t worried: “We have a Republican governor who favors school choice, a Republican House that favors school choice, and a Republican Senate that favors school choice. Who are we afraid of?”

Spar says public schools aren’t competing on a level playing field. “We have right now in the State of Florida 1,408 pages of public school law that every public school must follow. But when you look at charter schools, it’s less than 100 pages. When you look at vouchers in Florida, it’s less than 20 pages of laws that those schools have to follow. So it doesn’t sound like we have a very fair system in the state.”

Gaetz introduced a bill to cut down on public school regulation, but Spar also wants more regulation of private schools.

“Why shouldn’t they be required to tell parents the types of teachers they have there?” Spar asks. “Do they have college degrees? Because in a lot of cases they do not. Are they certified as a teacher in the state of Florida”

That kind of restrictive licensing and regulation is exactly what the founders of WonderHere and Colossal say they were escaping.

Rattigan says she’s held accountable by her customers. “If I’m not doing what my families want, they go, right? And so then I’m either forced to change, whereas we have failing [public school] systems that continue to be funded. When a school is failing, they don’t shut it down in a traditional public environment. They keep it open and, in fact, they throw more money at it.”

When we visited Colossal, part of the students’ day was spent harvesting in the garden and cooking stir-fry. They also study art, music, photography, and how to fly a drone. More regulation and licensing would make such programs more difficult and expensive to operate.

“Adults who are experts really want access to young people, and we just can’t do that in the traditional [setting],” says Rattigan. “There are too many barriers to entry to be able to work with young people. We are so happy to take all that expertise.” She adds that subject experts “may not know how to work with young people,” so “we’re teaching them how to teach.”

Rattigan says she can try new things and abandon them quickly if they aren’t working. “If a student wanted drones, they would tell me on Tuesday. By Thursday, I have drones. By the next Tuesday, we have a teacher in, we’re doing drones. It’s actionable and fast.” That flexibility disappears in a more regulated environment. “If I was in a traditional public [school], I would have to go and ask my principal, and then they’d have to check the district, and then everybody in eighth grade, the following year or two, would be doing drones. Not the four kids that asked me for it.”

When asked about accountability, Rattigan pushes back: “It’s a new market. You can’t use old standards to measure a new market. That’s with anything, right? When you build anything new, you have to create new matrices by which you decide something is successful or not. In our particular school, we believe in rigor. And our students are taking a standardized test. But we’re in a moment now of innovation—can we use the same old archaic measurement tools to study something that’s brand new?”

Voucher and education savings account recipients do have to take some standardized tests for tracking purposes, but the results don’t affect a private school’s “rating” or funding in the way they would a traditional public school.

“We do not consider those tests to be high stakes,” says Thenor. “We just consider them to be one additional piece of data.”

The founders at WonderHere say the government’s intense focus on standardized test scores has created the one-dimensional, stifling environment they want to disrupt.

“The Department of Education really wants there to be accountability and cohesion because that’s easy to create data from, it’s easy to monitor progress, it is easy to determine whether a school is passing or failing,” says Zivkovic. “But there is a cost to that accountability. We’re not opposed to monitoring students’ progress, but it cannot come at the cost of such a rigid structure. Our children—we’re humans, right? We’re not like a product in a factory that can be easily discarded if it doesn’t meet quality standards.”

Florida has made the wager that if public and private schools alike must compete for students, standardized tests alone will no longer determine whether a school is failing or not: Families will.

Gaetz puts it bluntly: “It used to be that you move into a community, you know where your local school is, your zone for that school, that’s where your child goes. Now, none of that is true anymore. Now it’s an unstable and unpredictable marketplace. And school districts are going to have to choose: Do they want to be a collection of buildings that begin to be emptied out and an employment agency for unions? Or do they want to supply services and goods to parents and teachers and students?”

And that seems to be exactly what’s happening. Many district-run public schools have adapted to the competition by rebranding as “magnet” schools and touting their arts, science, or other specialized programs. Even Spar’s daughter bypasses her zoned high school to attend one with an extensive dance program. When asked whether he supports that kind of choice, Spar says “that absolutely is something I support wholeheartedly.” He adds: “We’re not advocating for ending vouchers or charter schools. We’re not in that position at all. The question is, are we going to give public schools the ability to experiment too?”

Gaetz, for his part, wants to do exactly that. “I think it’s a fair assessment that public schools are regulated more. That’s why I support as much deregulation in public schools as we possibly can do. In fact, we have a major dereg bill moving through the legislature this year.”

And at least one Florida public school has plans to incorporate lessons from the private sector. WonderHere will run two K-1 classrooms at a struggling public school next school year. “The parents will opt in. They will lean into the learning environment the way our private school parents do. We will not do letter grades. We will not do report cards. We will do far less paper [and] pencil. They will play outside. We might even get chickens if I can pull it off,” says Thenor.

“When we started WonderHere, our goal was always to try and influence public education,” adds Zivkovic. “We never wanted to leave and turn our backs and just say, ‘Well, good luck, guys.’ We wanted to do something that proved that a different type of learning could exist.”

So what about waste and fraud? Gaetz’s bill failed in the Florida House, but the State Department of Education has begun checking directly with school districts instead of relying on parent surveys to avoid paying for double enrollment. The nonprofit that distributes the funds has enhanced its monitoring efforts and reports that accounts flagged for possible double-billing fell from 28,000 to 6,000.

