Connect with us

Economics

Efforts to tackle student protests in America have backfired badly

Published

on

PART OF THE reason Elisha “Lishi” Baker wanted to go to Columbia University, an Ivy League university in New York, was its Middle Eastern History programme. He loved his first year and says he “felt great as a Jewish student at Columbia”. But since the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7th, the atmosphere on campus has changed. Within days there were protests. He heard students calling for an intifada. He kept being told “you’re interpreting it wrong,” but this week there was no misinterpreting, he says, the undercurrent of antisemitism on campus.

University presidents are struggling with policing free speech on campus: specifically, how to deal with pro-Palestinian protests. After seeing timid responses by the heads of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania lead to those presidents being forced to step down a few months ago, leaders are now trying a tougher approach. They are in danger of over-correcting.

The trigger for the latest troubles was the clearing by police of tents and protesters at Columbia on April 18th, and the arrest of more than a hundred students. This was an “alarming decision”, wrote Jameel Jaffer, from the university’s semi-independent free-speech centre, adding that “it was not evident to us how the encampment and protest posed such a danger” as to justify the escalation. According to the NYPD, the arrested protesters were peaceful and offered no resistance. “It was so scary,” says Layla Saliba, who saw the arrests. “All these cops just swarming everywhere and we had people in like full riot gear.” Within days another encampment sprang up on a nearby lawn.

In a letter posted on Columbia’s website Minouche Shafik, Columbia’s president, wrote that she asked the NYPD to intervene after other efforts failed, adding that she did so “out of an abundance of concern for the safety of Columbia’s campus”. The move only inflamed matters. “The irony is that in trying to quiet things down and assert control over the encampment, the administration unleashed this firestorm,” says David Pozen, a law professor at the university.

That firestorm has now spread, with tent encampments popping up far beyond Columbia. The demands by student protesters are largely the same: divest endowments of Israeli firms and any weapons manufacturers that sell there; end academic partnerships with Israeli institutions; and condemn Israel’s actions in the war.

As at Columbia, administrators elsewhere are overcoming their reluctance to call the cops. On April 22nd nearly 50 protesters were charged with trespassing for their participation in a week-long occupation of a plaza at Yale (protesters returned the next day). At New York University police broke up a copycat encampment. Yet not all sit-ins have proved so fraught. In February a camp that had stood for four months at Stanford disbanded peacefully after administrators met students and promised more transparency on investments.

Long before the debacle at Columbia, instances of disruptive behaviour had put administrators on edge. In February pro-Palestinian activists at UC Berkeley shattered a glass door leading to a lecture by an Israeli speaker. Weeks later others interrupted an event at the home of Erwin Chemerinsky, a free-speech scholar and dean of the law school.

Last year Columbia suspended two pressure groups, Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace, for organising unauthorised demonstrations. The New York Civil Liberties Union has sued over the move. Equally controversial was the University of Southern California’s decision to cancel the graduation speech of its pro-Palestinian valedictorian, who is Muslim; the school cited safety threats. USC has since cancelled all guest speakers at commencement.

Presiding over an American university was once a plum job; now it is a minefield. On April 17th Dr Shafik was the latest one to be grilled by the House Education Committee about antisemitism on campus. Unlike the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania, who fumbled their appearances in December, Dr Shafik survived—for now. When she and colleagues were asked the question that both Claudine Gay, at Harvard, and Elizabeth Magill, at Pennsylvania, had struggled with—whether calling for the genocide of Jews violated their university’s code of conduct—they answered simply “yes, it does.”

Critics say she did not do enough to stand up for free speech. In his letter from Columbia’s First Amendment Institute, Mr Jaffer expressed dismay. The university’s rules, he wrote, guarantee broad protection “even for speech that is objectionable or offensive to some listeners”. In her own public letter, Dr Shafik says in her defence that “we cannot have one group dictate terms and attempt to disrupt important milestones like graduation to advance their point of view.”

