The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill made clear Friday that it won’t sign the federal “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” that has been extended to all institutions after seven of the original nine universities invited rejected the offer, WRAL reported.
Last month the Trump administration floated a plan for preferential treatment on federal funding in exchange for universities overhauling admissions and hiring practices, freezing tuition for five years, capping international enrollment at 15 percent, and making various other concessions that many critics have warned will undermine academic freedom.
UNC Chapel Hill chancellor Lee Roberts said Friday that while the university has not received a formal invitation from the Trump administration, he is not interested in the arrangement.
“There are some parts of the compact that we are already doing and there are some parts that would be difficult or impossible,” Roberts said in a faculty council meeting, according to WRAL. “There’s no way we can sign the compact as written and we don’t plan to.”
Invitations to the compact were initially sent to Brown University, Dartmouth College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Arizona, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University. All but two declined—Vanderbilt said it would provide feedback and Texas has yet to offer a public response.
Multiple others also announced pre-emptive rejections after the initial invitation went out, including Emory University, Pennsylvania State University, Syracuse University and the University of Kansas. So far, only two institutions have announced intentions to sign the compact: New College of Florida and Valley Forge Military College in Pennsylvania.
Since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022, higher education as a sector has grappled with the role large language models and generative artificial intelligence tools can and should play in students’ lives.
A recent survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that nearly all college students say they know how and when to use AI for their coursework, which they attribute largely to faculty instruction or syllabus language.
Eighty-seven percent of respondents said they know when to use AI, with the share of those saying they don’t shrinking from 31 percent in spring 2024 to 13 percent in August 2025.
The greatest share of respondents (41 percent) said they know when to use AI because their professors include statements in their syllabi explaining appropriate and inappropriate AI use. An additional 35 percent said they know because their instructors have addressed it in class.
“It’s good news that students feel like they understand the basic ground rules for when AI is appropriate,” said Dylan Ruediger, principal for the research enterprise at Ithaka S+R. “It suggests that there are some real benefits to having faculty be the primary point of contact for information about what practices around AI should look like.”
The data points to a trend in higher education to move away from a top-down approach of organizing AI policies to a more decentralized approach, allowing faculty to be experts in their subjects.
“I think that faculty should have wide latitudes to teach their courses how they see fit. Trusting them to understand what’s pedagogically appropriate for their ways of teaching and within their discipline” is a smart place to start, Ruediger said.
The challenge becomes how to create campuswide priorities for workforce development that ensure all students, regardless of major program, can engage in AI as a career tool and understand academic integrity expectations.
Student Perspectives
While the survey points to institutional efforts to integrate AI into the curriculum, some students remain unaware or unsure of when they can use AI tools. Only 17 percent of students said they are aware of appropriate AI use cases because their institution has published a policy on the subject, whereas 25 percent said they know when to use AI because they’ve researched the topic themselves.
Ruediger hypothesizes that some students learn about AI tools and their uses from peers in addition to their own research.
Some demographic groups were less likely than others to be aware of appropriate AI use on campus, signaling disparities in who’s receiving this information. Nearly one-quarter of adult learners (aged 25 or older) said they don’t know how or when to use AI for coursework, compared to 10 percent of their traditional-aged peers. Similarly, two-year college students were less likely to say they are aware of appropriate use cases (20 percent) than their four-year peers (10 percent).
Students working full-time (19 percent) or those who had dropped out for a semester (20 percent) were also more likely to say they don’t know when to use AI.
While decentralizing AI policies and giving autonomy to faculty members can better serve academic freedom and AI applications, having clearly outlined and widely available policies also benefits students.
“There is a scenario here where [AI] rules are left somewhat informal and inconsistent that ends up giving an advantage to students who have more cultural capital or are better positioned to understand hidden curricular issues,” Ruediger said.
In a survey of provosts and chief academic officers this fall, Inside Higher Ed found that one in five provosts said their institution is taking an intentionally hands-off approach to regulating AI use, with no formal governance or policies about AI. Fourteen percent of respondents indicated their institution has established a comprehensive AI governance policy or institutional strategy, but the greatest share said they are still developing policies.
A handful of students also indicated they have no interest in ever using AI.
In 2024, 2 percent of Student Voice survey respondents (n=93) wrote in “other” responses to the question, “Do you have a clear sense of when, how or whether to use generative artificial intelligence to help with your coursework?” More than half of those responses—55—expressed distrust, disdain or disagreement with the use of generative AI. That view appears to be growing; this year, 3 percent of respondents (n=138) wrote free responses, and 113 comments opposed AI use in college for ethical or personal reasons.
