Author: admin

More Schools Report Visa Revocations and Student Detentions
Reports have surfaced of a significant increase in the number of international student visas being revoked and students being detained across various universities in the United States. This follows heightened immigration scrutiny, particularly under the administration of Donald Trump. According to Senator Marco Rubio, more than 300 international student visas have been pulled in recent months, primarily targeting students involved in political activism or minor infractions. WeAreHigherEd has named 30 schools where students’ visas have been revoked.

Campus Abductions — We Are Higher Ed

Key Universities Affected
- University of California System (UCLA, UC San Diego, UC Berkeley):
  Universities within the University of California system, which hosts a large international student population, have reported multiple visa cancellations. These revocations have affected students involved in pro-Palestinian protests, political activism, or perceived violations of U.S. immigration policies. For instance, the University of California has seen as many as 20 students affected in recent weeks.
- Columbia University:
  At Columbia University, the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a student activist, has gained significant media attention. Khalil, who was detained and faced deportation, exemplifies the growing concerns over student rights and the growing impact of politically charged visa revocations.
- Tufts University:
  Tufts University is currently battling the Trump administration over the case of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish graduate student whose visa was revoked. Her detention and the ensuing legal battles highlight the growing tensions between academic freedom and government policy. Tufts and its student body are advocating for Öztürk’s release and seeking clarification on the legal processes involved.
- University of Minnesota:
  At the University of Minnesota, one international graduate student was detained as part of an ongoing federal crackdown on visa violations. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions continue to raise concerns over the rights of international students to remain in the country, especially as visa renewals and compliance checks become more stringent.
- Arizona State University:
  Arizona State University has also reported incidents of international students having their visas revoked without prior notice. These revocations have affected students from various countries, creating uncertainty within the international student community at the university.
- Cornell University:
  At Cornell University, international students have similarly faced unexpected visa cancellations. This has raised concerns about the ability of universities to adequately support their international student populations, as students are left to navigate the complexities of visa status without sufficient notice or explanation.
- North Carolina State University:
  North Carolina State University is another institution where international students have had their visas revoked without notice. The university has expressed concern over the lack of clarity from immigration authorities, which has left students in a precarious situation.
- University of Oregon:
  The University of Oregon has experienced several cases of international students having their visas revoked. This has been particularly troubling for students who were actively pursuing their education in the U.S. and now face the prospect of deportation or being forced to leave the country unexpectedly.
- University of Texas:
  At the University of Texas, international students have faced visa issues, with several reports of revocations and detentions, affecting students who are working toward completing their degrees. This has sparked protests and advocacy efforts from both students and university administration, seeking more transparency in the process.
- University of Colorado:
  The University of Colorado has similarly reported instances of international student visa revocations, particularly affecting those involved in political activism. The university has been working to support students impacted by these actions, although many are left in limbo regarding their ability to continue their studies.
- University of Michigan:
  The University of Michigan has also been impacted by a wave of visa revocations. Similar to other institutions, students involved in political protests or activism have found themselves under scrutiny, facing the risk of detention or deportation. Students, faculty, and staff are pushing for clearer policies and legal protections to support international students, who are increasingly at risk due to the political environment.
The Broader Implications

These incidents of visa revocation and detentions are seen as part of a broader trend of increasing immigration enforcement under the Trump administration. Critics argue that these actions infringe upon students’ rights, potentially violating freedom of speech and academic freedom. International students, especially those participating in protests or political discourse, have found themselves at risk of being detained or deported, with little prior notice or transparency regarding the reasons for such actions.

Moreover, the economic impact of these actions is significant. In 2023, a record 253,355 student visa applications were denied, representing a 36% refusal rate. This has major implications not only for the affected students but also for U.S. universities that rely heavily on international students for tuition revenue. The financial loss could be as much as $7.6 billion in tuition fees and living expenses, further emphasizing the broader consequences of these policies.

Legal and Administrative Responses

Many universities are rallying behind their international student populations, with advocacy efforts from institutions like Tufts University and Columbia University. These universities have criticized the abruptness of the visa cancellations and detentions, calling for more transparency and due process.

However, despite these efforts, the political climate surrounding U.S. immigration remains volatile, and it is unclear whether policy changes will result in more lenient or more restrictive measures for international students.

Conclusion

These stories underscore the fragile position of international students in the U.S. today. With incidents of detentions and visa revocations increasing, students face significant challenges navigating the complexities of U.S. immigration law, particularly those involved in political or activist circles. University administrations and students alike continue to call for clearer policies, protections for international student rights, and more transparent practices to avoid the unintended consequences of politically motivated visa actions.

This issue remains ongoing, with much at stake for both
Source link
April 8, 2025
Boards Must Fight for Institutional Independence (opinion)
The academy is facing a crisis of confidence. Where shared governance once nurtured robust debate and institutional progress, a climate of fear is taking hold, stifling dialogue and endangering the very mission of higher education. Decision-makers, ensnared in an atmosphere marked by uncertainty, are both terrified to act and paralyzed by inaction. They are troubled by a well-orchestrated effort that seeks to fundamentally alter higher education, forcing the sector into a state of existential terror for the foreseeable future. Consequently, we are witnessing a shift from shared governance to scared governance, and the consequences are profound.

At present, presidents seem to be thunderously quiet, boards approach critical issues with trepidation and faculty members feel suppressed in their teaching and research. The insidious costs of these constraints—the lost opportunities, the stifled innovation, the further erosion of trust—are staggering. These costs must be exposed to public scrutiny, as they are not confined to higher education. The repercussions of external intrusion will manifest in every facet of our society.

Governing boards—guardians of institutional mission and values—must recognize the gravity of this moment. This isn’t simply about diversity, equity and inclusion, though the attacks on DEI initiatives are a major part of the problem. This is about institutional independence, the freedom to pursue knowledge and the very DNA of our nation’s colleges and universities. Too often board members have permitted faculty or presidents to take the lead in governance and have used shared governance as an excuse, explanation or cover for their own lack of involvement. They have successfully hidden in plain sight.

