U.S. Senator and Harvard graduate John Fetterman (D-PA) criticized his alma mater after the university’s president resigned earlier this week. Former Harvard President Claudine Gay stepped down from her position on Tuesday following an extensive plagiarism scandal and her widely criticized testimony before Congress on anti-Semitism. Fetterman told Semafor reporter David Weigel on Friday that he doesn’t “recognize” the university he graduated from in 1999. “As an alum of Harvard — look‚ I graduated 25 years ago‚ and of course it was always a little pinko. But now‚ I don’t recognize it‚” the Democrat said. A survey of Harvard’s 2022 graduating class found that more than one in four seniors held “very progressive” political views and 40% said they were “progressive‚” while only 4% of the graduates said they had “conservative” views and 2.4% identified as “very conservative.” Around 27% of the 2022 graduating class said they held “moderate” political views. Fetterman has angered leftists recently after coming out in support of Israel‚ calling for more border security‚ and saying that he’s “not a progressive.” Fetterman previously slammed UPenn President Liz Magill for her Congressional testimony on anti-Semitism‚ which came in the same hearing that Gay was also criticized for avoiding an answer on whether calling for the genocide of Jews violated the universities’ codes of conduct. “There is no ‘both sides-ism’ and it isn’t ‘free speech‚’ it’s simply hate speech. It was embarrassing for a venerable Pennsylvania university‚ and it should be reflexive for leaders to condemn antisemitism and stand up for the Jewish community or any community facing this kind of invective‚” Fetterman said in a statement‚ responding to Magill’s testimony. Magill announced her resignation in early December‚ shortly after her testimony before Congress‚ which sparked outrage from the board of the Penn Wharton Business School. Gay followed suit with her resignation on January 2‚ but unlike Magill‚ it wasn’t just Gay’s Congressional testimony that put her on the hot seat. The former Harvard president has also been hit with nearly 50 allegations of plagiarism affecting eight of her 17 published works. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP In Gay’s resignation letter‚ she claimed “racial animus” had fueled “personal attacks and threats” against her. “Amidst all of this‚ it has been distressing to have doubts cast on my commitments to confronting hate and upholding scholarly rigor — two bedrock values that are fundamental to who I am — and frightening to be subjected to personal attacks and threats fueled by racial animus‚” Gay wrote.

A new campaign ad from Democratic Montana Senator Jon Tester celebrates the fact that he helped block the Biden administration’s push to pull funding from school hunting programs. It fails to mention the fact that he voted for the law that put the programs in jeopardy in the first place.  Tester’s new 2024 ad features a hunter education teacher praising the senator for opposing President Joe Biden’s Department of Education move last summer to block funding for school hunting and archery programs. The move was enabled by the passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act‚ a measure that Tester supported. “When I heard the Biden administration was trying to block funding for gun safety and hunter education classes‚ I knew Jon Tester would do what he always does: give ‘em hell. Jon got his Republican colleagues onboard to stop Biden’s policies and defend our Second Amendment‚” the teacher says.  The BSCA‚ voted for by Tester‚ passed 65-33 in June 2022 with opposition all coming from Republicans. The law included an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that bans taxpayer funds from being used on “training in the use of a dangerous weapon.”  After the Education Department started blocking funding for the programs‚ GOP Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina wrote to Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to dispute his interpretation of the amendment‚ saying that he was going against congressional intent.  Congress later passed the Protecting Hunting Heritage and Education Act‚ which ensured that hunting and fishing classes could not lose their funding that Biden signed in October. The Senate approved the legislation unanimously while the House passed it 424-1. Tester took credit for the legislation despite his role in supporting the initial law that triggered the controversy.  CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “Tester voted for Biden’s plan to deny Montana schools funding for hunter safety programs‚ but now that he’s up for re-election‚ he’s trying to profit on the crisis he helped create and is now actually taking a victory lap that he resolved the very crisis he allowed to happen under his watch‚” a press release from 2024 Montana Republican Senate candidate Tim Sheehy said.  Tester‚ who was first elected in 2007‚ is seen as one of the vulnerable Democratic Senate seats in 2024. The Democrat has attempted to distance himself from Biden‚ who lost Montana by 16 points in 2020. WATCH: 