“I hate AI we should never ever ever use it,” wrote one second-year student at a community college in Wyoming. “It’s terrible for the environment. People who use AI lack critical thinking skills and just use AI as a cop out.”
The Institutional Perspective
A separate survey fielded by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that more than half of student success administrators (55 percent) reported that their institution is “somewhat effective” at helping students understand how, when and whether to use generative AI tools in academic settings. (“Somewhat effective” is defined as “there being some structured efforts, but guidance is not consistent or comprehensive.”)
More than one-third (36 percent) reported their institution is not very effective—meaning they offer limited guidance and many students rely on informal or independent learning—and 2 percent said their institution is “very effective,” or that students receive clear guidance across multiple channels.
Ithaka S+R published its own study this spring, which found that the average instructor had at least experimented with using AI in classroom activities. According to Inside Higher Ed’s most recent survey of provosts, two-thirds of respondents said their institution offers professional development for faculty on AI or integrating AI into the curriculum.
Engaging Students in AI
Some colleges and universities have taken measures to ensure all students are aware of ethical AI use cases.
Indiana University created an online course, GenAI 101, for anyone with a campus login to earn a certificate denoting they’ve learned about practical applications for AI tools, ethical considerations of using those tools and how to fact-check content produced by AI.
This year the University of Mary Washington offered students a one-credit online summer course on how to use generative AI tools, which covered academic integrity, professional development applications and how to evaluate AI output.
The State University of New York system identified AI as a core competency to be included in all general education courses for undergraduates. All classes that fulfill the information literacy competency requirement will include a lesson on AI ethics and literacy starting fall 2026.
Touro University is requiring all faculty members to include an AI statement in their syllabi by next spring, Shlomo Argamon, associate provost for artificial intelligence, told Inside Higher Ed in a podcast episode. The university also has an official AI policy that serves as the default if faculty do not have more or less restrictive policies.
UK universities are under mounting financial pressure. Join HEPI and King’s College London Policy Institute today at 1pm for a webinar on how universities balance relatively stable but underfunded income streams against higher-margin but volatile sources. Register now. We look forward to seeing you there.
This blog was kindly authored by Dr Roy Hanney, Associate Professor at Southampton Solent University.
The launch of the new Solent and South Hampshire Regional Film Office marks a major step forward for the region’s creative economy. Funded by Solent Growth Partners and driven by a consortium of local authorities and cultural development agencies, the film office will provide a single point of contact for productions, market the region as a go-to location for filming and open up new opportunities for local businesses and talent.
Behind the scenes of this development is a quieter story – one of research, knowledge exchange, and the often-unseen role universities play in helping ideas like this one take root and grow.
From research to impact
The idea of a regional film office did not emerge overnight. It was first identified in research carried out at Southampton Solent University as part of a Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange (RIKE) project between 2020 and 2021. It was a response to priorities set out in key strategy documents – including the Creative Network South Creative Industries Declaration and Arts Council England’s cultural strategy for Portsmouth – both of which highlighted the need for stronger infrastructure to support the creative economy.
The RIKE project gathered evidence, brought together stakeholders, and produced a Theory of Change report for the screen industries in the Solent region. Among its recommendations was the establishment of a regional film office – not simply as an administrative function, but as a vital piece of creative infrastructure: connecting talent pipelines, supporting independent productions, promoting the region internationally, and providing a business case for sustained investment.
This research provided the evidential basis for further strategic conversations through a series of Screen Industries Cluster meetings hosted in partnership with Fareham College, Creative Network South, and the Southern Policy Centre. These gatherings brought local authorities, policymakers, production companies, and cultural organisations into the same room to test ideas, compare models, and make informed decisions about what would help build our region’s creative economy.
By December 2024, the Solent Screen Support Feasibility Study was launched, presenting a collaborative roadmap for a film office and confirming broad support across councils, cultural agencies, and regional development bodies.
The enabling role of universities
Universities are anchor institutions and, at every stage of this journey, Southampton Solent University played an important role of enablement. It’s often unseen, but it’s by no means any less key. And, by supporting my involvement in this project as part of my research and knowledge exchange remit, the University has created the conditions for academic insight to inform policy and practice.