Governance, however, is not a spectator sport. Boards have to champion the preservation of institutional independence and recognize that inaction under the guise of shared governance is still inaction. They cannot afford to be passive observers, expecting others to shoulder the burden of defending the institution’s core values while they remain detached. This is not a middle school group project; everyone has to participate or we will all fail the assignment.

The threats are widespread: curricula are under siege, co-curricular life is being dismantled, research programs are targeted, medical schools are undermined and free speech is gagged. This is not a series of isolated incidents; it is an orchestrated campaign to upend the foundations of higher learning, and it demands a unified, unwavering response.

The responsibility falls on governing boards to work with presidents to answer (clearly and immediately) some key questions:
- What principles defined our institutions before the current political climate?
- Do we still stand for these principles? If so, how can we hold fast to them now?
- What price are we willing to pay to uphold those foundational values?
- If we abandon our values now, what remains of our institutional identity?
Autonomy is not merely a privilege; it’s the bedrock of our academic mission. It is not only our institutional independence at stake, but our very integrity.

Many boards, understandably, are hesitant to address these challenges directly. But silence and inaction are not options. Board members are the ultimate arbiters of their institutions’ destinies. It is time to abandon the narrow focus on isolated initiatives and confront the broader, systemic assault on academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Board leadership will determine how we navigate this defining moment.

Boards of trustees are the protectors of institutional values. They carry the legacies of their institutions forward. If they fail in this duty, the consequences may be irreversible. While other higher education decision-makers respond to executive orders, policy shifts and legal rulings, the board’s role is clear and unchanging. The only uncertainty is whether members will fulfill their responsibilities in alignment with the institution’s mission.

The future of higher education depends on boards of higher education. The 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities makes it clear that “The governing board has a special obligation to ensure that the history of the college or university shall serve as a prelude and inspiration to the future … When ignorance or ill will threaten the institution or any part of it, the governing board must be available for support. In grave crises, it will be expected to serve as a champion.”

Board members: This is that moment. Your institutions—and the public they serve—are waiting for you to lead. The future of higher education depends on your courage, your convictions and your willingness to champion the values upon which your institutions were built. Will you rise to the occasion? We need you now more than ever.

We’ve recently made some suggestions for concrete actions trustees and senior leaders of institutions can take immediately to advance the great work higher education does while partnering with good-faith collaborators to address the field’s challenges. For those boards that want to be proactive and not just reactive, here are a few ideas.

One key action is to highlight the implications for resources. A public, transparent review of the university’s budget should explicitly showcase areas under threat—like research and DEI programs. To take this further, institutions could consider reallocating funds from traditionally “untouchable” areas, such as athletics, to fortify initiatives focused on inclusivity and academic freedom. Publicly challenging politicians to justify cuts in the face of these demonstrated priorities could push the conversation beyond rhetoric.

Fundraising strategies also need reimagining. Universities could launch targeted campaigns specifically designed to offset federal funding cuts and support programs under siege. A bolder approach might frame these efforts as “impact investments,” emphasizing the societal returns on supporting research and DEI. This reframing could inspire donors who care deeply about the university’s role in shaping a more equitable future.

Equally important is stressing the human cost. Universities should conduct and publish comprehensive reports that quantify the real-world consequences of funding cuts—measuring lives impacted, medical treatments delayed, rising attrition rates and mental health issues among students and staff. Presenting these findings to legislators and the public forces a direct reckoning with the human toll of these policy decisions. The facts, laid bare, can speak louder than fear.

Finally, institutions must build collective strength through research consortia. By forming inter-institutional partnerships to pool resources and expertise, universities can ensure the continuation of vital research projects at risk. A more assertive stance could position these consortia as a direct counter to political interference, underscoring the importance of academic inquiry free from external pressure.

The path forward is clear: Governing boards must lead with transparency, strategy and courage. Higher education’s survival—and its ability to serve the public good—depends on it.

Raquel M. Rall and Demetri L. Morgan are co-founders and co-directors of the Center for Strategic & Inclusive Governance. Rall is an associate professor and associate dean of strategic initiatives in the School of Education at the University of California, Riverside. Morgan is an associate professor of education at the University of Michigan’s Marsal Family School of Education, within the Center for the Study of Postsecondary and Higher Education.
Source link
April 8, 2025
How to Support College Students With Body Image Concerns
Some college students struggle with body image, negatively impacting their academic performance and physical wellness.

stockvisual/E+/Getty Images
Food and campus dining are important elements of the college experience for many students, whether that’s grabbing a quick coffee on the way to an 8 a.m. class or sharing a meal with friends at the end of a long day. Some learners, however, experience challenges with their eating habits due to negative body image or disordered thinking about food, which can be detrimental to their physical and mental health.

Colleges and universities can create greater awareness for students and staff by supplying resources for physical health and wellness to support student well-being and thriving.

What’s the need: Students with poor body image may feel ashamed, anxious or awkward, which could result in a lack of engagement in social events or classes, or unhealthy dieting and exercise behaviors, according to a study from the University of Alabama.

Social media can increase students’ exposure to negative body images, which can damage mental and physical health. And students who experience food insecurity are more likely to report disordered eating habits.

Campus Dining and Disordered Eating

Addressing harmful eating habits can take place in the classroom or in the dining hall. Some colleges and universities, such as Northwestern University, have made strides to improve the student experience when utilizing campus food services by removing calorie counts next to food items. Read more here.

Healthy body image can also be tied to student retention and graduation. A 2023 survey by United Healthcare Services found that college students who have experienced an eating disorder are more likely to have doubts about graduating on time (81 percent), compared to their peers who didn’t report an eating disorder (19 percent).

While women are more likely to experience negative body perceptions, men also experience disordered eating. Male student athletes, in particular, experience higher rates of eating disorders than their nonathlete peers but are less likely than their female peers to receive support for disordered eating.

