It’s hard to imagine that the universities that we are so familiar with could be a frontier of international power struggles.
Depending who you listen to, universities are near the epicentre of the transplanting of spies and trading of secrets. This is the university that is a “prime target for foreign states.” The one which is “almost certainly” subject to espionage from Iran. And the one which now has a hotline to report suspected interference by foreign actors. This is the university as the centre of global politics. And, depending on your outlook, the place that has been too relaxed about the threat of spying, the place where geo-politics play out on campus and the home to research which can be used by hostile actors for malicious ends.
New guidance has now been published on supporting universities to deal with foreign interference. Usually, the problem with spies and spying is that much goes unsaid. The provision of advice on spies and spying has almost entirely the opposite challenge in that guidance is voluminous complicated, overlapping and covers such an enormous range of issues as to abrogate easy case studies and advice.
The hard of the matters
There is a lot of regulation of partnerships and interactions with institutions and people from outside of the UK.
The Foreign Influence Registration Scheme covers specific activities that amount to political interference in issues such as referenda, ministerial decisions, party-political activity and the disbursement of money in some cases. Remember, this is a register of activities not of people. The new guidance is clear that there is a difference between international collaboration where “foreign states try to shape decisions on issues of importance to them in an open and transparent manner” and foreign influence which is where a foreign state attempts to “interfere in decision making or other activities at UK providers in ways that are deceptive, corrupt, or coercive.”
As well as the plethora of advice and guidance which may be dependent on whether the interference is related to cyber-crime, research security, exports, partnerships or recruitment, there is also a regulatory angle. The Office for Students, in England, regulates to ensure providers are securing freedom of speech within the law.
There are a grab-bag of examples on international issues including universities can’t allow proscribed groups to speak on campus, protests (in some circumstances) shouldn’t interfere with the “essential functions of the university”, general unhappiness with the views of an international speaker shouldn’t be enough to cancel their presence, and providers shouldn’t suspend students who publish things that the leadership of some countries don’t like. Universities should also not be accepting research funding which restricts freedom of speech or amounts to coercion.
Universities now find themselves with new guidance issued, the new MI5 hotline (or the Academic Interference Reporting Route), a new Defence Universities Alliance to encourage graduates into defence, and the existing reporting routes. The size, scale, or nature of the espionage threat is never wholly revealed publicly but it is reasonable to assume the intelligence agencies briefing to 70 universities was more candid about which countries are targeting which programmes, at what scale.
The (regulatory) power and the glory
The interesting question is not why these interventions have happened now. Take your pick. It’s either a timely intervention as debates over state interference in research, relationships on campus and in freedom of speech, make the headlines. Equally, successive governments have been continually ramping up their work to engage universities in the defence of their assets against foreign interference.
The more interesting question is whether the solution to the problem the government has identified, the vulnerability of some parts of universities to being coerced, captured, or otherwise compromised, into acting against the UK’s interests, can be resolved by ever more sophisticated guidance and advice.
Fundamentally, universities are always going to be vulnerable as sites for international interference. A significant proportion of their work is dependent on international partnerships which in turn depend on the transfer of people, ideas, assets and cash, which are regulated by institutions. Espionage is not inevitable but the sheer volume of work with the sheer number of partners makes it more likely something will go awry.
There are vanishingly few examples of universities as breeding grounds for spying like the Cambridge Spy Ring. Unless there is and they are so far getting away with it; such is the nature of spying. However, it is inconceivable to believe that malign actors won’t continue to use the openness of universities as a basis to undermine the UK’s security more generally. The challenge then is what can universities do to minimise the risks if they cannot eliminate them entirely.
The quiet American(s)
The best defence in many cases will be clarity. Universities are complicated places but it is made more complicated by the lack of clarity on international partnerships. Over in America, MIT is pretty clear about who they won’t work with, which technologies they won’t help develop, and the expected risk mitigations they expect academics to put in place. This is backed up with an information ecosystem that would be the envy of many in the UK.
There is also a question about capacity. There are very few specialised university roles that focus exclusively on reducing the threats of international malfeasance. There are roles focused on international partnerships, risk, cyber-security, and campus relationships. There is less work to coordinate these roles together to look at the systematic exposure to risks and how they may be responded to.
The harder element of all of this work is building a culture that makes reporting both easier and proportionate. Internally, the quickest way to destroy any trust on campus is the overreporting, questioning and suspicion of students, staff,and partners. It is hard to imagine a more effective means of ensuring nobody ever reports anything.Leaders are required to both build cultures of trust and respect and continually reinforce institutional priorities when it comes to partnerships. It is not an easy task.
Universities should be clear eyed that they are the centre of global proxy campaigns for power, influence, and technological advantage. They should be honest in the shortcomings in their own capacity to deal with the capabilities of state actors, open in their discussions with staff and students, and clear where they will and will not engage with partners. Stories of interference are likely to keep coming up. Universities may not be able to stop every bad actor but it is reasonable to expect they can explain what they are doing to keep staff, students, and the country safe.
An Ohio State University professor who was recently hired to help advance free speech and civil discourse is now on administrative leave after assaulting a documentarian on campus, university officials confirmed Wednesday.
“We wanted to get Gee on the record about some of the big issues here,” Byrnes told Inside Higher Ed on Wednesday. A video Byrnes posted on The Rooster’s website shows Gee and Byrnes engaging in a lengthy yet calm discussion in a hallway. Gee, however, declined to answer most of Byrnes’s questions, save to say that selling OSU’s parking lots for nearly $500 million “was one of the best decisions I’ve ever made.”
During the parking lot discussion, Gee began to walk away, the video shows. And soon after, the situation accelerated from “zero to 60,” Byrnes said.
Another video Byrnes posted shows both Perez—a scholar of American grand strategy, the ethics of war and religion and international politics—and Christopher Green, associate director of the Salmon P. Chase Center, watching at least the end of the interaction between Byrnes and Gee.
“We agreed that he would talk to you for a few minutes,” Green said as Gee walked through double doors into a nearby classroom.
But Newman, the documentarian who was there independently of Byrnes, said he hadn’t agreed to anything and wanted to ask Gee a few more questions. Green and Perez refused.
“You do not need to ask him more questions,” Green said.
“He already said it was his last question, so we’re going to have to ask you guys to leave now,” Perez added in a calm tone.
“Just one more,” said Newman, who was holding a camera and cellphone as he moved closer to Perez, but did not appear to touch him.
“No,” Perez said before knocking the phone from Newman’s hands and tackling him to the ground.
But the confrontation didn’t stop there, another video Byrnes posted shows.
After the assault, Byrnes tried to board an elevator alongside Green and Gee. While Green attempted to block Byrnes, he eventually got on the elevator. In the video, Green can be heard raising his voice, accusing Byrnes of assaulting him multiple times while asking a nearby woman to call the police. The video does not show Byrnes touching Green.
“We’ll see who considers what assault [is] when we’re done,” Byrnes said. “It’s all on video.”
Perez declined to comment about the incident and referred all questions to OSU’s communications office.
“We are aware of the incident, and it is very concerning,” Ben Johnson, an OSU spokesperson, wrote in an email. “The faculty member involved has been placed on administrative leave pending a full OSUPD investigation and thorough review of the facts.”
Byrnes and Newman have filed a police report about the incident, though it’s not clear if charges have been or will be filed against Perez. Inside Higher Ed requested a copy of the police incident report but did not receive it before publication Wednesday.
Byrnes said he wants Perez to face some accountability for tackling Newman, though Newman himself could not be reached for comment.
