What happened? On May 14, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a memo declaring that the Defense Department would move to cap reimbursement for indirect research costs to 15% for all new grants for colleges. Hegseth also ordered officials to renegotiate rates on existing awards. If colleges do not agree, DOD officials should terminate previously awarded grants and reissue them under the “revised terms,” he said.
Overall, Hegseth estimated the move would save the agency $900 million annually.
A group of higher education associations and research universities sued on June 16, arguing that the Defense Department overstepped its authority and noting that other courts had blocked the Trump administration’s caps at other agencies.
“As with those policies, if DOD’s policy is allowed to stand, it will stop critical research in its tracks, lead to layoffs and cutbacks at universities across the country, badly undermine scientific research at United States universities, and erode our nation’s enviable status as a global leader in scientific research and innovation,” they wrote in court documents.
The next day, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy granted a temporary restraining order blocking the Defense Department from implementing its policy until further ordered.
What’s next? Murphy has scheduled a July 2 hearing on the temporary restraining order.
Imperial College London, University of Oxford, University of Cambridge and UCL all maintain their places in the global top 10 and 17 of the total 90 UK universities ranked this year are in the top 100, two more than last year.
The University of Sheffield and The University of Nottingham have returned to the global top 100 for the first time since 2023 and 2024 respectively.
But despite improvements at the top end of the QS ranking, some 61% of ranked UK universities have dropped this year.
Overall, the 2026 ranking paints a picture of heightening global competition. A number of markets have been emerging as higher education hubs in recent decades – and the increased investment, attention and ambition in various places is apparent in this year’s iteration.
Saudi Arabia – whose government had set a target to have five institutions in the top 200 by 2030 – has seen its first entry into to top 100, with King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals soaring 34 places to rank 67th globally.
Vietnam, a country that is aiming for five of its universities to feature in the top 500 by the end of the decade, has seen its representation in the rankings leap from six last year to 10 in 2026.
China is still the third most represented location in the world in the QS World University Rankings with 72 institutions, behind only the US with 192 and the UK with 90. And yet, close to 80 institutions that are part of the Chinese Double First Class Universities initiative to build world-class universities still do not feature in the overall WUR.
Saudi Arabia currently has three institutions in the top 200, while Vietnam has one in the top 500. If these countries succeed in their ambitions, which universities will lose out among the globe’s top in five years’ time?
The financial pressure the UK higher education is facing is well documented. Universities UK (UUK) recently calculated that government policy decisions will result in a £1.4 billion reduction in funding to higher education providers in England in 2025/26. The Office for Students’s warning that 43% of England’s higher education institutions will be in deficit this academic year is often cited.
Some 19% UK university leaders say they have cut back on investment in research given the current financial climate, and an additional 79% are considering future reductions.
On a global scale, cuts like this will more than likely have a detrimental impact on the UK’s performance in the QS World University Ranking – the world’s most-consulted international university ranking and leading higher education benchmarking tool.
The 2026 QS World University Rankings already identify areas where UK universities are behind global competitors.
With a 39.2 average score in the Citations per Faculty area, measuring the intensity of research at universities, the UK is already far behind places such as Singapore, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, Australia and Mainland China, all of which have average scores of at least 70.
In Faculty Student Ratio, analysing the number of lecturers compared to students, the UK (average score of 26.7) is behind the best performing locations such as Norway (73.7), Switzerland (63.8) and Sweden (61.8).
While Oxford, Cambridge and LSE all feature in the global top 15 in Employment Outcomes and 13 UK universities feature in the top 100 for reputation among employers, other universities across the world are improving at a faster rate than many UK universities.
While 74% of UK universities improved in the international student ratio indicator in 2022, the last few years have identified a weakening among UK institutions. In 2023, 54% of UK universities fell in this area, in 2024, 56% dropped and in 2025, 74% declined. And in 2026, 73% dropped.
The government in Westminster is already aware that every £1 it spends on R&D delivers £7 of economic benefits in the long term and, for that reason, it prioritised spending to rise to £22.6bn in 2029-30 from £20.4bn in 2025-26.
But without the financial stability at higher education institutions in question, universities will need more support going ahead beyond support for their research capabilities. Their role in developing graduates with the skills to propel the UK forward is being overlooked. The QS 2026 World University Ranking is already showing that global peers are forging ahead. UK universities will need the right backing to maintain their world-leading position.
Institutions spend a lot of time surveying students for their feedback on their learning experience, but once you have crunched the numbers the hard bit is working out the “why.”
The qualitative information institutions collect is a goldmine of insight about the sentiments and specific experiences that are driving the headline feedback numbers. When students are especially positive, it helps to know why, to spread that good practice and apply it in different learning contexts. When students score some aspect of their experience negatively, it’s critical to know the exact nature of the perceived gap, omission or injustice so that it can be fixed.
Any conscientious module leader will run their eye down the student comments in a module feedback survey – but once you start looking across modules to programme or cohort level, or to large-scale surveys like NSS, PRES or PTES, the scale of the qualitative data becomes overwhelming for the naked eye. Even the most conscientious reader will find that bias sets in, as comments that are interesting or unexpected tend to be foregrounded as having greater explanatory power over those that seem run of the mill.
Traditional coding methods for qualitative data require someone – or ideally more than one person – to manually break down comments into clauses or statements that can be coded for theme and sentiment. It’s robust, but incredibly laborious. For student survey work, where the goal might be to respond to feedback and make improvements at pace, institutions are open that this kind of robust analysis is rarely, if ever, the standard practice. Especially as resources become more constrained, devoting hours to this kind of detailed methodological work is rarely a priority.
Let me blow your mind
That is where machine learning technology can genuinely change the game. Student Voice AI was founded by Stuart Grey, an academic at the University of Strathclyde (now working at the University of Glasgow), initially to help analyse student comments for large engineering courses. Working with Advance HE he was able to train the machine learning model on national PTES and PRES datasets. Now, further training the algorithm on NSS data, Student Voice AI offers literally same-day analysis of student comments for NSS results for subscribing institutions.
Put the words “AI” and “student feedback” in the same sentence and some people’s hackles will immediately rise. So Stuart spends quite a lot of time explaining how the analysis works. The word he uses to describe the version of machine learning Student Voice AI deploys is “supervised learning” – humans manually label categories in datasets and “teach” the machine about sentiment and topic. The larger the available dataset the more examples the machine is exposed to and the more sophisticated it becomes. Through this process Student Voice AI has landed on a discreet number of comment themes and categories for taught students and the same for postgraduate research students that the majority of student comments consistently fall into – trained on and distinctive to UK higher education student data. Stuart adds that the categories can and do evolve:
“The categories are based on what students are saying, not what we think they might be talking about – or what we’d like them to be talking about. There could be more categories if we wanted them, but it’s about what’s digestible for a normal person.”
In practice that means that institutions can see a quantitative representation of their student comments, sorted by category and sentiment. You can look at student views of feedback, for example, and see the balance of positive, neutral and negative sentiment, overall, segment it into departments or subject areas, or years of study, then click through to see the relevant comments to see what’s driving that feedback. That’s significantly different from, say, dumping your student comments into a third party generative AI platform (sharing confidential data with a third party while you’re at it) and asking it to summarise. There’s value in the time and effort saved, but also in the removal of individual personal bias, and the potential for aggregation and segmentation for different stakeholders in the system. And it also becomes possible to compare student qualitative feedback across institutions.
Now, Student Voice AI is partnering with student insight platform evasys to bring machine learning technology to qualitative data collected via the evasys platform. And evasys and Student Voice AI have been commissioned by Advance HE to code and analyse open comments from the 2025 PRES and PTES surveys – creating opportunities to drill down into a national dataset that can be segmented by subject discipline and theme as well as by institution.
Bruce Johnson, managing director at evasys is enthused about the potential for the technology to drive culture change both in how student feedback is used to inform insight and action across institutions:
“When you’re thinking about how to create actionable insight from survey data the key question is, to whom? Is it to a module leader? Is it to a programme director of a collection of modules? Is it to a head of department or a pro vice chancellor or the planning or quality teams? All of these are completely different stakeholders who need different ways of looking at the data. And it’s also about how the data is presented – most of my customers want, not only quality of insight, but the ability to harvest that in a visually engaging way.”
“Coming from higher education it seems obvious to me that different stakeholders have very different uses for student feedback data,” says Stuart Grey. “Those teaching at the coalface are interested in student engagement; at the strategic level the interest is in strategic level interest in trends and sentiment analysis and there are also various stakeholder groups in professional services who never get to see this stuff normally, but we can generate the reports that show them what students are saying about their area. Frequently the data tells them something they knew anyway but it gives them the ammunition to be able to make change.”
The results are in
Duncan Berryman, student surveys officer at Queens University Belfast, sums up the value of AI analysis for his small team: “It makes our life a lot easier, and the schools get the data and trends quicker.” Previously schools had been supplied with Excel spreadsheets – and his team were spending a lot of time explaining and working through with colleagues how to make sense of the data on those spreadsheets. Being able to see a straightforward visualisation of student sentiment on the various themes means that, as Duncan observes rather wryly, “if change isn’t happening it’s not just because people don’t know what student surveys are saying.”
Parama Chaudhury, professor of economics and pro vice provost education (student academic experience) at University College London explains where qualitative data analysis sits in the wider ecosystem for quality enhancement of teaching and learning. In her view, for enhancement purposes, comparing your quantitative student feedback scores to those of another department is not particularly useful – essentially it’s comparing apples with oranges. Yet the apparent ease of comparability of quantitative data, compared with the sense of overwhelm at the volume and complexity of student comments, can mean that people spend time trying to explain the numerical differences, rather than mining the qualitative data for more robust and actionable explanations that can give context to your own scores.
It’s not that people weren’t working hard on enhancement, in other words, but they didn’t always have the best possible information to guide that work. “When I came into this role quite a lot of people were saying ‘we don’t understand why the qualitative data is telling us this, we’ve done all these things,’” says Parama. “I’ve been in the sector a long time and have received my share of summaries of module evaluations and have always questioned those summaries because it’s just someone’s ‘read.’ Having that really objective view, from a well-trained algorithm makes a difference.”
UCL has tested two-page summaries of student comments to specific departments this academic year, and plans to roll out a version for every department this summer. The data is not assessed in a vacuum; it forms part of the wider institutional quality assurance and enhancement processes which includes data on a range of different perspectives on areas for development. Encouragingly, so far the data from students is consistent with what has emerged from internal reviews, giving the departments that have had the opportunity to engage with it greater confidence in their processes and action plans.
None of this stops anyone from going and looking at specific student comments, sense-checking the algorithm’s analysis and/or triangulating against other data. At the University of Edinburgh, head of academic planning Marianne Brown says that the value of the AI analysis is in the speed of turnaround – the institutionl carries out a manual reviewing process to be sure that any unexpected comments are picked up. But being able to share the headline insight at pace (in this case via a PowerBI interface) means that leaders receive the feedback while the information is still fresh, and the lead time to effect change is longer than if time had been lost to manual coding.