Campuswide interventions: Disseminating information across campus can be one way to reach students who may be unaware of offerings or unable to identify their own harmful habits.
- Illinois State University hosts the Body Project, the Body Project: More Than Muscles and the Female Athlete Body Project in collaboration with Student Counseling Services, Health Promotion and Wellness, and the Department of Psychology. The Body Project, a peer-led intervention, addresses female students’ sense of body image, and More Than Muscles supports male-identified learners with a chance to consider how culture and media define the ideal male body. Similarly, the Female Athlete Body Project supports women participating in collegiate athletics and their unique challenges with body image.
- Louisiana State University hosted an event, “Trash Your Insecurities,” which invited students to write down their biggest insecurity and literally throw it in a trash can. Students could then write down what they’re most proud of themselves for, helping promote a better sense of self and positive self-talk. The event helped increase awareness of eating disorders and body image concerns as well as campus resources for these challenges.
- The University of Nevada, Reno, hosts a support group, Nourish and Flourish, that encourages students to bring food to an informal setting to discuss concerns. Group counseling sessions can provide a place of community and support for students struggling with disordered eating or negative body image.
Working with students: As an individual faculty or staff member, practitioners can encourage positive body image with a student by:
- Encouraging them to unfollow social media accounts or influencers who trigger negative body image thoughts or feelings. Research from the University of New South Wales, Sydney, shows that engaging with positive content can improve body image over several weeks. At the same time, exposure to fitness-oriented social media posts can harm women’s self-perceptions, according to researchers from Davidson College.
- When giving compliments, focusing on a student’s performance or personality, as opposed to appearances, can be helpful, according to recommendations from the University of Colorado, Boulder.
- Avoiding use of negative body talk or dieting in the classroom or office, which can encourage students to do the same. Sometimes people engage in negative self-talk without even realizing it, so being self-accepting and self-compassionate can promote positive change.
- Encouraging students to take care of themselves through adequate sleep or regular eating. For colleges that have nutrition services, staff can refer students to experts who can provide healthy eating advice.
Do you have a wellness intervention that might help others promote student success? Tell us about it.
Source link
April 8, 2025
After a Closure, Professional Deaths and Rebirths (opinion)
Those of us who have sought a faculty position at a small, private liberal arts college do so knowing that the pay may be lower than at a research institution and that student advising and committee responsibilities are likely to be greater. However, the appeal of small colleges is the close-knit academic community: You can be a part of an academic home where colleagues find deep purpose and meaning in the institution’s teaching-centered mission and enjoy the advantage of smaller classes and more direct contact with students.

However, little of this matters if the institution fails to stay fiscally solvent—a reality that we and many others in this sector are unfortunately facing.

Perhaps those of you reading this are at institutions that may be showing signs of fiscal stress: The buildings are in need of repair, vacant faculty and staff positions are unfilled, and institutional contributions to retirement funds have been reduced. We’ve been there. We were colleagues at the now-closed College of Saint Rose: an early-career assistant professor, a midcareer faculty member and a senior faculty member nearing retirement age, all of us professors of education and teacher educators. We juxtapose the death of the institution with how each of us experienced professional deaths and rebirths into new positions. We hope you heed our warning and find some comfort in our personal journeys.

At the beginning of the 2023–24 academic year, our small private institution, like many institutions, experienced consistently low enrollment. We’d survived two iterations of cuts to programs and faculty within the previous decade. Despite these negative signs, we approached the academic term with a “business as usual” mindset. We applied for grants, worked toward reaffirmation of accreditation and drafted new initiatives.

This all came to a halt the moment the impending closure was leaked to the press.

The announcement of closure was officially communicated at the end of the fall 2023 semester. Instead of the usual joyful conclusion to student teaching, teacher performance assessments and exams, we were drowned in a sea of sadness and stress. While sending distress signals to other institutions, asking them to accept our candidates without hesitation, some institutions were circling the carcass, making empty promises to our students. Faculty were tasked with developing teach-out plans and conducting family outreach for hundreds of students at both the graduate and undergraduate level. We felt as though we were thrust into the role of hospice workers. Our own confusion, heartache and anger had to be ignored for every trip to campus and every interaction with students.

The end was coming. It was time to get our own affairs in order.

In an emergency faculty meeting, the administration asked us not to jump ship despite limited hope and feeble lifelines. The message: The college was to remain open one more semester, and all current employees were needed to support students. Here is how each of us experienced the first and only full faculty meeting regarding the closure:

“I received the news that the college was closing when I was five months pregnant with my second child. During this life experience, you hope that people say ‘congratulations’ and ask how you’re feeling in regards to growing a human; instead, they were walking on eggshells wondering if I’d have a paycheck once I’d created another mouth to feed. As they say, there’s no right time to have a baby, but I for one hoped it was at a time with a stable job and health insurance.”

—Jennifer, early-career faculty member

“I had just submitted my tenure dossier a month before, only to find out the institution would not exist past the next semester. While waiting for my tenure letter, I navigated applications, interviews and the recent passing of a colleague. As the board delayed tenure announcements, I was trying to quickly sort through my options—should I return to K-12, work as a consultant at a private firm or relocate for another professorship? With a son in college, I could not afford to start over.”

—Julienne, midcareer faculty member

“The announcement did not come as a shock to me. I recounted the significant financial cutbacks over the years. I spent 15 years in public schools and more than 20 in higher education. I was within five years of my full benefit age for Social Security, but retirement was not on my mind. I wanted to continue my dedication to scholarly work and shaping new teachers. The pressing concern in my mind was, would I experience age bias when looking for another position?”

—Terri, senior faculty member

At the time of the closure announcement, our questions were personal, but shared common themes. Where will I find work? Will I find work for the next academic year when searches are already underway? Who will hire me with my physical, age, family, etc., limitations? Should I re-enter the PK-12 classroom?

And beyond our personal worries were questions such as, what do I know about teach-out agreements? How do we work with institutions that guarantee our students on-time graduation when the programs are so different? What do we tell our longtime PK-12 partners? How does this impact my work on an IRB-approved study with colleagues? These thoughts were all-consuming, personally and professionally.