“He doesn’t deserve to lose his livelihood and never work again,” Byrnes said. “But at the same time, I do believe there needs to be legal consequences.”
For years, the default response to declining organic performance in higher education marketing was simple: publish more content. More blogs. More landing pages. More keywords.
In 2026, that instinct is no longer serving schools well.
Search behaviour has changed. AI-generated answers now summarize content before users ever click. Organic rankings still matter, but visibility, authority, and citation matter just as much. At the same time, most institutions are sitting on years of underperforming, outdated, or misaligned content that no longer reflects how students evaluate programs.
This is why content refresh strategy has become one of the highest-impact, lowest-risk growth opportunities in higher education digital marketing.
Refreshing existing content, when done strategically, often delivers faster results than creating net-new posts. It strengthens topical authority. It improves AI visibility. And it aligns your site with how students, parents, and decision-makers actually search today.
This guide outlines how schools should approach content refresh in 2026: how to select the right content to update, how to prioritize optimization workflows, and how to decide when refreshing beats creating something new.
Turn underperforming pages into higher-intent traffic.
Partner With HEM.
The Shift: Why “More Content” Is No Longer the Answer
Most higher education websites are not content-poor. They are content-heavy but performance-light.
Many institutions already have:
Dozens of blog posts targeting closely related keywords
Program pages written primarily for search engines rather than prospective students
Articles ranking on page two or three that have never been re-optimized
Evergreen resources that have not been reviewed in years
The issue is not production. It is performance management.
At the same time, search behaviour is changing. AI-driven search experiences such as Google AI Overviews, Bing Copilot, and ChatGPT browsing prioritize structured, authoritative, and recently updated content. These systems synthesize information. They reward clarity, depth, and consistency across related topics.
Publishing new content without maintaining existing assets often:
Dilutes topical authority
Creates keyword cannibalization across similar pages
Wastes crawl budget on redundant material
Signals inconsistency about what your institution stands for
For enrollment marketers, this has direct implications. When multiple pages compete for the same query, rankings stagnate. When outdated statistics or program structures remain live, trust erodes.
A structured content refresh strategy addresses these risks. It consolidates authority, sharpens positioning, and strengthens visibility across both traditional and AI-driven search.
Example:Harvard Business School Online updates existing articles and resource pages rather than replacing them. Content reflects current delivery formats, learning outcomes, and credential structures. This disciplined update model reinforces authority across business education topics without expanding the content footprint unnecessarily.
Content Refresh vs. New Content: How to Decide What Comes First
One of the most common questions marketing teams ask is: “Should we update old content or create something new?”
The answer is not either or. It is sequenced and prioritized.
In many institutions, the instinct is to publish. New programs, new campaigns, new blog posts. But without evaluating existing assets, this approach compounds inefficiencies and fragments authority.
When Content Refresh Should Take Priority
Refreshing existing content should come first when:
A page ranks in positions 4 to 20, indicating strong upward potential
The topic remains relevant, but the information is outdated
Search intent has evolved since publication
The page earns impressions but suffers from low click-through rates
The content aligns with enrollment goals, yet underperforms
These pages already possess:
Indexation
Backlinks
Historical authority
Established keyword associations
Updating them allows you to build on existing equity rather than starting from zero. Improvements to structure, internal linking, clarity, and intent alignment often generate faster gains than launching new pages.
Example: University of Toronto School of Continuing Studies uses a centralized “Online and Remote Learning” hub that functions as a maintained inventory rather than a one-off editorial post. The page states: “We are continuously expanding our list of over 540 online learning opportunities.” It also exposes structured fields at scale (e.g., “Semesters: Spring/Summer – 26”), which indicates term-based upkeep of listings and metadata across many course entries.
For organic search, a maintained hub consolidates topical authority around “online/remote learning” and supports long-tail discovery via embedded course listings. For AI search, repeated structured labels (semester, delivery method) increase extractability and reduce interpretation risk. Enrollment impact is supported by the page’s direct path to course selection and funding guidance (internal linking to financial assistance) and by reducing modality confusion through plain-language delivery explanations.
So, how do I update old content for SEO? Audit performance first. Prioritize pages ranking positions 4–20. Update outdated statistics, improve intent alignment, strengthen internal links, refine headings, and enhance meta titles and descriptions. Consolidate overlapping content where necessary. Focus on clarity, depth, and conversion pathways, not just keyword density.
When New Content Makes More Sense
Creating new content is appropriate when:
A topic does not exist anywhere on your site
You are entering a new academic or credential area
Emerging search intent cannot be satisfied by existing pages
A new campaign or intake requires dedicated support
The strategic sequence is clear: refresh high-potential assets first, then expand deliberately.
What is the 80/20 rule in SEO? Roughly 80 percent of results often come from 20 percent of pages. Focus optimization efforts on high-potential URLs that already generate impressions or backlinks. Strategic refresh of existing assets typically delivers stronger ROI than producing large volumes of new content.
What you’ll need (before Step 1)
To run a refresh program efficiently, pull these inputs first:
Google Search Console (GSC): queries, impressions, CTR, average position, top pages, last 3-12 months trends
Stakeholder inputs: admissions FAQs, program changes, deadlines, delivery format updates, outcomes data owners
Step 1: How to Identify the Right Content to Refresh
Effective content refresh begins with selection discipline, not editing enthusiasm. The objective is to prioritize assets with measurable upside tied directly to enrollment performance, search visibility, and authority consolidation.
High-value refresh candidates typically fall into five categories:
1. “Almost There” Pages
These pages rank between positions 5 and 20 and already generate impressions. They often require:
Stronger intent alignment
Improved on-page structure
Updated statistics or examples
Better internal linking to program pages
Because these URLs already have authority signals, even modest improvements can move them into high-visibility positions.
2. Evergreen Topics with Outdated Context
Topics such as:
How online learning works
Choosing the right MBA
Career outcomes in healthcare
remain consistently searched. However, modality changes, employer expectations, credential formats, and salary data evolve. Refreshing these pages should include:
Updated labor market data
Revised delivery models
New testimonials or case examples
Clearer pathways to inquiry or application
Example: University of Nebraska–Lincoln: UNL’s CropWatch content offers one of the clearest “refresh-on-the-same-URL” patterns available in public higher-ed publishing: explicit revision labeling. The article “Common Mullein Control…” includes a transparent update statement: “REVISED: Sept. 20, 2024 (originally published Oct. 7, 2020).” This exactly substantiates the strategy that refreshing existing content often beats publishing net-new equivalents: the URL keeps its history while the content is updated.
The page also models topical consolidation and internal linking discipline. It references an “annually updated Guide to Weed Management in Nebraska” and links to a set of related posts, effectively clustering the topic rather than creating isolated duplicates. That supports AI and organic visibility by clarifying topical authority (this page sits within an organized content cluster) and reducing fragmentation.
Older content may rely on repetitive keyword phrasing, thin subheadings, and limited depth. AI-driven search increasingly favors semantic clarity, structured information, and comprehensive topic coverage.
4. Cannibalized Content
When multiple URLs target similar intent, rankings fragment. A refresh may involve:
Merging overlapping posts
Redirecting weaker URLs
Establishing one definitive resource page
Example: Purdue University Online: Purdue Online’s “Programs of Study” page is a strong example of consolidation to reduce cannibalization and improve discoverability without producing endless near-duplicate pages. The page is built around a navigable taxonomy with “Filters” and a “Search for Programs” function, including structured dimensions such as Delivery (Online/Hybrid), Program Type, and Areas of Study.