This is a subtle but essential contribution. Universities are uniquely placed to:
Provide research-led evidence that turns ideas into persuasive business cases.
Convene cross-sector conversations by offering neutral space and credibility.
Sustain continuity across the long timelines of public sector change.
Support thought leadership by connecting academic expertise with industry needs.
The Solent Film Office is not a “university project” — it is a collaborative achievement led by local authorities and funded by Solent Growth Partners. Yet, it is also fair to say that without the groundwork of university research and facilitation, the momentum to make it happen may not have been sustained.
A shared regional asset
With FilmFixer now appointed to establish and operate the new agency, the Solent Film Office is set to work across nine local authority areas, providing a one-stop shop for production companies, marketing the region as a filming destination, and unlocking opportunities for skills development and local business engagement.
For our university, the benefits are many and varied. Students will have access to an industry landscape that is better coordinated and more visible. Academics can continue to collaborate with policymakers and industry to shape sustainable growth. As a region, we stand to capture a greater share of the economic and cultural value generated by film and television production.
Regional development? Universities are key
The story of the Solent Film Office illustrates something bigger about the role of universities in regional development. Universities are not only educators and research producers. They are also infrastructures of support: institutions that provide the long-term stability, intellectual resources, and convening power necessary to get important initiatives off the ground.
Infrastructures are rarely noticed until they are missing. In this case, the research, networks, and continuity provided by Solent have been crucial in helping partners move from strategy documents to a real, funded institution. The film office will stand as a visible achievement, and Solent’s contribution has been embedded in the process that made it possible.
The success of the Solent Film Office reminds us that universities are not just ivory towers, but anchor institutions embedded in place. They provide the connective tissue that enables ideas to become reality. Sometimes, that makes all the difference.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Undergraduate enrollment is on track to grow 2.4% year over year this fall, driving a 2% overall rise in higher education enrollment, according to preliminary data released Tuesday by theNational Student Clearinghouse Research Center. This marks the third year in a row of undergraduate enrollment growth.
Graduate enrollment stayed largely level — up 0.1% compared to the year prior. Enrollment in master’s programs, which host almost two-thirds of this fall’s graduate students, declined by 0.6%. Conversely, doctoral-level programs saw a 1.1% increase in students.
The clearinghouse also found that students’ choice of studies is shifting. Enrollment in computer and information sciences dropped this fall — ranging from a 5.8% decline at two-year institutions to a 15% nosedive in graduate programs — while numbers of health and trade majors rose.
Dive Insight:
Enrollment increased in both shorter-term programs and those that prepare students to work in the trades, the clearinghouse found.
Two-year institutions saw a 8.3% year-over-year enrollment increase in engineering technologies and technicians programs this fall. Mechanic and repair technologies and technicians majors also grew 10.4% at those institutions.
And enrollment rose 6.6% in undergraduate certificates and 3.1% in associate programs.Bachelor’s degrees, in comparison, saw a smaller year-over-year enrollment increase of 1.2%.
On a call with reporters Monday, Matthew Holsapple, the clearinghouse’s senior director of research, stressed that the organization did not conduct student interviews or collect data about their enrollment motivations.
But when asked if the decline in computer science enrollment was a side effect of the proliferation of artificial intelligence, he acknowledged that researchers “have seen the same news reports that you all have seen about challenges in the field,” such as AI-related layoffs in technology sectors.
“I assume students are also seeing that, and they’re using that kind of information to make their decisions,” Holsapple said.
Like last year, community colleges once again came out the winner among institutional types this fall. Public two-year colleges saw 4% annual enrollment growth. That’s compared to 1.9% growth at public four-year institutions and 0.9% at four-year private nonprofits.
“Students continue to gravitate towards vocational certificates and associate degrees, leaving less momentum for growth among bachelors’ seekers,” Doug Shapiro, the clearinghouse’s executive director, said in a statement.
Tuesday’s preliminary data is based on some 8.5 million students at just under half of the U.S. postsecondary institutions that report to the clearinghouse. The report marks the organization’sfirst preliminary enrollment dispatch since announcing a striking methodology error early this year.
In January, the clearinghouse said an undisclosed number of its preliminary enrollment reports had mistakenly counted some first-year college students as dual-enrolled students, who are high school students also taking college classes. That preliminary enrollment report series, called Stay Informed, began in 2020.
