Author: admin

  • Detaining Öztürk over an op-ed is unlawful and un-American

    Detaining Öztürk over an op-ed is unlawful and un-American

    FIRE has filed a “friend of the court” brief in support of Rümeysa Öztürk in her lawsuit against the Trump administration. FIRE argues that the U.S. government is unlawfully detaining Öztürk for protected speech and reviving the authoritarian spirit of the Alien and Sedition Acts in the process. The brief’s summary of argument follows.


    It is unthinkable that a person in a free society could be snatched from the street, imprisoned, and threatened with deportation for expressing an opinion the government dislikes. Certainly not in the country envisioned by our nation’s framers. America’s founding principle, core to who and what we are as a nation, is that liberty comes not from the benevolent hand of a king, but is an inherent right of every man, woman, and child. That includes “the opportunity for free political discussion” as “a basic tenet of our constitutional democracy.” Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 552 (1965). And “a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949). For these reasons, along with all citizens, “freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.” Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 148 (1945).

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio, however, is arresting and detaining a PhD student, Rümeysa Öztürk, not because the government claims she committed a crime or other deportable offense, but for the seemingly sole reason that her expression — an op-ed in a student newspaper — stirred the Trump administration to anger. ICE made a discretionary decision to detain Ms. Öztürk under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). See Order, ECF No. 104, at 38. This Court explained that “her detention did not flow naturally as a consequence of her removal proceedings.” Id. The Secretary argues his discretionary power over lawfully present international students includes the authority to order their arrest, detention, and deportation for even protected speech. It does not.

    The First Amendment’s protection for free speech trumps a federal statute. United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 268 n.20 (1967). Accepting Secretary Rubio’s position would irreparably damage free expression in the United States, particularly on college campuses. Foreign students would (with good reason) fear criticizing the current American government during classroom debates, in term papers, and on social media, lest they risk arrest, detention, and eventually deportation. That result is utterly incompatible with the longstanding recognition that “[t]he essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident,” and that “students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding.” Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250 (1957).

    Secretary Rubio claims (as do all censors) that this time is different, that university students’ pro-Palestine (and, as administration officials allege, anti-Israel) views cannot be tolerated. But “if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989) (holding the First Amendment protects burning the American flag in protest); see also Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 454 (2011) (holding the First Amendment protects displaying “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” posters outside a military funeral).

    The government’s actions against Ms. Öztürk harken back to the infamous Alien Friends Act of 1798, which allowed President John Adams to deport any alien deemed a danger to “public safety.” An Act Concerning Aliens § 2, 1 Stat. 571 (1798). It was “one of the most notorious laws in our country’s history,” “widely condemned as unconstitutional,” and “may have cost the Federalist Party its existence.” Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. 148, 185 (2018) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). Yet today, Secretary Rubio allows a stain of history to repeat itself. This Court must act.

    The “First Amendment does not speak equivocally. It prohibits any law ‘abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’ It must be taken as a command of the broadest scope that explicit language, read in the context of a liberty-loving society, will allow.” Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 263 (1941) (invalidating criminal convictions, including of a non-citizen, based on protected speech). Our “liberty-loving society” does not permit arrest, detention, and deportation as a punishment solely based on an opinion voiced in a newspaper. The Court should grant Ms. Öztürk’s petition.

    Source link

  • Program Viability and Why It Matters

    Program Viability and Why It Matters

    What Is a Program Viability Assessment, and Why Does It Matter?

    In a game of checkers, players often make tactical, reactive moves based on the immediate situation with game pieces that generally move in standard ways. In a game of chess, on the other hand, each type of game piece has a distinct movement potential. Players must leverage strategy and careful planning several steps in advance. Each move impacts future possibilities, so players try to analyze the current state and potential future scenarios to inform their decisions. 

    Make no mistake, in higher education today, you’re playing chess with your academic program portfolio and market strategy. To assist you in this process, we discuss Archer Education’s critical tool of Program Viability Assessment — the art and science of knowing how your programs best move across the market “game board” toward portfolio-level success.

    Understanding the Program Viability Assessment: What Is It?

    A Program Viability Assessment analyzes a higher ed program’s potential for demand and growth, net revenue, operational sustainability, and alignment with organizational goals. Through the assessment process, an institution can identify its risks and opportunities, allowing it to make informed decisions about its resource and investment allocations and strategic direction.

    A Program Viability Assessment can be used for both current and potential new programs. For this discussion, we focus on current programs within an existing portfolio, asking: Are the current programs viable, and, if so, are they expected to continue to be? In an upcoming article, we will tackle new program opportunity assessment: Does the new program idea have a product-market fit?

    Let’s discuss the process for conducting a Program Viability Assessment of your current programs.