School choice in Florida remains broadly popular. Education savings accounts are the most popular form of school choice, according to recent polls. The future of education looks more decentralized, nimble, and, for some, micro.

“I think microschooling is here to stay,” says Rattigan. Thenor agrees: “All of these beautiful vouchers that are coming out, giving parents the opportunity to take their funding and choose what’s best for them and their family—I think that is powerful and it’s a power parents should always have.” McDonald puts it in broader terms: “More and more families are demanding more options for their children’s education, more education models that are reflective of the realities of the 21st century. I have so much personalization in the other goods and services that I access. I want that same level of personalization in my children’s education.”

The post The Rise of Florida's 'Microschools' appeared first on Reason.com.

As the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence nears, it looks like Americans overwhelmingly approve of their country’s cardinal principles.

That’s the top-line finding from a recent survey conducted by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) about the legacy of America’s founding. While its results did reflect a generational divide—baby boomers were much friendlier to the Founding than Gen Z—73 percent of the younger generation still agreed that “the founders deserve respect…for how they set up the United States.” And 74 percent of Gen Z respondents agreed that “studying the political principles of the founding fathers can help inform our decisions today.”

Support for Founding principles was also impressively robust across party lines: 92 percent of Republicans and 77 percent of Democrats said that it was “more important than ever to teach all kids the history of the founding fathers.”

But though the sentiment is generally popular, its specific implementations tend to be rather controversial. In Florida, a recently devised A.P. U.S. History alternative, which casts the Founding and its Enlightenment-influenced classical liberalism in a rosier light, has been characterized by the media as an “anti-woke” reaction and a specifically “conservative” reform. 

The AEI survey also revealed surprisingly broad support for capitalism. Among 5,306 respondents, 82 percent said it was “very” or “somewhat important” to teach about “the benefit of free market capitalism” in high schools. Only 4 percent said that it should not be taught.

The result stands in stark contrast with other recent polling on the popularity of capitalism. For instance, a Gallup survey from last September found that just 54 percent of Americans have a positive opinion of the economic system, down from 61 percent in 2010.

There have been other prominent indications that Americans’ faith in the free market could be slipping. New York City, for instance, elected a self-avowed socialist for mayor, who used his inauguration speech to decry “the frigidity of rugged individualism.” (Washington, D.C., may soon follow in NYC’s footsteps.)

Still, not all of the AEI survey results tell a story of Americans eager to “accentuat[e] positive views of America.” Among parents surveyed in 1998, 50 percent said they would be upset if their children’s teacher “constantly criticized America’s economic and political system”—this year, only 32 percent agreed.

But beneath the malaise, it would seem that Americans are fundamentally committed to the values and freedoms of the Founding. “Much has changed since the late 1990s,” the AEI report reads, but “still, most Americans in 2026 report that they are familiar with our founding documents and endorse long-standing civic ideals such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and equal opportunity.”

The post Americans Still Believe in the Founding—and Want Schools To Teach Capitalism appeared first on Reason.com.

In the 2024–2025 school year, 60.2 percent of grades awarded at Harvard were A’s, according to the school’s Office of Undergraduate Education. For context, only a quarter of undergraduates received A’s two decades ago, reported The Harvard Crimson. 

Harvard students are undoubtedly bright, but should professors be giving them that many A’s? According to Harvard’s new grade inflation policy, no. On Wednesday, the school’s faculty voted 458–201 to put a 20 percent cap on A grades starting in the 2027–2028 school year, reports the Crimson. The plan, the outlet reports, would also allow for professors to give four additional A’s per course enrollment. 

A 2025 report attributed Harvard’s “out of whack” (as one faculty member described it) grading system to a few factors, including professors’ unwillingness to be perceived as “demanding” compared to other faculty and “increasingly litigious” students. 

The college also acknowledged that the pressure to inflate grades may come from the school itself, admitting that professors were increasingly expected to provide emotional support to students struggling with “difficult family situations,” “imposter syndrome,” and “stress.” As a result, “requirements were relaxed, and grades were raised, particularly in the year of remote instruction.” Many faculty members wanted to “reverse that shift,” but they reportedly feared whether the administration would “have their back.” Finally, the school shifted from assigning high-stakes exams to giving more, lower-stakes assignments, which many professors found difficult to assess in a “sufficiently differentiated way.”   

Harvard is not the only school struggling with grade inflation. In Yale’s recent report examining why Americans have lost trust in higher education, the school acknowledged that grade inflation was partially to blame. To “restore common grading norms,” the report recommended instituting “a 3.0 mean, or some other college-wide standard, so that letter grades can once again be used in a reliable and comparable way.” The report also recommended that Yale transcripts provide context for where students stand “relative to the rest of the class,” so students are not penalized for taking more demanding courses. Reason’s intern Ari Shtein, a current Yale student, has suggested this may be a more sensible, context-based approach to tackling grade inflation than instituting a grading cap.

Princeton recognized the grade inflation problem early, and in 2004, it adopted a grade cap policy. But it “abandoned the system a decade later after criticism that it disadvantaged students in competition for jobs and graduate school admission,” reported the Associated Press. Since then, the problem has resurfaced, with A-minuses, A’s, and A-pluses making up 66.7 percent of undergraduate grades in the 2024–2025 school year. 