A push to remove police officers from Chicago’s public schools is drawing backlash from school principals. Principals‚ as well as a Chicago city council members‚ say the Chicago Board of Education is considering removing school resource officers from public schools. Alderman Nicholas Sposato said his school system sources revealed that the school board could make the decision as soon as its next meeting on January 25‚ according to Nadig Newspapers‚ a local paper covering Chicago’s Northwest Side that first reported the news. “They told me there’s going to be no SROs‚” Sposato told the outlet‚ calling it a “terrible idea.” This would mean Chicago Public Schools this summer would not renew its $10.3 million contract with the city to have police officers at schools. The decision could potentially take effect in the fall‚ Sposato said. A December 15 meeting between principals and the city’s school board did not go the way the principals expected‚ according to Troy LaRaviere‚ president of the Chicago Principals &; Administrators Association. Principals were told they would be able to give their input on the school resource officer decision‚ but they did not get that chance‚ LaRaviere told CBS News Chicago. “They were told that the board had made a unilateral decision‚ without the input of the people who actually run the schools‚” LaRaviere said. Before the current school year‚ 40 high schools voted on whether to keep police officers in their schools. All but one voted to keep officers on campus. Some of the high schools chose to get rid of one of their two officers‚ however. The schools that chose to remove one or both officers received about $3.7 million for “alternative safety interventions.” LaRaviere explained that school resource officers build relationships with the students‚ which is helpful when an incident occurs. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “If you don’t have an SRO‚ what are you supposed to do? You don’t have the SRO with the relationships. You have to call 911. And then you have to get the luck of the draw‚” LaRaviere told the outlet. “Cops with no relationships with the children show up.” Mark Grishaber‚ the principal of William Howard Taft High School in north Chicago‚ said his school’s resource officers “know half the kids by their first name” and are often able to deescalate situations. “The SRO has been trained and knows how to deal with teens in a school community‚” Grishaber told Nadig Newspapers. “You can see the difference.” The move to remove police from schools echoes remarks Chicago’s mayor made when he was running for office. Mayor Brandon Johnson said at the time that “armed officers have no place in schools in communities already struggling with over-incarceration‚ criminalization‚ profiling and mistrust.”

Ghislaine Maxwell‚ co-conspirator of the late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein‚ refused to comply with requests to turn over documents pertaining to any connection she may have had with the Clinton Foundation‚ newly unsealed documents revealed. The documents‚ unsealed pursuant to a mid-December ruling handed down by Manhattan Federal Judge Loretta Preska‚ were part of a civil lawsuit filed by Epstein victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre against Maxwell. And while thus far they have focused on the criminal behavior of both Epstein and Maxwell‚ newly-released documents have begun to shed light on associates who may have been aware of the financier’s crimes. The latest documents mentioned former Polish model Adriana Ross – who was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator in Epstein’s 2008 non-prosecution agreement — and alleged that she had been the one to remove computers from Epstein’s home in Palm Beach before the FBI arrived to search the house. Lawyers for Virginia Giuffre were seeking Ghislaine Maxwell's communications with Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton pic.twitter.com/i4yDdI8COq — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) January 5‚ 2024 Another document revealed that during the discovery phase of the suit‚ Giuffre had requested communications between Maxwell and just over a dozen “specific witnesses” — among them former President Bill Clinton and former first lady Hillary Clinton. In addition to magician David Copperfield — whose name appeared in the first tranche of documents because he had allegedly asked one of the girls at Epstein’s home whether she was “aware that girls were getting paid to find other girls” — disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein also made an appearance in Epstein’s call logs. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP Who else makes an appearance on the Epstein call logs? None other than Harvey Weinstein. pic.twitter.com/tqAWpgUMwj — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) January 5‚ 2024 Maxwell also reportedly refused to comply when she got a discovery request for documents pertaining to any connection she had with the Clinton Foundation — specifically in an effort to determine whether she was receiving any funding from the Clinton Foundation that might “provide a clear motive for her to slant testimony on this subject.” In another document‚ a witness described seeing Britain’s disgraced Prince Andrew — along with his wife‚ Sarah Ferguson — at Epstein’s home. The same witness also recalled seeing independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and former President Donald Trump at the house as well‚ but said that when Prince Andrew visited‚ he stayed for weeks at a time. Trump‚ according to one witness‚ never stayed at Epstein’s home — and did not even sit at the main table with Epstein and other guests‚ choosing instead to eat in the kitchen with staff. Witness describes meeting "President Clinton on Mr. Epstein's plane." Note: that was not the Epstein/Clinton Africa trip. pic.twitter.com/1RSRxirbcW — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) January 5‚ 2024 Another witness reported seeing Clinton on Epstein’s plane during at least one trip that was not the well-publicized trip to Africa.