The University of Edinburgh is known for its cutting edge AI research, and boasts the Edinburgh (access to) Language Models (ELM) a platform that gives staff and students access to generative AI tools without sharing data with third parties, keeping all user data onsite and secured. Marianne is clear that even a closed system like ELM is not appropriate for unfettered student comment analysis. Generative AI platforms offer the illusion of a thematic analysis but it is far from robust because generative AI operates through sophisticated guesswork rather than analysis of the implications of actual data. “Being able to put responses from NSS or our internal student survey into ELM to give summaries was great, until you started to interrogate those summaries. Robust validation of any output is still required,” says Marianne. Similarly Duncan Berryman observes: “If you asked a gen-AI tool to show you the comments related to the themes it had picked out, it would not refer back to actual comments. Or it would have pulled this supposed common theme from just one comment.”
The holy grail of student survey practice is creating a virtuous circle: student engagement in feedback creates actionable data, which leads to education enhancement, and students gain confidence that the process is authentic and are further motivated to share their feedback. In that quest, AI, deployed appropriately, can be an institutional ally and resource-multiplier, giving fast and robust access to aggregated student views and opinions. “The end result should be to make teaching and learning better,” says Stuart Grey. “And hopefully what we’re doing is saving time on the manual boring part, and freeing up time to make real change.”
Just 44 days before duties on it go live, but some 389 days since it closed a consultation on it, the Office for Students (OfS) has finally published Regulatory advice 24 – its guidance to universities and colleges in England on freedom of speech that flows from the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act (HEFoSA).
The timings matter partly because it’s mid-June, there won’t be many (if any) big committee meetings left (let alone processes designed to engage with people on policy development ahead of approval), and it was OfS itself that fined the University of Sussex partly over the proper approval of some of its policies.
And it’s not as if there are only minor drafting changes. An 11,773 word draft has become a 23,526 word final, and the list of 30 illustrative examples has grown to 52 – despite the fact that this new version omits all the duties on students unions (which the government announced last year it intends to repeal), and is now also silent on the free speech complaints scheme.
All the detailed and prescriptive expectations in the original draft over how that should be promoted have gone – largely because we’re all waiting for Parliament to debate (sensible) changes that will cause students to have to use the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA), rather than OfS, to resolve any complaints in this area.
A lot of the new version of the guidance adds more detail into the examples – many are now more realistic, plenty are better at signalling the differences between “good ideas” and minimum expectations, and a whole host of them are now more accurately qualified with reference to key legal principles or tests, many of which have been emerging in case law since OfS started its consultation.
That said, some are still so preposterous as to be useless. If there really is a college somewhere that requires students to seek written permission a month in advance to hand out leaflets or post flyers, where those flyers must be posted on a single designated noticeboard which is both small and on a campus where flyers may not be posted anywhere else, I’ll eat my hat – or maybe my pudding at the formal dinner at whichever Oxbridge college authors were reminiscing about when Example 38 was drafted.
As there are 52 of them, this initial article doesn’t dive into all of the vignettes comprehensively – although doubtless a number of them (not least because of the judicious use of qualifiers like “depending on the facts of the case”) will continue to cause readers to cry “yeah but what about…” – which is presumably why OfS initially attempted to let lessons unfurl from the casework rather than publish guidance. And we may well end up looking at some of them in more detail in the coming days and weeks.
What I have tried to do here is look at the major ways in which the guidance has developed, how it’s handling some of the bigger questions that both universities and their SUs were raising in responses during the process, and what this all tells us about OfS’ intended approach to regulation in this area as of August.
As a reminder, we’re talking here about the duty to “secure” freedom of speech on campus (A1 in HEFoSA), and the expectations that OfS has around the requirements for a souped up Code of Practice (A2) for each provider. There’s no guidance (yet) over the “promote” duty (A3), and to the extent to which the previous version strayed into those areas, they’ve largely been removed.
The sandbags are coming
If we were to identify one theme that has dominated discussion and debate over the Free Speech Bill ever since then universities minister Michelle Donelan stumbled, live on Radio 4, into an apparent contradiction, it would be where free speech (to be protected and promoted) crosses the line into harassment – which of course, under a separate heavy new duty as of August 1st, is something to be actively prevented and prosecuted by universities. Middle grounds are no longer available.
The good news is that the section on reconciling free speech duties with equality law, anti-harassment provisions, and other legal requirements is better than anything else OfS has published to date on the interactions and fine lines. So detailed, for example, are many of the sections that deal with harassment on campus that at times, it’s a lot more helpful than the material in the actual guidance on registration condition E5 (Harassment and Sexual Misconduct).
People often, for example, find others’ conduct to be unpleasant or disagreeable – Para 47 reminds us that the concept of harassment in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is linked to a course of conduct which amounts to it, that a course of conduct has comprise two or more occasions, that the conduct must be “oppressive and unacceptable” rather than just “unattractive or unreasonable”, and must be of sufficient seriousness to also amount to a criminal offence.
Similarly, the judgement of harassment isn’t purely subjective – it applies an objective test based on what a reasonable person would think, which helps provide a consistent standard rather than relying solely on individual perceptions.
Hence in Example 1, a student publishes repeated comments on social media attacking another student based on lawful views, including “tagging” them in posts and encouraging others to “pile on”. The student’s speech is so “extreme, oppressive and distressing” that their course of conduct may amount to harassment – and so carrying out an investigation into the student based on a policy that bans harassment would not breach the “secure” duty.
Much of that flows from a newly reworked version of what counts as free speech within the law that translates some of the case law and principles set by the ECHR and the UK High Court in cases like Higgs v Farmor’s School. As such, while there’s still lines in there like “The Act protects free speech within the law – it does not protect unlawful speech”, there’s now much more helpful material on the different ways in which free speech might be curtailed or interfered with given other duties.
To get there it outlines a three step test (with some wild flowchart graphics):
Step 1: Is the speech “within the law”? If yes, go to step 2. If no, the duty to “secure” speech does not apply.
Step 2: Are there any “reasonably practicable steps” to secure the speech? If yes, take those steps. Do not restrict the speech. If no, go to step 3.
Step 3: Are any restrictions “prescribed by law” and proportionate under the European Convention on Human Rights?
There’s no doubt that it’s a more nuanced and balanced reflection of the legal position than we saw in the draft – albeit that it switches between “what to do in practice” and “what to say to students and staff in theory” in ways that are sometimes unhelpful.
The problem is that the closer it gets to necessary complexity, the further away it gets from something that’s easy to understand by the very staff and students whose day to day conduct and confidence (what we might call the “culture” on campus) is supposed to be being influenced by the new duties.
More importantly, as the examples unfurl, it’s both possible to spot numerous ways in which “it’s a balance” turns into Kafka’s cake and eat it, and to see how the “reasonably practicable steps” duty turns into something genuinely hard to understand in practice.
Someone should do something
One thing that’s not gone is a tendency in the examples to signal to the outside world that the new rules will tackle the things they’ve read about in the Times and the Telegraph – until you realise that they won’t.
That Example 1 discussed above (highlighted in the accompanying press release) is a classic of the genre. On the surface it looks like OfS is tackling “mobbing”. But in reality, the whole point about pile-ons is that they’re almost never about one big evil ringleader engaging in conduct that is so “extreme, oppressive and distressing” that their course of conduct may amount to harassment.
It’s more often than not a hundred micro-oppressions having the cumulative effect of making the target feel terrible. Even if you argue that aspects of social media culture are within the influence (if not control) of a provider, in other parts of the guidance OfS seems to be saying that because each micro-act isn’t harassment, you shouldn’t be trying to meddle in the culture of the campus.
That problem becomes amplified in the section on microaggressions. In 2019, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) found microaggressive acts to be a key component of a culture of racism on campus – and both argued that they could have an impact on equality of opportunity and good relations between different groups, and that universities must not ignore microaggressions that do not meet the definition of harassment in the Equality Act 2010 because of the cumulative impacts of repetition.
But as soon as universities started to tackle microaggressions by, for example, encouraging their reporting, various anti-EDI culture warriors started to raise concerns. Discussing a scheme launched by Sheffield SU to have their halls reps understand the concept, Spiked’s Joanna Williams argued:
They will need an odd combination of extreme sensitivity to offence – alongside a high degree of insensitivity to interrupting conversations – to point out exactly where the speakers went wrong. Presumably, candidates will also have to sit some kind of test to prove their own thought purity on all matters concerned with race and ethnicity.
Schemes have been established in which students are paid to report others for perceived offences.
And as Report+Support tools started to open up avenues for students to raise issues such that universities could spot patterns, academics – among them a fairly obscure Cambridge philosopher called Arif Ahmed – started to complain:
The encouragement to report ‘inappropriate’ or ‘offensive’ behaviour amounts to a snitches’s charter. Any risk-averse white person will simply not engage with anyone from an ethnic minority, in case an innocent or well-meaning remark is overheard, misunderstood and reported. Whatever Downing College may think, being offensive is not an offence.
Several years on, Arif Ahmed is OfS’ Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom, asserting that his appointment and approach isn’t “political”, and launching actual regulation (Example 39) that says this:
University A promotes an anonymous reporting process. Students are encouraged to use a portal to submit anonymous reports to senior staff of “microaggressions”, which is not further defined. The portal includes free text boxes in which reporters may name or otherwise identify the individuals being accused. University A says that it may take action against named (or identifiable) individuals on the basis of any anonymous report that it receives.
…Depending on the circumstances, the existence of the reporting mechanism and portal may discourage open and lawful discussion of controversial topics, including political topics and matters of public interest.
…Reasonably practicable steps that A could now take may include remove the free text boxes from the anonymous reporting portal to be replaced with radio buttons that do not permit submission of any identifying data.
There is a legitimate, if contested, political view that structural racism is fictional, harmful or both – and that what flows from it is division via concepts like microaggressions. There’s another view that to tackle racism you need to interrogate and tackle not just skinheads hurling abuse and painting graffiti, but the insidious yet often unintended impact of stuff like this (EHRC again):
A recurring theme in our evidence was students and staff being dismissed as “oversensitive” and their experiences of microaggressions viewed as isolated incidents rather than a cumulative and alienating pattern of repeated slights and insults.
Many staff and students reported that racial harassment doesn’t only happen overtly. All too often, offensive comments were justified by perpetrators as “jokes” or “banter”. The damaging effect of repeated microaggressions is often made worse by a lack of empathy and understanding when individuals decide to speak up about their treatment.
In that “debate”, OfS has picked the side that we might have expected Arif Ahmed to pick. Whether he’s legally justified in doing so is one question – but let’s not pretend that the agenda is somehow apolitical.
And for my next trick
All of this is possible because of a central conceit in the guidance that relates back to a long-running theme in the rhetoric surrounding culture on campus – what we might call a “maximalist” approach to describing free speech, and a “minimalist “ (specific, legal thresholds) approach to harm and harassment.
Anything goes unless it specifically breaks this specific law, and if you pretend otherwise you might end up “chilling” free speech.