    Key Components of a Current Program Viability Assessment

    Our Program Viability Assessment process uses a model that captures a program’s recent historical performance, determines its five-year growth potential, and then marries this view with its cost inputs and any institutional constraints (e.g., hurdle rates, margin mandates, and internal revenue share agreements). 

    Our typical process steps are as follows: 

    Developing a Program Portfolio Road Map

    Applying the Program Viability Assessment to each program results in an investment road map for the program portfolio — akin to a multistep chess strategy. Basically, how do you think of each program (game piece) and its ability to move in the right direction in current and future market conditions? For example:

    It is important to be transparent about the program viability process and the criteria for investment decisions at the institutional level to anticipate and avoid leadership bias concerns. It can also be useful to consider incentives (not necessarily monetary) for recognizing how and when to grow a successful program (i.e., the fun part) as well as incentives for recognizing how and when to sunset a program that has served its purpose (i.e., the challenging part). 

    By openly acknowledging the “product life cycle” of academic programs across the institution — i.e., a natural beginning, middle, and end to a program’s contribution to the portfolio — you can remove unnecessary reputational wear and tear on academic units working to meet evolving market demands. 

    Why Does Program Viability Matter?

    At its heart, a Program Viability Assessment is a conversation among faculty and subject matter experts, enrollment management leadership, and institutional executives to steer the university’s market strategy, program resourcing, and strategic objectives. This is a robust, data-driven process that provides input opportunities for a variety of critical stakeholders.

    Here’s why program viability matters.

    Resource Allocation

    Understanding the viability of a program helps the institution allocate resources (time, money, personnel) as effectively as possible. E.g., it prevents continued investment in programs that are unlikely to succeed.

    Risk Management

    Evaluating program viability allows an institution to identify the potential for upcoming risks and uncertainty, enabling leaders to develop strategies to mitigate those risks.

    Strategic Alignment and Leadership Buy-In

    Programs that align with an institution’s overall strategy are more likely to succeed. Assessing a program’s viability ensures that the program contributes to the institution’s current and future-oriented mission and objectives. This includes programs that have leadership support and those that intentionally test new topics or market areas.

    Sustainability

    A program’s long-term success is contingent upon its ability to sustain itself financially and operationally. Program viability analysis looks at factors such as ongoing demand, market competition, and resource requirements.

    Data-Driven Success Measurement and Decision-Making

    Conducting a Program Viability Assessment is a rigorous process that develops a common standard for defining success, enabling an institution to measure progress and adapt as necessary to improve its portfolio-level outcomes. It provides a framework for decision-making that can enhance overall institutional effectiveness.

    Finally, let’s take a look at a few brief examples of how powerful this kind of assessment can be.

    Examples of Program Viability Assessment Findings

    Here are a few recent examples of Archer analyses that illustrate why taking the time to complete program viability analysis is important.

    Analysis of a Regional Center Undergraduate Program Portfolio 

    A state university had built a regional center decades prior and wanted to understand why, after years of success, the center was barely breaking even instead of growing as it had in the past. The regional center offered several bachelor’s degree programs that enabled students in the area to come to a campus for in-person instruction, versus having to commute a significant distance to the main campus or commit to a fully online program. 

    The growth potential for these programs’ topic areas was generally sound. However, upon review of recent census data, Archer discovered that, in this particular region, there was very little difference in wages between those with a high school diploma and those with a bachelor’s degree, calling into question the value proposition of the center offering primarily degree programs. 

    The shift in regional income levels occurred due to some impactful employers leaving the area in recent years. This finding was enough to start an executive-level conversation about how best to deploy the center’s resources to support the community beyond the current degree program approach and to start a study to determine the economic impact of closing the center as a last resort.

    Criminal Justice Bachelor’s Degree Evaluated in a Local Context

    A small, private regional institution was concerned about the small enrollment numbers for its Bachelor of Science (BS) in Criminal Justice program, which had been in the market for more than five years. Despite the original market research showing demand for criminal justice skills in the area, the program did not reach viability (e.g., sufficient class sizes to reach break-even revenue). Costs to support the program were modest. 

    Upon deeper review of the local context, Archer learned that the police academies in the region had updated their training programs such that there was now significant overlap between the skills taught in the academy and those taught by higher education institutions in the region. The finding was the catalyst for a revamp of the program curriculum and enhanced coordination with local law enforcement academies.

    Accounting Education Malaise Remedied by Curricular Update 

    A private institution with strong business programming showed a steady decline in enrollments in its undergraduate accounting degree program for the past five years. A broad market analysis revealed that the industry was suffering from a malaise — in short, the certification requirements were too onerous; the salaries lagged those of related content areas, such as finance and business technology; and there was not enough innovation in the topic area to appeal to current student populations. 