Holsapple said Monday that the clearinghouse did not include dual enrollment data in Tuesday’s report. It‘s the first of the group’s new preliminary enrollment series, called Clearinghouse Enrollment Insights.In a release, it said the report has “enhanced methodology, clarified reporting structure, and better connections between preliminary and final data.”
The clearinghouse plans to release its final fall enrollment report in mid-January.
Across higher education, the conversation about digital transformation has shifted from connection to capability. Most universities are digitally connected, yet few are digitally mature
The challenge for 2026 and beyond is not whether institutions use technology, but whether their systems and partnerships enable people and processes to work together to strengthen institutional capacity, learner outcomes, and agility.
Boundless Learning’s 2025 Higher Education Technology and Strategy Survey underscored this transition: 95 per cent of leaders said education management partners are appealing, and one in three described them as extremely so. Yet preferences are changing: modular, fee-for-service models now outpace traditional revenue-sharing arrangements, signalling a desire for flexibility and control.
Leaders also identified their top digital priorities: innovation enablement (53 per cent), streamlined faculty workflows (52 per cent), and integrated analytics (49 per cent). In other words, universities are no longer chasing the next platform; they want systems that think.
Why systems thinking matters
That idea is central to Suha Tamim’s workAnalyzing the Complexities of Online Education Systems: A Systems Thinking Perspective. Tamim frames online education as a dynamic ecosystem in which a change in one area, such as technology, pedagogy, or management, ripples through the whole. She argues that institutions need a “systems-level” view connecting the macro (strategy), meso (infrastructure and management), and micro (teaching and learning) layers.
Seen this way, technology decisions become design choices that shape the culture and operations of the institution. Adopting a new platform is not just an IT project; it influences governance, academic workload, and the student experience. The goal is alignment across those levels so that each reinforces the other.
Boundless Learning’s Learning Experience Suite (LXS) embodies this approach. Rather than adding another application into an already crowded environment, LXS helps institutions orchestrate existing systems; linking learning management, analytics, and support functions into a cohesive, secure, learner-centred framework. It is a practical application of systems thinking: connecting data flows, surfacing insights, and simplifying faculty and learner experiences within one integrated ecosystem.
From outsourcing to empowering
The shift toward integration also reflects how universities engage external partners. Jeffrey Sun, Heather Turner, and Robert Cermak, in the American Journal of Distance Education, describe four main reasons universities outsource online programme management:
Responding quickly to competitive pressures
Accessing upfront capital
Filling capability gaps
Learning and scaling in-house
Their College Curation Strategy Framework shows that institutions partner with external providers not just to cut costs, but to build strategic capacity. Yet the traditional online programme management (OPM) model anchored in long-term revenue-share contracts has drawn criticism for limited transparency and loss of institutional control.
Our own data suggest that this critique is reshaping practice. Universities are moving from outsourcing to empowerment: seeking education-management partners who enhance internal capability rather than replace it. This evolution from OPMs to Education Management Partners (EMPs) marks a decisive turn toward collaborative, capacity-building relationships.
The Learning Experience Suite fits squarely within this new model. It is not an outsourced service but a connective layer that enables institutions to manage their digital ecosystems with greater visibility and confidence, while benefiting from enterprise-grade integration and security. It exemplifies partnership as a mechanism for capability development, a move from vendor management to shared strategic growth.
From fragmentation to fluency
Many institutions remain caught in what might be called digital fragmentation. According to our survey, nearly half of leaders cite data silos, disconnected platforms, and inconsistent learner experiences as obstacles to progress. These are not isolated technical issues; they are systemic barriers that affect pedagogy, governance, and institutional trust.
Tamim’s framework describes such misalignment as a state of “disequilibrium.” Overcoming it requires coordinated action across levels, strategic clarity from leadership, adaptive management structures, and interoperable tools that make integration intuitive. The objective is to move from digital accumulation to digital fluency: an environment where technology amplifies, rather than fragments, institutional purpose.
Learning Experience Suite was designed precisely to address this. By connecting data across systems, enabling real-time analytics, and ensuring accessibility through a mobile-first design, it allows institutions to build coherence and confidence in their digital operations.
Building partnerships
The next phase of higher education technology will be defined not by the tools universities choose but by the quality of their partnerships. As scholars like Sun have cautioned, outsourcing core academic functions without transparency can erode autonomy. Conversely, partnerships grounded in shared governance, open data, and aligned values can strengthen the academic mission.
For Boundless Learning, this is the central opportunity of the coming decade: to reimagine partnership as co-evolution. Universities, platforms, and providers function best as interconnected actors within a wider learning system, each contributing expertise to advance learner success and institutional resilience.