You might. But while insisting on an objective test to determine whether harassment has happened is a central feature, no such test of objectivity is then applied to whether a chilling effect has occurred – it becomes, in effect, about “potential” and feelings. Hence in its Sussex investigation, OfS said:
…a chilling effect arose as a result of the Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement and the resulting breach of condition E1. By “chilling effect”, the OfS means the potential for staff and students to self-censor and not speak about or express certain lawful views. Staff and students may have self-censored as a result of the policy because they were concerned about being in breach of the policy and potentially facing disciplinary action for expressing lawful views.
So having established that “harassment” has to amount to something objectively criminal, while “chilling” is in the eye of the Director, OfS is able to get away with railing against another newspaper favourite – by all but outlawing requiring academic staff to issue trigger warnings. Example 50:
Depending on the facts, issuing a “content note” (informing attendees about sensitive material) in advance of this event may not be a reasonably practicable step for A to take. A standing requirement to use content notes may encourage more intrusive investigation of the content of seminars, readings or speaker events. An expectation of content notes may also discourage academics from exposing students to new controversial material (so as not to risk wrongly including no, or the wrong type of, content note).
You could of course just as easily argue that failing to issue “content notes” could have a chilling effect on some students’ active participation. Alternatively, you could double down and chuck in a minimalist little qualifier for cover:
However, there may be occasions when the use of specific content notes may be helpful to enable students to access material, if there is evidence that they are in fact helpful.
The point isn’t to debate whether they work or not – the point is that OfS suddenly gets to pick and choose what it thinks could chill, while demanding that rules reflect specificity and extremity over individual conduct for harassment. It’s culture war politics shoehorned into regulation, with the law lingering around in the background.
Is the process the punishment?
You might remember a major news story in 2021 when a student at Abertay was investigated after other students complained that she made “hateful, discriminatory, sexist, racist and transphobic” remarks during an online seminar on gender politics.
Following an investigation, it was determined that Lisa Keogh had a case to answer in relation to “making inappropriate comments” which “could be construed as discriminatory” – but after a panel reviewed recordings made available from the seminar, it found no evidence of discrimination:
As a result, the board found there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations made against you on your behaviour in class and, therefore, decided to not uphold the charge of misconduct.
Keogh’s argument was that she should never have been subject to formal processes in the first place – and so sued.
Her case was basically that the university acted in breach of the Equality Act 2010 by pursuing her for “expressing her gender critical beliefs” and caused “stress at the most crucial part of my university career” – but Dundee Sheriff Court dismissed her case, with Sheriff Gregor Murray saying that university was entitled to take steps to investigate complaints:
The number, nature and timing of the allegations, and the involvement of at least three final year students who were about to sit examinations, all placed the university in exactly the type of “tricky territory” that entitled it to investigate immediately.
The defender was entitled to take steps to investigate complaints. It could not be guilty of discrimination simply because it did so. Following investigation in this case, the complaint against the pursuer was not upheld.
Cases like that then get mangled into examples like Example 40 in the guidance. In the vignette, a professor expresses views that upset some students – they bring a complaint, there is a lengthy investigation process, and at the end of the process the university finds that there is no case to answer.
This should have been clear to investigators at the outset, but the university was concerned that closing the investigation quickly would further offend the students who complained. The prospect of a lengthy investigation with an uncertain outcome may deter students and staff from putting forward unpopular views on controversial topics.
Again, you can just as easily argue that rapidly dismissing students’ genuinely held concerns would have a chilling effect on their confidence to complain, and that students making formal complaints of this sort is so rare that a university would be wise to carefully investigate whether there’s an underlying fire accompanying the smoke.
But as above, OfS seems to be saying “if students weren’t describing specific behaviours that would meet the harassment test, don’t even investigate” – applying a specific and objective test to harassment while being speculative and partial over its chilling test.
A useful tool, but not that useful
The original draft was fairly silent on antisemitism – an obvious issue given the high-profile nature of the coverage and political commentary on it, not least in the context of protests surrounding the war in Gaza.
Notwithstanding the specific stuff on “time, place and manner” (see below and here) and what OfS might be counting as an “essential function” of a university (again, see below), what I would say is that if there’s a debate about whether action A, protest B or leaflet C amounts to antisemitism, it’s pretty obvious that those advocating the adoption of the IHRA definition are seeking to have it used when making a judgement.
This “definition” is nothing of the kind; adopting it obstructs perfectly legitimate defence of Palestinian rights. As such it chills free speech on a matter of the first importance. I hope the Secretary of State reconsiders the need for it; but these new free speech duties ought to rule it out in any case.
We’ve covered his mysterious conversion before – and wondered how that might manifest in any final guidance. It doesn’t, at all – but what we do get in the consultation commentary is this astonishing paragraph:
We do not comment in this guidance on the IHRA definition of antisemitism or on any other proposed non-legally binding definition that a provider or constituent institution may wish to adopt. Nonetheless, we have adopted the IHRA definition because we believe that it is a useful tool for understanding how antisemitism manifests itself in the 21st century. The IHRA definition does not affect the legal definition of racial discrimination, so does not change our approach to implementing our regulatory duties, including our regulatory expectations of registered providers. A provider that adopts any definition (of anything) must do so in a way that has particular regard to, and places significant weight on, the importance of freedom of speech within the law, academic freedom and tolerance for controversial views in an educational context or environment.
Some will argue that adoption – either by OfS or providers – has precisely the kind of chilling effects that are railed against at length throughout the guidance. Others will argue that adoption as a kind of interesting window dressing without using it to make judgements about things is pointless, raises expectations that can’t later be met, and allows antisemitism to go unchecked.
I’d argue that this is another classic case of Kafka’s cake and eat it – which dumps a deep set of contradictions on universities and requires attention and leadership from regulators and politicians. We are still not there.
Practicably reasonable
As well as that central thread, there are various other issues in the guidance worthy of initial note.
A major concern from mission groups was the way in which the new duty might play out over transnational branch campuses – especially those with rather more oppressive legal regimes over expression than here.
We might have expected OfS to use some sort of “what’s practicable relates to the law in the country you’re delivering in” qualifier, but it has somehow managed to square the circle by simply stating, with no further qualification (P13) that:
HERA does not require providers or constituent institutions to take steps to secure freedom of speech in respect of their activities outside England.
It’s an… interesting reading, which is maybe related to the usual territorial extent qualifiers in legislation – the consultation commentary is similarly (and uncharacteristically) silent – but what it does appear to do is contradict the usual prescription that it’s about where the main base of the provider is, not where it’s provision is, that sets the duties.
Even if some legal workaround has been found, it does start to call into question how or why OfS can regulate the quality of your provision in Dubai while not worrying about freedom of speech.
Another section with a mysteriously short sentence is one on the original Donelan conundrum:
The OfS will not protect Holocaust denial (by visiting speakers or anyone else).
That’s a carefully worded sentence which seems to be more about OfS making choices about its time than an explanatory legal position. Unlike in many other countries, holocaust denial is not in and of itself illegal in the UK – although in the weigh up, Article 17 of the ECHR removes protection from speech that is contrary to fundamental convention values, and cases in the UK have tended to be prosecuted under other legislation such as section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 when the content is deemed “grossly offensive”.
Quite why OfS has not chosen to explain that is unclear – unless it’s worried about revealing that all sorts of other types of grossly offensive stuff might fall under the balancing provision. And more to the point, as I’ve often said on the site, most holocaust deniers don’t announce that the title of their talk in Room 4b On Tuesday evening will be “the holocaust is a fiction” – which opens up the question of whether or not it’s OK to outlaw holocaust deniers who may or may not engage in actual holocaust denial when they turn up.
The sole example in the guidance on the weigh-ups over external speakers and extremism is one where the proposed speaker is a self-professed member of a proscribed group. It’s easy to say “well it’s fine to ban them” – what we don’t have here is anything meaningfully helpful on the real cases being handled every year.
And some of the media’s hardy perennials – universities doing things like signing up to charters with contested “values” or engaging in contested work like decolonisation – are also either carefully contorted or preposterous.
Hence Example 51 describes a university that [overtly] requires that all teaching materials on British history will represent Britain in a positive light – one of the many not as clever as the authors think they are inversions of the allegations often thrown at woke, UK history hating academics.
Meanwhile Example 52 nudges and winks at the Stonewall Charter by describing a department of a university that applies for accreditation to a charter body with links to the fossil fuel industry, where the accreditation process requires it to sign up to a set of principles that include:
Fossil fuel exploration is the best way to meet our future energy needs.
The text underneath is fascinating. Once you’ve got the “depending on the circumstances” qualifier out of the way, we learn that “institutional endorsement of this principle may discourage expression of legally expressible views”. That’s your “chilling” allegation again.
But rather than warning against signing it, we merely get:
…not implementing the provisions of any accreditation that risks undermining free speech and academic freedom is likely to be a reasonably practicable step that university B should now take.
Replace that with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, and you can see why the fudge above will satisfy no-one.
I’ve read the para in the guidance several times now, and each time I read it I resolve different things. Either the university can take a position on contested ideas as long as these aren’t imposed on staff, or it can’t because taking the position on contested ideas would chill staff. Flip a coin.
It’s that sort of thing that makes the otherwise helpful section that clarifies that you can have a code of conduct for staff and students so silly. Codes of conduct are fine as long as any restrictions on speech reference a legal rule or regime which authorises the interference, that the student, member, member of staff or visiting speaker who is affected by the interference has adequate access to the rule, and if the rule is:
…formulated with sufficient precision to enable the student, member of staff or
visiting speaker to foresee the circumstances in which the law would or might be applied, and the likely consequences that might follow.
I’d tentatively suggest that while that makes sense, OfS’ own guidance represents a set of rules where forseeing how it might respond to a scenario, and the likely consequences that might follow, are clear as mud.
To clear up protest and disruption rights, OfS stresses viewpoint neutrality, uses its “time, place and manner” confection we first saw last year, and also has a new oft-repeated “essential functions” of higher education qualifier of:
…learning, teaching, research and the administrative functions and the provider’s or constituent institution’s resources necessary for the above.
I can’t really call whether OfS thinks the sports hall counts, or whether it thinks the encampment is OK there, but not in a seminar room. Either way, it’s another of those vague definitions that feels open to abuse and interpretation by all sides of a dispute and by OfS itself.
Another allegation thrown at universities is often about EDI training – Example 53 sets up the idea that an online EDI induction asks if white people are complicit in the structural racism pervading British society, where the only answer marked correct is “True” – a candidate who ticks “False” is required to re-take the test until they have explicitly assented to “True”.
Maybe I’m being naive, but if that’s grounded in a real example I’d be more worried about that provider’s wider approaches to teaching and assessment than its approach to free speech.
This university is a vile hell-hole
A few other fun bits. Fans of reputation management will be disappointed to learn at Example 22 that a social media policy requiring staff to not to post material that is “unnecessarily critical”, coupled with a strong but lawful pop at the provider’s employment practices in a public post on social media, would represent a “protect” policy breach and a “protect” practice breach if the staff member ends up with a warning.
Meanwhile, notwithstanding the silence over whether full-time SU officers are members or students of a provider, Example 23 has a student representative posting unfavourable commentary on university management on the SU’s website, along with some student testimonials describing students’ experiences of accommodation:
University Z requires the student to remove this post on the grounds that if the post is reported more widely in the media, this would threaten University Z’s recruitment plans.