Dr Shafik is not out of the woods. This week she faced threats from donors to withdraw their funding and calls to resign by several politicians. On April 22nd all of New York’s Republican House members signed a letter by Elise Stefanik, a high-ranking Republican, calling for her resignation. Politicians supposedly concerned about the climate on campuses have made administrators’ jobs even more complex.

At Columbia, campus life is now disrupted for the majority of students not taking part in protests. Classes have moved online. Many professors have “walked out” in solidarity. Helicopters circle above and police in riot gear stand ready nearby. The bull-horns from protesters outside the gates are loud enough to hear across campus: students studying for MCATS, an exam for medical school, cannot find a quiet spot to take practice tests.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Economics

Will the class of ’24 turn out like the boomers?

Published

on

This is the introduction to Checks and Balance, a weekly, subscriber-only newsletter bringing exclusive insight from our correspondents in America.

Sign up for Checks and Balance.

Continue Reading

Economics

U.S. job growth totaled 175,000 in April

Published

on

U.S. job growth totaled 175,000 in April, much less than expected, while unemployment rose to 3.9%

The U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected in April while the unemployment rate rose, lifting hopes that the Federal Reserve will be able to cut interest rates in the coming months.

Nonfarm payrolls increased by 175,000 on the month, below the 240,000 estimate from the Dow Jones consensus, the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. The unemployment rate ticked higher to 3.9% against expectations it would hold steady at 3.8%.

Average hourly earnings rose 0.2% from the previous month and 3.9% from a year ago, both below consensus estimates and an encouraging sign for inflation.

The jobless rate tied for the highest level since January 2022. A more encompassing rate that includes discouraged workers and those holding part-time jobs for economic reasons also edged up, to 7.4%, its highest level since November 2021. The labor force participation rate, or those actively looking for work, was unchanged at 62.7%.

Wall Street already had been poised for a higher open, and futures tied to major stock market averages added to gains following the report. Treasury yields tumbled after being little changed before the release. The report raised the prospect of a “Goldilocks” climate where growth continues but not at such a rapid pace to force the Fed to tighten policy further.

“With this report, the porridge was just about right,” said Dan North, senior economist at Allianz Trade. “What would you like at this point the cycle? We’ve had interest rates jacked up pretty high, so you would expect to see the labor market slow down a little. But we’re still at pretty high levels.”

Consistent with recent trends, health care led job creation, with a 56,000 increase.

Other sectors showing significant rises included social assistance (31,000), transportation and warehousing (22,000), and retail (20,000). Construction added 9,000 positions while government, which had shown solid gains in recent months, was up just 8,000 after averaging 55,000 over the previous 12 months.

Revisions to previous months took the March gain to 315,000, or 12,000 from the initial estimate, and February to 236,000, a decline of 34,000.

Household employment, which is used to calculate the unemployment rate, increased by just 25,000 on the month. Workers holding full-time jobs soared by 949,000 on the month, while those hold part-time jobs slumped by 914,000.

The report comes two days after the Fed again voted to hold borrowing costs steady, keeping its benchmark overnight borrowing rate in a targeted range between 5.25%-5.5%, the highest in more than 20 years.

Following the decision, Chair Jerome Powell characterized the jobs market as “strong” but noted that inflation is “too high” and this year’s economic data has indicated “a lack of further progress” in getting inflation back to the Fed’s 2% target.

But market action shifted after the jobs report indicated an easing labor market and softer wage increases. Traders priced in a strong chance of two interest rate cuts by the end of 2024, with the first reduction expected to come in September, according to CME Group data.

“This is the jobs report the Fed would have scripted,” said Seema Shah, chief global strategist at Principal Asset Management. “The first downside payrolls surprise in several months, as well as the dip in average hourly earnings growth, will bring the rate cutting dialogue back into the market and perhaps explains why Powell was able to be dovish on Wednesday.”

Though inflation has come well off its highs in mid-2022, it is still considerably above the central bank’s comfort zone. Most reports this year have shown inflation around 3% annually; the Fed’s own preferred measure, the core personal consumption expenditures price index, most recently was at 2.8%.

Higher prices have been putting upward pressure on wages, part of an inflation picture that has kept the Fed on the sidelines despite widespread market expectations that the central bank would be cutting interest rates aggressively this year.

