Dear Commons Community,

Shares of Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company of Donald Trump’s Truth Social platform, plummeted yesterday after the struggling business filed to potentially increase the number of shares for sale.  As reported by The Huffington Post and CNN.

The company’s stock tanked 18%, decreasing its value by hundreds of millions of dollars, after it filed a preliminary prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission detailing plans to offer more than 20 million additional shares. The move appeared to spook investors, worrying them that a massive influx of new shares could deplete the stock price.

Trump Media’s stock has been in a downward spiral since the company went public last month following a merger with a shell company. It debuted on the market at $70.90 a share and dropped to $27 on Monday. As a result, its market value has declined from around $8 billion on its first day of trading to $3.7 billion on Monday.

Trump’s company revealed in an SEC filing two weeks ago that it lost more than $58 million and generated only $4.1 million in revenue last year. As part of the filing, an auditor warned those figures raise “a substantial doubt” about whether Trump Media can “continue as a going concern.” In other words, Truth Social may have to follow in the footsteps of Parler ― another ill-fated conservative social network ― and go out of business. Shares dropped more than 15% that day.

It’s hard to overstate how troubled Truth Social’s financial situation is. For context, Twitter (now known as X) generated more than $660 million in revenue in the year before it went public and $5 billion in the year before it went private under the new ownership of Elon Musk.

Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee for president, launched the company in 2022 after Twitter and Facebook both banned him. Though his suspension on those websites has been lifted, Trump nearly exclusively posts on Truth Social.

His presence on the platform has not proven to be a big draw. It only had about 494,000 monthly active users in February, according to data obtained by CNN. Twitter’s active user base is about 150 times bigger.

Is there a pattern here with Trump having a problem selling gold sneakers, bibles, and now social media platforms!

Tony

Getty Images.

Dear Commons Community,

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. aroused skepticism from both the left and the right yesterday by claiming Donald Trump wanted him to be his vice president.

Kennedy made the dubious claim on X, formerly Twitter, a few days after the former president posted on his Truth Social platform that Kennedy was a “much better” option for Democrats than President Joe Biden ― though he also called Kennedy the “most radical left candidate in the race.”

In Monday’s post, Kennedy responded to the accusation that he’s an “ultra-left radical” by saying that he’s “soooo liberal that [Trump’s] emissaries asked me to be his VP.”

Kennedy claimed he “respectfully declined the offer,” and added: ”I am against President Trump, and President Biden can’t win.”

“Judging by his new website, it looks like President Trump knows who actually can beat him,” Kennedy wrote.

HuffPost reached out to the Trump campaign regarding Kennedy’s claim, but no one immediately responded.

However, Trump campaign adviser Chris LaCivita dismissed the post, saying: “Your a leftie loonie that would never be approached to be on the ticket..sorry!”

Considering that Kennedy, like Trump, has what you might call only a casual relationship with the truth, the post attracted a lot of skeptical comments from both Republicans and Democrats.

Neither can stand the truth!

Tony

P-89, a subadult male mountain lion, was found dead along the shoulder of the 101 Freeway between the DeSoto and Winnetka exits in Woodland Hills on Monday.  (National Park Service)

Dear Commons Community,

My colleagues, Patsy Moskal, sent this story to me.

CNN reported that construction on “the world’s largest wildlife crossing” will close a portion of the Los Angeles County’s 101 Freeway overnight on weekdays for several weeks..

The crossing will span 10 lanes of highway and aim to provide safe passage for wildlife – especially mountain lions – from the Santa Monica Mountains into the Simi Hills of the Santa Susana mountain range.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) began constructing the crossing in April 2022, CNN previously reported. As the project nears completion in 2025, the bridge will be covered in soil and native plants to blend in with the natural surroundings.

Officials say major highways are barriers to wildlife, affecting animals’ movement and gene pools.

Caltrans says the crossing will be the largest of its type in the US, while the project’s official website says it will be the largest in the world and “will serve as a global model for urban wildlife conservation.”