The reality for us as faculty was that there were very few open positions in higher education, and fewer yet in our field, our specialization, or our geographic area. Each of us handled this reality differently.

“I cast a wide net applying for government work, consulting jobs, K-12 positions, as well as tenure-track professor positions. I took some temporary government contract work in the interim to boost my salary. I had seven months before I knew unemployment would kick in. I mostly interviewed for higher education positions while teaching course overloads and consulting. I could not tailor my résumé and cover letters for every posting; I simply had no time. Applying for positions was another part-time job, and I did not have the energy to reinvent myself for a post on Indeed or LinkedIn. In the end, I interviewed at several institutions, public and private. I was offered a couple of positions and decided to go with a financially stable public institution, working alongside faculty with whom I’d already bonded. There was an opportunity to grow the program. There was only one catch: I had to decide if I was willing to have a very lengthy commute or move.”

—Julienne, midcareer faculty member

“I had only been in my position as assistant professor for 18 months or so when I was effectively handed my pink slip. That meant I lacked deep-seated roots. It also meant this was the second college I’d be leaving due to financial instability. Yes, I’d come to this position after leaving my previous institution when its financial outlook was too uncertain for me to stay when planning for my family’s future. Upon hearing the news of the closure, I wasn’t casting a wide net in my job search. I was apprehensive about casting a net at all. Well-meaning people offered ideas and suggestions, colleagues in the department shared links to job postings, and the college’s HR department sent around mostly useless links to job boards and resources.”

—Jennifer, early-career faculty member

Each of us is committed to teaching despite the daily realities of the profession. The question for us was never about if we would teach, but instead where and how. We landed new positions, but they have come with new challenges.

“I was offered a position to work at a local college that had adopted one of our closing college’s programs. This was a floating door in the frozen Atlantic, a silver lining. I didn’t have the need, nor the bandwidth, to negotiate. What I’m navigating now, however, is the prospect of starting over, once again.

“My friends from grad school are talking about their tenure reviews while I’m starting my clock anew. Starting over every two years means I’ve focused on getting classes established and acclimating, while regrettably letting scholarship take a back burner. At these teaching-focused institutions, tenure requirements for publications differ, and priorities are aligned with service and teaching. I always thought I had more time.”

—Jennifer, early-career faculty member

“Advocating for yourself is difficult. During negotiations, the new institution offered to honor my newly acquired rank as associate professor, which made the decision for me. However, given that the tenure requirements were different, I still needed to apply for tenure in the near future. Although moving to a new area was not in our family’s immediate plans, we found a house. Instead of a 90-minute commute, I had a 13-minute one—the same as for my old institution.”

—Julienne, midcareer faculty member

“I had to take what I could get. No one was offering my rank. I felt committed to living in my current home, since my children attended the local high school. All of my children are adopted or in foster care; consistency is key for them. I observed my ‘equivalent’ colleagues talk about retirement, adjunct positions, major pay cuts. Throughout my career, as a female, I have always doubted my expertise and found it difficult to say, ‘I’m worth more.’ Self- advocacy has never been my strength.”

—Terri, senior faculty member

One Year Later

We are not without hope. Despite the challenges facing higher education, and teacher-preparation programs in particular, we have each been reinvigorated beyond what we could have imagined.

Jennifer found a tenure-track position at a neighboring private institution and has a beautiful new son. Her advice might speak to other early-career faculty.

“I was once told not to say yes to everything in order to protect my time and energy. This has been sound advice, and I strive for work-life balance. I have benefited, however, from saying yes to some key opportunities. Taking on leadership and collaborative opportunities, such as IRB chair or assessment coordinator, or serving on collegewide committees even when feeling like a novice, have provided personal and professional growth.”

—Jennifer, early-career faculty member

Julienne received a promotion to associate professor just prior to the closure of the former institution. She negotiated with that advanced rank and relocated to a regional public comprehensive institution.

“As new faculty in an unfamiliar area, I am once again forging new relationships with other departments, staff and local school teachers and school officials. In many ways I am starting anew. However, my diverse skill set has served me well. I have extensive experience with online teaching, curriculum design and facilitating professional development, and have kept abreast of instructional technologies. I have turned those prior leadership skills into opportunities for research and program development. I continue to grow and learn from my colleagues.”

—Julienne, midcareer faculty member

Terri was sought by a fully online public comprehensive institution for her knowledge regarding accreditation, assessment and certification. She was granted assistant professor status and is restarting both the rank and tenure process. As the most senior of the authors of this article, her perspective might give reason for hope for other senior faculty.

“As I look back, I think we all failed to recognize how deeply troubled the institution was, how we each lost a bit of our passion and how stressful the work environment was. Now, six months removed and working without those previous stressors, I feel more focused and energetic. I didn’t know that my curiosity regarding online pedagogy, assessment and accreditation might lead me to this new opportunity. Diversification, like an investment portfolio, might serve us all well in academia—especially at small liberal arts institutions.”

—Terri, senior faculty member

We all believe the actions you take now may help you find your next position. So, we provide our limited experience advice below:
- Diversify your academic portfolio. Develop a secondary passion in online pedagogy, accreditation or program assessment. These diversified interests may create new possibilities in policy development, technology or research roles in state government.
- Become involved in and network within professional organizations, including, for teacher educators and state and local teacher-preparation organizations. Meaningful connections are often forged within those networks. Tenure is nice, but diversified interests and a record of leadership in professional activities can go a long way.
- Develop a track record demonstrating a strong work ethic and responsiveness to the learning needs of a diverse student body. Create peer-mentor programs, develop tutoring programs at local schools and help the college provide strong mentorship to students who might be underperforming. It will prove extremely beneficial for others and for you.
- Help your institution become more nimble. Take a direct role in responding to societal changes with urgency; the survival of the institution depends on flexible delivery while staying true to the mission.
As the three of us adjust to our new environments, we wonder why so little research explores the realities of college closure for tenured and tenure-track faculty. We are now considering research that might delve into deeper questions.
1. Do faculty outside our field of teacher education experience the closure of an institution, the employment search and re-employment in similar ways?
2. Has the trend of college closures impacted women in higher education differently and/or disproportionally than our male counterparts?
3. What elements of ageism, sexism, racism, etc., are impacting job searches and negotiating processes for faculty after a closure?
4. Are early-career faculty more likely to experience multiple closures?
5. What impact might multiple closures have on one’s career and identity?
While it is an area of study filled with turmoil, we envision continuing this line of research. We believe many college faculty members might benefit from the collective wisdom of colleagues caught in the same situation. We hope to continue to provide direction and support for our colleagues who might need to find a new academic home.