When viewed through a systems lens, the key question is no longer whether universities should outsource, but how they orchestrate. The challenge is to combine the right mix of internal capability, external expertise, and interoperable technology to achieve measurable impact.
That, ultimately, is what digital maturity requires and what the Learning Experience Suite was designed to deliver.
Every Monday at 11.30am, a siren echoes across Plymouth.
It’s the routine test signal to take cover in the event of a nuclear incident and a haunting sound that reminds us that Devonport dockyard – western Europe’s largest naval base, and the area’s biggest employer – dominates the edge of our city.
It’s also a timely signal that Plymouth is entering a new era of defence-driven growth – and the University of Plymouth is right in the middle of it.
Being special
The words specialism and specialist appear frequently in the Government’s recent Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper. So, what moves do we make, here in Plymouth, and what does our approach suggest for the higher education sector more broadly?
As I begin my second year as vice chancellor, I’ve seen Plymouth shift from a city with potential to one with purpose – shaped by maritime defence, marine autonomy, and national security. The city is one of five places allocated a Defence Growth Deal, alongside Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and South Yorkshire. The newly formed “Team Plymouth” is bidding for a share of the £250 million in funding announced alongside that, and has been also designated as the UK’s National Centre for Marine Autonomy. And all of this is within a context where £4.4 billion is being invested into Devonport over the next ten years in support of our national deterrence and assurance of our maritime infrastructure upon which our freedoms depend, with the promises of further billions in the decades to come.
But this isn’t just about submarines. It’s about how the city’s largest university steps up – not only because investment in defence research and development is good news for us (see the politics of universities, defence, and R&D spending), but because there is a national and international imperative to protect our seas. We have a role to play – and, I would suggest, a duty – in delivering the skills, innovation, and dual-use technologies needed to do this better and faster than others.
Our university is globally recognised for its work in all things marine and maritime – notably in sciences and engineering – but our offer also spans subject areas from the arts, humanities and a business school, through to providing national resilience of a different kind via our faculty of health (including both medicine and dentistry) which holds more than 40 per cent of our students. Civic specialisation doesn’t mean that only part of the university needs to step up. This opportunity is not just about engineers; every discipline has its role to play in ensuring we support and deliver a rich array of graduates and researchers.
The future of defence
Defence has changed significantly since the Russian invasion into Ukraine back in February 2022, and international conflict is the current mother of invention. The need for autonomous devices on and under the sea, and the pace of innovation, demands diverse skill sets: creatives, technologists, business leaders, psychologists, project managers and more. And, as our city grows through the “defence dividend”, there will be new jobs, higher aspirations, reduced inequality, improved health, better housing, a more vibrant culture, and stronger communities. Along with this will be a demand for artists, historians, lawyers, doctors, nurses, dentists and more.
But there is some jeopardy, and colleagues are asking reasonable questions. Is this a distraction, just when we need to continue to be extra-focused and vigilant about being a well-run, efficient university offering students the best possible experience?
Compared with strategic shifts universities have made in the past, this one feels like a well-founded decision. Devonport isn’t going anywhere. CASD runs until at least 2070. Defence funding is long-term and strategic – unlike some other sources we’ve all banked on that have since disappeared (remember the Global Challenges Research Fund?). Furthermore, we’re not abandoning our legacy of innovation in areas like microplastic pollution, trans-cranial ultrasound, and sustainability. If defence is the bow wave, then behind it can be a flotilla of other opportunities.
The White Paper asks us to specialise; we’ve done it before (for example marine sciences, offshore renewable energy) and will do it again. But we also serve the South West of England. We have won three Queen’s Anniversary Prizes, and colleagues often proudly cite the 1994 award for partnering with further education providers and widening access to education in a scattered rural community. To stop doing that kind of work because we disinvested from some disciplines where there is demand would be a mistake. Specialism must be balanced with serving our communities in Devon, Cornwall and the wider region.
Right place right time
We’re the right university in the right city at the right time. Plymouth has been leading the way in tackling maritime cybersecurity for years. But now we’re at the centre of the UK’s marine autonomy agenda, we need to grow. And there are big questions to answer: how many graduates will be needed, in what disciplines, taught in what mode, and at what level? How do we work across HE and FE to build clearer, more exciting pathways for 16 and 17-year-olds into jobs in defence and other sectors, or retraining and upskilling adults who want to progress or change their careers? Getting the views of businesses, the Ministry of Defence and others, then sharing intelligence across the education sector will be vital to helping us make the best decisions.