Starting Monday, all southbound lanes of the highway in the Agoura Hills area will be closed from Cheseboro Road to Liberty Canyon Road for about five hours beginning at 11:59 p.m. PT on weekdays, according to Caltrans.

Closures will shift to northbound lanes as work on the crossing progresses, the department said.

“These closures are for the safety of the public while crews place girders over the freeway to construct the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing, a vegetated bridge across Highway 101 to reconnect wildlife habitat,” Caltrans said.

The schedule is subject to change because of weather conditions or operational reasons, and detours on local streets will be provided.

Courtesy of NBC News.

More than 5,000 individual contributions were made for building the crossing, Caltrans said when the project began. It is named for the president and CEO of the Annenberg Foundation, a family foundation that supports non-profits.

“We can coexist side by side with all kinds of wild instead of paving it over and choking it off,” said Wallis Annenberg at the groundbreaking ceremony. “It is about bringing more attention to an ingenious solution so urban wildlife and ecosystems like this one cannot only survive, but thrive.”

The crossing will provide habitat access to coyotes, bobcats, deer, snakes, lizards, toads and even ants, but cougars will be among its chief beneficiaries, the National Parks Service has said.

Mountain lions typically have a territory of 150-200 miles but in Los Angeles, they have been restricted to a freeway-ringed “urban island,” causing inbreeding, according to the NPS.

“Genetic analyses indicate that lions in the Santa Monica Mountains have among the lowest genetic diversity of any mountain lion population ever documented,” the NPS said.

The project’s website notes the crossing will “provide the connectivity needed to fix this genetic collapse by allowing for the cats living north of the Santa Monica Mountains to travel into the range and for animals living south of the freeway to disperse out of the area.”

Famed mountain lion P-22 was born in the Santa Monica Mountains and had crossed two busy Southern California highways, only to become isolated and roam Los Angeles’ sprawling Griffith Park.

The beloved cougar was euthanized in late 2022 after suffering severe injuries consistent with being struck by a vehicle and chronic conditions that impaired his ability to function in the wild, according to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

A very worthwhile project.

Save the mountain lions!

Tony

The Associated Press.

Dear Commons Community,

The Associated Press has a featured article entitled, “Librarians fear new penalties, even prison, as activists challenge books” that highlights issues faced by librarians in states that have imposed restrictions and book bans in school libraries. It reviews well the state of censorship that has rocked the librarian profession which for centuries has been our country’s beacon for freedom of speech and expression. Below is the entire article.

Please read!

Tony

————————————————————————————————–

The Associated Press

Librarians fear new penalties, even prison, as activists challenge books

By HILLEL ITALIE and KIMBERLEE KRUESI

April 9, 2024

When an illustrated edition of Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” was released in 2019, educators in Clayton, Missouri needed little debate before deciding to keep copies in high school libraries. The book is widely regarded as a classic work of dystopian literature about the oppression of women, and a graphic novel would help it reach teens who struggle with words alone.

But after Missouri legislators passed a law in 2022 subjecting librarians to fines and possible imprisonment for allowing sexually explicit materials on bookshelves, the suburban St. Louis district reconsidered the new Atwood edition, and withdrew it.

“There’s a depiction of a rape scene, a handmaid being forced into a sexual act,” says Tom Bober, Clayton district’s library coordinator and president of the Missouri Association of School Librarians. “It’s literally one panel of the graphic novel, but we felt it was in violation of the law in Missouri.”

Across the country, book challenges and bans have soared to the highest levels in decades. Public and school-based libraries have been inundated with complaints from community members and conservative organizations such as as Moms for Liberty. Increasingly, lawmakers are considering new punishments — crippling lawsuits, hefty fines, and even imprisonment — for distributing books some regard as inappropriate.

The trend comes as officials seek to define terms such as “obscene” and “harmful.” Many of the conflicts involve materials featuring racial and/or LGBTQ+ themes, such as Toni Morrison’s novel, “The Bluest Eye,” and Maia Kobabe’s memoir, “Gender Queer.” And while no librarian or educator has been jailed, the threat alone has led to more self-censorship.