Jennifer N. Suriano is an assistant professor of education at Siena College. Terri Ward is an assistant professor at Empire State University. Julienne Cuccio Slichko is an associate professor of special education at the State University of New York at Oneonta. All three previously served as faculty at the College of Saint Rose, which closed in 2024.
Source link
April 8, 2025
Armstrong to Take Sabbatical from Columbia

Armstrong led Columbia for seven tumultuous months.

Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Sirin Samman/Columbia University | Anna Moneymaker and Spencer Platt/Getty Images | mirza kadic/iStock/Getty Images | Ryan Quinn/Inside Higher Ed

After stepping down as interim president of Columbia University late last month, Katrina Armstrong will take a sabbatical from Columbia’s Irving Medical Center, where she has served as chief executive officer since 2022, the institution announced Sunday in a brief statement.

Armstrong is taking a sabbatical to spend time with her family, the university noted.

Armstrong led Columbia for a mere seven months after her predecessor, Minouche Shafik, resigned abruptly in August amid scrutiny from Congress and faculty members over her handling of pro-Palestinian protests. As president, Armstrong yielded to a list of sweeping demands from the Trump administration, overhauling disciplinary processes, adding 36 officers with the authority to make arrests and enacting other changes in an effort to regain $400 million in federal funding frozen by the administration.

Armstrong’s acquiescence to the Trump administration sparked concerns among many Columbia faculty members and others in higher education who wanted to see the university fight back. The Trump administration has not restored the frozen funds but has voiced approval of the changes.

Columbia announced the sabbatical the same day that the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news outlet, published a transcript of a deposition Armstrong gave to the Department of Health and Human Services as part of the ongoing civil rights investigation into the university.

In the transcript from the April 1 deposition, Armstrong responded multiple times that she had “no memory” of various antisemitic events alleged to have occurred at Columbia.

Armstrong also seemed fuzzy on the changes she enacted in response to Trump’s demands.

“Did you do anything as the interim president to implement these recommendations?” asked Sean Keveney, acting general counsel at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Armstrong responded that she had “stood up against all forms of harassment and discrimination, including antisemitism. While the last year is very much a blur … the administration is deeply committed to addressing antisemitism,” she said, adding that she would “need to look at specifics.”

Armstrong also expressed uncertainty about whether or not she had reviewed a letter from the General Services Administration stating that Columbia’s funding was under review, responding that she had received what “feels like dozens of letters,” some of which had multiple signatories.

“Do you remember a point in the last month when the federal government stopped funding to the University of Columbia?” a government official asked, incorrectly stating the institution’s name.

“I think I would have to understand more specifically what you’re referring to,” she responded.

Armstrong’s lack of recollection seemed to prompt frustration.

“I guess I’m just trying to understand how you have such a terrible memory of specific incidents of antisemitism when you’re clearly an intelligent doctor?” Keveney asked Armstrong at one point.

That question and a related one drew objections from Columbia’s legal counsel.

In other parts of the deposition, Keveney pressed Armstrong on whether she walked back an agreement to clamp down on masks at protests. While Armstrong enacted certain changes that would require protesters to remove their masks when asked to do so by university officials, she reportedly downplayed the notion of a ban on face coverings in a meeting with faculty members last month.

“Isn’t it true that in private with the faculty, you backed away from what you said the university was going to do?” Keveney asked, referencing a faculty meeting held on Zoom in late March.

Armstrong denied doing so, citing a public statement after that meeting that reiterated her commitment to the agreement with the Trump administration. She told the HHS attorney, “I have been and remain and have always been fully committed to the steps in that statement.” She added that those steps “are the right thing to do for Columbia” and for its students.

The deposition also revealed the challenges she faced on the job in recent months.

“It’s obviously been an incredibly difficult period for me, for the university,” Armstrong said in one of multiple responses that showed the immense pressure she was under as interim president.

Columbia’s Board of Trustees responded to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment on the latest news about Armstrong with a statement that read, “Columbia University is firmly committed to resolving the issues raised by our federal regulators, with respect to discrimination, harassment, and antisemitism, and implementing the policy changes and commitments outlined in our March 21st letter. This testimony does not reflect the hard work undertaken by the University to combat antisemitism, harassment, and discrimination and ensure the safety and wellbeing of our community.”

Columbia’s medical school will continue under interim leadership, which has been in place since Armstrong assumed the interim presidency. Columbia also has a new interim president in place: Last month the Board of Trustees elevated fellow member and co-chair Claire Shipman to the role.

Source link

April 8, 2025
10 things universities can learn from mergers in the FE sector
James Clark is a Managing Director at Interpath Advisory, the UK’s largest independent Restructuring and professional advisory firm. James is co-lead of Interpath’s Education Team and has advised on over 20 mergers and potential mergers in the FE and HE sectors. In this blog, James explains 10 things universities can learn from mergers in the FE sector.

Few people connected with the sector would contest that higher education institutions are coming under increasing pressures: a reduction in overseas students due to visa changes, inflationary pressures caused by macroeconomic factors and government policy, increased competition via alternative routes for 18+ students and plain and simple population patterns.

Many of these headwinds were experienced by further education (FE) colleges not that long ago, and many would agree these have not vanished completely. The Area Review process, led by the FE Commissioner, sought to remove inefficiency across sixth forms and colleges – as this author would put it (admittedly in crudely simplistic terms) – by taking colleges that are half full, removing excess capacity and leaving fewer college groups which are full. Is it time for higher education (HE) to follow suit? Is it inevitable that HE will do so, though perhaps not on the scale seen in the Area Review process? Should we be seeing more mergers, more economies of scale, and more collaboration to navigate the gales?