Some vice chancellors have had to navigate sensitive situations around the defence industry on campus, with links to defence businesses being scrutinised. I am sure that will happen here, and we will have the discussion – we are a university and welcome debate. But maritime defence has been in Plymouth’s DNA for generations, as a naval port of vital strategic importance. Also, the technologies we develop have more than one application – one person’s defence alert system is another’s environmental monitoring equipment.
We need to move fast, because others outside the UK will. And we are up for it. If Cranfield is our nation’s defence aerospace university, Plymouth is poised to become its marine autonomy counterpart.
The stakes are high – not just because of financial pressures on universities, but because this challenge is about the UK’s security, on and under the sea. And it’s about how universities like Plymouth adapt to a new kind of industrial strategy.
The student who wrote that line in FIRE’s annual free speech survey wasn’t using a metaphor. They were describing a spring afternoon in 2024 at Indiana University’s Dunn Meadow — a campus green with a lineage of protest dating to the anti-apartheid “shantytowns” of the 1980s — when officers with rifles took positions on the roof of the Indiana Memorial Union over the heads of student protesters. Indiana State Police later confirmed they had positioned officers “with sniper capabilities” on rooftops.
The night before, administrators had convened an ad hoc meeting that rewrote IU’s Outdoor Spaces policy to require approval for structures that had long been permitted. By morning, a peaceful protest was recast as a policy violation. By noon, state police had taken a “closed sniper position” above the lawn.
Police arrested dozens of students and faculty over two days, and many received one‑year campus bans later challenged in court. Ultimately, the Monroe County Prosecutor’s office dropped the “constitutionally dubious” charges. FIRE wrote IU leadership objecting to the eleventh‑hour policy change and the resulting crackdown, warning IU that manipulating rules to curtail disfavored protest is incompatible with a public university’s First Amendment obligations.
For a university whose motto celebrates “light and truth,” the optics were unmissable: IU had turned its own tradition of protest into grounds for punishment. Unfortunately, it wasn’t an isolated incident, but a warning for what would follow.
Act now: Condemn Indiana University’s censorship of student media
Indiana University fired its student media adviser for refusing to censor the student paper, then banned the paper’s print edition.
The atmosphere that spring clarified what faculty had been saying in whispered discontent for years: academic freedom and shared governance were being treated as obstacles to be managed. On April 16, 2024, nearly 1,000 faculty came together for an unprecedented meeting where 93% of those present voted no confidence in IU’s leadership. At the time, FIRE noted that the no‑confidence movement explicitly cited encroachments on academic freedom and viewpoint discrimination concerns.
One flashpoint was the university’s handling of associate professor Abdulkader Sinno, suspended from teaching and advising in December 2023 after a dispute over a room reservation — the registered student group he had advised being none other than the Palestine Solidarity Committee. FIRE went on record with a reminder that public universities must not punish faculty for facilitating student expression or for the viewpoints associated with that expression.
Another flashpoint was art. In December 2023, IU’s Eskenazi Museum abruptly canceled a long‑planned retrospective of Palestinian‑American painter Samia Halaby, notifying the artist her work would no longer be shown in a terse letter curtailing three years of preparation. IU invoked concerns about security and the “integrity of the exhibit.” But as FIRE explained, public institutions cannot cancel art because the artist’s politics are unpopular or because controversy is inconvenient.
Meanwhile, cancellations migrated into other corners of campus life. In January 2025, the IU School of Medicine canceled its LGBTQ+ Health Care Conference, initially offering only a bare note on the website. Administrators later cited pending legislation as the reason. One invited keynote speaker, journalist Chris Geidner, publicly confirmed the cancellation. As FIRE frequently reminds universities, preemptively shutting down academic programming due to political headwinds chills debate and undermines academic freedom. Universities exist to give ideas a platform, not to turn them away.
IU’s Israel-Palestine-related cancellations didn’t run in only one political direction, either. In March 2024, IU officials urged IU Hillel to postpone an event with Mosab Hassan Yousef, a prominent pro‑Israel activist and Hamas critic, citing security threats. Instead of securing the event, IU “postponed” it, but apparently never rescheduled.