Already this year, lawmakers in more than 15 states have introduced bills to impose harsh penalties on libraries or librarians.

Utah enacted legislation in March that empowers the state’s Attorney General to enforce a new system of challenging and removing “sensitive” books from school settings. The law also creates a panel to monitor compliance and violations.

Awaiting Idaho Gov. Brad Little’s signature is a bill that empowers local prosecutors to bring charges against public and school libraries if they don’t move “harmful” materials away from children.

“The laws are designed to limit or remove legal protections that libraries have had for decades,” says Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom.

Since the early 1960s, institutions including schools, libraries and museums — as well as educators, librarians and other staffers who distribute materials to children — have largely been exempt from expensive lawsuits or potential criminal charges.

These protections began showing up in states as America grappled with standards surrounding obscenity, which was defined by the Supreme Court in 1973.

Ruling 5-4 in Miller v. California, the justices said obscene materials are not automatically protected by the First Amendment, and offered three criteria that must be met for being labeled obscene: whether the work, taken as a whole, appeals to “prurient interest,” whether “the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law,” and whether the work lacks “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

Eventually, almost every state adopted protections for educators, librarians and museum officials, among others who provide information to minors.

“Until recently, police and prosecutors were unable to pursue charges against public libraries over materials that make certain individuals uncomfortable. These exemptions have prevented spurious prosecutions of teachers over health and sexuality curriculum, art, theater, and difficult subjects in English classes,” stated a 2023 report from EveryLibrary, a national political action committee that opposes censorship.

Arkansas and Indiana targeted educators and librarians with criminalization laws last year. Tennessee criminalized publishers that provide “obscene” materials to public schools.

Some Republicans are seeking penalties and restrictions that would apply nationwide. Referring to “pornography” in the foreword to Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a possible second Donald Trump administration, the right-wing group’s president, Kevin Roberts, wrote that the “people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders.”

Arkansas’ version was temporarily blocked by a federal judge after a coalition of librarians and publishers challenged the legality of subjecting librarians and booksellers to criminal charges if they provide “harmful” materials to minors.

Indiana lawmakers stripped away “educational purposes” as a defense for school librarians and educators charged with giving minors “obscene” or “harmful” material — felonies punishable by up to 2½ years in jail and $10,000 in fines. The law also requires public catalogs of what’s in each school library and systems for responding to complaints.

Indiana’s law took effect January 1. It’s likely a matter of when — not if — a lawsuit is filed, and the anxiety has created a chilling effect.

“It’s putting fear into some people. It’s very scary,” said Diane Rogers, a school librarian who serves as president of the Indiana Library Federation. “If you’re a licensed teacher just being charged with a felony potentially gets rid of your license even if you’re found innocent. That’s a very serious thing.”

Rogers said she’s confident Indiana’s school libraries don’t offer obscene materials, but she’s seen reports that some districts have moved certain titles to higher age groups or required parental approval to check them out.

A PEN America list shows 300 titles were removed from school libraries across 11 Missouri districts after lawmakers in 2022 banned “sexually explicit” material, punishable by up to a year in jail or a $2,000 fine. The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and library groups challenged the law last year, but it remains in effect pending a motion for the state to intervene.

“Gender Queer” is another title no longer available to high schoolers in Clayton, where district officials recently turned their attention to Mike Curato’s graphic novel, “Flamer,” about a teenager who struggles with his sexual identity and how to fit in at Boy Scout camp. The American Library Association included “Flamer” on its list of 2023’s most challenged and/or banned books.

“We had a lot of conversations about how to interpret the law and not be in violation,” Bober said. “But we also didn’t want to overreach and overcensor our collections. With ‘Flamer,’ we did not feel we were in violation of the law.”

Scottie Scheffler Winning the Masters with caddie Ted Scott.  The New York Times.