I’m not suggesting FE and HE are directly comparable. But they are both in the business of education, both have people at the heart of their institutions (on a major scale), both manage big cost bases and both suffer from similar issues around competition and government policy. So are there things that higher education institutions can learn from a major upheaval started in FE in 2015?

10 things we can learn from FE mergers

Are the cultures of the merging institutions aligned? One of the major obstacles to mergers (which either create an upfront barrier or mean that post-merger difficulties arise) is that the institutions have very different values and cultures. Existing relationships may help parties understand whether they are a good fit for each other. Management teams contemplating mergers would help themselves by reaching out and starting a dialogue or by increasing the frequency of their catch-ups.

Understand the regulatory landscape. Navigating the regulatory landscape and remaining compliant with educational policy is complex and will be breaking new ground for many management teams. Knowledge of precedents and other case studies will be helpful. Advisor relationships are helpful here. A number of advisors, both in the financial space and legal space, emerged as market leaders during the Area Review process.

Understand your stakeholders and take them on a journey. Banks, governing boards, the Department for Education, the Office for Students, pension scheme trustees. Do not underestimate the different angles each will be coming from. Each will want to know ‘what’s in it for me?’ and care will be needed to ensure each stakeholder feels supported by the merger. Poor communication and a lack of engagement could lead to opposition and unwanted obstacles.

Agree a governance structure at an early stage. Effective and committed leadership is essential for a smooth transition. Conflicts in governance will create unnecessary barriers from the off. Successful mergers I have worked on have had Chairs who have worked together from the off – being like-minded, especially in the desire for success, to leave a legacy and preserve for the next generation has been key,

Grip & Control. Create a steering committee. Set milestones and deadlines and be held to account. Clearly identify what’s on the critical path. If planned well, mergers typically happen on 1 August. Delays to the process could see management teams having to manage critical parts of the merger in term time. Many of the mergers I have worked on have had turnaround directors managing the process.

Don’t assume the plan ends on day 1 of the merger. A 100-day post-integration plan will also be required, with dedicated resource to deliver operational control, as well as the expected benefits of the merger. Failure to plan for this could result in significant operational disruption, for example, if administrative, curriculum support, and IT systems need to be merged. The Area Review process made the 100-day plan part of its requirement for merger support.

Clearly understand the rationale for the merger. Educational improvement? Cost savings? Revenue protection? This may then determine your chosen merger partner.

Crunch the numbers and make sure it stacks up financially. Exploring and delivering a merger will not be cheap, with significant input from legal and financial advisors required, both before, during, and post-integration. Ensuring tangible benefits can be secured from a merger is crucial. Again, those successful mergers involved specialist financial personnel, often interims with expertise in education, to examine the potential benefits prior to the merger.

First mover advantage. Don’t leave it too late to determine that a merger is right, or even essential to your survival. Be front-footed – the more time given over to the proposed merger, the smoother the process will be, and the more optimal the decisions made.

A merger might not be right, but other structures may be available. Whilst a number of FE institutions decided to abandon merger plans, this gave the institutions time to properly examine their long-term strategy, their cost base, and other potential “alliance-type” shared services models.

Some would argue that the FE mergers have provided an opportunity for a reset, benefitting from a huge Government funding pot. Many (and not without great leadership) have successfully turned around the fortunes of financially and educationally stumbling colleges.

One beacon that shines for me, which I had the pleasure of supporting, is the merger of Telford College of Arts and Technology and New College Telford. Within a short period of time, its financial health was upgraded to Outstanding, and its Ofsted upgraded to Good. A remarkable turnaround and testament to a focused and forward-thinking management team and governing body that, when faced with the task, grabbed it with both hands and drove it hard.
Source link
April 8, 2025
Regulating partnership provision can help everyone
On a Monday morning in late March, ninety strangers sit down together at the base of one of the towering pillars of glass and steel that pierce the spring blue skies of the City of London to talk about collaboration.

This was no ivory tower. At mixed tables across the room sat the emissaries of universities old and new, adult community colleges, specialist institutes and industry training centres – awarding providers, teaching providers, and sector bodies too.

Partners for the day, they heard from sector experts about the latest developments in the policy and practice of academic partnerships and then translated what they learned into their own institutional context through lively and productive small group discussions.

You might think that the previous day’s headlines would not have made for the most auspicious backdrop to proceedings, but if anything they instilled in the participants of IHE’s first annual Academic Partnerships Conference a clarity of purpose and an impassioned defence of the genuine importance and transformational value of high-quality collaborative provision.

Not all partnerships! The silent cry went up. And not all franchises either.

The value of partnership

Let’s be absolutely clear: academic partnerships are nothing new in higher education. England’s oldest universities – Oxford, Cambridge, London – are themselves nothing less than partnerships in motion, organisational structures evolved to facilitate collaboration across a number of independent self-governing institutions. Academic partnerships have remained the irresistible engine for the expansion of the UK’s higher education sector, driving wider access, greater diversity and more innovation in provision even while the specific models have continued to adapt to changing contexts and circumstances.

Today, fantastic examples of successful partnerships can be found everywhere you look and they can just as easily take the form of a validation agreement as a subcontractual relationship (aka franchise). While Degree Awarding Powers rightly remain a gold standard, many independent higher education providers would rather dedicate their precious time and focus towards the teaching, learning and industry knowledge exchange that forms the heart of their missions.

Partnerships should be prized and protected for their essential role in delivering higher education provision which responds to local, national and sector-specific needs. Let’s not forget that different groups of students with different backgrounds and different learning goals benefit enormously from higher education delivered through partnerships. We ignore their needs at our peril.

So everything is really fine? Move along, please, nothing to see here? Not quite. At IHE we are under no illusions that everyone in our sector has the same good intentions. It can be all too easy for those of us who work in higher education to believe that we are immune to some of the problems that rear their heads in other sectors. Sadly not. Education is a public good, a universal good, an elemental ingredient of civilisation, but this truth can make us naïve, obscuring the loopholes that still exist and the risks that operating in such an open system built on trust can create.