That that would be a breach may feel like a problem for the small number of universities whose senior managers directly threatened SU officers over TEF student submission drafts.
But more broadly, like so many other examples in the guidance, neither the staff nor the student example get at broader culture issues.
You might argue that “reasonably practicable steps” in both cases might involve specific commitments to enable dissent, or more explicit encouragement of public discussion over controversial issues.
You could certainly argue that much of the committee discussion marked “confidential” should be nothing of the sort, and that non-disclosure agreements imposed on settled-with complainants outside of the specific ban on those in sexual misconduct cases should be outlawed.
You could also argue that in both cases, fears over future funding – your salary for the staff member, your block grant for the SU officer – are classic chillers that need specific steps to be taken. Alas, none of that sort of “why” stuff appears.
There’s also still a whole bunch of headscratchers. What happens when three different providers have three different sets of policies and codes and all franchise their provision to a fourth provider? Should providers be inspecting the reputation rules in the employment contracts of their degree apprentices or other credit-based work based learning? Now the requirement to tell all new students about all this has been softened, isn’t there still a need to include a lot of FoS material in the still compulsory training to be offered as per E5? And so on.
In the complaints scheme consultation, there was some controversy over the definition of visiting speakers – including when an invitation manifested as an actual invitation and who was capable of extending one. On this, OfS has actually decided to expand its definition – but neatly sidesteps the Amber Rudd dilemma, namely that while it’s easy to expect people in power to not cancel things because some object, it’s a lot harder to make a volunteer student society run an event that it changes its mind about, regardless of the reason.
And when the guidance says that OfS would “generally” expect providers to reject public campaigns to punish a student or member of staff for lawful expression of an idea or viewpoint that does not violate any lawful internal regulations, we are still stuck in a situation where some basic principles of democracy for anyone elected on campus – staff, but more often than not, students – come into direct conflict with that expectation even if they are “organised petitions or open letters, an accumulation of spontaneous or organised social media posts, or long-running, focused media campaigns”.
Changing the culture
There may well be plenty more to spot in here – legal eagles will certainly be pouring over the document, expectations on all sides may need to be reset, and all in a context of very tight timescales – not least because much of the material implies a need for a much wider review of related policies than just “write a compliant Code”.
Everyone should also think carefully about the YouGov polling. There are some important caveats to be attached the results and some of the splits based on wording, assumptions and whether it’s even reasonable to expect someone teaching something highly technical to be wading into the sex and gender debate. And whether you’re teaching, researching or otherwise supporting, it must be the case that not all subject areas include as much scope for controversy and “debate” than others.
But even if you quibble over the N equalling 184, when 24 per cent of those who do not feel free in their teaching cite fear of physical attack, there is a problem that needs urgent interrogation and resolution.
(Thanks as ever to DK for the visualisation of the YouGov polling – sample size 1234 adults and weighted for teaching staff in England, by age, gender, region, and contract type)
We also still have the debate over the partial repeal of the Act to come too, some additional complexity over complaints to resolve, and as I note above, huge questions like “so can we adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism or not” remain unanswered – as well as a set of inevitable conflicts to come over the practical application of the Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of “woman” in EA2010.
I should also say that I’ve not had time to properly interrogate the research aspects in the guidance – but we’ll get to that with my colleague James Coe in the coming days.
What I’m mainly struck by – other than the ways in which a particular set of (contested) views on campus culture have been represented as apolitical – is the way in which, ultimately, much of the material comes down to the regulatory realities of expecting authority to behave.
In some senses, that’s not unreasonable – governors and leaders hold considerable influence and power over students and staff, and what they ban, or punish, or encourage or celebrate can have important impacts that can be positive for some, and negative for others.
But to the extent to which there really is a problem with free speech (and academic freedom) on campus, much of it feels much wider and organic than the hermetically sealed campus community assumptions at play in documents of this sort.
I won’t repeat so many of the things I’ve said on the site over the past few years about confidence being key to a lot of this – suffice to say that the freedom ideal at play in here feels like something that is easier to experience when steps have been taken to improve people’s security, given them time and space to interact meaningfully with each other, and act specifically to boost their bravery.
Not only should some of the solutions be about resolving conflicts and integrating the concerns into a more stable definition of what it is to be a member of staff or a student, of all the agendas in higher education, it strikes me that this area remains one where solutions and sticks and games of blame abound, but causal analysis feels hopelessly weak.
In the absence of alternative guidance on the “promote” duty, if I was high up in a university, I’d be resolving to interrogate more carefully and listen more closely before I pretended that my shiny new Code of Practice will do anything other than tick the boxes while making matters worse.
What impact is flexible learning having on learners from K-12 through to professional development?
New Zealand has remarkably high levels of digital access across the population. Why aren’t we out performing other countries in educational measurements?
This piece serves to introduce a series of six challenges faced by policy makers around flexible learning.
These six challenges are:
Unequal Access to Technology and Connectivity
Socioeconomic Disparities
Digital Literacy and Skills Gaps
Quality Assurance and Consistent Experience
Teacher Preparedness and Support
Policy and Funding Models
In this first piece I want to establish what I mean by ‘flexible learning’.
Like many I struggle to have a single, concise, and consistent “definition” of flexible learning. I would say that flexible learning is a model of delivery that offers learners agency and control over various aspects of their learning experience. Flexible learning is a spectrum. Formal learning courses exist on a continuum between “rigid” and “flexible” delivery. The more control and choice given to the learner, the more flexible the learning experience.
Flexible learning aims to “empower the student to choose what learning should be studied face-to-face and that which should be studied online, and how to go about engaging with that learning” (2022). This Means empowering the learner to make choices regarding:
When: synchronous or asynchronous learning, pace-mandated or self-paced progression.
Where: Learning in different locations (home, campus, workplace, etc.).
How: Different modes of engagement (online, in-person, blended, hybrid, hyflex).
What: Some degree of choice over content or learning pathways, though this is often more associated with “open learning.” Indeed in a world where students are overwhelmed with choices, there are strong arguments that having a prescriptive programme serves students well.
In my article “Definitions of the Terms Open, Distance, and Flexible in the Context of Formal and Non-Formal Learning,” (2023) I argued that flexible learning is a model of delivery, rather than a fundamental mode of learning. I posit that there are only two core modes of learning: in-person (or face-to-face) and distance learning. Flexible learning then emerges from various combinations and approaches to curriculum design that empower learners to choose amongst these two modes
As education has a habit of inventing new terms for marginally different practices it might be worth just pointing out the relationship I think exists between flexible learning and forms of Blended, Hybrid, and HyFlex learning. I perceive blended, hybrid, and HyFlex learning as specific models of delivery that fall under the umbrella of flexible learning. They all aim to give agency to the learner regarding how they engage with the material, combining elements of in-person and distance learning.
I believe that designing for flexible learning means considering the learner’s context and perspective, and creating learning experiences that are relevant, meaningful, motivating, realistic, and feasible within an agreed timeframe. This also involves careful consideration of learning outcomes and assessment in diverse delivery contexts. This means course creators need clarity about learning design principles in relation to flexible approaches, such as working with Notional Study Hours (2020a) and the importance of Learning Outcomes (2020b).
Based on my broad definition thatFlexible Learning refers to educational approaches and models of delivery that provide learners with a significant degree of choice and control over the time, place, pace, and mode of their learning, leveraging combinations of in-person and distance learning to enhance accessibility and cater to diverse learner needs,how do we face those six policy challenges?
Atkinson, S. P. (2023). Definitions of the Terms Open, Distance, and Flexible in the Context of Formal and Non-Formal Learning. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 26(2).3 Retrieved from https://jofdl.nz/index.php/JOFDL/article/view/521
Rubio paused visa interviews last month while the State Department created rules for the social media screenings.
John McDonnell/Getty Images
The U.S. State Department is rolling out sweeping new rules for vetting student visa applicants using their social media presence, according to Politico.
The new process will include screening for “any indications of hostility towards the citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles of the United States,” according to an internal State Department cable.
Department officials will also look for posts that signal “advocacy for, aid or support for foreign terrorists and other threats to national security” and “support for antisemitic harassment or violence,” specifically citing support for Hamas—a charge commonly levied against student protesters advocating for Palestinian rights—as grounds for rejection. The cable also directs officials to cull applicants who “demonstrate a history of political activism.”
The news comes a few weeks after Secretary of State Marco Rubio paused all student visa interviews in order to implement a new screening policy focusing on students’ online activity. The Associated Press reported that the department rescinded the pause, but applicants who don’t allow the government to review their social media accounts could be rejected.
The cable is the Trump administration’s latest effort to curtail the flow of international students to the U.S., as tens of thousands of foreign students await approval of their visas after months of delays and with only weeks until the start of the fall semester.
State Department spokespeople did not respond to a list of questions from Inside Higher Ed in time for publication.
During her first semester pursuing a doctorate in conducting at the University of Rochester’s Eastman School of Music, Rebecca Bryant Novak reported sexual harassment by Professor Neil Varon and asked that the school limit her contact with Varon. But Senior Associate Dean and Title IX Coordinator John Hain rejected her request. According to Bryant Novak, Hain said the school trusted Varon — because he’s faculty — and told her to consider transferring somewhere else.
In May 2024, Bryant Novak published their exchange on her Substack. Hain’s response? He threatened her with a defamation lawsuit.
So she reported Hain’s handling of the complaint to the university’s administration and, after a yearlong investigation, the university determined Varon had indeed violated its harassment policy — and that Eastman had badly mishandled Bryant Novak’s complaint.
Yet Eastman allowed Varon to retain oversight of Bryant Novak’s academic trajectory. It restricted her performance times, allowing her to avoid him but costing her conducting opportunities. When she protested, Eastman did nothing.
Running out of options, Bryant Novak once again escalated her complaint about Eastman’s alleged retaliation to the University of Rochester, Eastman’s parent institution. The university launched a second investigation of Eastman in December 2024.
In February, Bryant Novak wrote about it on her Substack. Days later, Eastman expelled her.
The school cited Bryant Novak’s supposed failure to make academic progress in its expulsion letter. Yet Eastman completely disregarded its own policy regarding academic progress reviews. Apparently, just days after she took her complaints public, Eastman’s alleged concerns about Bryant Novak suddenly became so acute that it felt it needed to just go ahead and entirely skip over the two-semester review process required by its own policies before dismissal.
Bryant Novak got no warning. No appeal. And the range of allegations Eastman cited for her expulsion didn’t even meet the criteria to put a student on warning status, let alone dismiss them. FIRE has plenty of experience in investigating cases, but one does not need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out what was going on with Eastman and Bryant Novak.
Today, FIRE wrote a letter to the University of Rochester, urging it to reinstate Bryant Novak:
Eastman’s failure to follow its own policy in any respect, the temporal proximity of Bryant Novak’s dismissal to her public disclosure of Rochester’s investigation, and Eastman’s contentious history with Bryant Novak — including Hain’s lawsuit threat against Bryant Novak and the conflict of interest inherent in allowing Hain’s direct report, Ardizzone, to retain authority over Bryant Novak’s academic standing — all strongly suggest that Bryant Novak’s dismissal was retaliation for speech explicitly protected by Rochester policies.