Tackling grade inflation always seems to produce some controversy, understandably among students. When Harvard released its October report on grade inflation, several students told the Crimson the report “misrepresented their academic experience and would add pressure to an already demanding campus environment.”

In a statement released Wednesday, Harvard’s dean of Undergraduate Education Amanda Claybaugh said that grade inflation is a “complex and thorny issue.” Still, she encourages other institutions to confront similar issues with “the same level of rigor and courage.”

Harvard is taking a risk by curbing grade inflation, but it is one that others would need to adopt to restore meritocracy across the board. If other schools continue to dole out A’s like Oprah while others assess students more harshly, employers will continue to receive unclear and potentially misleading signals about students’ academic performance. And grades are not just for employers’ eyes; they are for the students to understand how well they have mastered a subject. If the purpose of a university is to pursue truth, students deserve honest feedback from their professors, even if that means receiving lower grades.

The post 60% of Harvard Grades Were A's in 2025. Now the School Is Fighting Grade Inflation. appeared first on Reason.com.

Farmer Alfalfa heads to town with an old truck full of corn. The truck is on the verge of collapse. But after selling his corn to Grocer Cat, Farmer Alfalfa uses the money to buy a new truck.

On another day, Alfalfa sells all kinds of produce and uses the money to make purchases from local merchants, including Stitches the tailor and Blacksmith Fox. Stitches, in turn, uses the money from Alfalfa to buy “an egg beater so that his family can make fudge,” while Fox buys more iron to use in his blacksmith business.

Welcome to the very busy—and pro-market—world of children’s book author and illustrator Richard Scarry. If you were a child in the latter half of the last century, there’s a good chance you read some of Scarry’s books. The man was prolific, completing more than 150 works from the 1950s to the 1980s (with many more Scarry books published after his death in 1994).

The Alfalfa stories come from Scarry’s What Do People Do All Day?, originally published in 1968. Set in Busytown, the book introduces readers to an array of professions—from carpenters and electricians to mail carriers, sailors, stay-at-home mothers, air traffic controllers, and many more.

Along the way, What Do People Do All Day? demystifies industrial processes that may be especially unfamiliar to young readers in the 21st century: how wheat growing in a field becomes the bread you can buy in a bakery, how cotton becomes clothing, how trees become paper, how coal becomes electricity. Some of the steps described by Scarry may now be a little outdated—but that means today’s readers get a history lesson too.

My sons, ages 2 and 4, are fascinated by chapters such as “The story of seeds and how they grow” and “Building a new road.” They are delighted by zany Busytown characters such as Gorilla Bananas (the friendly neighborhood fruit thief) and Lowly Worm (who pops up unexpectedly throughout the vignettes).

To me, the book’s most notable feature is its uncomplicated and nonchalant promotion of free market economics. Again and again in What Do People Do All Day?, Scarry illustrates how capitalism can benefit both buyer and seller. Busytown characters use their labor and skills to provide products and services their neighbors want and, in exchange, earn money that they use to fulfill their own families’ needs or invest in their own business activities.

What makes this especially great is that the book’s pro-market bent feels more incidental than ideological. This isn’t a book that hits readers over the head with a particular worldview. Rather, it implies a defense of free market capitalism just by describing the simple and symbiotic way that free markets work.

It may sound funny to say that realism lies at the heart of books full of anthropomorphic animals, several of whom drive pickle-shaped vehicles. But whimsy and realism go hand in hand in Busytown, in a way that just so happens to showcase some basic economic truths.

If they were ever known, Scarry’s personal political views seem to have been lost to history. But What Do People Do All Day? isn’t the only Scarry book that feels slyly oriented toward individualism.

In The Bunny Book, originally published in 1955, family members of a baby bunny take turns speculating about what the little boy will be when he grows up. “But the baby bunny did not want to be a doctor or a lifeguard or a farmer with a fine red tractor when he grew up,” it says. Instead, “the baby bunny will be a daddy rabbit” who plays games with his kids, reads them books, and tucks them into bed each night.

The Bunny Book—which was illustrated by Scarry and written by his wife, Patricia—never explicitly comments on this gender-role subversion. Unlike so many “message” books aimed at kids today, Scarry’s work lets readers make of the story what they will. It’s not even apparent if the Scarrys intended a message here at all, beyond the fact that this particular cute baby bunny boy’s ambition was to be a dad.

Over the years, Scarry got some flak for nonliberated portrayals of female characters in some of his early books. In later editions, he would add male characters in domestic roles, give the female animals more diverse jobs, and make other updates to keep up with changing mores. But the basic benefits of markets seem to have stood the test of time in Busytown.

The post The Happy Capitalism of Richard Scarry's Busytown appeared first on Reason.com.

Hello and welcome to another edition of Free Agent! If you’re pregnant and about to give birth, maybe avoid hockey games—or else your child might be known for getting born during a 5–1 drubbing.

We’re coming to you a day early this week with reaction to President Donald Trump’s executive order that he thinks will fix college sports (it will not). We’ll start with that, move on to some sports TV news, and close with thoughts on the Masters ticket lottery. Giddy up.

But first, congratulations to Reason‘s own Phillip “The Ultimate Fris” Bader on winning our women’s bracket challenge, followed by Carl “Milwaukee’s Best” Peterson in second. Yours truly came in third—smart enough to pick UCLA to win, not chalky enough to beat Phillip and Carl.