Regulating partners

IHE shares the Government’s ambition to strengthen oversight of subcontracted delivery that underpins DfE’s proposals but the proposals themselves miss the mark, as set out in our response to the consultation. If we are serious about doing this, then there are five areas of focus to which we must turn our collective attention – and fast:
- due diligence on every provider’s suitability as a partner, and the fitness and propriety of their management and governance;
- transparency on ownership and the terms of any contract for provision;
- accountability which is clearly assigned between each partner for the critical aspects of provision;
- quality and standards which are managed effectively by the relevant partner at the appropriate level; and
- flexibility in any oversight process so that we continue to facilitate the full range of diverse providers with something different to offer the higher education sector.
The absolute and non-negotiable starting point for an effective regulatory system must be that the regulator knows who is really in charge of every provider it regulates, and to be able to hold them to account. Ambitions aside, the OfS needs to be far more effective at identifying and keeping out individuals who are simply not fit and proper persons to share in the honour and responsibility of stewarding an English higher education institution.

Thankfully, the OfS proposals under consultation to strengthen its conditions of registration in relation to governance and student protection signal a new seriousness in its approach to this challenge – and are long overdue. The regulator is on the right track with its plans to take a much closer look at ownership, and in trying to identify unfair and inappropriate practices in relation to student recruitment and admissions.

Any institution in the business of academic partnerships should be taking a close look at these reforms. These are issues that are important to everyone with a stake in the success of the higher education sector. It is in the entire sector’s interest, in the public interest – and nobody’s more than students’ – that the regulator carves out a constructive and collaborative role for itself in this space, helping to facilitate the positive impact of partnerships while minimising the risk of criminal elements exploiting vulnerabilities in the system.

Rethinking registration

But could the OfS go further? What if there was a new approach to registration? A category explicitly intended for providers operating in partnership, designed to fill the gaps in oversight that universities cannot on their own, while letting them lead on the academic quality assurance that is their forte. A process built from the ground up to secure the most essential assurances, that can be proportionately applied to different sizes of institution, and efficiently delivered against clear timetables and stretching service standards.

A paradigm shift towards expecting every would-be delivery partner to complete such a due diligence process could, at a stroke, drive up standards of transparency and ethical behaviours, and better protect genuine students and the public purse from the threat of academic predators. Only a statutory regulator can really achieve this, with its access to intelligence from other public authorities. There is no reason why an awarding institution would not require a potential delivery partner to undertake this process prior to approving their first course. Indeed a centralised due diligence process delivered efficiently at scale could be used to streamline and speed up a partner’s own institutional approval processes.

At the same time we in the sector’s leadership should be working at pace with all stakeholders on the development of a better shared understanding and greater mutual agreement over what constitutes the most effective policies and practices in partnership provision. The absence of sector-wide standards or accepted best practice in this area, combined with higher education’s generally held principles of transparency being too often trumped by commercial sensitivities, are what has allowed pockets of poor practice and a risk of exploitation by bad actors to grow unchecked by effective regulation.

Simply requiring providers of an arbitrary size to register with the OfS without any critical analysis of the proportionality or effectiveness of current regulation will not achieve our aims and could easily make matters worse. Even the failure of one significant delivery partner to pass the ill-fitting regulatory hurdles set under the current proposals – let alone, say, a dozen – would create extreme jeopardy for thousands of students and place the system as a whole under unbearable pressure. We will sleepwalk into this situation if we do not change course.

It would be far better to make awarding institutions properly accountable for the policies, practices and performance of their delivery partners now, while giving them the regulatory tools to help them achieve more effective oversight, than to create a new Whitehall bureaucracy with a single point of predictable failure as DfE’s proposed designation gateway does. Far better to create a dedicated process focused on a deeper due diligence which properly accounts for the actual strengths, vulnerabilities and diversity of partnership models.

Academic partnerships are here to stay. A flexible, proportionate and efficient process which applies regulatory scrutiny where it is most needed can offer a foundation for sector-led efforts to enhance the quality, transparency and consistency that students should expect.

We all have a part to play. And we need to get this right. It is essential for the reputation of the higher education sector that we do. As partners in this collective endeavour, it is time for us to shine a light on this invaluable work that has spent too long in the shadows.
Source link
April 7, 2025
How colleges can improve financial transparency in fee payments
Effective higher education fee management maximizes revenue, reduces losses, and builds confidence with students and parents. However, 65% of institutions lose money owing to obsolete, manual processes (EDUFinance 2024). This is where student fees collection software shines.

Let’s look at 10 data-driven strategies to improve student fee collection software for transparency and efficiency.

Why Modern Student Fees Collection Software Matters

Did you know 37% of college finance teams track fees using spreadsheets, which can lead to errors and miscalculations (Campus Finance Survey, 2024)? Student finance cloud technologies automate complex operations, reduce manual errors, and offer a transparent, real-time financial environment.

How colleges can improve financial transparency in fee payments? 10 proven ways.

1. One seamless student registration and data sync

Create comprehensive student profiles automatically matched with student information systems (SIS) including demographic data, course information, and financial details. Institutions running linked data systems report 23% faster fee processing.

2. Clearly structured fees

Fee breakdowns cause 48% of parents to argue (EdTech Insights, 2023). Flexible fees per department, course, or service offer upfront transparency and easier payments.

3. Channel-wide fee collection automation

Students prefer mobile payments 72% (Higher Ed Payment Trends, 2024). Make websites, mobile apps, and self-service portals accept rapid payments. Automated schools collected fees 27% faster and missed 15% fewer.

4. Fine automation, absenteeism tracking

Establish absenteeism and late payment penalties. Automation has reduced fee defaulters by 19% and ensures regular sanctions without manual follow-up.

5. Role-based security to protect finances

Role-based access control is non-negotiable even if 63% of higher education institutions report financial intrusions (EduCyberReport, 2024). Minimizing fraud and mistakes, only authorised staff should handle fee data.