At the behest of the Biden administration‚ Border Patrol agents confronted with Chinese illegal immigrants were forced to give an easier path into the United States for the immigrants‚ with the agents asking them only five questions instead of the roughly forty they had previously asked. That information was revealed in an April 2023 email sent by a Customs and Border Protection supervisor to a “master list” of roughly 500 Border Patrol agents‚ The Daily Caller‚ which reviewed the email‚ reported. According to the former law enforcement official who supplied The Daily Caller with the email‚ smugglers are “coached from the beginning of the journey” on how to answer questions asked from them. “It was almost immediate where [the Chinese illegal immigrants] knew what to say and what not to say‚” he stated. The email adds that the illegal immigrants who correctly answer the five questions — which concern “Military Service‚” “Universities‚” “POB/Region‚” “Employment” and “Political Party” — may be released into the United States. “This policy change has accelerated the time it takes to process Chinese illegal immigrants — this doesn’t make America safer‚” J.J. Carrell‚ a retired CBP deputy patrol agent in charge‚ told The Daily Caller. “The final result is that dangerous Chinese illegal immigrants will still be released into the U.S.” “This is just the government covering their a**‚ so they can say vetted‚” he continued. “I believe the government recognizes the threat of Chinese soldiers and spies that are pouring into America‚ and they want to try and identify those individuals. However‚ the same government does not want to stop the flow of illegal aliens or Chinese nationals — just the ‘bad ones‚’ which is impossible.” The email instructed agents to refer and transport any immigrants who answered affirmatively to any of the five questions to the tactical Terrorism Response Team‚ which interrogates Chinese illegal immigrants with potential terror ties or ties to the Chinese government. “If TTRT determines that the individual is a security risk‚ that individual is turned over to Joint Terrorism Task Force for further investigation and deportation‚ “Carrel explained. According to federal officials‚ a potential spying threat has been posed by Chinese nationals posing as tourists who tested the security of military bases as well as other sensitive sites — and roughly 100 reported incidents have occurred. The officials explained that quite often the incidents occur in rural areas where tourists are not typically found‚ and the nationals address the security guards with what appears to be scripted language‚ not normal discourse. When they are stopped‚ they insist they have simply gotten lost. As The Wall Street Journal reported in September‚ the Defense Department and FBI joined other agencies to study the issue‚ finding that the Chinese nationals were required to transmit the information they found back to the Communist Chinese government. “The advantage the Chinese have is they are willing to throw people at collection in large numbers‚” Emily Harding‚ a former deputy staff director at the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence‚ told the Journal. “If a few of them get caught‚ it will be very difficult for the U.S. government to prove anything beyond trespassing‚ and those who don’t get caught are likely to collect something useful.” Some of the Chinese nationals gained unauthorized access to military bases “by speeding through security checkpoints‚” Sue Gough‚ a Pentagon spokeswoman‚ admitted‚ adding‚ “These individuals are often cited criminally‚ barred from future installation access and escorted off-base.” When the Journal contacted the Biden White House and the Department of Homeland Security‚ they declined to comment. Related: Roughly 100 Incidents Where Chinese Nationals Tried To Access U.S. Military‚ Sensitive Sites: Report