Locker Room Links

• After bailing out the government authority that owns Progressive Field and Rocket Arena, Cleveland’s Democratic Mayor Justin Bibb is looking at raising fees on fans and businesses to fund stadium repairs.
• If you try to teach your underage child how to bet responsibly in New York State, you might get banned from concerts and casino restaurants.
• FanDuel Sports Network (formerly Bally Sports Network and Fox Sports Network) is coming to an end soon after the NBA and NHL seasons.
• “New Jersey cannot regulate Kalshi’s prediction market, US appeals court rules.”
• England’s Premier League is “voluntarily” (after a consultation with the government) banning gambling sponsors on jerseys starting next season. Now teams (usually smaller ones) are trying to find tens of millions of lost dollars.
• Augusta National Golf Club is famously extremely protective of its image—it has at least 67 registered or pending trademarks on various phrases and images.
• Volleyball on the rise: Two women’s volleyball matches are happening at Wrigley Field over Labor Day weekend.
• Elsewhere in Reason, our new cover story on presidential power: “Trump Realized He Can Just Do Things. Who Can Stop Him?“
• Go Blue.
  

  Michigan’s best players are a guy Mick Cronin buried, a guy who was a bust at North Carolina, a guy who came off the bench at Illinois and a guy who played at freaking UAB.

  Get outta here. https://t.co/cSUiYxV5un

  — Dan Wolken (@DanWolken) April 5, 2026

Can the President Regulate College Sports?

This certainly isn’t the first time Trump has tried to bring order to a chaotic situation and just ended up making it messier.

The president signed an executive order late on Friday attempting to overhaul how college sports function. The order says college athletes can only play five seasons, and they must happen during a five-year window (even though state judges are already saying otherwise). It also allows only one transfer (even though a 2024 antitrust legal settlement already said the NCAA can’t restrict transfers). Any schools that accept an athlete breaking these rules risk losing their federal funding. It also asks the attorney general (whoever that may be) to invalidate state laws that are in conflict with the order. The order takes effect on August 1.

Yet by the time you read this, the executive order may have already been challenged and stopped in federal courts.

You might think the president would be more focused on the big issues of the day, like inflation or the war he chose to start against Iran, but anyone who’s been a dedicated reader of this newsletter knows the president talks about fixing college sports almost every week.

Many people are frustrated with the constantly changing rules governing college sports, especially transfers and eligibility. A more proactive version of the NCAA may have taken the lead on these issues before the courts forced their hand. Instead, the NCAA has basically said there’s not much they can do, and asked Congress to figure out their mess. Now we have rules created by lawsuits that are ever changing and different by state.

These rules are, for good reason, not something the president can change with the swipe of a pen. But the Trump executive order has made the chaos even worse. Schools are stuck between a rock and a hard place: follow the president’s set of rules, or follow the rules that were set by various court decisions? They have to break someone’s rules, and that’s going to lead them straight back to court.

Apparently the real goal of Trump’s executive order is “to spur legislative action,” sources told The Athletic. But even rules passed by Congress are going to end up getting challenged on constitutional grounds. Attorneys’ billable hours remain undefeated.

The American college sports system is weird and unique. No other country spends as much time, energy, or money on collegiate sports. But Trump’s executive order is a great argument for getting federal government funding out of higher education altogether. “American universities spent $60 billion in federal money in 2023, more than 30 times what they spent in 1953, accounting for inflation,” according to calculations in The New York Times.

Schools wouldn’t have to worry about the president taking all that federal funding away over sports regulations if they didn’t take any federal funding.

Stopping Streaming in its Tracks

Did you know businesses don’t like competition, and often try to use the government to protect themselves? Fox Corp. and Sinclair Broadcasting certainly know it, since they’re trying to get the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to knock down league broadcasting deals with streamers.

“Fox Corp. and Sinclair Broadcasting last Friday submitted statements to the FCC that effectively characterized the streamers as a clear and present danger to the local TV business, with Fox labeling the digital interlopers as an ‘existential threat,'” Anthony Crupi writes for Sportico. Sinclair (which “operates or otherwise provides services to 185 TV stations,” as Crupi describes it) seems to feel entitled to the NFL. Their FCC letter said: “Sports programming is also critical to the financial model that supports local broadcast journalism. Without high-value live sports on broadcast television, local broadcast journalism will suffer.”

The context here is that CBS is renegotiating its deal with the NFL, and FOX is expected to be up next. The old-school broadcasters are worried the NFL might replace them if they get a better offer from a more cash-rich streamer like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, or Apple TV. So now Fox and Sinclair are crying foul to the FCC, hoping for regulation or any kind of government pressure to stave off the streamers. The FCC’s recent request for comment on sports streaming was, as I wrote, “clearly a shot across the bow of sports leagues—a warning that the FCC may consider regulating games on streaming services in some way, or requiring leagues to broadcast every game on TV or the old-school regional sports networks.”

Threats to old business models are how a competitive economy should work. That’s what happens when businesses innovate and deliver new benefits for consumers. Fox and Sinclair aren’t entitled to NFL media rights any more than the Cowboys are entitled to a Super Bowl: You’ve got to be competitive and earn it. But instead of competing, Fox and Sinclair are hoping that whining to the FCC will get them some help. Since they’re both known for favorable coverage of Trump, they might just get it—and totally upend the landscape for streaming sports in the meantime.