    Rather than close the program in defeat, the institution decided to test a new value proposition for the program by embedding data analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) content in the curriculum to provide enhanced skills acquisition. They also offered additional certified public accountant (CPA) exam preparation support at a modest cost. Marketing messaging immediately showcased these enhancements. 

    Assessing Your Program’s Viability

    Program Viability Assessments can support institution-level strategic conversations, foster inclusive decision-making, and spark creative problem-solving. This ultimately drives the ambitious impact institutions seek, within the institution and in the broader market. 

    Contact our strategy and development team today to learn more about how Archer Education can help you assess the sustainability of your programs and achieve growth. 

    Subscribe to the Higher Ed Marketing Journal:

    Source link

  • VICTORY! Tenn. town buries unconstitutional ordinance used to punish holiday skeleton display

    VICTORY! Tenn. town buries unconstitutional ordinance used to punish holiday skeleton display

    GERMANTOWN, Tenn., April 29, 2025 — After a federal lawsuit, the town of Germantown, Tennessee, has sent to the graveyard an ordinance that was used to fine a resident for using giant skeletons in a Christmas lawn display.

    Alexis Luttrell received a citation and court summons from the Memphis suburb in January for keeping up decorative skeletons after Halloween and repurposing them for Election Day and Christmas. In February, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a federal lawsuit seeking to have the citation thrown out and Germantown’s unconstitutional holiday ordinance overturned on First Amendment grounds. FIRE also committed to defending Alexis against the charges in municipal court.

    Germantown voluntarily dismissed the municipal charges against Alexis a month later, but FIRE’s federal lawsuit against the ordinance remained pending before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. But last night, the Board of Mayor and Aldermen voted to repeal the ordinance entirely, and Germantown agreed to a $24,999 settlement in exchange for dismissing the lawsuit.

    “Not only am I no longer at risk of being fined for my skeletons, the unconstitutional ordinance is now dead and buried,” Alexis said. “Today is a victory for anyone who has ever been censored by a government official and chose to fight back.”

    The ghastly affair began in October 2024, when Alexis purchased a large decorative skeleton and skeleton dog for Halloween. She later kept the skeletons up and dressed them with Election Day signs in November and then Santa-themed attire in December.

    COURTESY PHOTOS OF ALEXIS AND HER SKELETON DISPLAYS

    Perplexingly, this was illegal under Germantown Ordinance 11-33, which required that holiday decorations “shall be removed within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 30 days.” In Germantown officials’ view, Alexis’s skeletons weren’t “really” Christmas decorations, but an unsanctioned Halloween display. In December, the town sent Alexis a warning that she violated the ordinance, and followed up with a citation and summons when the skeletons were still up in January.

    Germantown’s ordinance wasn’t just an exercise in misguided micromanagement, it violated the Constitution. Under the First Amendment, Americans are free to put up holiday decorations on their property whenever they like, not just in a government-approved period of time. And by demanding the Santa-themed skeletons come down — even if one has a dark sense of humor, or happens to like Tim Burton movies — the city engaged in viewpoint discrimination about what constitutes an “acceptable” Christmas display.

    “Germantown’s leaders deserve a lot of credit for quickly repealing its holiday ordinance after FIRE’s lawsuit,” FIRE Attorney Colin McDonell said. “Instead of digging in and wasting time and taxpayer dollars defending an unconstitutional ordinance, they boned up on the First Amendment and did the right thing.”

    Alexis’ skeletons have remained in her yard and she’s continued to dress them up with different outfits and decorations for new holidays. Since February, they’ve been dressed in Valentine’s Day, St. Patrick’s Day, and Easter garb, and Pride Month and Juneteenth are coming up soon.

    “Alexis and all the residents of Germantown can now celebrate the holidays of their choice on their own property without worrying their creativity will get them fined,” said McDonell. “And that’s how it should be in a free country.”


    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

    Source link

  • AI in Higher Education 2025: Top Opportunities for Universities

    AI in Higher Education 2025: Top Opportunities for Universities

    Artificial intelligence will change higher education till 2025, presenting opportunities and challenges. Polls show 84% of higher education workers use AI daily.

    ChatGPT lecturers use AI, and 92% of UK students embrace it.

    Universities must negotiate AI’s complexities as it enhances teaching and overcomes natural limitations.

    For AI to reach its potential, institutions must understand and overcome its major benefits and quick adoption challenges. Let’s discover all this in this post.

     

    Opportunities: How AI is Transforming Higher Education in 2025

     

    1. Automating Assessments & Grading

    The Problem with Manual Grading & Feedback

    Often labor-intensive and erratic, traditional grading systems are For a good chunk of their workweek, professors grade and offer comments. Teachers grade and provide comments for a median of five hours a week, according to a poll by Education Week.

    In contexts of online learning, the time commitment could be much more important. According to a research written for the Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, teachers dedicate roughly 12.69 hours a week to each online course—about 40% of which are used for grading and comments.