President Joe Biden celebrated the prosecution of hundreds of his chief political rival’s supporters Friday‚ nearly three years after the January 6‚ 2021‚ storming of the U.S. Capitol. Biden appeared before a crowd in Blue Bell‚ Pennsylvania — near Valley Forge — on Friday afternoon‚ to address the January 6 Capitol riot‚ focusing his speech on former President Donald Trump and his supporters. “Since that day‚ more than 1‚200 people have been charged for their assault on the Capitol‚ and nearly 900 of them have been convicted or pled guilty. Collectively to date‚ they have been sentenced to more than 840 years in prison‚” Biden said to the applause of the crowd. “What’s Trump done? Instead of calling them criminals‚ he’s called these insurrectionists ‘patriots’ … and he promises to pardon them if he returns to office‚” Biden added. “Trump said they’re was a lot of love on January 6. The rest of the nation‚ including law enforcement‚ saw a lot of hate and violence.” Biden brags about pro-Trump protesters being sentenced to 840 years in prison pic.twitter.com/74YO9qRUvF — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) January 5‚ 2024 Immediately following the storming of the Capitol‚ the FBI began a years-long investigation into those who were present or participated in the massive demonstration on Capitol Hill as Congress met to vote on certification of the 2020 election. Since then‚ the Department of Justice has charged 452 people with assaulting‚ resisting‚ or impeding officers or employees‚ which includes 123 people “who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.” The vast majority of the charges — 1‚186 — are for “entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds.” Some who weren’t even present at the Capitol on January 6 have also been sentenced. Former Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio was sentenced to 22 years behind bars‚ the longest January 6 sentence to date‚ after being found guilty of seditious conspiracy. Trump also faces federal charges in a case related to January 6 as an indictment unsealed by special prosecutor Jack Smith levels four counts at the former president: conspiracy to violate civil rights‚ conspiracy to defraud the government‚ corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding‚ and conspiracy to carry out such obstruction‚ The New York Times reported. Trump pleaded not guilty to the January 6-related charges‚ accusing Smith of “putting out yet another Fake Indictment.” “I hear that Deranged Jack Smith‚ in order to interfere with the Presidential Election of 2024‚ will be putting out yet another Fake Indictment of your favorite President‚ me‚ at 5:00 P.M.‚” Trump posted on Truth Social. “Why didn’t they do this 2.5 years ago? Why did they wait so long? Because they wanted to put it right in the middle of my campaign. Prosecutorial Misconduct!” CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP In his speech on Friday‚ Biden also painted a grim picture of his political rival and what the 2024 election means for the future of America. “Whether democracy is still America’s sacred cause is what the 2024 election is all about‚” Biden said. “The choice is clear. Donald Trump’s campaign is about him‚ not America‚ not you. Donald Trump’s campaign is obsessed with the past‚ not the future. He’s willing to sacrifice our democracy to put himself in power. Our campaign is different.”

