was an Iraqi Kurdish refugee and respected imam living in Albany, New York, when as part of a controversial FBI sting operation in 2004. Though critics argued that the government failed to provide evidence of Aref’s guilt, he was before to Iraq.

What role did media coverage play in Aref’s story? That was the focus of a research project sponsored by the and conducted by and five Lender Student Fellows.

Their findings, which will be presented at a symposium, “: The American War On Terror,” on Nov. 7 and Nov. 8, showed how local and regional news coverage shaped public understanding in ways that supported prosecution narratives and made conviction more likely.

The findings are also being showcased as an exhibition on Nov. 8 and Nov. 9 at . That event is sponsored by the Lender Center with support from the New York Humanities Center, Coalition for Civil Freedoms, Muslim Counterpublics Lab and Syracuse Peace Council.

The research team’s comprehensive examination of news coverage around the case found the following themes and patterns.

Over-Reliance on Official Law Enforcement Sources

• Reporting contained official government narratives and cited law enforcement and government officials more frequently than any other source, an imbalance that presented readers with primarily one perspective on the case.
• Coverage failed to question the legitimacy of the sting operation via independent experts.
• Alleged connections to terrorist organizations in news reports were based on weak or unverified evidence.

• Most media misreported, and then failed to correct, a claim by federal government translators that Aref’s name was found with a Kurdish word meaning “commander” in front of it; the word actually means “brother.”

Uncritical Framing of Sting Operations as a National Security Necessity

• 60% of articles portrayed terrorism stings as essential to national security and helped normalize controversial law enforcement practices.
• Coverage celebrated the sting as a counterterrorism success before the trial had concluded.
• Articles linked the arrest to heightened terror alerts, even when officials said cases were unrelated.

Direct Impact on Public Perception

• An emphasis on potential terrorist connections influenced how the public viewed Aref’s credibility.
• News coverage emphasized Aref’s identity as a Muslim more than any other identity he held.
• Most reporting was incomplete and did not include the voices of his family, community or even his lawyer.

Gauging Fair Reporting

Husain, an assistant professor of magazine, news and digital journalism in the Newhouse School, examines and reports on the ongoing “war on terror,” including the impacts of its news coverage. She believes that newsrooms have the potential to use their resources to assure more accuracy in reporting, and that the public has the ability to assess the reliability of news coverage they see.

“One of the big solutions is to give journalists enough time to properly report a story using objective and investigative methods,” she says. “It’s Journalism 101, but reporters speaking to many and varied sources about a situation is an important step in getting as close to the truth as you can.”

News outlets can also guard against poorly reported stories and assure better accountability to their audiences “by making sure their reporting is driven not by those in power, but by the people who are most affected by the decisions of those in power,” she says.

Journalists can also audit their own systems to make sure their reporting is not harming communities, she says. “When newsroom leadership fails to do this, it falls upon individual journalists to take responsibility. Reporters have always been able to push editors and higher-ups to change coverage or to pursue certain stories.” Husain also cites the resource  and its as a tool for news consumers.

The student fellows for the project are:

• Mohammad Ebad Athar (College of Arts and Sciences/history); and Azadeh Ghanizadeh (College of Visual and Performing Arts/writing studies, rhetoric, and composition); both current doctoral candidates
• Olivia Boyer ’26 (S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications/magazine, news and digital journalism)
• Mary Hanrahan ’25 (College of Visual and Performing Arts)
• Tia Poquette ’25 (Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs)

What’s the role of the U.S. Department of Education? If the department were to be dismantled—as proposed by the Trump administration—how would students, families and universities be affected?

Those are a few of the questions examined by a multidisciplinary panel of Maxwell School faculty experts during a recent “What’s at Stake” panel discussion hosted by the Center for Policy Research (CPR).

More than 250 people joined the virtual event held four days before the swearing in of Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. The same day, she sent her staff an email titled “Our Department’s Final Mission” fueling speculation that an executive order to abolish the Department of Education would soon follow. On March 11, the department announced it would cut its workforce nearly in half, to about 2,183 workers.

Robert Bifulco, professor of public administration and international affairs, moderated the conversation with colleagues Elizabeth Martin, assistant professor of sociology; Michah Rothbart, associate professor of public administration and international affairs; and Sean Drake, assistant professor of sociology. All four panelists are senior research associates at CPR.

To open the session, Bifulco provided some factual context about the Department of Education. In its 2024 fiscal year budget, he pointed out, the department administered programs totaling $268 billion—about 4 percent of the federal budget, a far smaller piece than agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services or the Department of Defense. About 60 percent of the Department of Education budget is spent on Pell grants and federal student loan programs; 17 percent on Title I grants to high poverty schools; and 14 percent to support the education of students with disabilities. “Each of these programs, which together account for over 90 percent of the department’s budget, was established prior to 1979, when the department itself was established,” said Bifulco, who serves as director of CPR’s Program on Educational Equity and Policy.