This architecture supports AI and organic visibility by making the institution’s online offerings legible as a system rather than scattered pages. For organic, the consolidated hub can earn authority for broad queries (e.g., “online programs Purdue”), while filters help users (and crawlers) connect intent to the right program category. For AI summarization, structured taxonomies reduce ambiguity: it’s easier to describe “what Purdue offers online” when the content is already ordered and translated into consistent categories.
Some high-traffic pages attract broad awareness but do not guide users toward next steps. Refreshing may require reframing content to connect directly to program pages, deadlines, funding information, or admissions criteria.
Selection should be data-led. Use performance metrics, not intuition, to determine priority.
Step 2: Refreshing Content for AI Search Visibility
AI search does not necessarily reward novelty. It rewards trust, structure, and clarity. Systems such as Google AI Overviews and conversational search engines extract, synthesize, and summarize content. If your page is difficult to interpret, it is unlikely to be surfaced.
To improve AI search visibility, refreshed content should:
Answer primary questions directly within the first 100 to 150 words
Use descriptive H2 and H3 headings that reflect search intent
Include FAQ sections based on real query data
Replace vague promotional language with specific, verifiable claims
Demonstrate institutional credibility through evidence and transparency
AI systems tend to prioritize content they can summarize confidently. That means clarity of structure and completeness of explanation are critical.
What AI Optimized Content Looks Like
Strong AI-ready content typically:
Defines key terms before expanding on them
Explains processes step by step, such as application pathways or program formats
Minimizes unexplained academic jargon
Includes current data, accreditation details, and outcome metrics
Connects related subtopics through logical progression
How do I optimize content to rank in AI search results? Structure content for clarity and extraction. Use question-based headings, define terms concisely, provide step-by-step explanations, and include updated, verifiable data. Reduce jargon and vague claims. AI systems prioritize structured, authoritative content that can be summarized confidently.
For enrollment marketers, this often requires restructuring rather than rewriting. Long narrative blocks should be broken into scannable sections. Claims should be supported by outcomes, rankings, or student data where appropriate.
Example: University of the West of England, Bristol: UWE Bristol’s online course pages demonstrate a combined structure + currency approach that maps directly to AI visibility and enrollment conversion. The MSc Data Science (online) page uses clear sectioning (About, Entry, Structure, Fees, Careers), and prominent conversion pathways (“Apply now,” “Book a call,” “Course brochure”). Crucially, it also provides an explicit refresh signal: “Page last updated 26 January 2026.”
The page also includes decision-stage specifics that AI systems can safely summarize, such as time commitment: “12–18 hours per week.” This is an example of “intent alignment” in a refresh context: if working professionals increasingly ask feasibility questions, the content answers directly and quantitatively. Structurally, these clear headings and discrete data points improve extractability for AI summaries, while also improving organic performance through relevance and engagement (users get real answers quickly, rather than marketing copy).
Step 3: Aligning Content Refresh with Search Intent, Not Keywords
One of the most common refresh mistakes is updating keywords without reassessing intent. Rankings may improve temporarily, but performance plateaus if the page does not reflect what users are actually trying to accomplish.
Search intent evolves alongside market conditions, technology, and student expectations. What prospective students searched for in 2021 is not what they search for in 2026.
For example:
“Online degree benefits” has shifted from general flexibility messaging to measurable ROI, salary impact, and employer recognition
“College marketing strategies” now centers on AI integration, attribution modeling, and data transparency
“Best programs” increasingly reflect comparison behavior, peer validation, rankings context, and career outcomes
A content refresh must address these shifts explicitly.
This means:
Rewriting introductions to immediately reflect current decision drivers
Reframing subheadings around evaluation criteria, not generic descriptions
Updating statistics, industry data, and employer trends
Incorporating comparison elements where appropriate
Adding clarity for decision stage users, including entry requirements, workload expectations, delivery format, and outcomes
Intent alignment also requires analyzing SERP composition. If search results now include comparison pages, FAQs, or outcome-driven content, your refreshed page must reflect that structure to remain competitive.
Example: Imperial College Business School updates its online program blogs to reflect how working professionals evaluate flexibility, time commitment, career progression, and return on investment. The content addresses practical concerns rather than abstract program features, aligning with how prospective students now make decisions.
This student blog post (“Work-life balance and why the Global Online MBA programme is the right fit”) shows a strong AI-readable structure: it includes an explicit “Published” date (“10 January 2023”), multiple descriptive subheadings, and decision-relevant specifics (program length options: “21, 24, or 32 months”). The page also includes clear internal CTAs (“Download… brochure,” “Chat to our students”), connecting informational content to conversion paths.
Refreshing for intent ensures that content remains commercially relevant, not just technically optimized.
Step 4: Prioritizing the Content Refresh Workflow
Not all refreshes require the same level of effort or resources. Without prioritization, teams risk investing heavily in low-impact updates while overlooking quick wins. A tiered workflow ensures measurable return and protects capacity.
High Impact, Low Effort Updates
These changes often produce measurable ranking or engagement improvements within weeks:
Refining titles to reflect current intent and improve click-through rates
Rewriting meta descriptions to strengthen value propositions
Adding structured FAQ sections based on real query data
Improving internal linking to relevant program and admissions pages
Updating outdated statistics, rankings, accreditation details, or examples
These updates strengthen relevance and clarity without altering core page architecture.
Medium Effort Updates
These require structural edits but do not demand full reconstruction:
Rewriting introductions to align with current decision drivers
Strengthening conclusions with clearer next steps tied to enrollment
Reorganizing headings to reflect logical user progression
Adding new sections addressing emerging concerns such as AI skills, hybrid delivery, or career mobility
This tier often yields significant improvements for pages ranking mid SERP.
High Effort Refreshes
Reserved for strategic assets with substantial upside:
Consolidating multiple overlapping pages into one authoritative resource
Repositioning content around new or evolved search intent
Rewriting entire articles to align directly with recruitment priorities
These initiatives should be data justified and aligned with enrollment objectives.
Begin with lower effort optimizations to demonstrate performance lift. Use documented gains in rankings, engagement, or inquiries to support broader refresh initiatives. Structured sequencing protects momentum and ensures scalability.
Step 5: Measuring the Impact of Content Refresh
Content refresh performance should be evaluated differently from net new content. The objective is not discovery from zero. It is the acceleration of existing equity.
Because refreshed pages already possess indexation, backlinks, and historical signals, gains often appear faster than with newly published URLs.
Key indicators include:
Improved rankings for existing URLs, particularly movement into the top three positions
Increased impressions within AI-generated summaries and enhanced search features
Higher click-through rates resulting from refined titles and intent alignment
Stronger engagement metrics, such as time on page and scroll depth
Increased assisted conversions across inquiry and application pathways
Enrollment marketers should also evaluate internal behavior signals. For example:
Growth in clicks from refreshed blog content to program pages
Reduced bounce rates on high-intent informational pages
Improved conversion rates from updated FAQs or decision stage sections
Tracking should compare pre-refresh and post-refresh performance over defined intervals, typically 30, 60, and 90 days. Annotating refresh dates in analytics platforms is essential to isolate impact accurately.
When measured correctly, content refresh demonstrates compounding returns. Instead of creating new assets to chase growth, institutions extract greater value from the assets they already own.
Common Content Refresh Mistakes to Avoid
One of the most frequent errors institutions make is updating publication dates without improving the substance. Changing the year in a headline or adjusting a statistic does not strengthen authority if the framing, structure, and intent alignment remain outdated. Search engines and AI systems evaluate depth, clarity, and completeness. Superficial edits rarely produce measurable gains.