The Masters Ticket Lottery Is Dumb

With apologies to soccer, golf is the real beautiful game—and this is the most beautiful week in golf, as the best golfers in the world head to Augusta, Georgia, for the Masters.

But unless you have some truly incredible luck or truly incredible wealth, you probably won’t be there in person. Augusta National distributes Masters tickets via lottery. If you win their lottery, you can get tickets for $140 each. Your odds of winning the Masters lottery in any given year are under 1 percent. If you don’t get through in the lottery, you better have $17,000 to spend on a premium hospitality ticket. Heading over to a ticket resale website is not a great option. As I wrote last year, “You can try to pay through the nose for a pass on the secondary market, but Augusta National has a strict ban on resale tickets and might not let you in—so you risk spending $2,500 on a resale ticket, plus hundreds more on flights and lodging, just to get turned away.”

Basically, as “Rick Golfs” points out below: “Now if you don’t win the lottery, you are screwed. Almost no chance of ever attending. Before you could at least bucket list it and do it once.”

What would you pay to attend the Masters?

The Masters has officially surpassed The Super Bowl and World Cup as the most expensive sports ticket.

$2,000 for practice round
$16,000 for Thursday
$8,000 for Sunday.

Why? The Masters has started cracking down on resellers, so… pic.twitter.com/GXMC2Z7Fcr

— Rick Golfs (@Top100Rick) April 5, 2026

Augusta National has every right to ban ticket resale, but their low prices are not ensuring the most dedicated people are getting in. Raising the price of a day pass, or just adding some extra steps to weed out more casual fans, would help. 

Replay of the Week

The fact that these all happened in a one-run game is mind-boggling. Although I wasn’t actually all that impressed by the first two, which were mostly just well-timed jumps—the last one shows absolutely no regard for his own body.

All THREE of Jo Adell's home run robberies from tonight …

Yes, you read that right ???? https://t.co/bc0Wb9i1Ii pic.twitter.com/axhyQFpLHD

— MLB (@MLB) April 5, 2026

That’s all for this week. Enjoy watching the real game of the weekend, the Houston Gamblers against the D.C. Defenders and the beer snake in the UFL.

The post Trump's College Sports Executive Order Adds Chaos to an Already Wild Legal War appeared first on Reason.com.

The Trump administration has decided that, for student loan programs at least, nursing programs are not “professional” degrees. While the decision simply means nursing students will be subject to a lower federal student loan borrowing cap, nursing organizations have reacted with horror, viewing it as an all-out assault on the nursing profession.

“At a time when healthcare in our country faces a historic nurse shortage and rising demands, limiting nurses’ access to funding for graduate education threatens the very foundation of patient care,” Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, president of the American Nurses Association, said in a statement last month. “We urge the Department of Education to recognize nursing as the essential profession it is and ensure access to loan programs that make advanced nursing education possible.”

However, the truth is much less outrageous. As part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Congress eliminated the Grad PLUS student loan program, which had previously allowed graduate students to borrow up to the cost of attending the program of their choice—in essence, allowing students to use the government as an endless funding supply. Over the nearly 20 years it was in place, the Grad PLUS program helped create a massive increase in graduate borrowing.

When Congress eliminated the Grad PLUS program, it replaced it with a new program that allows those in most graduate school programs to take out up to $100,000 in federal loans, with those in professional degree programs permitted to take on up to $200,000. Because the law was relatively vague about what constituted a professional degree for student loan purposes, a rulemaking committee settled on 11 programs, including medical, veterinary, dental, law, and clinical psychology degrees, for the higher loan cap.

“Classifying advanced nursing degrees as standard rather than professional is not a judgement on the profession’s inherent worth,” Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote last month. “There are many PhD programs, too, that are excluded from the professional loan limit—yet no one would argue that a professor with a PhD in economics is not a professional.” Cooper also pointed out that only advanced nursing degrees, like a Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP), could ever reasonably qualify as professional degrees under a sensible reading of the law. 

Excluding nursing degrees from a “professional” student loan designation isn’t a sign of the Trump administration’s war on nurses; it’s simply recognizing the fact that the vast majority of advanced nursing programs do not charge the exorbitant fees that are common in medical schools, law schools, and dentistry training programs. And, further, exclusion is probably a good thing for prospective nursing students, since the few schools that currently charge beyond the federal limit will be pushed to lower their prices.

Statements like Kennedy’s assume that graduate school tuition is essentially a fixed fact. Attempts to curb students’ ability to take on six-figure federal student loan debts are read as pushing poor students out of school, rather than pushing schools to lower their prices.

While derided as making graduate school less accessible, there’s already some early evidence that federal student loan caps are pushing schools to lower prices. In September, Santa Clara School of Law announced that it was effectively cutting tuition by $16,000, explicitly “to offset the impact of recent repeal of the Graduate Plus federal-loan program.” Caps on student borrowing mean that schools can no longer use the federal government as a bottomless piggy bank, with students suffering the consequences. 

The post The Trump Administration Says Nursing Isn't a Professional Degree. Here's Why That's a Good Thing. appeared first on Reason.com.

In England, the Hertfordshire Constabulary will pay Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine around $26,000 after wrongly arresting them for complaining about their daughter’s school in a private WhatsApp group. Six police officers arrested the couple at their home and detained them for 11 hours on suspicion of harassment and malicious communications. Their “offense” was questioning the school’s head teacher recruitment process. The school reported the parents to the police, claiming their messages upset staff. After a five-week investigation, police found insufficient evidence and took no further action.