6. Parent portals for real-time fee visibility

Parents demand more financial participation in their children’s education (82%, ParentPulse Survey, 2024). Parents receive transparent information regarding dues, invoices, and payment schedules via a portal, decreasing late payments.

7. Automatic fee calculations for billing free of errors

Errors in manual fee computation affect institutions’ annual income up to 4%. Calculate fees automatically using pre-defined criteria to guarantee correct, current billing for every student.

8. Waivers, fee concessions, and flexible payment options

Offer waivers, discounts, and flexible payment arrangements without any confusion on the back end. Supporting financially challenged students with structured payment plans resulted in 12% higher retention rates for colleges that have implemented this approach.

9. Automatic fee reminders for on-time payments

According to EduFinance Insights (2024), overlooked reminders account for 43% of late payments. Send automated fee reminders via email, SMS, and push notifications to significantly reduce the number of late payments.

10. Real time financial transparency reports

Access transaction history, income breakdowns, and outstanding amounts instantly. Real-time reporting improved financial forecasting and reconciliation for 89% of finance directors.

The Bottom Line: Future-Proof Your Fee Management with Creatrix Campus

Why let outdated processes drain your institution’s revenue? With Creatrix Campus Fee Management Software, higher education institutions can achieve:
- Faster fee collection with automation and mobile payments
- Enhanced financial transparency for students, parents, and administrators
- Stronger security with role-based access and encrypted data
- Real-time insights for smarter, data-driven financial decisions
Ready to transform your fee collection process? Let Creatrix Campus help you boost efficiency, ensure transparency, and future-proof your institution’s financial operations.
Source link
April 7, 2025
UConn Med now lets students opt out of DEI pledge of allegiance

Great news: UConn School of Medicine administrators are going scalpels down on the school’s attempt to forcibly transplant politics and ideology into its incoming student body.

In 2022, UConn finalized its own version of the Hippocratic Oath, which includes a promise to “actively support policies that promote social justice and specifically work to dismantle policies that perpetuate inequities, exclusion, discrimination and racism.” Most recently, UConn required the incoming class of 2028 to pledge allegiance not simply to patient care, but to support diversity, equity, and inclusion.

In January, an admissions staff member at the medical school told FIRE that the oath is mandatory for students. That’s a problem because, as a public university, UConn is strictly bound by the First Amendment and cannot compel students to voice beliefs they do not hold.

Concerned about this and similar cases, FIRE wrote the UConn School of Medicine on Jan. 31, calling on the school to make clear that students have every right to refuse to pledge allegiance to DEI.

We got back radio silence.

After following up via email, we finally got some good news from UConn. The school’s communications director clarified, “UConn’s medical school does not mandate nor monitor a student’s reciting of all or part of our Hippocratic Oath, nor do we discipline any student for choosing to not recite the oath or any part of it.”

Public institutions have every right to try to address any bias that might impact medical education. But forcing med students to pledge themselves to DEI — or any other political ideology — is First Amendment malpractice. They have no more right to do so than they do to force students to pledge allegiance to a political figure, or to the American flag.

In the landmark 1943 case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court held that students could not be forced to salute the American flag, saying, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

In the medical context it gets even worse, as these nebulous commitments could become de facto professionalism standards, with students facing punishment for failing to uphold them. (After all, they took an oath!) What, exactly, must a medical student do to “support policies that promote social justice?” Presumably, that would be for UConn to determine. And if a student disagrees with UConn’s definition of “social justice” or chooses not to promote it in the prescribed way, could she be dismissed for violating her oath?

FIRE has repeatedly seen administrators of professional programs — including medicine, dentistry, law, and mortuary science — deploy ambiguous and arbitrarily defined “professionalism” standards to punish students for otherwise protected speech. It’s no stretch to imagine it happening here as well.

UConn isn’t alone in making changes to its version of the Hippocratic Oath. Other prestigious medical schools, including those at Harvard, Columbia, Washington University, Pitt Med, and the Icahn School of Medicine have adopted similarly updated oaths in recent years. However, not all schools compel students to recite such oaths.

When we raised concerns in 2022 about the University of Minnesota Medical School’s oath, which includes an affirmation that the school is on indigenous land and a vow to fight “white supremacy,” the university confirmed that students are not obligated to recite it.

We’re glad that UConn has now done the same. FIRE celebrates this surgical success, and we won’t stand by while schools try to graft ideology onto student minds.

Source link

April 7, 2025
Scholars’ Stories of Losing Federal Funding

Fifteen researchers across a range disciplines from the biomedical sciences and STEM to education and political science share their experiences of losing research grants and what impact the loss of billions of dollars in federal funding will have on science, public health and education in Inside Higher Ed today.

The Trump administration told researchers Rebecca Fielding-Miller, Nicholas Metheny and Sarah Peitzmeier that trainings connected to their National Institutes of Health grant focused on the prevention of intimate partner violence against pregnant and perinatal women were “antithetical to the scientific inquiry, do nothing to expand our knowledge of living systems, provide low returns on investment, and ultimately do not enhance health, lengthen life, or reduce illness.”

“We could not disagree more,” Fielding-Miller, Metheny and Peitzmeier write. “Anyone who has cared for a child or for the person who gave birth to them knows that preventing maternal and infant death and abuse should be a nonpartisan issue. The current administration is intent on making even this issue into ‘us’ versus ‘them.’ When it comes to public health, there is no such thing.”

Meanwhile, Judith Scott-Clayton writes that the decision to cancel a Department of Education grant funding a first-of-its-kind randomized evaluation of the Federal Work-Study program—four and a half years into a six-year project—will leave policymakers “flying blind.”

“Since 1964, the FWS program has disbursed more than $95 billion in awards,” Scott-Clayton wrote. “In comparison, our grant was less than three-thousandths of 1 percent of that amount, and the amount remaining to finish our work and share our findings with the public was just a fraction of that.”

Read all of the scholars’ stories here.

Source link

April 7, 2025