Another common mistake is attempting to refresh everything at once. Without prioritization, teams dilute effort across too many pages and fail to generate visible impact. Effective refresh strategies focus on high opportunity URLs first, particularly those ranking mid SERP or closely aligned with enrollment goals. Demonstrated performance lift should guide expansion.
Internal linking is also frequently overlooked. A refreshed article that is not strategically connected to program pages, admissions information, or related resources limits its commercial value. Refresh initiatives should strengthen contextual pathways that guide prospective students toward inquiry and application actions.
Misalignment with admissions messaging presents another risk. Marketing teams sometimes update content independently of evolving recruitment priorities, entry requirements, or positioning shifts. If refreshed pages contradict or lag behind admissions communications, trust erodes, and conversion pathways weaken.
Finally, treating AI search and traditional organic search as separate strategies fragments execution. Both systems prioritize clarity, authority, and intent satisfaction. Structuring content for AI summarization while ignoring ranking fundamentals creates inconsistency. The objective is unified optimization.
Content refresh is not cosmetic. It is strategic infrastructure work that reinforces authority, strengthens visibility, and directly supports enrollment outcomes when executed with discipline.
How Content Refresh Supports Enrollment, Not Just Rankings
The most effective content refresh strategies extend beyond search performance. Rankings create visibility, but enrollment impact depends on clarity, alignment, and trust. When content is updated strategically, it strengthens the entire recruitment funnel.
Refreshed content reduces admissions friction by answering common concerns before they reach an advisor. Clear explanations of workload, delivery format, prerequisites, timelines, and career outcomes minimize uncertainty. When prospects arrive informed, conversations shift from clarification to qualification.
Content updates also improve lead quality. By explicitly outlining who a program is suited for and who it is not, institutions encourage self-selection. This reduces mismatched inquiries and increases the proportion of applicants aligned with program expectations.
Advisor conversations benefit directly from refreshed assets. Updated FAQs, comparison sections, and outcome data provide consistent reference points across marketing and recruitment teams. When messaging is aligned, follow-up communication becomes more efficient and persuasive.
Institutional credibility is reinforced through transparency. Current statistics, employer partnerships, graduate outcomes, and accreditation details demonstrate accountability. Prospective students evaluating multiple institutions are sensitive to outdated or vague information.
Example: Athabasca University’s student success content clearly communicates who distance learning is best suited for, including learner characteristics and support expectations. This framing helps prospective students make informed decisions before initiating contact.
Content should enable prospects to self-qualify before submitting a form. When refresh efforts prioritize clarity and alignment with admissions realities, the result is not just improved visibility, but stronger enrollment outcomes.
Content Refresh Is a Strategic Advantage in 2026
In 2026, institutions gaining sustained organic and AI visibility are not those publishing the highest volume of content. They are the ones systematically curating, refining, and strengthening their existing assets.
A disciplined content refresh strategy enables schools to compete more effectively in AI-driven search environments where structure, clarity, and authority determine inclusion. It reinforces topical authority by consolidating fragmented content and aligning messaging with evolving intent. It directly supports enrollment objectives by reducing friction, improving self-qualification, and strengthening conversion pathways. It also maximizes prior investment by extracting additional performance from indexed, ranked, and linked assets rather than starting from zero.
Content refresh is not maintenance work. It is strategic optimization. Institutions that treat it as core infrastructure rather than a periodic cleanup position themselves for sustained visibility, stronger engagement, and measurable enrollment impact.
Turn underperforming pages into higher-intent traffic.
Partner With HEM.
FAQs
How do I update old content for SEO? Audit performance first. Prioritize pages ranking positions 4–20. Update outdated statistics, improve intent alignment, strengthen internal links, refine headings, and enhance meta titles and descriptions. Consolidate overlapping content where necessary. Focus on clarity, depth, and conversion pathways, not just keyword density.
How do I optimize content to rank in AI search results? Structure content for clarity and extraction. Use question-based headings, define terms concisely, provide step-by-step explanations, and include updated, verifiable data. Reduce jargon and vague claims. AI systems prioritize structured, authoritative content that can be summarized confidently.
What is the 80/20 rule in SEO? Roughly 80 percent of results often come from 20 percent of pages. Focus optimization efforts on high-potential URLs that already generate impressions or backlinks. Strategic refresh of existing assets typically delivers stronger ROI than producing large volumes of new content.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | StockSeller_ukr/iStock/Getty Images
Lourdes University will close in May due to “insurmountable financial pressures” driven by declining enrollment, rising costs and an unsustainable funding model, officials announced.
The private Catholic university in Ohio was founded in 1958 by the Sisters of St. Francis.
The Lourdes Board of Trustees wrote in a Wednesday announcement that they “explored possible paths forward with care and seriousness” before the Sisters concluded that continuing operations beyond this academic year is financially unsustainable, which necessitated closure in May.
Trustees noted that the Sisters of St. Francis could no longer subsidize its operations.
“Regrettably, it is now clear that there is no path forward for this institution, and this decision is the most responsible one for our students, our faculty and our mission. We are profoundly grateful for all the Sisters have given us for decades, and, in these remaining months, we will honor the spirit in which that support was offered,” board members wrote in the announcement.
The decision to close the university comes after multiple years of operating at a loss, according to publicly available financial documents. The university’s meager endowment of $13.6 million, much of it restricted, provided little financial relief to fall back on as operating losses piled up.
Federal enrollment data also shows student head count had been slipping for years. In fall 2024, Lourdes enrolled 964 students. A decade prior, in fall 2014, the university enrolled 1,780 students. Enrollment previously hovered around 2,500 students in the early 2010s.
Lourdes is the second institution to announce closure plans this week and the third this year.
Providence Christian College, a private institution in California, announced this week that it will close by the end of the academic year. Elsewhere in the Golden State, the California College of the Arts announced in January it will close in 2027 and sell its campus to Vanderbilt University.
Colleges and universities are pouring more budget and bandwidth into recruitment and not seeing the return. Funnels are stalling. Costs are climbing. Yield is unpredictable. And students are checking out without warning. It’s not a lack of effort. It’s a system that isn’t built for how students decide now. Put simply, the model is broken.
Institutions are operating in a fundamentally different environment than the one this recruitment playbook was built for. Attention is fragmented. Expectations are higher. And personalization that stops at a first name is no longer enough. Continuing to rely on outdated recruitment models doesn’t just slow progress, it puts institutions at a competitive disadvantage.
The legacy model doesn’t match how students decide today
Many recruitment strategies still rely on a familiar set of assumptions:
Students move predictably through a linear funnel
Stage-based triggers signal readiness to advance
Communication plans can be prebuilt and scaled
Historical reports provide enough insight to guide what comes next
This model was designed for a time when student journeys were more linear and decision-making was easier to anticipate. But that’s not the reality institutions are recruiting into today.
Today’s learners don’t follow a neat path from awareness to enrollment. They research across devices. They pause and re-engage on their own timelines. They evaluate cost, outcomes, flexibility, reputation, and support — often all at once. And they expect institutions to recognize their needs without forcing them to repeat themselves at every step.
When recruitment strategies rely on stage-based signals alone, they miss what actually matters: behavior.
Two students may both be labeled “inquiry stage,” but one may be ready to apply while the other is still building trust. Treating them the same doesn’t create efficiency. It creates friction.
This is where the traditional recruitment playbook breaks down. Funnels show movement, but they don’t explain motivation. They don’t reveal intent. And they don’t equip institutions to respond in the moments that matter most.
Higher education leaders are increasingly naming this gap as an inflection point. As Arizona State University President Michael Crow has argued, institutions face an “evolve or die” moment, one that underscores the risk of continuing to rely on models built for a different era. His framing isn’t about alarmism. It’s about recognizing when long-standing approaches no longer align with how learners actually discover, evaluate, and choose where to enroll.