The University of Rochester is a private institution, which means that unlike public universities, it is not a government actor obligated to uphold constitutional free speech rights. Nevertheless, it promises students protection for their speech — including protection from retaliation for complaining about harassment.
But no one protected Bryant Novak. When she spoke out about harassment, Eastman retaliated. When she protested the retaliation, Eastman expelled her. Let’s tell the University of Rochester to reinstate Bryant Novak and provide her the due process it promises all its students.
Eastman tried to make her story an example. Instead, it should be a rallying cry.
ROCHESTER, N.Y., June 18, 2025 — The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is urging the University of Rochester to reinstate an Eastman School of Music student who was expelled after blowing the whistle on a professor who sexually harassed her.
The case lays bare a university system that moved quickly to protect itself at the expense of a student’s right to voice criticisms — even though an internal investigation found the professor responsible for violating the harassment policy.
“There was no due process or hearing,” the student, Rebecca Bryant Novak, said. “The university’s administrators were more concerned about protecting the faculty than adhering to their own rules and addressing bad behavior. They basically tried to destroy my career beyond all comprehension.”
Shortly into her first semester as a Ph.D. student in fall 2023, Bryant Novak complained about abusive behavior by a professor who she said would scream at students and make lewd, sexist comments.
After a yearlong investigation, a panel of faculty and administrators agreed that the professor had indeed violated Rochester’s harassment policy and that Eastman’s Title IX coordinator had grossly mishandled her complaint.
Despite all this, Eastman allowed the same school authorities to retain oversight of Bryant Novak’s academic trajectory — with one official telling her that the school restricted her performance times because of her complaint against the professor.
When Bryant Novak complained, Eastman did nothing. As a result of the alleged retaliation, Rochester opened a second investigation into Eastman’s mishandling of the situation in December 2024, and Bryant Novak publicly disclosed the university’s new investigation in a Substack article on Feb. 10.
Tell Rochester to Stop Muzzling its Students
Take Action
Tell the University of Rochester: Reinstate Rebecca Bryant Novak, restore due process, and stop muzzling students into a culture of silence.
Two weeks later, Eastman abruptly expelled Bryant Novak, citing a failure to make academic progress. In doing so, the school ignored its written policy that calls for students to be given ample notice if they are in danger of falling short of academic standards.
“Rebecca’s expulsion smacks of retaliation for speech that is explicitly protected by the university’s policy,” FIRE Program Counsel Jessie Appleby said. “This is a profound violation of her free speech rights and sends a chilling message to every student at Eastman.”
FIRE is calling on university President Sarah C. Mangelsdorf to immediately reinstate Bryant Novak and ensure that she is able to complete her doctorate under the oversight of Eastman faculty and officials who are not already subject to investigation for misconduct in her case.
“I hope that by taking a stand here, I can help force Rochester to extend the kinds of protections to other students that were denied to me,” Bryant Novak said.
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.
CONTACT:
Karl de Vries, Director of Media Relations, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]
When’s the last time you updated your headshot, academics?
When people come to me about creating their personal academic website, few say, “I have photos ready to go.” Some professors have never taken professional photos. Many find that the photos you have of yourself feel a bit out dated. And that’s okay. What about you?
This is a special interview for The Social Academic. I’m opening up to share a bit of my personal life because I want to introduce you to these amazing professionals, Amanda Thorne, and Melissa McClure. They’re people I trusted with my professor clients because they’ve been a great support in how I show up online this year in photos.
Melissa McClure is a photographer in San Diego, California with 20+ years of experience. She was my wedding photographer when I got married last June at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park. I was lucky to have her support with the camera, and felt especially confident because of the artistry skills of Amanda Thorne who did my hair and makeup.
Why am I sharing my wedding photographer and hair and makeup artist with you? Because that wasn’t the end of our journey together. It was the start. Since then we’ve done a personal branding photo shoot when I updated this website (and my personal website too). Melissa and Amanda teamed up for a photo shoot for my husband, Matthew’s website. And Melissa just did a brand shoot for my art history professor father-in-law, Bob. He’s about to launch a new YouTube channel.
Melissa McClure and Amanda Thorne join me to share their tips and expertise about how you show up visually online. We talk about makeup, hair, photos, and getting comfortable on camera.
In this interview
Meet Amanda Thorne and Melissa McClure
Jennifer van Alstyne: Hello and welcome to The Social Academic. I have a special episode for you today where we’re going to be talking a little bit about photography and makeup and what it means to show up visually online. So I have people from my wedding team here because we actually just did a branding photo shoot for my website redesign and it was so amazing. I knew I had to share these experts with you. So I want everyone to meet Amanda Thorne of Thorne Artistry and Melissa McClure.
Amanda Thorne: Hi!
Jennifer: We are so excited that you could both join us live today. Amanda, would you introduce yourself?
Amanda: Thank you so much for having me, Jennifer. And I love working with you and Melissa for your wedding and your branding shoot. My name’s Amanda Thorne. I’m originally from Ohio. I moved out here about 16 years ago now and I’ve had my company Thorne Artistry for 14 years now. So it’s been a while. I do hair makeup, wardrobe styling, and set styling.
Jennifer: Okay, so what does that mean? If I’m someone who has no idea what any of that is, what kinds of things do you actually help people with one-on-one if you’re just working with an individual?
Amanda Thorne
Amanda: So think about it like this. Your image, your branding, what you want to get across to people about yourself and also who you want to attract. That is the big key. And I talk to my clients beforehand about who their audience is in particular and how they want to convey themselves to attract just the right people. And I do that with myself and my own business too, and I’m sure Melissa does.
Jennifer: Melissa, you’ve been a photographer for a long time. Tell me a little bit about how you got started. Why do you enjoy this work?
Melissa McClure: Oh yeah. So I am about to hit my 20 years in business next month. So a little celebration for that. [Clapping] Amanda and I worked together for over a decade. I don’t even know if I can count the years. But-
Jennifer: I didn’t realize that! That’s a long time. Wow.
Amanda: Definitely. We’ve known each other a while. It’s been amazing.
Melissa: And I started my business kind of on a whim. A coworker was getting married and wedding photography kind of fell into my lap and I ran with it. It’s been a real blessing for me over the years. And I forgot your original question, Jennifer.
Jennifer: Oh, it was just kind of introduce yourself and let us know a little bit about who you are, who you like to work with too.
Melissa: Yeah, absolutely. So I love to focus on destination weddings. I’ve always been a traveler. That’s a big part of my identity. Pre-COVID, I was doing almost exclusively destination weddings. Things kind of changed since the pandemic, but I still do local and destination weddings. And I love to work with brides that are just, brides and grooms and all clients. I also do portraits and boudoir. But I love to work with clients that are very chill, very, they know what they want, but they trust. Trust is a big, big part of hiring a wedding vendor…
Jennifer: Ah, trust. I think trust is probably why I hesitated for so long to actually think about taking professional photos for The Academic Designer.
Trusting the process (and who you’re working with)
I’ve had The Social Academic blog and my business since 2018, but I’ve always taken selfies. And that’s always worked for me in the sense that I even told people, like, “If you don’t have time to get a professional photographer, take a selfie. It’ll work.” It’s better than nothing for now.
I didn’t have trust in myself, but I also wasn’t sure how to start trusting potential vendors when it came to taking photos for my business. And when it came to my wedding, it felt like something that I deserved. It felt like something that was kind of part of a typical process. And so it was an easy yes for me to work with you.
But at the same time, it wasn’t until I had that experience and found that the trust was so easy with us. Like, it came so naturally and I felt so comfortable working with both of you that I felt like I could trust myself in the process of actually doing the branding photo shoot. Yeah, it just was so meaningful to me.
I wanted to share you both with everyone here on The Social Academic. A lot of this audience is professors, graduate students, experts, some people who are starting their own businesses now, and people who really want to show up authentically like themselves, the way that people will see them in real life and to feel comfortable in the process of getting there. Because I don’t know, maybe you’re different from me. But like, I don’t know that I’ve ever really felt comfortable in front of the camera, even though people tell me that I look comfortable.
Amanda: You look really comfortable in front of the camera, by the way. I would never know if you hadn’t said that, that you got nervous, you look just like . . . and Melissa is really good about bringing that out of people too, which is amazing.
Melissa: Thank you, Amanda. That’s really sweet. And I want to shout out you too, because I think there’s something about getting glammed up. It’s something we don’t do for ourselves all the time. And having a professional come in and be like, this is how I see your eyes looking the best or I see your skin looking the best. Really gives you that boost of confidence. So that when you get to me as the photographer, you’re already feeling like riding high like, “Hey, I look good. So I think the combination of the two is the sweet spot.
Jennifer: Mmm.
Amanda: It’s really magical, honestly, like the collaboration involved. I think the first part is just establishing what feels like you. And you really struck a note with when you said being authentic to yourself. I’ve always been a huge believer in that. And I try to talk to my clients about that. I’m like, “There are no rules. You don’t have to like pretend to be this or that or whatever the expectation is in your head. You just have to be true to yourself and what you want to convey is your authentic self. You want to pull in those same authentic people. So why would you try to be someone else?” And I do my very best to like, get people to realize, like what it is that is truly them.
Melissa: I think people see themselves in you, too. They want to say like, “Oh, she can do this. I can do this too.” They want to feel seen and heard and you showing up and saying, “Hey, I’m going to do this for myself. You should do this for yourself.” It’s so much easier for people to see that.
Jennifer: Well, one of the reasons that I’m going to be recommending each of you to professor clients that I work with on strategic website plans in the future. It’s because of that personalized touch that I think that, I don’t know. I don’t know that it’s like all photographers and all makeup artists have probably different processes for starting to work with clients.
I felt like each of you really took time to get to know me, get to know the vision that I had and even asking questions to me that like I never would have thought of. I never would have come up with on my own. And I know that that’s something that professors who are listening to this appreciate because questions really help us get to the next step in our thinking, to the next step in what we want for ourselves.
And if you hadn’t asked me those questions, like I wouldn’t have gotten to the photo shoot part and we had like such a great plan.
What Jennifer’s branding photo shoot was like
Jennifer: So wait, what was that like? We set up a time in advance. So we all, we all had like the same day and Amanda, you actually came to my house.
I was able to get my makeup and hair done in the comfort of my own home where we were also doing the photo shoot, which Melissa came. And then we were all together. Is that right?
Melissa: Yeah, I think that was so cool because, I was photographing you in your office, which you are right now. And one of my favorite things was Amanda saw you were wearing this beautiful orange, I think it was a sweater.
And Amanda saw this little pop of orange in the back. She’s like, we have to have this in the back. So it was almost like she acted like a stylist while she was there, which I loved. And it’s just something I didn’t see that she saw. And, you know, having those two people that do artistic frames, working together and seeing things and helping and she was able to be there while I got to do my job photographing you and looking for the light.
Jennifer: Now, I know we all met via like wedding, right? I got married at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park last June. And it was amazing. It’s so beautiful!
Jennifer: So we met through weddings, but you also you both work with businesses, you work with individuals. Is that right?