Dear Commons Community,

A dominant Scottie Scheffler won his second green jacket at the Masters championship in Augusta, Georgia yesterday, shooting a 68 to finish 11-under while everyone around him splashed and crashed through the back nine. Ludvig Åberg finished second, four strokes back. Scheffler beat everyone else by seven or more.  As reported by Yahoo Sports and The New York Times.

The tournament was essentially locked up when Scheffler tapped in for birdie on 14. Or maybe it was even before that; the man had a nine-hole stretch Sunday with six birdies.

It may be absurd — or absurdly premature — to think a guy who now has two Masters championships could one day challenge Jack Nicklaus’ record six. Yet there may have never been a player with a more perfect mentality, if not game, for conquering Augusta National.

This place is famous for its final-round pressure that has rattled even legends. Yet the 27-year-old Scheffler walks around here staring at his feet and noticing nothing, like he’s just out on a country stroll.

The more the intensity increased, the calmer he appeared. He bombed drives (305.7). He drained putts (1.5 average per hole). He was his typical master of efficiency here, scoring par or better on 87.5 percent of his 72 holes. He’s been par or better in 18 of his 20 career rounds at Augusta.

In 2022, he won his first Masters in similar fashion, cruising almost unchallenged through the final round as Cam Smith faded. Scheffler wound up winning that one by three strokes.

The Masters isn’t really about the golf. There are dozens of players who play golf well enough to win. It’s all the things that happen between the golf that separates the champions from the pretenders.

“I feel like I’m as in control of my emotions as I’ve ever been, which is a good place to be,” Scheffler said. “I feel like I’m maturing as a person on the golf course, which is a good place to be.”

The man is unflappable, unconcerned, maybe even unaware.

“I was very focused out there,” he said.

As if possibly winning the Masters wasn’t enough to rattle him, Scheffler knew his wife, Meredith, was back in Texas, expecting the couple’s first baby any day — or any minute — now. He vowed to leave the tournament if needed — a private jet was waiting in case she went into labor.

It didn’t appear to affect Scheffler. Nothing appears to affect Scheffler.

“That’s a testament to how good of a head space I was in,” Scheffler said. “I wasn’t thinking about it that much. I was doing my best to stay in the moment, stay calm, execute shots.”

This week will be his 48th consecutive where he is ranked No. 1 in the world. He hasn’t posted a round above par since last November, a ridiculous 40 of them in a row (Tiger Woods holds the PGA Tour record at 52 set from 2000-01).

Scheffler was the picture of consistency here this week. Just nine bogeys and one double. He hit 79 percent of fairways and 64 percent of greens in regulation. He three-putted just twice. It’s all in line with his five-year Masters averages.

There is no reason to think anything will change, even with fatherhood on the horizon.

“I’m going to continue to put in the work, keep my head down,” Scheffler said.

Only Horton Smith, who won two of the first three Masters (1934, 1936), became a repeat champ quicker than Scheffler’s five starts.

As for age, Nicklaus won his third at 26. So did Tiger Woods, who has five green jackets. So, in that regard, Scheffler is behind schedule. Give it a year or so though. This guy doesn’t seem prone to massive swings of fortune.

Boring works. Boring pays. Especially at Augusta.

I am a professional golf fan and enjoyed watching the Masters this weekend.

Scottie Scheffler was something special!

Tony

David Swanson/Reuters

Dear Commons Community,

The New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd, had a piece yesterday entitled, “O.J. and the Monster Jealousy”, in which she compares O.J. Simpson to Shakespeare’s tragic character Othello.  She comments on the uncontrollable rage that results in the killing of their wives.  Dowd’s take on O.J. Simpson during his trial and now is completely unsympathetic.

Her conclusion:

“O.J. escaped in his criminal trial but not in his civil trial, though he never paid the penalty or expressed any penance.

He did not, however, escape the opprobrium of many in America who felt that he got away with murder.

In 1995, as an acquitted O.J. plotted to rehabilitate himself, I felt that the victims had gotten lost in the circus.