Colleges and universities are accredited on the backs of their faculty‚ on their degrees and academic achievements. But what if the qualifications that secure college and university accreditation instead secured accreditation for individual scholars‚ allowing them to offer accredited courses as private-practice professors‚ thereby opening the door to a host of free market innovations? With some imagination‚ this simple but radical innovation could mark a path for true education reform. Several years back‚ I decided it was time for my teenage daughter to study philosophy. Being a philosophy professor‚ I was able to offer the necessary instruction. I determined that she would take my standard Introduction to Philosophy class one night a week. I was confident in her intellectual abilities‚ so there was no need for a new curriculum; I’d use the syllabus‚ assignments‚ and lectures I had developed for college freshmen. Word quickly spread through our community. Several homeschooling parents reached out to me‚ asking if their high school son or daughter might join the class — adding quickly that they’d pay me. I had no objection to others joining us‚ but I warned that their child would not receive college credit; I’m just teaching the class in my living room. This warning‚ however‚ raised a question for me: Why not? I had just taught the exact same class one mile down the road at the local university. Had my daughter taken the class there‚ she would’ve received college credit. Why could she‚ or any other student‚ not receive college credit for the exact same class taught in my living room? I realize the answer is that the university is an accredited entity‚ and I’m not. But this‚ too‚ struck me as strange. Thinking back on when my prior university was up for accreditation renewal‚ the accreditors reviewed my credentials. It was my degrees‚ my publications — and those of my colleagues — that secured their accreditation. Yet‚ upon leaving‚ the university kept the accreditation; I did not. My fateful homeschool class also cast light on some surprising economics. Having never handled the fees for my own classes‚ I had no idea what to charge. Five hundred dollars seemed like a lot‚ but I knew it was a far cry from what parents would typically pay for a college course — nearly $2‚500 on average. So they gladly accepted the price tag. I began to run numbers. Were I to teach this class as an adjunct at a college‚ I would receive only $3‚000 — a pretty standard rate. With only six students‚ I could match this fee. Yet‚ I’ve rarely taught an intro class with fewer than 20 students. Such a crop in this independent context would earn me $10‚000‚ all while offering the students a heavy discount. Naturally‚ my wheels got turning about how easy it would be to exceed my roughly $50K annual salary with equal or less teaching than my typical eight-course annual teaching load. But the challenge‚ again‚ was that my credentials secured accreditation for the university‚ not me. So arose in my mind a proposal for education reform. What if accreditation followed the scholar‚ not the university? What if‚ just as we have licensed counselors and attorneys and physicians‚ we had private-practice professors — accredited scholars in various disciplines? On this proposal‚ scholars could offer accredited courses in their discipline to anyone they wish. Such a shift would create a college alternative. The proposal would not eliminate the distinction between credentialed experts and novices. It would only remove from universities the sole power to bestow credentials and hand that power to the experts in the field. One need not attend a university to study a discipline; he could‚ instead‚ study under the experts of his choosing in order to achieve mastery and attain credentials. Not only does the proposal have a commonsense ring to it‚ but it opens rather interesting free market possibilities to address the rising cost of higher education and pave the way for innovation. Consider a few possibilities. Competitive Pricing Some scholars will inevitably be more sought after than others‚ and such experts could charge exorbitant fees for classes. The market would thereby provide upward financial possibilities for scholars that presently do not exist. Scholars who turn into public intellectuals often find avenues for financial gain‚ but the typical scholar who grinds away at building a body of research rarely does. Neither journal articles nor scholarly books pay‚ and universities rarely diverge from standard pay-by-rank models. Yet a reputable scholar whose work is known and insights coveted could set prices reflective of demand. By contrast‚ the young‚ hungry‚ newly credentialed scholar could offer low prices to build his client base and reputation. Prospective students could decide for themselves what the class is worth. If cost is most important‚ they can take the untried scholar. If the established scholar is more important‚ they can pay the premium. Income-Based Discounts Such a model makes it easy for the government to incentivize tuition breaks. If tax breaks were offered to scholars for discounts to students from a certain income bracket‚ for example‚ such breaks would incentivize scholars to take on‚ at discounted rates‚ students from low-income families. Innovation We have already seen how COVID forced the world to rethink in-person instruction. The private-practice professor may invite similar innovations. Such scholars could determine whether they wish to teach over Zoom‚ travel from home to home‚ invite students into a common space‚ or teach onsite at historical locations. The proposal also opens the door to virtual schools. By “virtual‚” I do not mean digital but cooperative cohorts of scholars. Independent scholars could very easily create a network that becomes a virtual university‚ one where students of one scholar know they will find like-minded scholars in other disciplines through his network. Ancillary Industry Such innovation likely opens the doors to other business ventures. Just as office space rental has become viable post-COVID‚ for example‚ the rental of teaching space could become rather popular. I can also imagine a new insurance need. Just as medical professionals need malpractice insurance‚ independent scholars would not have the usual legal cover supplied by universities and may want some kind of liability coverage. Worth noting is the current glut of PhDs unable to find teaching jobs. Higher education has‚ for years now‚ been granting graduate degrees to students at a rate disproportional to job openings. I remember applying for a position in 2014 and learning I was one of 400-plus candidates! I got the job‚ but a great many young scholars are unable to find a university at which to teach. This is a problem only because their credentials do not allow them to teach independently in any recognized way. This proposal opens the door for innovation among these hungry scholars eager to make a name for themselves and earn a living. Undoing the norm is difficult‚ of course. Several obvious challenges come to mind. I expect accrediting entities would face heavy pressure from universities to resist this proposal. Hence‚ this innovation in higher education is likely to face an uphill battle. There’s also the challenge of degree granting. It’s one thing to accumulate a series of accredited classes‚ but who will determine that someone merits a degree? And who will grant that degree? I anticipate worries about oversight. Who holds these independent scholars accountable? How do we make sure they don’t simply sell credits without teaching or requiring work from students? Such questions are fair but not insurmountable. Perhaps independent scholars might band together to form their own accrediting body. As for degrees‚ perhaps cohorts of scholars or their accrediting bodies might become degree granting entities. Or maybe universities could serve as umbrella schools (for a fee)‚ offering degrees to those who fulfill requirements from scholars approved by their accreditor. As for oversight‚ perhaps accrediting bodies can serve this function. Just as one can complain to the American Bar Association about legal malpractice‚ so one could do the same with accreditors for private-practice professors. Again‚ the proposal is not without its challenges. Yet‚ with some imagination‚ solutions can be crafted. We already have precedents in medicine‚ law‚ and counseling. Moreover‚ we’re in a time when the cost-benefit value of higher education faces serious skepticism‚ and yet typical proposals for education reform rarely move the needle. A proposal of this kind may offer the sort of revolutionary yet commonsensical shift that can bring about a true change in higher education as the free market does its work. * * * Nathan A. Jacobs‚ Ph.D. is Scholar in Residence of Philosophy and Religion at Vanderbilt Divinity School and is a writer/director/producer with the Wonder Project. You can follow his substack at nathanajacobs.substack.com. The views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to review Colorado’s unprecedented decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled 4-3 last month that Trump could not appear on the ballot‚ citing the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment. Trump filed an appeal on Wednesday‚ asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the state’s ruling‚ and the court has agreed to look at the case‚ The Hill reported. “The Colorado Supreme Court has no authority to deny President Trump access to the ballot. By doing so‚ the Colorado Supreme Court has usurped Congressional authority and misinterpreted and misapplied the text of section 3‚” Trump’s lawyers Scott Gessler of Gessler Blue LLC along with Harmeet Dhillon‚ David Warrington‚ Jonathan Shaw‚ and Gary Lawkowski of Dhillon Law Group Inc. wrote in court filings. Per the justices’ order‚ the case will move quickly with oral arguments scheduled to start on February 8‚ according to The Hill. The high court’s decision will likely affect other states across the nation as Trump was also removed from the primary ballot in Maine‚ and groups of voters in Illinois and Massachusetts are seeking to remove Trump from the ballot. The former president has also appealed the decision of Maine’s Secretary of State Shenna Bellows removing him from the state’s 2024 presidential primary ballot‚ calling Bellows a “biased decision maker.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “The secretary should have recused herself due to her bias against President Trump‚ as demonstrated by a documented history of prior statements prejudging the issue presented‚” Trump’s lawyers said in their appeal to the Maine Superior Court. Both the Colorado Supreme Court’s and the Maine secretary of state’s decisions were put on hold pending Trump’s appeals‚ meaning the former president’s name remains on each state’s ballots for now. Trump‚ the frontrunner in the Republican primary‚ is leading President Joe Biden in the RealClearPolitics average of national polls as the 2024 election nears.