The post Brickbat: Wrong Chat appeared first on Reason.com.

But Kennedy has a different concern. He recently told Fox & Friends that he’s worried the phones will case “neurological damage to kids” and “even cancer.”

The difference between Kennedy and me—well, there are many, but the key difference for our purposes today—is that I don’t mistake my suspicions about cellphones, socialization, and learning loss for demonstrated scientific facts.

Many other people have criticized Kennedy from a superficially similar angle: Like me, they think there are good reasons to keep cellphones out of classrooms, and like me, they don’t think Kennedy’s reasons are among them. But these critics argue that phones cause depression, anxiety, and other mental-health issues—and like Kennedy, they seem convinced that these concerns have been vigorously borne out by the scientific method.

Yet the claim that cellphones and social media cause mental health problems is also tenuous. RFK Jr. is wrong to be fearmongering about neurological damage and cancer. But it’s not much of an improvement to act as if Kennedy’s fearmongering is whacko while their fearmongering is just Science.

Evidence Could ‘Look Very Damning’ 

Kennedy told Fox that cellphones “produce electromagnetic radiation, which has been shown to do neurological damage to kids when it’s around them all day, and to cause cellular damage and even cancer.”

As is often the case with dicey information, Kennedy’s statements aren’t simply pulled from nowhere. Cellphones do emit radio frequency radiation. And while most research finds no association between cellphone usage and DNA damage or cancer, “there’s a lot of low-quality research in the literature that, if you wanted to collect all that and put it together, it would look very damning,” as Jerrold Bushberg, a radiation oncologist at the University of California, Davis, told NBC. “There are many activist groups out there that promote those studies and say that that’s the truth.”

The NBC piece goes on to point to a couple studies which could suggest a link between cellphones and cancer, but it also notes some reasons why these studies might not be reliable or might not apply to humans:

In a 2017 study, McCormick and his fellow researchers exposed rodents to radio frequency radiation and found a possible increased rate of certain tumors. However, findings in lab animals don’t necessarily apply to humans, given the many biological differences, and the studies contained limitations that prevented the researchers from drawing conclusions.

A decade earlier, a study looked at cellphone use among more than 5,000 people with brain tumors and found a possible increased risk of tumors in the 10% who used their phones the most. But the research relied on people’s memories about past phone use, which aren’t always reliable, so its results (like those of similar studies) are hard to interpret.

The National Cancer Institute, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency “have all said there’s not enough scientific evidence to associate cellphone use with cancer,” reports NBC. But it adds that “the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified radio frequency radiation as possibly carcinogenic, meaning it cannot rule out a causal link.”

“It is true that in 2011 the hyper-precautionary International Agency for Research on Cancer classified cellphones as a ‘possible carcinogen,'” noted Reason‘s Ron Bailey back in 2013:

But as a somewhat snarky response in the Journal of Carcinogenesis pointed out, the agency classifies coffee and pickles as possible carcinogens, too. Meanwhile, the National Cancer Institute flatly states that “to date there is no evidence from studies of cells, animals, or humans that radiofrequency energy can cause cancer.” A 2012 comprehensive review of studies in the journal Bioelectromagnetics found “no statistically significant increase in risk for adult brain or other head tumors from wireless phone use.”

(See also: “‘Anything Is a Possible Carcinogen’—More On Cell Phones.”)

And of course, if cellphones were causing things like brain tumors—one of the most frequent concerns about potential dangers—one would expect to see brain tumor rates rising dramatically. They are not.

The bottom line is that it may not be absolutely bonkers to posit a potential link between cellphones and certain physical health dangers. But Kennedy is overstating the evidence and ignoring evidence to the contrary.

And that’s just what those saying that cellphones cause teen mental-health problems are doing, too.

Screen Time ‘Proven’ Problematic?

In pushing back against Kennedy’s claims about cellphones and cancer, a lot of entities draw a contrast between his concerns and more respectable concerns about phones.

“Studies have found that excessive use of social media via smartphones can negatively impact teens’ mental health, elevating their risk of depression and anxiety,” NBC declares. “Scientists have also long understood that cellphone use in school can lead to poor academic performance, including lower grades.”

A community note under an X post sharing Kennedy’s statements says: “Despite widely circulated conspiracies and some tests on rats, there is no evidence in humans that cell phone radiation negatively impacts young people. Excessive screen time on the other hand have been proven to be problematic.”

Yes, there are a number of studies showing associations between cell phone usage and various psychological ailments or negative mental states. But these studies suffer both from methodological flaws and from people drawing flawed conclusions from them.

The biggest issue in all of this tends to be people assuming causation from correlation. Research will show a link between high social media use, phone use, or screen time more generally and some negative psychological attribute or maladaptive trait, and people—even some who pay lip service to the maxim that correlation is not causation—will be quick to cite this research as evidence that social media and cellphones are causing a mental-health epidemic.

Yet it’s possible—and plausible—that young people suffering from or predisposed to depression, anxiety, and other issues are more likely to retreat into TikTok videos, to compulsively check Instagram, to go down Reddit forum rabbit holes, and so on. That would make the screen time a symptom, not a cause.