Recruitment sits squarely inside that challenge. When institutions continue to optimize outdated models rather than rethink them, they reinforce systems that no longer reflect how students decide today.
Shifting from funnel management to student experience
Forward-looking institutions are changing the question. Instead of asking, “Where is this student in the funnel?” they’re asking, “What does this student need right now?”
That shift requires more than new messaging or additional channels. It requires a different recruitment model — one built around experience, not sequence.
It calls for a model that brings marketing, enrollment, and engagement together into a single, coordinated system that uses data not just to report outcomes, but to guide decisions in real time and respond to students as individuals rather than averages.
Turning student data into actionable intelligence
What leading institutions are moving toward isn’t a new tool or platform. It’s a more sophisticated way of understanding students, and it starts with data.
Think of it as creating a “digital twin” of each student — a living, continuously evolving model that reflects how an individual actually engages across channels, systems, and moments in time. Rather than relying on static personas or stage-based assumptions, this approach combines behavioral signals, engagement data, and institutional context to surface real insights into student intent.
What does that enable?
Website behavior that signals readiness or hesitation
Device usage that informs how (and where) to engage
Content engagement that reveals what matters most to the student
Patterns over time that help predict next best actions
With this level of intelligence, institutions don’t have to wait for students to raise their hands or move to the next stage. They can anticipate needs and respond with relevance. Outreach becomes more timely, conversations feel more personal, and trust builds earlier in the journey.
This isn’t about automation or scale for its own sake. It’s about using data intentionally—to create recruitment experiences that reflect how students actually make decisions.
Why most providers can’t deliver this
Many service providers talk about personalization, but few can operationalize it.
Traditional models are constrained by their structure: email-heavy communication, predefined workflows, and limited visibility into what’s actually happening across the recruitment journey. Even when data is collected, it’s often siloed, static, or disconnected from human engagement.
A model built on real-time student intelligence requires something fundamentally different:
Unified data environments grounded in actual behavior
Transparent access to insights within institutional systems
Multichannel engagement guided by data, not dictated by it
Human expertise embedded alongside technology
It also requires the ability to scale personalization without sacrificing experience, supporting thousands of students while still treating each one as an individual.
What a modern recruitment partner looks like
As recruitment models evolve, expectations of partnership must evolve with them.
Institutions need partners who do more than generate demand. They need partners who help convert it. Partners who embed alongside internal teams bring a strategic perspective and adapt as student behavior shifts. Partners who can support across learner types and enrollment moments, not just the most profitable ones.
Most importantly, institutions need partners with a proven approach — one grounded in data, enabled by technology, and delivered by people who understand the complexity of enrollment today.
It’s time for a new recruitment playbook
The institutions that succeed next won’t recruit harder. They’ll recruit smarter.
They’ll move beyond linear funnels and static campaigns. They’ll replace assumptions with insight. And they’ll design recruitment experiences that reflect how students actually make decisions — not how we wish they did.
The rules of recruitment have already changed. The only question is whether institutions will continue running the old plays or adjust to a game plan built for what comes next.
Innovation Starts Here
Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.
Kim Fahey is President and CEO of Collegis Education, where she leads strategy, operations, and growth to help higher education institutions leverage data, technology, and talent to achieve measurable outcomes. Since joining Collegis in 2014, Kim has played a pivotal role in scaling the company and evolving it into a premier higher ed solutions provider. A transformative leader with deep experience in technology and operations, she is passionate about driving innovation, building high-performing teams, and delivering exceptional results for Collegis partners.
FIRE’s Free Speech Dispatch covers new and continuing censorship trends and challenges around the world. Our goal is to help readers better understand the global context of free expression. Want to make sure you don’t miss an update? Sign up for our newsletter.
More under-16 bans and Spain’s threat of criminal liability for tech executives
Spain and Greece are moving toward banning teenagers from social media, following a line of other nations considering the same. But that’s not all. In a speech earlier this month in Dubai, Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said that CEOs of platforms like X and TikTok “will face criminal liability for failing to remove illegal or hateful content.” Sánchez also promised, among other things, to “turn algorithmic manipulation and amplification of illegal content into a new criminal offense” and to “go after” the actors who create that content “as well as after the platforms whose algorithms amplify the disinformation for profit.” In the United States, Section 230 protects platforms from civil liability for user-generated speech. While Section 230 does not provide protection against federal criminal prosecution, the First Amendment stops the government from making content (and its distribution) illegal just because the government thinks it false or harmful.
X faces raids and threats of bans in Europe
Problematic regulation of online speech and the tech platforms that host it, and the threats of further action like the ones described above, are a common feature in the Free Speech Dispatch given the alarming frequency with which they occur. Last year, French prosecutors opened a criminal investigation into Elon Musk’s X over allegations that the platform’s algorithm and data extraction policies violated French law. Last week, that investigation intensified as prosecutors’ cybercrime unit raided X’s Paris office for alleged offenses including Holocaust denial material, which is illegal in France, and sexualized deepfakes of real people, including minors, generated by the platform’s AI chatbot Grok. Obviously the latter allegation is one that carries legal implications in the United States as well, unlike Holocaust denial, which is protected by the First Amendment. As FIRE’s John Coleman explains, “federal criminal law prohibits knowingly making or sharing child sexual abuse material involving actual children, whether it is created by a camera or with the assistance of AI.” But as FIRE warned when the UK threatened a ban on X earlier this year, countries must seek a careful approach to challenges posed by AI and social media: “Free nations that claim to honor the expressive rights of their citizens must recognize that mass censorship is never an acceptable approach to objectionable content or illegal conduct.” Threats to ban a platform entirely are neither careful nor justified.
For publishing a newspaper, Jimmy Lai will die in prison
The sentence is in. Media mogul Jimmy Lai has been sentenced to 20 years in prison under Hong Kong’s oppressive national security law. Along with others who were sentenced to terms six to 10 years for their involvement, Lai was targeted for running Apple Daily, a pro-democracy newspaper critical of Hong Kong and Chinese authorities. Chief Executive John Lee said this week that Lai used the paper to “poison the minds” of Hong Kong. Lai is 78 years old and has suffered declining health in the five years he has already spent in custody. A 20-year sentence will very likely mean that he dies in prison.
Australian states expand authority to crack down on speech about Israel and Gaza
Queensland is moving to criminalize the public use of phrases including “from the river to the sea” and “globalise the intifada” under sweeping new hate speech laws introduced in response to the Bondi terror attack. The proposed legislation would make it an offense to distribute, display, or recite proscribed phrases when intended to cause “menace, harassment or offence,” carrying penalties of up to two years in prison.
Australia blocks social media for teens while UK mulls blasphemy ban
South Korea rejects a short-lived martial law decree, ‘Wicked’ does not defy local censorship laws, ‘Family Guy’ can’t fly, and Australian breakdancer Raygun threatens legal action over a musical.
And in New South Wales, hate speech rules now cover staff at more than 3,000 government, independent, and Catholic schools across the state, giving regulators the power to discipline or dismiss teachers for alleged hate speech even when it occurs outside the classroom or on social media, and without waiting for a criminal charge. The changes were fast-tracked after the Bondi Beach shooting that killed 15 people, with the government framing the move as necessary to protect students and social cohesion. Teachers and civil liberty groups warn the vague standards could chill classroom discussion of Gaza and Palestine.