I drove an hour outside Los Angeles to the Ascension cemetery in Lake Forest. There were bougainvilleas, carnations, sunflowers and daisies heaped on the plain dark marble marker at Nicole Brown Simpson’s grave. People had left teddy bears and rosaries.

One little boy wrote a note promising he would never be mean to a woman when he grew up. A mother wrote a note assuring Nicole that her two kids would be OK: “Your children’s guardian angels will take care of them.”

I talked to a woman named Teresa Myers, who stood staring at the grave for a long time. “Maybe she’s better off now because she’s at peace,” Myers told me. “But maybe she’s not because she knows now that nobody can touch him.”

When I left South Bundy on Thursday, I said a little prayer for the victims and their families.  Fred Goldman, Ron Goldman’s  father, said upon hearing of O.J.’s death, “No great loss.”

I feel the same.”

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Along with a secure post and academic freedom, tenured professors enjoy financial security—or so many outsiders imagine. In fact, many tenured faculty are expected to cover much of their salary with grants, and may be penalized with salary reductions if they do not. That’s what happened at Tufts University School of Medicine—and some researchers are fighting back.  As reported by Science.

Last month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court sent a case brought by eight of the school’s faculty members to trial, writing that their claims have merit: “Tenure would seem to be a hollow promise if it came without any salary commitment.” The case, likely to be heard in 2025, could set an important precedent for tenure expectations across the country.

At issue is a policy the medical school enacted in 2017, stating that tenured faculty members in the basic sciences need to cover 50% of their salary with external grants. If they fail to obtain sufficient funding, they could face a salary reduction and lose their full-time status; the school could also take away their lab space. Similar policies are in place at many medical schools around the country.

In 2019, the eight faculty members—who had been granted tenure between 1970 and 2009—sued the university after their salaries were reduced, claiming their tenure rights had been violated. They point to a key sentence in the university’s policy on academic freedom, tenure, and retirement, which states that tenure includes “a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability.” A court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims in 2023, but they appealed, leading to the recent ruling that the case should proceed.

“This case, this decision, will be very influential to other state courts looking at contractual issues of the meaning of tenure,” says Risa Lieberwitz, a professor of labor and employment law at Cornell University and general counsel for the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). In an amicus brief submitted on behalf of AAUP, Lieberwitz argued that the Tufts plan was “fundamentally incompatible with the principles of tenure, economic security, and academic freedom.”

The faculty bringing the case saw salary reductions ranging from roughly $4500 to $95,500. Some also had their workload cut to part time and their lab space taken away. “My salary is [about] $60,000,” says cancer biologist Amy Yee, a plaintiff who has been a tenured faculty member at Tufts since 1998. “It’s created significant financial hardship.” She’s taken on work in real estate to supplement her income.

“It’s created significant financial hardship.”

In court filings, Tufts has contended it was within its rights to reduce the salaries. “The Plaintiffs for many years have failed to meet the performance expectations,” reads a brief filed during the appeals process. “They have failed to maintain independent research programs which result in impactful scholarship and failed to secure meaningful external funding to support their research.” Court documents indicate that in 2020, the plaintiffs fell well short of covering 50% of their salary.

The plaintiffs point out that they were hired to do research, teach, and carry out service work—not simply to write grants. “I disagree with any language … that considers any of our faculty in the medical school as unproductive,” a plaintiff who requested anonymity told Science.

They also point out that many funders limit how much of a grant can go toward a principal investigator’s pay. Some “won’t pay a penny of my salary,” says Ana Soto, a plaintiff who has been a tenured faculty member at Tufts since 1994 and is known for research showing that bisphenol A, a chemical found in some plastics, is an endocrine disrupter. Pushing faculty members to avoid such grants in favor of others without that restriction infringes on their academic freedom, their lawyer contends.

For Soto, the 2017 policy put her in the difficult position of either satisfying the new university requirement or keeping her lab personnel. “They are not disposable,” she says. Soto chose not to adhere to the policy; court records show she covered 25% of her salary in 2020.