After all, the majority of young people today have and use cellphones, but a much small percentage are prone to what can be termed problematic phone use. If cellphones were the craziness catalyst many claim they are, we should expect to see much higher numbers.

Of course, it’s possible that most young people can use cellphones and social media responsibly but for some subset of them, these things are very bad—perhaps even worse than whatever alternative escape mechanism these troubled teens might embrace in their absence. This, however, is not the claim people tend to make. And even if this is true, it does not follow that we should severely restrict phone or social media use for all young people simply because it may have negative effects on a small percentage of them.

Another issue is with the way these studies are conducted. Studies often ask young people to recall and rate their own social media and/or phone usage, which may not provide reliable answers. (NBC notes this flaw when describing the study showing an association between cellphones and cancer, but apparently it’s different somehow when kids are recalling how much time they spent on YouTube.)

The statistician Aaron Brown has laid out a lot more methodological flaws with various teen tech panic studies. Many of the papers Jonathan Haidt, author of The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness, has cited in his arguments “contained coding errors, inappropriate statistics, and other issues,” Brown points out:

Most downloaded some data of little relevance—either cheap to generate, like surveying your sophomore psychology students, or data collected for a different purpose—and analyzed it with an off-the-shelf statistical approach.

Haidt cites 476 studies in his book that seem to represent an overwhelming case. But two-thirds of them were published before…the period that Haidt focuses on in the book. Only 22 of them have data on either heavy social media use or serious mental issues among adolescents, and none have data on both.

The bottom line: It’s not absolutely bonkers to posit a potential link between cellphones and certain mental-health dangers. But like Kennedy, proponents of restricting internet access and phones for young people tend to overstate the evidence on their side and ignore the evidence to against them.

A Case for Phones in Schools?

Kennedy and the phones-cause-depression crew and I may all agree that getting phones out of schools seems like a good idea.

But do you know who does not agree with us? A lot of parents. According to a survey conducted last year by the National Parents Union, most American parents want kids to have access to cellphones at schools. (Parents were also less down on phones than you might expect, with 46 percent saying phones had a “mostly” or “entirely” positive effect on their child’s life and 42 percent saying they had an equally positive and negative effect.)

I have also heard from teachers who agree that teaching would be easier if no one class carried a phone, but who also point out that a zero-tolerance phone policy means teachers have to spend a lot of time policing phone use, and that this could be an even bigger disruption to learning than the phones are.

Perhaps the phones-in-schools issue isn’t quite as simple or clear cut as it can seem at first.

But one thing seems abundantly clear: School cellphone policies should not be set by the federal government. They probably shouldn’t even be set by the state. These are matters best left to individual schools and school districts.

Local authorities are best equipped to know how big of a problem phones in school really are among their particular student bodies and how local parents and teachers feel about the issue. They’re the ones most likely to know whether restricting phones in their schools is feasible, and the best way to implement any anti-phone policies. (Do students leave their phones in a central place? Are they allowed to use them in the hallways between class, or not at all?) And they’re the ones who know what resources schools can devote to restricting phone use.

There is no universal effect of phones on young people’s psychological health or emotional well-being. We shouldn’t expect there to be a one-size-fits-all approach to phones in schools.

More Sex & Tech News

• Continuing the trend of “anything I don’t like is an antitrust violation,” the Federal Communications Commission is threatening to block telecom and media mergers for companies that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

• The European Union’s executive body won’t stop attacking American tech companies, notes Reason‘s Jack Nicastro.

Today’s Image

The post Everyone Is Wrong About RFK Jr. and Cellphones appeared first on Reason.com.

It’s important we get that fact cleared up first because both sky-is-falling sorts on the left and hail God-Emperor Trump types on the right have a vested interest in acting like an upcoming executive order—expected today—means curtains for the Department of Education.

What Trump’s executive order reportedly will do is tell Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to take “all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return education authority to the States,” while ensuring “uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”

But ending the department and/or certain programs would take an act of Congress. And, as the Associated Press points out, Congress might not be so keen to go there:

The House considered an amendment to close the agency in 2023, but 60 Republicans joined Democrats in opposing it.

During Trump’s first term, former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos sought to dramatically reduce the agency’s budget and asked Congress to bundle all K-12 funding into block grants that give states more flexibility in how they spend federal money. It was rejected, with pushback from some Republicans.

The Trump administration can make cuts, and has been—laying off about 1,300 staffers last week. So, significant reductions in Department of Education programs and/or bureaucracy are imminently possible. But that’s very different than abolishing the Education Department entirely.

But what if the Department of Education is abolished? What would that mean, in practical terms?

For K-12 students in U.S. public schools, it’s unclear how much difference it would make.

“Federal funding makes up a relatively small portion of public school budgets—roughly 14%,” according to the Associated Press. “The money often supports supplemental programs for vulnerable students, such as the McKinney-Vento program for homeless students or Title I for low-income schools.”

Some of these programs could be preserved even without a department of education. At McMahon’s confirmation hearing, she “said she would preserve core initiatives, including Title I money for low-income schools and Pell grants for low-income college students,” notes A.P.

Besides, the order itself is expected to mention “the effective and uninterrupted delivery” of an unspecified spate of “services, programs, and benefits.”

This should calm the nerves of some skeptics of federal education programs who still worry about drastic steps. But for those who truly want to get the federal government out of education decisions, it isn’t enough.