China perfectly illustrates the dangers of the UN’s cybercrime treaty
China’s proposed Cybercrime Prevention and Control Law bill isn’t just about fraud and scams. It also targets “‘spreading fake news and fabricated information’ and publishing information that ‘goes against public order and accepted social morals to gain traffic or advertising revenue.’” That’s what one might also call a censorship bill. And this inclusion of online speech disfavored by the government under the umbrella of “cybercrime” is exactly why FIRE warned that the cybercrime treaty considered by the United Nations, and adopted by 72 member states last year, posed a serious threat to global free speech.
Also in China, two independent journalists in southwestern China were detained after publishing an online report alleging corruption by a local official, highlighting the risks of investigative reporting in the country. Authorities accused Liu Hu and Wu Yingjiao of making “false accusations,” detained them, and removed their article from WeChat.
India widens speech controls through courts, police, and digital regulation
In India, restrictions on expression continue to emerge across multiple fronts, from judicial warnings and police detentions to sweeping proposals for online regulation.
The Karnataka High Court questioned a Kannada television channel over a comedy show episode that allegedly portrayed Hindu gods in a derogatory way, stating that “freedom of speech cannot be used as a shield to hurt religious sentiments.” While granting interim protection from arrest, the court emphasized that creative expression is subject to “reasonable limits,” particularly where religion is concerned. Separately, UK-based YouTuber and doctor Sangram Patil was reportedly detained at Mumbai’s airport over social media posts critical of the Bharatiya Janata Party.
At the national level, India’s central government is drafting new IT Digital Code Rules to regulate online content through age ratings, parental controls, and restrictions on obscenity and incitement. Officials have framed the proposal as a way to “protect minors” while balancing free expression, but the rules’ broad standards could expand state control over lawful speech and encourage platforms to over-censor to avoid penalties.
Nepal’s proposed film censorship threatens queer storytelling
In Nepal, queer filmmakers and rights advocates say proposed film censorship rules would require all moving images, including festival screenings, to undergo government approval. Advocates warn the policy would severely restrict artistic freedom and LGBT storytelling. The Film Censorship Board and the Ministry of Information and Communication have temporarily held the policy from enforcement, but could enact it at any time.
Filmmakers say the proposal, combined with social pressure and police interference, could eliminate remaining spaces for films addressing gender identity and sexuality. One advocate warned that the rules would make it nearly impossible for queer filmmakers to “exist publicly at all.”
Pakistan escalates digital repression and blasphemy enforcement
A Pakistani court sentenced prominent human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband to 17 years in prison over social media posts deemed “anti-state,” including charges of cyber terrorism and spreading false information. Mazari’s arrest over anti-blasphemy law posts sparked protests and strikes in Islamabad, with demonstrators calling her detention “judicial harassment” and demanding her release. Pakistani police arrested Mazari and fellow human rights lawyer Hadi Ali Chattha without a warrant, despite a court order granting relief from arrest.
Police killings worsen crisis of mob violence against Pakistan’s blasphemers
Plenty of free speech news out of Europe, the sedition crackdown in Hong Kong, efforts to control discussion of foreign governments in Canada and the U.S.
At the same time, rights groups report an increasing use of fabricated digital evidence in blasphemy cases, disproportionately affecting religious minorities. Against this backdrop, two Christian nurses, Mariam Lal and Newosh Arooj, were acquitted of blasphemy charges after more than four years. Advocates called the ruling “rare,” noting that trial courts in Pakistan seldom dismiss blasphemy cases due to extremist pressure.
The UK’s expanded crackdown on protests about Israel and Gaza
Pro-Palestinian activist and former Cornell PhD student Momodou Taal alleges UK police detained him for six hours at Heathrow Airport under the Terrorism Act 2000 to ask about his personal history and political views. Taal, whose devices were seized by police, said the stop was “political intimidation” tied to his opposition to the war in Gaza.
London police arrested two people at a protest for supporting the proscribed group Palestine Action after officers spotted a banner linked to the organization. As FIRE has explained in previousentries, Palestine Action was banned under anti-terrorism laws for damaging military planes in a protest. Simply expressing verbal “support” for the group can also result in an arrest under the same legislation. Activist groups have claimed, though, that the banner was specifically obscured so it did not read “We are all Palestine Action.”
Veteran rights campaigner Peter Tatchell was also detained at a separate London protest after displaying a placard reading “globalise the intifada.” The UK’s two largest police forces announced late last year that they would begin making arrests over phrases they say cause “increased fear in Jewish communities.”
Attacks on art and culture in Russia, Cuba, and Egypt
In Russia, comedian Artemy Ostanin was sentenced to nearly six years in prison after being convicted of inciting hatred over a joke about a legless war veteran.
In Cuba, rapper Fernando Almenares Rivera, known as Nando OBDC, was sentenced to five years in prison for painting banners with pro-human rights slogans, which authorities classified as propaganda against the constitutional order.
In Egypt, poet Ahmed Douma was briefly arrested and interrogated over social media posts criticizing prison abuses. Rights groups say the case fits a pattern of repeated investigations and bail demands used to silence dissent.
Repression beyond borders, from the United States to the Middle East
Two journalists from Italy’s public broadcaster RAI were threatened by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents while reporting on immigration enforcement operations in Minneapolis, an incident that sparked concern among Italian officials about press freedom. Italian politicians warned that the confrontation was unacceptable, with one lawmaker saying it was a “very serious episode that risks intimidating journalists who are simply doing their job,” and calling on authorities to ensure reporters can work “without threats or interference.”
Across the Atlantic, a UK High Court ordered Saudi Arabia to pay more than 3 million British pounds in damages to London-based dissident Ghanem al-Masarir after finding the kingdom responsible for hacking his phones with Pegasus spyware and carrying out a physical attack against him. The court concluded that Saudi authorities were behind a “serious and unlawful interference” with al-Masarir’s rights, marking a rare judicial acknowledgement of transnational repression and a setback in Saudi Arabia’s efforts to change the global conversation about its human rights abuses.
On Tuesday, a federal grand jury declined to indict a group of Democratic lawmakers who posted a video urging servicemembers to refuse to carry out illegal orders.
Let’s be clear: The lawmakers’ speech was plainly protected by the First Amendment.
In the United States, everyone — from a sitting U.S. senator to an everyday American — has the right to say our troops should refuse to carry out unlawful orders. Nobody should ever face arrest for doing so. And no prosecutor should ever argue otherwise.
All federal officials, from President Trump on down, take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Attempting to have political opponents — or anyone — jailed for their protected expression flatly violates that oath. The Framers intended the First Amendment to prohibit precisely such an abuse of power.
These charges should not have been presented to a grand jury. Thankfully, the brave Americans serving on that jury understood their awesome responsibility in our constitutional system. The prosecution ignored theirs.
In the United States, we shouldn’t have to thank a grand jury for preventing six elected officials from being arrested for exercising their First Amendment rights in a way that angered the president. But this is where we are.
Red lines are being crossed. Free speech and the rule of law are miracles of the American experiment. Now is the time for all Americans — regardless of party or politics — to demand our elected leaders honor their oaths to the Constitution.
The countdown has officially begun. As of early February 2026, we are fewer than 80 days away from one of the most consequential shifts in digital accessibility that higher education has ever faced. On April 24, 2026, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Final Rule on ADA Title II takes full effect for most public higher education institutions.
For marketing teams, IT departments, instructional designers, and campus leaders, this moment isn’t about checking a box or adding accessibility to a long list of competing priorities. It’s a clear signal that digital accessibility in higher education is no longer reactive or optional. It is now a baseline expectation for how public institutions serve their communities.
So what does this rule actually require? And what should institutions be doing right now to be ready?