By the publication of FIRE’s 2026 College Free Speech Rankings, the numbers matched the mood. Indiana University ranked 255th out of 257 institutions surveyed, making it the worst‑ranked public university in America, with bottom‑tier scores in openness, administrative support, and comfort expressing ideas. Roughly one in four IU students reported discipline or threats of discipline for their expression, and nearly three‑quarters of faculty said the administration does not protect academic freedom.
This fall, IU’s crackdown reached the newsroom. Student editors at the Indiana Daily Student ran two straightforward, newsworthy pieces: one on IU’s suspension of the Palestine Solidarity Committee, another on IU’s abysmal free‑speech ranking. Students say Media School Dean David Tolchinsky pressed them to suppress the coverage. When they refused, the university ordered the paper’s print edition halted just before homecoming.
Control at an editorially independent student paper belongs to the students, not to administrators.
When Jim Rodenbush, the director of student media, declined to enforce content restrictions, he was fired. FIRE’s Student Press Freedom Initiative immediately wrote IU on Oct. 16, condemning the firing as apparent retaliation and the print‑ban directive as unconstitutional censorship by a public university. The students’ response captured the stakes: an image of an empty newspaper rack on campus captioned with a single word in block letters, “CENSORED.”
IU has since reversed the print shutdown amid national outcry and a federal lawsuit filed by Rodenbush. The chancellor has authorized IDS to print through June 30, 2026, within budget parameters. FIRE’s position remains: Control at an editorially independent student paper belongs to the students, not to administrators.
Seen together — the midnight rule change at Dunn Meadow, the snipers on the roof, the faculty’s 93% vote of no confidence, the sanctioning of a professor for defending a student group’s right to meet, the cancellation of an artist’s exhibit, the quiet erasure of a healthcare conference, the postponement of a controversial speaker under the elastic banner of security, and finally the order to stop the presses — it is clear Indiana University has a crisis on its hands. This is a campus where students practice self‑silencing to survive the semester, where faculty measure every sentence against the week’s political weather, where the oxygen of inquiry thins until only the safest words remain.
Today — Monday, Nov. 10 — FIRE answers in one forum the university can’t control: the public square. Our first billboard went up in Bloomington this morning. It’s stark — black, white, and FIRE red — and it names the problem plainly, pointing readers to see the record for themselves.
IU has a chance here to do the right thing, but if they don’t, more boards will follow, put up in places where IU’s leaders, alumni, and visitors will pass them on their way to games and meetings and flights. The point is not spectacle but accountability: to hold a mirror up to a public university that has tried, repeatedly, to dodge the image it has made for itself.
The first billboard in FIRE’s campaign, installed in Bloomington on Monday, Nov. 10, 2025
FIRE doesn’t launch campaigns like this to score points. We’re launching this campaign because IU, a taxpayer‑funded institution, has betrayed its public duty, believing it doesn’t need to answer to the Constitution or the consequences of ignoring the First Amendment.
Any university that posts sharpshooters over a peaceful protest, cancels art for its connotations, shutters a conference because of its politics, and then turns around and tells student journalists they can’t print the truth about any one of these stories hasn’t merely lost its way. It has chosen a different map — one that trades the honest noise of debate for the chilling silence of control. That’s not how we do things in America.
What the hell is going on at Indiana University?
Indiana University just banned its student paper for reporting its awful free speech ranking. You literally can’t make this up.
The rifles are gone from the roof now, but the memory of their presence is as much a part of Dunn Meadow as the grass. The empty newspaper racks may soon be refilled, but national headlines about a campus with no newspaper endure like a warning label.
Indiana University’s leaders have a choice to make.
They can continue to censor and pretend it’s not a problem. Or, they can acknowledge what these last 20 months have made obvious and begin to repair what fear has fractured. They can ensure student and faculty speech is not micromanaged, that journalists report without preclearance, that art hangs because it is art, and that a university’s purpose is not to avoid controversy but to teach, especially when the debate is loud and the issue is of great public importance.
We’re calling on IU to issue a public statement acknowledging its violations of students’ and faculty members’ free speech rights and to meet with FIRE’s experts to begin improving its ranking. Reinstating Rodenbush would also be a meaningful first step in demonstrating that IU is serious about addressing its free speech problems.
Until then, we’ll keep telling this story where it cannot be edited away — on screens, on pages, and, starting today, on the unmissable canvases that rise beside Indiana’s roads.
This Wednesday, the Texas A&M System Board of Regents will vote on whether to give university presidents sweeping veto power over what professors can teach. Hiring professors with PhDs is meaningless if administrators are the ones deciding what gets taught.