“President Trump claims the department has been overtaken by radicals, zealots and Marxists, that it promotes liberal ideologies in schools, and that it wastes taxpayers’ money,” Bifulco said. “But when you look at the overwhelming bulk of what the department focuses on and what its budget allocations go for, it’s not clear what most people would want to see cut.”

Martin, whose own research focuses on economic insecurity, credit and debt burdens and financial shocks, spoke to the broad impact of the Department of Education’s programs for students pursuing higher education.

“This is everything from Pell grants that help lower income students, to work study to student loans, both subsidized and unsubsidized,” she said. “So dismantling the Department of Education, moving the federal aid functions either to states or to the Department of Treasury, which is one proposal I’ve seen, would affect a lot of people. Something like 20 percent of all U.S. households have student loan debt; 30 to 40 percent of students who are currently enrolled are taking on loans every semester.”

One potential consequence of shifting student aid programs out of the federal government, she added, would be to increase gaps between states in higher education opportunities, particularly at public institutions.

“We see huge inequalities in appropriations per student, credit hour and tuition costs and merit- and need-based scholarships,” Martin said. “If federal aid or student loans are moved down to the state level, I imagine that we would see even more widening inequality between states.”

Shifting educational loans away from the federal government may also result in greater reliance on private loans—and the loss of key protections, pointed out Rothbart, who studies public finance and financial management particularly in education.

“Federal student loans provide protections against inability to pay in some circumstances,” Rothbart said. “I could imagine a world where there would be a large increase in the use of private borrowing to pay for higher education, and then students would not have those protections as they move out in their careers.”

In the area of public school funding, Rothbart noted that cutting the Department of Education’s programs, or shifting them outside the federal government, could have unintended consequences on the department’s influence over policy.

“The federal government only provides a small portion of public school funding, but it leverages that to nudge educational priorities,” Rothbart said. “That approach has been in place for years, even predating the formation of the Department of Education. I think it’s important to note that the use of this funding to shape policies can be effective. It actually presents a catch-22 for conservative administrations like the one that’s currently in the office of the presidency, because if the federal government makes cuts to these programs, they could lose some of that leverage to incentivize their other priorities.”

Bifulco said the elimination of Department of Education programs that account for more than 90 percent of its spending would require congressional action. “I think that’s very unlikely,” he said. More likely, he said, is a shift of functions to other federal departments, for instance, moving the Office of Civil Rights out of the Department of Education into the Department of Justice. “That could have big effects on how civil rights are enforced, and what data is collected on civil rights,” he said.

Rothbart said the reshuffling of programs under federal departments “is actually a pretty fruitful discussion.” He pointed out several programs that fall under the purview of education yet are not overseen by the Department of Education. For instance, Head Start is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, national school meals programs are run by the Department of Agriculture, and the GI Bill is overseen by the Department of Veterans Administration. “You could imagine moving programs from other agencies into the Department of Education if it were a different administration,” he said, later adding, “There hasn’t been a major reshuffling of the federal government across agencies in a long, long time.”

Visit the to read the full story.

Story by Jeffrey Pepper Rodgers

, assistant professor of sociology in the , is among a trio of researchers who have received a $1.5 million grant from Arnold Ventures to analyze the relationship between the prison system, politics and state finances.

Kirk-Werner and her counterparts have created the to study so-called “pay-to-stay” statutes that leave millions of incarcerated individuals subject to the partial or total cost of their imprisonment.

The controversial practice contributes to widening inequalities in American society, according to Kirk-Werner and longtime collaborators Brittany Friedman, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Southern California, and April D. Fernandes, associate professor of sociology at North Carolina State University.

Arnold Ventures is a philanthropic organization that supports policy research projects addressing inequities and injustices in American society. Its five-year funding pledge supports the lab’s mission to advance research, policy and advocacy around the political economy of punishment.

Kirk-Werner first became interested in pay-to-stay policies in 2016 as a graduate student at Northwestern University. Friedman, a fellow graduate student, had discovered a little-known Illinois statute allowing the state’s attorney general to sue incarcerated people for their prison stay. She submitted a Freedom of Information Act request asking for records on the practice and, intrigued by what she found, joined Fernandes and Kirk-Werner in launching the first in-depth study of states’ pay-to-stay policies, specifically the use of civil lawsuits to recoup money.

“We found that states largely enforce pay-to-stay unevenly, often imposing these laws amid financial turmoil as a means to boost the state’s balance sheet,” says Kirk-Werner.

The researchers witnessed cash-strapped states using pay-to-stay laws, a practice first employed during the Great Depression, to seize stimulus checks amid the COVID-19 pandemic. “States increase their reliance on these laws at will, most likely when prompted by financial hardships and budget shortfalls,” Fernandes explains. “So incarcerated people could be subject to the seizure and collection efforts of the state through pay-to-stay.”

Read the complete story, written by the Maxwell School’s Jessica Youngman with the University of Southern California’s Daniel P. Smith, on the .