What Does the ADA Title II Final Rule Require for Public Colleges and Universities?
For years, higher education has operated in a gray area when it came to web accessibility. While courts consistently affirmed that the ADA applies to digital spaces, there was no single, universally adopted technical standard.
That ambiguity is now gone.
The DOJ’s Final Rule establishes, for the first time, a clear and enforceable accessibility standard for state and local government entities—including public colleges, universities, and community colleges.
Perceivable: Information and interface elements can be perceived by all users (for example, meaningful alternative text for images).
Operable: Users can navigate and interact using a keyboard or other assistive technologies.
Understandable: Content and navigation behave in predictable, consistent ways.
Robust: Content works reliably across browsers, devices, and assistive technologies.
Who Must Comply—and When
These timelines define how ADA Title II higher education requirements apply across different types of public institutions:
Large public entities (serving populations of 50,000 or more): Compliance is required by April 24, 2026.
Small public entities (serving populations under 50,000): Compliance is required by April 26, 2027.
A note for private institutions: While this specific rule applies to public entities, private colleges and universities are not insulated. Institutions receiving federal funding under Section 504 or those targeted by Title III lawsuits are increasingly being held to these same WCAG 2.1 AA standards.
What Types of Digital Content Must Be ADA Title II Compliant?
A helpful rule of thumb: if the content is digital and supports your institution’s programs, services, or activities, it is likely covered under ADA Title II. This includes:
Websites: Your main .edu site, departmental pages, campaign microsites, athletics sites, and admissions experiences.
Mobile applications: Any university-branded app for registration, campus maps, or student life.
Course-related content: Syllabi, lecture slides, and materials hosted on learning management systems like Canvas or Blackboard.
Documents: All PDFs, Word docs, spreadsheets, and forms intended for student, employee, or public use.
Social media: Posts made on official university channels (including the use of alt text and captions).
Third-party tools: If you pay for a service (like a virtual tour or a scholarship portal), accessibility responsibility does not transfer to the vendor—you still own the risk.
How Can Higher Education Institutions Prepare for ADA Title II Compliance by 2026?
If you haven’t completed your remediation plan, the time to act is now. Follow these five critical steps to ensure ADA compliance for your college or university:
Step 1: Build a Digital Inventory
You cannot fix what you don’t know exists. Catalog every digital touchpoint, prioritizing:
High-traffic pages: Admissions, Financial Aid, and Student Portals.
Learning management system environments: Student- and faculty-facing content within your learning management system.
Vendor contracts: Review VPATs (Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates) for all third-party software.
Step 2: Audit and Remediate
Effective audits combine automated testing and human evaluation. Automated tools help surface common issues like missing alternative text or color contrast failures. Manual testing, especially keyboard navigation and screen reader checks, is essential for identifying more complex barriers.
Step 3: Tackle the “PDF Problem”
Higher ed is notorious for “PDF bloat,” and many institutions are carrying years of inaccessible PDFs.
A sustainable strategy is simple in concept, if not in execution:
Create new content in accessible HTML whenever possible
Fix essential, current documents
Remove or archive outdated files that no longer serve an active purpose
Step 4: Faculty & Staff Training
Accessibility is a distributed responsibility. Your marketing team can have a perfect homepage, but if a professor uploads an untagged PDF to a course, the institution is out of compliance.
Mandatory, role-based training for anyone with publishing authority—faculty, staff, and student employees—is critical.
Step 5: Establish a Digital Accessibility Policy
Policies turn intention into accountability. A strong digital accessibility policy should clearly define:
Technical standards (WCAG 2.1 Level AA)
Procurement expectations for vendors and software
A transparent process for reporting and resolving accessibility barriers
Are There Exceptions to ADA Title II Digital Accessibility Requirements?
The DOJ final rule does allow for limited exceptions, but these are narrower than what you might expect. Examples include:
Archived content: Content created before the deadline that is held only for reference/record-keeping and not currently used.
Third-party user-generated content: Content posted by a third party (like a student comment on a forum) that is not under the university’s control.
Pre-existing electronic documents: Certain documents available on your site before the compliance date, unless they are actively used for current programs or services.
Relying on exceptions as a strategy is risky. In practice, most high-impact content will still need remediation.
Why Digital Accessibility Must Be Treated as Infrastructure, Not Compliance
April 24, 2026, is a compliance deadline, but it’s also a cultural marker for digital accessibility in higher education. This moment challenges institutions to move beyond accommodation-as-afterthought and toward accessibility-as-infrastructure. When digital experiences are designed to work for everyone from the start, the benefits extend well beyond legal compliance.
Accessible campuses are more usable, more equitable, and ultimately more human. And that is a standard worth meeting—well before the clock runs out.
Carnegie’s award-winning website development team can help you create (and maintain) a site that is as stunning as it is accessible and user-friendly. Ready to take your website to the next level? Reach out and start a conversation.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)s
Who does the ADA Title II Final Rule apply to?
The ADA Title II Final Rule applies to state and local government entities, including public colleges, universities, and community colleges. Private institutions are not directly covered but may still be required to meet WCAG standards under Section 504 or ADA Title III.
When does ADA Title II compliance take effect?
Public higher education institutions serving populations of 50,000 or more must comply by April 24, 2026. Smaller public entities have until April 26, 2027.
What accessibility standard is required under ADA Title II?
The Department of Justice requires compliance with WCAG 2.1 Level AA, which covers web content, mobile applications, digital documents, and other electronic information.
Does ADA Title II apply to PDFs and course materials?
Yes. PDFs, Word documents, spreadsheets, and course materials hosted in learning management systems are all considered in scope if they support institutional programs, services, or activities.
Are third-party tools exempt from ADA Title II requirements?
No. If an institution uses or pays for third-party tools such as virtual tours, registration platforms, or scholarship portals, the institution remains responsible for accessibility compliance—even if the vendor created the content.
Are there any exceptions to the ADA Title II Final Rule?
Limited exceptions exist for archived content, certain pre-existing documents, and third-party user-generated content. However, these exceptions are narrow, and most active or high-impact content must still be accessible.
What happens if a college or university is not compliant with the ADA Title II Final Rule?
Institutions that fail to comply may face DOJ enforcement actions, civil rights complaints, legal risk, and reputational damage. More importantly, noncompliance can limit equal access for students, staff, and community members with disabilities.
The First Amendment protects the right to discuss, record, and criticize what law enforcement does in public.
The federal government strong-armed Apple and Facebook to remove ICE activity monitoring from company platforms.
It’s unconstitutional for the government to coerce private companies into censorship.
CHICAGO, Feb. 11, 2026 — Two concerned Midwesterners are fighting back after the platforms they created to report on public Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity were censored by government officials.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is suing Attorney General Pam Bondi and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem on behalf of Kae Rosado and Mark Hodges, who respectively created a Facebook group and an app that hosted video footage of ICE operations to inform the public and hold our government accountable.
“As U.S. citizens, we have the right to keep each other informed about what our government officials are doing and how they’re doing it,” said Mark, who developed an app called Eyes Up that allows users to store and view videos of ICE activity nationwide. “Government transparency and accountability are fundamental in a free society.”
Mark runs Kreisau Group, which aims to preserve evidence of governmental abuses of power. On his Eyes Up app, users can upload videos, record new videos, or access uploaded videos, which Eyes Up arranges on a map of the United States after Mark and his moderators review and approve each video.