Most Fed officials in fact had been mentioning the likelihood of reductions in their public comments. However, Powell at his post-meeting news conference Wednesday made no mention of the likelihood that rates would be lowered at some point this year, as he had in the past.

Don’t miss these exclusives from CNBC PRO

Continue Reading

Economics

Immigrant workers are helping boost the U.S. labor market

Published

on

Help Wanted: Immigrants fueling U.S. workforce

The strong jobs market has been bolstered post-pandemic by strength in the immigrant workforce in America. And as Americans age out of the labor force and birth rates remain low, economists and the Federal Reserve are touting the importance of immigrant workers for overall future economic growth.

Immigrant workers made up 18.6% of the workforce last year, a new record, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Workers are taking open positions in agriculture, technology and health care, fields where labor supply has been a challenge for those looking to hire.

Despite the U.S. adding fewer-than-expected jobs in April, the labor force participation rate for foreign-born workers ticked up slightly, to 66%.

“We don’t have enough workers participating in the labor force and our birth rate has dropped down 2% last year from 2022 to 2023. … These folks are not taking jobs. They are helping to bolster and helping us build back — they’re adding needed workers to the labor force,” said Jennie Murray, CEO of the National Immigration Forum, a nonpartisan nonprofit advocacy organization. 

The influx of immigrant workers is also a projected boost to U.S. output, and is expected to grow gross domestic product over the next decade by $7 trillion, Congressional Budget Office Director Phillip Swagel noted in a February statement accompanying the 2024-2034 CBO outlook.

“The labor force in 2033 is larger by 5.2 million people, mostly because of higher net immigration. As a result of those changes in the labor force, we estimate that, from 2023 to 2034, GDP will be greater by about $7 trillion and revenues will be greater by about $1 trillion than they would have been otherwise. We are continuing to assess the implications of immigration for revenues and spending,” Swagel wrote.

‘Huge competition’

Goodwin Living, a nonprofit faith-based elder-care facility in Northern Virginia that cares for 2,500 adults day to day, is heavily reliant on immigrant workers. Some 40% of its 1,200 workers are foreign-born, representing 65 countries, according to CEO Rob Liebreich, and more workers will be needed to fill increasing gaps as Americans age and need assistance. 

“About 70% of 65-year-olds are expected to need long-term care in the future. We need a lot of hands to support those needs,” Liebreich told CNBC. “Right now, one of the best ways that we see to find that is through people coming from other countries, our global talent, and there’s a huge competition for them.”

In 2018, Goodwin launched a citizenship program, which provides financial resources, mentorship and tutoring for workers looking to obtain U.S. citizenship. So far, 160 workers and 25 of their family members have either obtained citizenship or are in the process of doing so through Goodwin. 

Wilner Vialer, 35, began working at Goodwin four years ago and serves as an environmental services team lead, setting up and cleaning rooms. Vialer, who came to the U.S. 13 years ago from Haiti, lost his job during the pandemic and was given an opportunity at Goodwin because his mother had been employed at the facility.

He applied for U.S. citizenship before getting his current job, but after he worked there for six months, the Goodwin Living Foundation covered his application fee of $725, the nonprofit said. Vialer became a U.S. citizen in 2021, and his 15-year-old daughter received a citizenship grant and became a U.S. citizen in 2023.

Vialer’s hope is to have his wife join the family from Haiti, as they have been separated for six years.  

“This program is a good opportunity,” Vialer said. “They help me, I have a family back home. … This job really [does] support me when I get my paycheck to help them back home.”

Workers are not required to stay with Goodwin after becoming U.S. citizens, but those who do stay are there 20% longer than those who do not participate in the program, Liebreich said. Speeding up the path to citizenship is key to remaining competitive in a global economy, he added.

“If we want to attract and retain this global workforce, which we desperately need, we need to make the process a lot easier,” Liebreich said.

Looking ahead to November, immigration will be a hot topic on the presidential campaign trail and for voters. Both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump have made trips to the southern border in recent months to address the large number of migrants entering the country.

Continue Reading

Trending