“It’s a good idea to cut the Department of Education,” but more importantly to “scrutinize federal funding of education at all levels, because we spent a lot of money on education before the [Department of Education] existed,” said Reason Editor at Large Nick Gillespie on this week’s The Reason Roundtable podcast.

Does Trump even want to get the federal government out of education? Even as he and other Republicans bash the department and sing the importance of leaving decisions up to state and local governments, Trump has been using the Education Department and threats to withhold federal funding to target college policies and programs with which the administration disagrees.

The Department of Education is investigating colleges over diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, pausing funding over a transgender woman competing on a women’s swim team, and financially punishing schools over pro-Palestinian protests.

This sort of thing isn’t unique to the Trump administration, of course. The specifics differ—for recent Democratic administrations, it was more about pushing more expansive notions of sex and gender, defining sexual misconduct in an expansive way, and using Title IX to push for campus administrators to adjudicate sexual assaults with little due process. But the through line is using the Department of Education to accomplish political or cultural goals not directly related to education at all.

Whatever you think about a particular administration’s goals, it surely isn’t ideal for presidential administrations to attempt to shape ideology on college campuses, or for the federal government to have this much power over campus affairs around the country.

The Department of Education is the “poster child” for having Washington issue “one size fits all diktats” for things that should be handled at a more local level, said Reason Editor at Large Matt Welch on The Reason Roundtable this week. Decentralizing education should be the goal, added Welch. But Trump “wants to influence behavior,” and this makes Welch skeptical that Trump will decentralize education in ways that diminish his ability to have this control.

It’s a step? To the extent that Trump’s order sparks a serious discussion about the federal government’s role in education, it could be a good thing.

Because the Department of Education has been around for several decades (it was created in 1979), many Americans assume it’s always been around or imagine that K-12 public schools couldn’t function without it these days, at least. But most of what the department does has nothing to do with running or funding these schools. And most of what it does in other realms—dreaming up new ways to enforce Title IX, imposing ideological agendas of whoever is in power, managing the federal student loan program that has contributed to skyrocketing tuition costs—we could do without.

Trump can’t kick transgender service members out of the military, a federal judge has ruled. The suit, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, concerns Trump’s January 27 executive order on “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.” The order declared—sans evidence—that transgender people “cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service” as their gender identity “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle.” Under its dictates, openly transgender individuals would be barred from military service.

“The President has the power—indeed the obligation—to ensure military readiness,” wrote Judge Ana C. Reyes in a March 18 opinion. “At times, however, leaders have used concern for military readiness to deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving.”

A group of transgender plaintiffs challenged the executive order and the Department of Defense order that resulted from it. Together, these plaintiffs “have provided over 130 years of military service” and “earned more than 80 commendations,” said Reyes, going on to note the lack of evidence, analysis, or data provided by the Trump administration to declare transgender people unfit to serve. Here’s the money paragraph from the decision:

Transgender persons have served openly since 2021, but Defendants have not analyzed their service. That is unfortunate. Plaintiffs’ service records alone are Exhibit A for the proposition that transgender persons can have the warrior ethos, physical and mental health, selflessness, honor, integrity, and discipline to ensure military excellence. Defendants agree. They agree that Plaintiffs are mentally and physically fit to serve, have “served honorably,” and “have satisfied the rigorous standards” demanded of them. Plaintiffs, they acknowledge, have “made America safer.” So why discharge them and other decorated soldiers? Crickets from Defendants on this key question.

The judge granted a preliminary injunction against the administration’s new policy regarding transgender people in the military.

Scenes from Ohio: An education bill is sparking protests in the state’s capital. Senate Bill 1, also known as the Advance Ohio Higher Education Act, takes aim at diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs at public institutions of higher education and “seeks to prevent faculty from striking and to simplify the process of firing poorly performing tenured professors,” WSYX reports. “While the bill proceeded through the House, a large group of protesters gathered outside the statehouse to denounce it.”

S.B. 1 would also make public colleges post course syllabuses and more information about each course instructor, “declare that it will not endorse or oppose, as an institution, any controversial belief or policy (with an exception for endorsing “the congress of the
United States when it establishes a state of armed hostility against a foreign power”), and “post prominently on its web site a complete list of all speaker fees, honoraria, and other emoluments in excess of five hundred dollars for events that are sponsored by the state institution.”

The bill has now passed the House and the Senate.

Quick Hits

• The Trump administration won’t provide a federal judge with details about flights carrying deported Venezuelan immigrants, saying that providing the information would infringe on executive authority.
• Israeli ground forces have seized part of the Gaza corridor, in what The New York Times is calling “the most significant ground operation since the collapse of the cease-fire with Hamas.” It follows “wide-scale Israeli aerial bombardment in Gaza that began early on Tuesday morning, ending the fragile truce between Israel and Hamas that had held since mid-January.”
• Why was a Brown University surgeon deported to Lebanon?
• A new bill in Arkansas provides more evidence that conservatives’ crusade against transgender people is going to wind up in more gender policing for everyone.
• Why are states suddenly exonerating long-dead “witches”?
• Is this…federal prosecutors admitting they were wrong about something?
• “The Social Security numbers and other private information of more than 200 former congressional staffers and others were made public Tuesday in the unredacted files related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy,” The Washington Post has discovered.
• How Biden enabled Trump’s censorship.

The post Bad Education appeared first on Reason.com.