Kae, who has her own jewelry business, started a Facebook group in January 2025 after seeing fear in her community about the impact of ICE raids on daily life in Chicago. She and other small business owners noticed attendance dropping at community events where they’d set up shop. The aim of the group — “ICE Sightings – Chicagoland” — was for fellow small business owners, friends, and family to share information about ICE operations in Chicago. The group remained small until Sept. 2025, when ICE commenced and publicly touted an enforcement surge in Chicago dubbed “Operation Midway Blitz.” Chicagoans increasingly feared being injured or arrested, and Kae’s group grew to include nearly 100,000 members.
FIRE plaintiffs Mark Hodges (left) and Kae Rosado. (Crescent Peak Photography)
Documenting and criticizing law enforcement are protected by the First Amendment, and it is unconstitutional for the government to coerce private companies like Apple and Facebook into censoring content on their behalf. However, in October, Bondi and Noem pressured Facebook to take down Kae’s group and Apple to remove Mark’s Eyes Up from its app store.
In a statement to Fox News, Bondi boasted on Oct. 2 that “We reached out to Apple today demanding they remove the ICEBlock app from their App Store — and Apple did so.” In fact, Apple had removed several ICE-related apps, including Eyes Up. Though Apple had closely examined and approved the app the month before, Apple now claimed that the app violated the app store’s prohibition on “mean-spirited” content.
Less than two weeks later, the same thing happened to Kae’s Facebook group. On Oct. 12, political activist Laura Loomer flagged Noem and Bondi in an X post identifying Kae’s group, falsely suggesting that it was “getting people killed.” Kae advocates nonviolence and created the group so members could stay informed and stay safe. She prohibited group members from posting anything threatening or promoting violence. Nevertheless, following outreach from Bondi’s Department of Justice, Facebook disabled her Facebook group the next day. Bondi claimed credit on X for the removal.
“I care about my community, and I just want to make sure everyone is staying safe,” said Kae. “ICE activities are causing fear in the small business community, and we needed a place to share information in real time. By censoring our group, the government continues to erode our trust. They silenced not only my voice, but the voices of nearly 100,000 other community members.”
Noem and Bondi’s actions were blatantly unconstitutional. The First Amendment protects the right to discuss, record, and criticize what law enforcement does in public. According to the Supreme Court in Houston v. Hill, “to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”
The federal government has alleged efforts to track ICE agents puts law enforcement officers at risk. But courts have consistently held that speech concerning the public activities of law enforcement officers and other government employees — from warning fellow citizens of speed traps to publishing videos of law enforcement officers engaged in their duties — is protected by the First Amendment.
“As we’ve seen across the country, especially in Minneapolis, citizen videos have informed discussion and debate about ICE’s operations and tactics,” said FIRE attorney Colin McDonell. “The right to share information about our government is essential to a free society. If someone goes out and commits a crime, they can and should be punished for their actions. But in a free society, we don’t punish protected speech.”
FIRE filed its lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois. The suit seeks a ruling that Bondi and Noem violated the First Amendment, as well as an injunction that would prevent them from taking similar actions going forward.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.
The headwinds facing higher ed have turned into a powerful gale.
Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images
The higher education sector is increasingly squeezed by economic and political pressures affecting even the nation’s wealthiest institutions, according to a new report from consulting giant EAB.
The report, out today, argues that higher education is in “a new era of scrutiny and conditional legitimacy.” EAB finds the sector battered by social, political and market headwinds as it simultaneously navigates a more adversarial relationship with the federal government, a bifurcated enrollment picture, public doubts about return on investment, a rapidly changing athletics landscape and the effects of artificial intelligence on job prospects for recent graduates.
The report notes that scrutiny on the sector is sharpening, which is driven by both the Trump administration and state lawmakers who have ratcheted up pressure on institutional autonomy by pressing universities to restrict certain speech and halt diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
The authors argue that autonomy is no longer assumed and colleges must justify to the public their need for independence.
“In the past, it was largely assumed we were given autonomy. It was assumed that we were going to deliver value, do good for the public,” Brooke Thayer, EAB’s senior director of research, told Inside Higher Ed. “Now it’s increasingly conditional and tied to—can you actually prove it? Can you show me the ROI? Can you show me the impact and economic value and alignment with the priorities of federal policymakers, state policymakers and the broader public as well?”
Thayer and her co-authors note that in President Donald Trump’s second term, many historical assumptions about higher education no longer ring true. They point to restrictions on speech and DEI, loan caps, an increased focus on ROI, an expansion of the endowment tax, and cuts to research as evidence that higher education’s social contract has been rewritten in just the first year of Trump 2.0.
“There’s one word that stuck out over this last year and it’s ‘Trump,’” said Colin Koproske, managing director in EAB’s research division. But, he added, the federal government’s shifting priorities are compounded by demographic pressures and the AI effect on job placement. Altogether, those headwinds amount to a powerful gale.
‘Synchronized Compression’
While the report notes that the business model of higher education has been under strain for decades, authors argue, “Today’s challenges are substantively different.” They find “every major revenue stream and expense category is under pressure at the same time” across the sector.
Institutions are facing what EAB calls “synchronized compression,” which means leaders have “fewer cushions to absorb shocks” due to simultaneous pressure on revenues and expenses.
The report notes a high and largely fixed cost structure, heavy on labor costs, weighed down by deferred maintenance needs and subject to political headwinds, particularly for public institutions, where lawmakers may be keen to cut education to balance state budgets.
“I think most schools are gonna have to make bigger changes than we have in the past and move a lot faster,” Thayer said. “A lot of that comes down to the reality that we have to manage our cost base, which is highly fixed and labor intensive. It’s tough to make a real change in the model and is going to require some of those bigger discussions and restructuring conversations around—do we have the right people, processes, investments in place and are there ways we actually can more sustainably build a model for the future with more cost flexibility in it?”
But the report notes that even deep-pocketed institutions are subject to budget constraints, pointing out that wealthy universities also cut jobs and programs amid recent fiscal pressures.
Need to Rethink Curricula
The EAB report argues that higher education must confront concerns about market relevance as artificial intelligence reshapes the student body, the labor market and society at a broad level.
The first factor is generational. The report argues that students arrive on campus less prepared “academically, socially and professionally.” But new graduates are also facing a contracting labor market, with entry-level jobs harder to obtain. Finally, EAB argues that artificial intelligence is “rewriting the foundations of work itself” as corporations make major bets on the technology.
Thayer and Koproske argue that the effect of AI on early career outcomes—where many companies are tapping the technology to do the work of junior employees—means universities will have to rethink what they teach and how they teach it, with more of an emphasis on experiential learning. They also call on colleges to build more partnerships with employers to help students land internships and co-op placements in order to get a leg up on their careers.
“There’s a bridge from a traditional four-year undergraduate education to the workforce that has to be built up to a much greater degree,” Koproske said.
A ‘Winning Platform’
Despite the concerns raised in the report, it isn’t all doom and gloom. EAB does offer a “winning platform” for institutions despite the many challenges confronting the higher education sector.
The report highlights three areas where colleges should focus to improve public support.
First up is “power jobs,” or the notion, as described in the report, that colleges provide “the fastest, most reliable route to jobs that sustain families and keep America competitive.” Second, the report highlights the importance of fostering civic pluralism, or making campuses a national model for debate and civic literacy in a time of polarization. Finally, colleges should focus on advancing national resilience, by taking center stage in areas such as defense, health and infrastructure by focusing research on areas of public interest and minting partnerships, according to the report.
“Underlying all of those is this theme of transparency and making sure we’re measuring, we’re proving the outcomes, we’re being clear about the impact that we’re having. But those are three activities that cut across the party lines and are valuable in the eyes of the public,” Thayer said.
A webinar discussing the findings in the report is scheduled for Wednesday at 3 p.m. Eastern.