Amanda: Definitely. I work with other small businesses. I work with people up and coming, just like getting their business started and also seasoned professionals that have been doing it a long time, but just feel like they want to refresh or, you know, some new life in their brand. So I think it’s very, very fun and very interesting just to get to know what each brand does. And as a fellow business owner, I feel like I can also relate in that way where I know what I would want for my own business and how I want to come across. So I think just having that camaraderie there is also very beneficial.
Melissa: Absolutely. I specifically work with creatives that are looking to up their presence on social media specifically. And I kind of handhold them through the process of showing up on social media authentically, like we were been talking about, but also really getting to spend more time doing what you love, which is usually creating. Creating your product, creating your art, and not having to spend all of your free time with marketing specifically.
Jennifer: Yeah, not having to spend all of your time. That’s interesting. You know, professors are so busy, right? Like they’re teaching classes and doing research and having all these administrative duties. And the thought of the booking process for working with professionals like yourselves, even that feels like, ooh, that’s a big commitment, right? But at the same time, it’s almost like once you take that step, then the rest of the process is facilitated with such ease. You both make it so easy and so intuitive. The next step is always ready.
I’m curious, what is the onboarding process like for you? Let’s say someone who’s listening to this is like, “Wait, I need some new photos for my academic website. I’m curious about booking.” Amanda, do you travel, like, are you open to traveling? I know Melissa is.
Amanda: Definitely. I always travel. I also have my own studio in La Jolla and I don’t share it with anyone else. So if anyone feels like they don’t even have a spot where they feel comfortable or like a nice open space, I’m always happy to offer my space too in La Jolla. It’s really pretty. You can go outside, you can be by the beach, you can have different options for shooting, but I definitely travel. So that’s part of what I do.
I like to make people feel comfortable in their own surroundings too. And I did love working in your office and like, you know, just seeing you in your element with your cats and it just, it added a whole other like, like you said, authenticity to the experience. So I thought that was really-
Jennifer: Yeah. I mean, this is what it’s like to work with me, you know. Like this is what you see. And so I really wanted that to be reflected. And you both did amazing at that. Melissa, you travel all over, like really all over, right? Like I know Amanda travels in California. Are you open to traveling? Are you both international traveling or just US?
Amanda: Everywhere, everywhere.
Melissa: I definitely am. I mostly travel for weddings, but I’m totally open for any sort of photography. Let’s put that out there. But yeah, I love to travel. I love to take my camera and meet new people all over the world. And it’s just so much fun.
Jennifer: Perfect. Okay. So this one, I think everyone should work with you, but obviously that’s not realistic. Not everyone is going to need or want a professional photographer and professional makeup for, and hair for when that photo shoot takes place. So I’m curious, like who are some people or what are some things that would clue people in if like you’re not the right fit? Like maybe you don’t need to work with me or you need to work with someone else.
Amanda: That’s an interesting one because I always feel like not just as a sales pitch, but like genuinely I feel it always helps to have another set of eyes. So if you don’t want to hire someone, maybe just like a trusted confidant. If you really don’t feel comfortable working with someone else, I would have like a very close friend that maybe has some style or could offer some really good tips for you. Just someone on your team that can be like what Melissa was saying earlier about during your shoot. Like I picked up on little things. That’s my job. Like details are a big thing for me. So I’ll notice every little thing in the room. And if I can offer up something with, you know, my background with wardrobe or set styling, I love doing that as just sort of like an extra perk of working with me.
But yeah, I mean, I think it’s always beneficial honestly to have someone else that really understands like how it’s going to photograph, what it looks like, not just you personally, but like the background.
If you really are maybe a control freak or like someone that just doesn’t like to work with others or you have a way you really like doing things your way, definitely get another set of eyes in the room at least and have people like pick up like, is your hair sticking out or is there like some crazy thing sitting on your shoulder that’s going to make you look like you have a growth coming out or something? Like those are really big things that can ruin your shoot.
Melissa: I’m going to take a little bit different spin on your question and let’s say somebody’s listening and they’re like, I would love to hire Melissa and Amanda. I just don’t know if I can afford to fly them both out. That sort of thing.
So maybe if you are looking for someone in your area for photography or makeup and hair, then obviously referrals are going to be your best bet, asking your network if you have any referrals. But I would also have a phone conversation at minimum, FaceTime, in person if you can just to make sure you feel comfortable because I think that feeling comfortable, if you don’t feel comfortable with the person, you’re not going to look comfortable in front of the camera.
So having an initial conversation, getting to know them at least over phone conversation, I know these days were all so busy. It’s hard to meet up in person, but I think that that’s important to get to know them and have that level of trust, going back to the word trust. Having that level of trust with them is really going to put you at ease when it comes to your photo shoot day.
Jennifer: Is that the typical process for each of you? It starts with a phone call or FaceTime or some kind of connection?
Melissa: Typically an email, an intro email like, “Hi, I’m interested in this,” and then I’ll share pricing and then we’ll set up a time. And then I like to ask for examples of what they’re looking for because for me, it can be more lifestyle, which is what we did more with you, Jennifer.
Or it can be more studio, very business, plain background. So I like to get an idea of what they’re looking for. I can do both. But starting a Pinterest board with shots that you like, or if you have a friend photo that you like, sending it that way. I think Amanda’s probably very similar with makeup styles as well. Yeah.
Amanda: I think we have the same-
Melissa: Little bit of the same process.
Amanda: Process, definitely.
Melissa: Yea!
Amanda: We’re both very visual people. So I’ll always ask for photos of what you’re specifically attracted to. But I won’t just ask for the photos. I’ll say, “What do you like about these photos?” And then my recommendation is usually find someone that kind of resembles you. It can be someone famous or not famous. Try not to get something that’s overly photoshopped, just like more of a natural picture and something that really kind of represents, if you like the colors or whatever it is. That’s so helpful for creative people.
Jennifer: I really like that. Our processes are quite similar. I always start with a Zoom call because I actually want to be able to talk with people and see their facial expressions. And really get to answer questions, but also look at screens sometimes at the same time because I’m visual too. I want to see what kind of website you actually like because oftentimes the way people describe things isn’t actually their preference. So being able to see things visually is really helpful for me as well. That’s really interesting.
Visual branding and photo shoots for all genders
Jennifer: Now, both of you work with all genders. Is that correct?
Amanda and Melissa: Correct.
Jennifer: My husband Matthew was really unsure if he should do the professional makeup. I think he was set on professional hair when it came to the wedding, but one thing that we ended up doing was a test. Like a test to see how he felt about the makeup, how it felt on his skin. He never wore makeup for anything before. And so it was really fascinating for my PhD husband to go and sit in this chair and experience really how comfortable it was and how personable it was.
The questions that you asked him while you were doing the makeup, while you were doing the hair helped get the look that he was hoping for. And maybe a look he hadn’t really thought of in advance specifically. You obviously had your conversations about those visual preferences, but even what happens in the moment can really impact us. And so I just loved watching that experience because I was also there for a test right before him and it was just so fun.
I wanted to mention that because if you are a professor who identifies as a man or a woman or are transgender, these are people who are excited to help you get the look that you want for yourself and get a look that’s lasting.
These photographs are so usable in different areas of my life. They’ve been used when I’ve been a podcast guest on another podcast. They’ve been used for articles and publications. They’re on my own website. They’re on my social media. And so I really like how intentional it helps to be with other people about ourselves when it comes to things that will end up in a lot of places. Thank you. Thank you! Thank you for making that experience so good for me.
Matthew Manly Pincus, PhD / Photography by Melissa McClure / Hair and Makeup by Amanda Thorne
Feeling safe and comfortable
Amanda: And thank you for trusting us. Honestly, I mean, that does mean a lot because a lot of people. I always tell my husband, I’m like, I’m actually kind of a therapist in the session sometimes too.
Jennifer: Yeah.
Amanda: And things can come up. Everyone has something with their appearance or something that someone may have said to them in their lifetime, and it still is there. You don’t know what’s going to bubble up.
Jennifer: Yeah.
Amanda: It’s great though because we can sort of like work through it together. And I like to be sort of like a safe space for people. And what you said earlier about Matthew coming in, I thought that was really great that you guys came together for the experience and that men understand that. There used to be a stigma, but I really don’t think that’s the case anymore with men getting hair and makeup. It’s so natural and so normal and anyone can come in and it’s great. Who doesn’t want to see yourself from a different perspective or enhancing what you already are is more like what it is.
Melissa: Yeah. Matthew looked very natural. You can’t pick out that he’s wearing makeup in the wedding photos or the branding photos.
Amanda: I never think it’s fair that women in photos have perfect flawless skin and makeup. And the guys, if they get a sunburn or if they have a pimple, it’s like-
Melissa: Too bad, too bad.
Amanda: They just don’t do anything, but it’s nice to have everyone looking flawless in your pictures.
Melissa: Regardless of gender, everybody wants to look really- It looks
Amanda: Yes,exactly. You hit the nail on the head.
Jennifer: His family was so cute. They were like, “You’re all coiffed.” It’s perfect.
Melissa: Coiffed, I love that. I love that. Oh my gosh.
Sifting through selfies (hundreds of them)
Jennifer: Now, when I think back on that process and I think about the day before the, not the wedding photo shoot, but the branding photo shoot that we did. I am someone… Okay, so I like makeup. I like taking selfies. I like taking photographs. I think I’m pretty good at taking photographs too. And so I actually had thousands of photographs that I had to upload from my phone onto my computer and it was because I was going on a trip. So I did this the day before our photo shoot. I uploaded probably 200 photos of myself into this one folder.
And I was like, “Wow, there’s so many photos of myself. Let me look through them and see if any are usable for my website because I’m going to be doing this redesign, but maybe I could fill things in when it comes to the photo shoot that we’re doing together.”
There was nothing. I mean, not that they were bad photos, but there was nothing that I was proud of and excited to share.
The feeling that I had when I got the photos back and I saw myself. I actually got the photos when I was traveling with some friends. And so we all looked at them together at the same time. It’s the only time I’ve ever done that. Like, looked at photos of myself with other people and they were excited for me, but they were excited because they could feel my personality and who I am through the photos and the makeup and the hair that we did together. It was such a collaborative project.
Tips for makeup and photography: lighting and color
Jennifer: We talked about people who maybe can’t afford to have you both out there, maybe can’t let go of some of their control preferences to let someone else in. And that’s okay. What are your suggestions for people who are going to do it themselves? Who are maybe, “I’ve never done makeup before. I’ve never even taken photographs before.” Do you have anywhere to start that you might recommend?
Melissa: Yeah, I’ll go first. With photography, it all comes down to lighting. Lighting is the most important thing. People think it’s backdrop or anything like that. It’s truly lighting. So if you are going to do a self-photoshoot, set up a selfie station, something like that, I would maybe invest in a little remote that can trigger your phone or use the timer feature. They just added a five second timer. So it’s no longer three and 10 seconds on the iPhone. You can also do five seconds, which is great. And find some good light, find a decently plain backdrop or whatever look you’re going for. Dress in a nice solid color and just experiment with how you look.