Under the proposal, any course material or discussion related to “race or gender ideology” or “sexual orientation or gender identity” would need approval from the institution’s president. Faculty would need permission to teach students about not just modern controversies, but also civil rights, the Civil War, or even ancient Greek comedies.
This is not just bad policy. It invites unlawful censorship, chills academic freedom, and undermines the core purpose of a university. Faculty will start asking not “Is this accurate?” but “Will this get me in trouble?”
That’s not education, it’s risk management.
FIRE urges the board to reject this proposal. And we will be there to defend any professor punished for doing what scholars are hired to do: pursue the truth wherever it leads.
The annual global game design awards $20,000 in grand prizes for creative and impactful games that advance the UN Sustainable Development Goals
NEW YORK, NY — [NOV 10, 2025] — Games for Change (G4C), the leading nonprofit that empowers game creators and innovators to drive real-world change, today announced the kick off of the 2025- 2026 Games for Change Student Challenge, a global game design program inviting learners ages 10–25 years old to tackle pressing world issues that address the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, through creativity, play, and purposeful design.
Now in its eleventh year, the Student Challenge has reached more than 70,000 students and almost 2,000 educators and faculty across 600cities in 91 countries, inspiring the creation of over 6,600 original student-designed games that connect learning to action. From November to April 2026, participants will design and submit games for consideration in regional and global competitions, with Game Jams taking place worldwide throughout the season.
“The G4C Student Challenge continues to show that when young people design games about real-world issues, they see themselves not just as players, but as problem solvers and changemakers,” said Arana Shapiro, Chief Operations and Programs Officer at Games for Change. “Through game design, students learn to think critically, collaborate, and build solutions with purpose. In a world shaped by AI and constant change, durable skills like problem solving, critical thinking, and game design will allow all learners to thrive in their communities and worldwide.”
This year, students will explore three new themes developed with world-class partners to inspire civic imagination and problem-solving:
Two grand-prize winners will receive a total of $20,000 in scholarships, generously provided by Take-Two Interactive and Endless. Winners and finalists will be celebrated at the Student Challenge Awards on May 28, 2026, in recognition of exceptional creativity, social impact, and innovation in student game design.
“With 3.4 billion players worldwide, the video games industry has an unprecedented ability to reach and inspire audiences across cultures and our next generation of leaders,” said Lisa Pak, Head of Operations at Playing for the Planet. “We’re excited about our collaboration with Games for Change, empowering students to use their creativity to spotlight the threats to reefs, rainforests, and our climate. Together, we’re transforming play into a powerful tool for awareness, education, and action.”
“More than 319 million people face severe hunger around the world today,” said Jessamyn Sarmiento, Chief Marketing Officer at World Food Program USA. “Through the ‘Outgrow Hunger’ theme, we’re giving the next generation a way to explore the root causes of food insecurity and imagine solutions through research, game design, and play. This collaboration helps students connect their creativity to one of the most urgent challenges of our time—ending hunger for good.”
Additionally, G4C is expanding its educator support with the launch of the G4C Learn website, the world’s largest online resource library featuring lesson plans, tutorials, and toolkits to guide students, teachers, and faculty on topics like game design, game-based learning, esports, career pathways, and more. In partnership with Global Game Jam, educators worldwide can receive funding, training, and support to host Student Challenge Game Jams in their classrooms and communities.
“Games turn learning into challenges students actually want to take on,” said Luna Ramirez, CTE teacher at Thomas A. Edison CTE High School based in New York City. “When students design games to tackle pressing global problems affecting their communities, they become curious about the world around them, experimenting, and bringing ideas to life. The best learning happens when students take risks, fail forward, and collaborate, and that’s exactly what the Games for Change Student Challenge empowers.”
Educators, parents, and learners ages 10–25 can now registerfor the 2026 Games for Change Student Challenge and access free tools and resources atlearn.gamesforchange.org.
Since 2004, Games for Change (G4C) has empowered game creators and innovators to drive real-world change through games and immersive media, helping people learn, improve their communities, and make the world a better place. G4C partners with technology and gaming companies, nonprofits, foundations, and government agencies to run world-class events, public arcades, design challenges, and youth programs. G4C supports a global community of developers using games to tackle real-world challenges, from humanitarian conflicts to climate change and education. For more information, visit: https://www.gamesforchange.org/.