Tufts’s lawyers have argued that the statement in the tenure documents about economic security—which is a customary part of the documents at many U.S. universities, copied from a seminal 1940 AAUP statement—is “aspirational” and not contractually binding because it lacks specificity. But in the judicial court’s decision last month, it concluded that “economic security is an important substantive provision of the tenure contract.” Although the court added that “further evidence … is required to define what types of reductions are consistent with, and not in violation of” the contract, the decision was largely a win for the plaintiffs. The court sided with Tufts on one matter: The professors were not entitled to their own lab space.

The case’s outcome could reverberate around the country. In an amicus brief filed last year, the Association of American Universities—which represents 69 research universities around the country—wrote that accepting the plaintiffs’ argument would “create a financial crisis” because medical schools rely on external grant funding to support their operations. “The understanding for at least the past few decades has been that a medical school can reduce a tenured faculty member’s salary due to lack of productivity.”

Soto counters that universities have a mission that goes beyond doing big-dollar research and that many projects can be done with very little funding. “Universities are not businesses and running them as such is detrimental to the creativity and insight that only academia can produce.”

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Harvard University announced Thursday that it is reinstituting standardized tests as a requirement for admission beginning in fall 2025, joining other colleges that are again mandating tests for those hoping to enter the schools.

In June 2020, Harvard began a temporary test-optional policy under which students could apply to the college without submitting scores. The change was adopted as access to standardized testing during the pandemic became limited.

Other schools like Yale, Dartmouth, Brown and MIT are also again requiring standardized tests for those seeking admission.  As reported by The Associated Press.

Harvard had initially said it was going to maintain its test-optional policy through the entering class of the fall of 2026.

Under the change announced Thursday, students applying to Harvard for fall 2025 admission will be required to submit standardized test scores from the SAT or ACT exams to satisfy the testing component of the application.

In what the school called “exceptional cases” when applicants are unable to access SAT or ACT testing, other eligible tests will be accepted, including Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate exams.

School officials said test scores are weighed along with information about an applicant’s experiences, skills, talents, and contributions to their communities, as well as their academic qualifications in relation to the norms of their high school, and personal recommendations.

Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Hopi Hoekstra said in a news release that standardized tests are a means for all students — regardless of background or life experience — to provide information that is predictive of success in college,

“In short, more information, especially such strongly predictive information, is valuable for identifying talent from across the socioeconomic range,” Hoekstra said.

The school said that all along it welcomed those seeking admission to submit test scores if they had them. Most of those accepted into the college during the past four years submitted test scores, according to the school.

The school also pointed to research that they said found that standardized tests are a valuable tool to identify promising students at less well-resourced high schools, particularly when paired with other academic credentials.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Goddard College in Vermont had done everything it could think to increase revenue and lower costs. It rented out building after building on campus. Turned the dining hall into a for-profit restaurant. Announced the institution would go fully online, with no students on its campus.

It didn’t work. Earlier this week, the college’s board announced it would close at the end of the academic year. “The board really had no choice,” President Dan Hocoy told The Chronicle of Higher Education. “We just couldn’t continue with 200 students.”

Goddard, known for its liberal education, has struggled for years with enrollment losses and its finances. According to audited financial statements, the college lost $535,000 last year. Its overall expense budget was $7.5 million, but it had less than $900,000 in its endowment, the records show. In 2021, its accreditor put it on a notice of concern around its finances.

“The demographic issues all of higher education is facing just became insurmountable for us,” Hocoy said. Vermont, which has seen other small private colleges close in recent years, is aging rapidly and has fewer and fewer college-age residents, Hocoy said. And even those who were attending Goddard weren’t necessarily living on campus and paying dorm fees.

In January 2024, the college announced it would move to an online-only model to cut costs. Before then, about two-thirds of its students had attended classes virtually. “That was just being responsive to our students,” Hocoy said.

The demographic issues all of higher education is facing just became insurmountable for us.