The lighting is really going to level up the professional look of the photo. Portrait mode is great on the iPhone. Unfortunately, I don’t know Android’s, I’m talking specifically iPhones, but they have something similar. Just to give you a little more of that depth of field blurred background feel, which also makes it a little more professional. So that would be my two tips. Find some really pretty lighting. Get right in front of a nice big window and practice your smiles and your posing.
Amanda: I also think another thing, I think those are great tips and also the lighting, like Melissa said, is key. But also I feel like really being prepared. So what we would have you do too, like we talked about the Pinterest boards. I’m big on that too. Like come up with a styling board of some sort where you’re kind of putting together a palette.
Start with colors that you like, that you gravitate toward. If you want it monochromatic, do that. If you want to do something colorful, what colors are we doing? Start really like looking at photos that resonate with you and put together a styling board, but condense it and make it. Yeah, you don’t want to be overwhelmed with a million things like, “Oh, I should try this or this.” Don’t do that. You’re just going to drive yourself crazy. Just condense it to a few of your favorites and sort of focus on that. Say, “Okay, I can go buy that sweater. I like that color. These are some colors for my makeup that would look really nice and compliment the background or what I’m wearing.” That sort of thing.
So kind of have an idea of what you’re doing and then be organized about it. If you want several looks, have that ready to go. And then if you’re doing hair and makeup switches, what are those going to be? Have little prompts about what you need to change into or what changes for hair and makeup you might make too. And think about your surroundings too. What does the set look like, “the set”? Your home, or what do you want in the photo? I love crystals, so for me, I would add some of my favorite crystals in the background, something like that. Something that’s personal.
Melissa: Also, when you are going into a photo shoot, whether you’re hiring us, whether you’re hiring someone else, doing it yourself, is knowing where the photos are going to go. So are they going to go on social media? Then most likely, you’ll want to take most of the image in vertical, straight up and down, because that is what social media likes. If it’s for your website, you may need more horizontal images. You may need a hero image for your website where you need to be a little more pulled back because it needs to be longer. Having an idea of exactly what you want so you can frame it in the way is going to make your job so much easier afterwards.
And one more tip. I truly feel that when we get photographed, a lot of times we’re very hard on ourselves, especially when we photograph ourselves. Sometimes you’re like, “Oh, I don’t know if I liked any of those.” Walk away from it for a little bit. Give it an hour, give it 24 hours, and then go back because we have very heightened emotion when we’re taking the photos and like, “Oh, I want this to be perfect. I look good. I don’t look good.” That sort of thing.
We kind of fight with ourselves. Sometimes just removing yourself from the photos for a little bit and then going back to them can be super helpful and just seeing them in a different way.
Working with your photographer on campus
Jennifer: That’s so helpful. Now, one thing to know if you’re a professor who’s wanting to do your photo shoot on campus, and I just know this from working university in the university events office when I was in school, is that oftentimes you may need permission to bring a professional photographer or stylist on campus if the photos are going to be used “commercially.” That is often not the case when you are a student of the school or a faculty of the school or you work there. Or maybe even if you’re an alumni, they may have a special form or process for you to fill out. It is good to check in because part of my job when I was doing that was to make sure that photographers who were on campus that didn’t have that slip did go and file things with the office.
This is mostly for the campus, like to protect things. It’s like a liability concern. They do occasionally need insurance for some situations, often not photography, but I just wanted to make that clear.
If you’re planning to do photos on campus, it’s good to ask or clear it with your supervisor or with whatever office is in charge of photography on campus, just to be sure.
Campus photographers are typically not available for outside photo shoots. If you’re looking for someone local, maybe you can’t bring Amanda and Melissa in, especially if they’re flying maybe across the country or to another country. Just know university photographers often are so busy, they just don’t typically have time to work on your project.
Your campus photographer or media office may have local recommendations though, so it’s worth asking. Just maybe don’t expect them to be able to drop things. Unfortunately, they’re typically really booked up with many different offices on campus needing their support. And, universities don’t usually have makeup and hair artists / stylists. So definitely reach out to Amanda no matter what. And, it’s good to ask for recommendations.
Questions to ask your photographer or makeup artist
Robert L. Pincus, PhD / Photography by Melissa McClure
Jennifer: I’m curious. Both of you mentioned that kind of introductory call. Are there questions you should be sure to ask a professional if you’re thinking about working with you?
Melissa: Yeah, for me, it’s what the packages look like.
Do you get the digital images?
Am I allowed to use these for commercial, for my website, and for potentially making money off of them?
Because there are some tricky copyrights with photography. So just be very clear on, “Hey, I want to use these for my business. This is a branding photo shoot,” and then see where they lie.
Make sure you’re not just paying for the shoot, you’re paying for the images as well all in one.
Also, what the timing looks like. Photographers will know the best time for lighting, and if you go to them and be like, “I have to shoot at noon,” a photographer might be like, “Let’s rework this a little bit.” So deferring to them for lighting and even location. If you want on campus, that’s one thing. But if you want an off-campus location, asking referrals for your photographer is totally, totally . . . we love it.
Amanda: I think some of the big things to maybe consider if you are hiring a stylist are, if the stylist will stay on set with you for the duration of the shoot. Because, like you said, if you’re doing it yourself, you get hyperaware maybe, and you’re focused too much on every little thing. But to have the stylist like I did with you Jennifer, where I can be there as your person in the background, like, “Oh, hang on. We got to move your hair over a little bit,” or, “Nope, nope, nope. We got to move something here or change this.” I can be that person, so you don’t have to be the one worrying about it. Just find out if that service is available, and if they will stay for the duration of the shoot.
Also, keep in mind maybe what kind of products they’re using. Sometimes it’s important for people to have clean products. I try to use cleaner brands. I think that’s important. I wouldn’t want to use anything on someone’s skin that I wouldn’t use on my own, so I would ask about that and what they use, especially if you have allergies that you’re concerned about or anything like that.
Then just basically some ideas about what they can offer in terms of helping you come up with your look.
Melissa: Knowing what you’re going to wear when you’re going into the shoot, because that’ll help us also with location and colors. Amanda, I know that’ll help with makeup tones and everything like that. I love when clients send me ideas for what to wear, and I could be like, “This one is going to photograph really well.”
For some reason, neon colors are popular and neon colors do not photograph well.” I will tell people that. Stay away from the hot thing.
Jennifer wore this gorgeous orange sweater. I brought it up again, but it just popped with her skin tone and everything. It was the perfect, perfect color. If you’re on the fence about what to wear, ask the professionals.
Jennifer: Amanda, when you mentioned – as a stylist, that was something that I actually kind of wish I had chosen for my wedding. When it came to the branding photo shoot, I remember at the time really feeling like it was a splurge. This is something that I’m gifting to myself because I actually think that this team is so great that I can see our synergy working together even better day of.
Now, when it came to the day of, I really was so glad that I had invested in that because I felt more comfortable. It was almost like having an extra—not that Melissa and I have obviously done photographs together and it’s fine, but having another person there helped me feel more comfortable. It actually helped me feel like, “Oh, I can’t let someone else think about these things that maybe I would want to think about. I would probably be looking around the room. Should I move anything? Should I spot anything?” My brain got to relax. My brain got to kind of let go and let Melissa take these amazing photos. She knew where she was going in the office, so it let my brain focus on just being myself.
It was interesting that having more people in the room was better for me because I’m really introverted. I’m a super introverted person who mostly connects with people virtually. It was fascinating that that made it more comfortable for me. I’m so glad that you were both there.
Melissa: We have that rapport. We have that chemistry already because we have worked together a few times now. I think it’s great. Just having a team to support you is going to maybe have the best results.
Amanda: If it’s someone that is an introvert, they could always do a preview. With weddings, we do what’s called a bridal preview where you come in, you try out your look, you see how it feels, you see if you want to tweak anything. If it’s translating from, say, the photo to your own features, that’s a big deal. That’s totally an option too, just to try it out first and see. Then also that makes you have the chance to build rapport with the artist, with the stylist, especially if I’m going to be on set with you. That’s the time we can get to know each other. Then that day, it’s more cas [casual].
Jennifer: Just for everyone who’s listening, trial is typically a paid experience. I just want to mention, even though it’s called a trial, it doesn’t mean that you’re trying out the service. It means that you’re trying things out to see how it feels on your face, to see how your hair is reacting to it. You’re trying it together.
Oh, this is such a good conversation. Is there anything else you want to chat about or add before you wrap up?
Investing in yourself and being authentic online
Melissa: I think that people, I think you mentioned this earlier, Jennifer, but I think people struggle with the, “Is this worth it? Am I worth it? Investing in yourself?” I really think it is. Pictures really convey a message to your audience. Your branding is very, very important and you want to show up as your authentic self. Spending that little bit of extra money is really going to help you level up your website, your social media, that sort of thing. Selfies are great. Self-photos are good too. A mixture of both I think is where the sweet spot is.
Amanda: I completely agree with you and I also wanted to point out, I’ve seen a lot of branding right now with AI and it just strikes me as too slick. I guess it is the word slick and just not authentic, which I guess if you don’t care about that portion of it, you just want a really polished, flawless picture. That’s fine. But if you really do want to connect, I don’t think AI is where it’s at for authentically connecting.
Jennifer: Yeah, and I don’t think that AI is even there yet.
Amanda: Just my thought, it seems like something’s off almost. If I see it, I can’t connect with it. If I see someone and it’s just . . . I don’t get a sense of who they are.
Jennifer: You can tell, you can tell when it’s an AI photo
Amanda: Definitely.
Melissa: I think it’s an easy out and I think easy outs are always not going to be ultimately the long-term option.
Jennifer: Yeah, and I feel like this audience, academics, they are not easy way out people. They have stayed in school doing their research, doing their teaching for so long in order to create oftentimes quite slow changes that make big impact. That is something that you can do for yourself too. That is something that you can do with this gift to yourself.
The way that I think about it is you don’t even need to be on social media or have a website for this kind of service to really benefit you as an academic. There are news articles that your university or your college might want to write about you. There are local appearances in the news or maybe in an academic society organization where they might not need to share your photo, where they might want to have options for what to share. Maybe that kind of stoic traditional headshot that you took for your campus photographer isn’t going to cut it for that use because it doesn’t feel like you. It doesn’t feel like this purpose. You have options and these two amazing people are my favorite options for you. They’re who I’m going to be recommending to my professor clients from now on.
Amanda: Thank you. And don’t forget guys, this is a tax write-off too. [Laughing]
Jennifer: That is so true.
Melissa: That’s the best advice. That’s the best advice I’ve heard.
Amanda: I do my pictures too and I’m like, “I can just write it off. It’s fine.”
Jennifer: Yes, this is helping your career.
Amanda: And I also wanted to point out, so during the shoot, I was the person that was doing behind the scenes content too. So that’s another element that you’re, it’s kind of like a bonus. It’s like if you have a stylist that loves social media like I do, I’m always video, videotaping everything. I like doing reels. So I love sharing that with my clients too. Like, “Oh, I got these behind the scenes footage” or for the photographers too. I’m like,” I got you in action. Here you go.”
Jennifer: So fun.
Amanda: It’s social content for everybody, which everybody needs.