Goddard is also one of dozens of institutions across the nation with a loan from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, often considered “last resort” measures tied to construction projects. Goddard’s loan was for $2.1 million in 2016, for a biomass heating plant. It secured the loan with mortgages on several campus buildings. Typically, the USDA would take over the campus if the college closed, but Goddard’s board hopes to sell its properties and use the proceeds to pay creditors, including the USDA, Hocoy said. The USDA loan is the college’s only long-term debt, financial records show.

The 220 Goddard students, down from 1,900 at its peak in the 1970s, will have a chance to finish their education at Prescott College, in Arizona, at the same tuition rate they had been paying at Goddard, the institution said in its closing announcement.

“We are committed to ensuring that Goddard students continue to have access to a high-quality education and thrive academically,” said Barbara Morris, president of Prescott, in the closing announcement. “Prescott College shares Goddard’s commitment to progressive education, and we are honored to welcome Goddard students into our community.”

There are about 90 faculty and staff members at Goddard. The college is setting up career fairs in the coming months.

Goddard’s closure is the latest in several closure announcements in recent days, including Oak Point University, in Illinois, Birmingham-Southern College, in Alabama, Notre Dame College, in Ohio, and Fontbonne University, in Missouri, all of which cited enrollment and financial issues.

Tough times for small, private colleges.

Tony

Joni Ernst.    Courtesy of MSNBC News

Dear Commons Community,

Iowa Republican Senator Joni Ernst has weighed in on the decision of the Arizona Supreme Court to allow an 1864 near-total abortion ban to take effect.

The controversial law allows exceptions only if the pregnant person’s life is deemed at risk and includes jail time for providers who perform the medical procedure.

In an interview with Fox Business, Ernst suggested that the court’s decision is a direct result of Republican efforts to get Roe v. Wade overturned, making special note of former President Donald Trump’s role in the outcome.

“I am a mom, I am a brand new grandma, and I support life,” Ernst told Larry Kudlow. “And Senate Republicans, the GOP and President Trump really worked hard to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

Ernst said that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs in June 2022 means that abortion will be dealt with on the state level going forward.

“We returned that back to the states; that is the law of the land with that Supreme Court decision, so the states are handling that,” Ernst said. “But again, we worked very hard to get this result. Now, the states will take that up.”

But on Wednesday former President Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s nominee for the 2024 presidential election, tried to distance himself from Arizona high court’s ruling.

Asked if the decision “went too far,” Trump told reporters: “Yeah they did, and that will be straightened out.”

However, Arizona Republicans blocked an effort by Democrats in the state to get the law repealed in both chambers of the legislature, prompting outrage.

“By their actions, the message from this chamber is that they are so pro-life they will kill you,” Democratic state Sen. Anna Hernandez wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

Parties now have two weeks to file legal claims in hopes of stopping the law from taking hold.

Despite Trump’s opposition to the Arizona legislation, his position on the issue of abortion remains murky as he recognizes the GOP’s stance on abortion has proven to be unpopular with voters.

In a video statement Monday meant to clarify his position on abortion ahead of the 2024 presidential race, Trump said he supports leaving abortion up to the states to decide as he took direct credit for setting the state for the reversal of Roe by appointing three conservative Supreme Court justices during his time in office.

“My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation, or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land. In this case, the law of the state,” he said.

On Wednesday, Trump said “no” when asked if he would sign a national abortion ban if he returned to the White House. Still, he didn’t specifically rule out implementing a back door ban. Additionally, Trump made no reference to how he would handle a bill imposing a nationwide ban on the procedure in his lengthy Monday statement.

Despite his preference to appear evasive on the issue, his track record speaks for itself, Michael Tyler, a spokesperson for Biden’s reelection campaign, said.

“Trump lies constantly ― about everything ― but has one track record: banning abortion every chance he gets,” Tyler said.

During his time in office, he with anti-choice leaders who support a nationwide ban, and also tried to make it harder for people to get access to medication abortion, among other things.

Trump can lie but he can’t hide!

Tony