Jennifer: There are so many ways that we can create more authenticity for ourselves, whether it’s through behind the scenes content or even people who have never worn makeup, never had their hair professionally done can still feel more like themselves by working through this together. And so I really appreciate you both coming on the show and sharing your expertise because you are humans that I care about. And I know can help so many people.
Melissa: Thank you Jennifer.
Amanda: Thank you Jennifer, and I just wanted to point out you don’t have to wear a ton of makeup or do something crazy with your hair. It’s just a little bit of an elevation. So if you are a natural person, we can keep it natural. It doesn’t have to be like another level. But it’s just, I kind of feel like I have an eye for how much you need for it to show up properly in photos and what Melissa needs to capture your features, your best features. That’s what I’m there for, to pick up the best parts about you and kind of show the world.
Jennifer: Thank you so much for coming on The Social Academic and for everyone listening. I’m going to have their contact information in the description below so you can get in touch if you’re interested in working with these amazing people.
Amanda Thorne is the owner of Thorne Artistry, an award-winning, inclusive, creative styling company based in San Diego, California, but available worldwide! Thorne Artistry not only offers hair & makeup for weddings, but all special events including family, branding sessions, and editorial shoots.
Thorne Artistry specializes in, and is known for, soft or natural glam that elevates your beauty, while making sure it still looks & feels like you. Thorne Artistry is also known for a focus on clean beauty, and the best products available.
Thorne Artistry’s work has been published nationally & internationally in Rolling Stone, Vogue India, Martha Stewart Weddings, US Weekly, and People magazine. Locally, you can see Amanda’s work grace the covers of Exquisite Weddings, Pacific, and San Diego Style magazine. You may also see her work appear on The Bachelor, Summer House, or other Bravo favorites.
Thorne Artistry has worked with multiple celebrity clients, and appears regularly in well-known wedding publications like Martha Stewart Weddings, Style Me Pretty, The Knot, Magnolia Rouge and many more. Thorne Artistry has consistently won WeddingWire and The Knot Couples’ Choice Awards, was voted Best Hair and Makeup by the San Diego A-List Awards and voted by her peers for Best Hair & Makeup by California Wedding Day magazine.
Born in Ohio, Amanda has always had the travel bug, has visited over 23 countries, and has lived in Australia, Seattle, San Francisco, & currently resides in the La Jolla neighborhood of San Diego. Her styling career started while studying at the University of Dayton where she produced TV commercials. Amanda is also a former radio DJ, and was the host of Alt949’s Big Sonic Chill.
When Amanda’s not creating beauty, she can be found outdoors with her husband and two kiddos going on lots of road trips, hiking, listening to good music, finding new coffee spots, fun thrift markets, or reading biographies, or a good psychological thriller! Reach out to chat more & reserve your upcoming date.
Melissa McClure | Melissa McClure Creative
Melissa McClure is a wedding and personal branding photographer with 20+ years of experience. She lives in San Diego, California. Melissa is a also a ‘social media goddess’ and coach who helps women entrepreneurs step out of their comfort zone and own their power online.
Melissa McClure is redesigning her photography website. I’ll update this page when her new website is live for you! In the meantime, get in touch through her coaching website.
Want to work with Melissa or Amanda? Yay! I accept no monies or gift when you move forward with them. I share them each with you because they’ve helped me with their expertise and artistry. I trust them to help you too. Thank you!
Last year, FIRE launched the Free Speech Dispatch, a regular series covering 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.
Return of blasphemy prosecutions feared in the UK
On June 2, four months after West London resident Moussa Kadri attacked Kurdish-Armenian asylum seeker Hamit Coskun for burning a Quran, Westminster Magistrates’ Court found Coskun guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence and fined him £240 ($323).
Coskun ignited a new round of debate over blasphemy in the UK after burning a Quran outside London’s Turkish consulate and yelling “Fuck Islam” and “Islam is a religion of terrorism,” which he has since repeatedly claimed was a protest against “the Islamist government of Erdoğan,” Turkey’s president. In response, Kadri attacked him with a knife, knocked him to the ground, and kicked him while he was down.
But there’s a particularly disturbing element to this case. Namely, the judge’s justification for the conviction. The “disorderly” nature of Coskun’s protest, the judge said, “is no better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by two different people.”
That’s right, a man’s violent attack on another was cited as evidence of the victim’s guilt.
The UK was not alone in making blasphemy news in recent weeks. In Bangladesh, a 23-year-old was arrested under the country’s Cyber Security Act for “insulting” the Prophet Muhammad on Facebook. An Iranian court upheld a death sentence on blasphemy charges for the musician Tataloo. And Sweden may be facing yet another Quran burning controversy, but appears to be allowing it to proceed — for now.
Political speech in the crosshairs around the world
Mayor Gilles Platret of French city Chalon-sur-Saone banned display of Palestine’s flag in the city this month as well as “all pro-Palestine demonstrations.”
Hungary delayed a vote on a bill that would allow punishment including bans on organizations judged to “threaten the sovereignty of Hungary by using foreign funding to influence public life.”
Istanbul prosecutors — continuing Turkey’s crusade against imprisoned Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, a rival of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan — banned use of Imamoglu’s image and audio recordings.
Israeli Education Minister Yoav Kisch threatened to revoke funding to universities where students have held Nakba rallies. “Academia is not a platform for incitement under the guise of freedom of expression,” he wrote.
Kneecap member Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh has been charged with a terrorism offense by the UK Metropolitan Police for displaying a flag supporting Hezbollah at a concert in London last year.
The lese-majeste case against American academic Paul Chambers, accused of insulting Thailand’s monarchy, has officially been dropped. Chambers will return to the U.S.
Malaysian police are investigating a queer sexual health workshop for “causing disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or prejudicing the maintenance of harmony or unity, on grounds of religion.”
Georgian Dream, the ruling party of Georgia, says it’s taking action against “the filthiest phrases and insults” made against its party members from a so-called “externally funded hate speech campaign.”
Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad was arrested for social media posts about India’s tensions with Pakistan, including one about “those who are mindlessly advocating for war.”
Eight year sentence for Brazilian comedian
A São Paulo state criminal court sentenced comedian Leo Lins to a whopping eight years and three months in prison for “practicing” or “inciting” racism and religious prejudice as well as for his comments about disabilities. The charges stemmed from a viral 2022 set in which Lins mocked “Black and Indigenous people, obese people, elderly people, gay people, Jews, northeastern Brazilians, evangelicals, disabled people and those with HIV.”
“When there is a confrontation between the fundamental precept of liberty of expression and the principles of human dignity and judicial equality, the latter should win out,” the judge said of Lins’ sentencing. Lins intends to appeal.
Free press under attack from Saudi Arabia to El Salvador to Samoa
On June 14, Saudi Arabia executed journalist Turki Al-Jasser on treason and terrorism charges. Al-Jasser’s supporters claim the charges were in retaliation for the journalist’s criticism of Saudi royals. The Committee to Protect Journalists says the international community’s failure to act after Jamal Khashoggi’s murder “emboldened de facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to continue his persecution of the press.”
Jamal Khashoggi’s fiancé Hatice Cengiz looks at his photo as Nihad Awad of CAIR speaks about the murder during a demonstration at the Saudi Embassy, Washington DC, October 2021
Staff of an investigative news outlet in El Salvador, El Faro, fled the country in expectation of criminal charges after reporting that President Nayib Bukele’s party “paid gangs a quarter of a million dollars during his 2014 mayoral race for their help getting him votes in communities they controlled.”
An Argentinian investigative journalist is accusing the country’s intelligence services of approving a plan that would “allow agents to gather intelligence on journalists, economists, academics and other critics of President Javier Milei and his government.” The government denied the allegation “but acknowledged the existence of the document.”
A Kenyan author was arrested after President William Ruto’s daughter accused him of impersonation for writing a book about her without her permission.
Samoan journalist Lagi Keresoma was charged under a criminal defamation law over her article about a former police officer’s legal challenges. Press freedom advocates are pushing for the repeal of the criminal defamation statute, rightfully warning of its limits on journalists’ rights.
London BBC staff are raising the alarm over the Iranian government’s efforts to intimidate them within the UK, citing a “sharp and deeply troubling escalation” in Iran’s years-long campaign against them. Metropolitan Police said at least 20 people in London have been the target of violence and threats by Iran in recent years.
The latest news in tech: Porn, bans, and Telegram
Six of Brazil’s 11 Supreme Court justices voted in favor of holding tech companies responsible for “illegal” third party content posted to their platforms but specifics on the enforcement and other details are still forthcoming. “We must, as a court, move in the direction of freedom with responsibility and regulated freedom, which is the only true freedom,” one judge said.
President Emmanuel Macron has committed to banning social media for children under 15, citing a recent murder in the country. “Platforms have the ability to verify age. Let’s do it,” he said.
And Pornhub warned it will no longer be available in France over recent age verification legislation.
Porn is a focus of government action in Tanzania, too. Information minister Jerry Silaa announced a block on the platform X over the presence of porn on the site, material he said is contrary to Tanzania’s “laws, culture, customs, and traditions.”
Vietnam ordered a block on Telegram, citing “anti-state” material available on the app and legal authority prohibiting “taking advantage of telecommunications activities to oppose the state.”
Transparency reports show that in the early months of 2025, Telegram handed law enforcement data on 22,777 users, a major jump from previous disclosures.
China’s censorship looks to the past — and abroad
Unsurprisingly, the 36th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre brought another wave of censorship in Hong Kong, which in previous years was home to mass demonstrations commemorating the date. But now even silent protests are criminalized, and self-censorship has soared. Police made some arrests, including “a man holding an electric candle, a man standing silently in the rain, and two women, including a girl holding flowers and dressed in a school uniform.”
Censorship of the Tiananmen anniversary is widespread online, too. Media outlet ABC obtained authorities’ 230-page Tiananmen censorship guide “used by frontline content censors to train artificial intelligence tools to moderate vast amounts of content.” A similar memo warned, “Delete first. Review later.”
A candlelight vigil outside the Chinese consulate general in Los Angeles to mark the 36th anniversary of the crackdown on the pro-democracy protests in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, June 2025
Amidst the censorship surrounding June 4, other national security-related threats emerged in Hong Kong. Joshua Wong, a pro-democracy activist already serving a nearly five-year prison sentence, was hit with new charges — while beyond bars. This month, he was charged with “conspiring to collude with foreign forces” for allegedly encouraging other nations to impose sanctions on Hong Kong in 2020. And the city’s police are warning residents that they too may face national security charges if they download “secessionist” mobile game Reversed Front: Bonfire, which allows users to play as targeted groups rising against the Chinese Communist Party. Even just recommending the game could qualify as “incitement to secession.”
Censorship of disfavored political speech isn’t just a problem within China and Hong Kong — critics of the Chinese government face repression on a global scale. At Book World Prague, a Czech book fair, Chinese officials unsuccessfully pressured organizers to remove the Taiwanese flag from a publisher’s booth as well as censor a catalog that mentioned involvement by Taiwan’s Ministry of Culture. And here in the United States, two men, one from China and the other from the UK, are accused of stalking a U.S.-based man in an effort to prevent him from protesting Xi Jinping’s 2023 visit to California.