    This large time commitment in grading can take away from other important duties such lesson planning and direct student involvement. 

     

    AI Tools for Grading and Student Feedback

    AI-powered intelligent grading systems have become clear answers to improve consistency and efficiency in tests. By processing tests and assignments faster than hand grading, these AI systems help to lighten faculty workload and release their time for more critical chores.

    Automating typical grading chores lets professors to concentrate more on educational tactics and individualized student interactions.

     

    How to Automate Grading with AI in Higher Education

     

     

    Using AI-driven tests calls for multiple steps of implementation, including:

    • Review current assessment techniques: Find how artificial intelligence could streamline processes.
    • Choosing AI Tools: AI grading systems should complement technology and educational objectives of the institution.
    • Launch of the pilot program: Try and get comments via a small-scale rollout.
    • Teach staff members and professors: Give thorough instruction to enable simple use of AI tools.
    • Watch and get better: Examine the system’s performance and modify it to produce the greatest outcomes.

    Designed by the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, “All Day TA,” an artificial intelligence assistant, answered 12,000 student queries  annually. This suggests that real-world uses of artificial intelligence in education abound.

     

    Benefits of AI-Based Feedback Systems for Teachers

     

    Benefits-of-AI-Based-Feedback-Systems-for-teachers

     

    AI-powered feedback systems give students individualized, real-time information that makes learning more fun. These tools can look at how students answered, figure out what they did well and what they could do better, and give them feedback that helps them get better.

    Artificial intelligence (AI) makes grading easier, which gives teachers more time for teaching and helping students, which leads to better educational results.

     

    2. Customized learning and student success

    AI is a key part of personalized education because it lets faculty make learning paths that fit the needs of each student. AI-powered adaptive learning platforms can look at student performance data to change how material is delivered. This way, each student gets instruction that fits their learning style and speed through it.

    AI-driven insights can also help find students who are at risk early on, so that they can get help when they need it to help them succeed and stay until they graduate.

     

    3. Operations and administration on campus powered by AI

    AI is simplifying college administrative tasks and research. Using AI to streamline admissions, course scheduling, and staff responsibilities saves time and money.

    Universities can use their resources more efficiently and focus on long-term learning programs by automating mundane administrative tasks.

     

    Challenges: Major Challenges Universities Face with AI in 2025

    Universities must address data security, faculty adoption, and the delicate balance between automation and human control to employ AI ethically and effectively.

     

    1. Data Privacy & Ethical Concerns

    Personalization and grading are automated by AI-powered systems that process massive student data.  

    • Universities should ensure compliance with data privacy laws (e.g., GDPR) to protect student data.
    • Monitor automated grading and recommendation systems to prevent bias.
    • Maintain transparency in AI-driven decisions to build trust with faculty and students.

     

    2. Resistance from faculty and a lack of training

    In spite of its benefits, AI is not easily utilized in higher education for the following reasons: The idea of limiting students’ freedom is still scary to many faculty . They don’t know how AI can be used to grade and leave notes.

    • Faculty may not be able to use AI tools well if they haven’t been taught properly. In order for AI to work well with other systems, organizations need to spend money on skill-building programs for people.
    • How to put it into action: Universities should start with test programs, offer ongoing training, and make sure that the rollout happens slowly so that teachers can get used to it before they start using it for real.

     

    3. Balancing AI with Human Oversight

    Though it speeds grading, artificial intelligence shouldn’t replace human judgment—especially for challenging tasks like essays and creative projects! Universities must have measures in place to prevent AI comments from being accepted at face value and maintain equity. The best way is: a clever combination of human supervision with artificial intelligence efficiency to maintain accurate, balanced, and correctness.

     

    Conclusion

    Offering game-changing efficiencies and new challenges, artificial intelligence is revolutionizing higher education. The secret for colleges is to strike the proper balance—using artificial intelligence for automation without sacrificing the human element in learning. Early adopters of artificial intelligence will not only improve student performance but also keep ahead in a landscape getting more competitive.

    All set to use artificial intelligence for better, more effective administration of education? Get in touch with Creatrix Campus and investigate AI-driven solutions catered for universities.

    Source link

  • Improve Student Feedback in 2025

    Improve Student Feedback in 2025

    Higher education is not only changing; it is racing ahead and as professors we must either catch up or fall behind! AI-powered grading is here, revolutionizing our assessment of students and offers insightful comments rather than some far-off fantasy. This is not only a need by 2025; it is also a must. Using AI-driven technologies, professors may at last escape tiresome grading and concentrate on what really counts—guiding students toward success. Let’s get into the details in this article!

     

    The Evolution of AI  

    Artificial intelligence (AI) is taking over rather than only invading education. You should be aware, AI is transforming classrooms all around from administrative automation to tailored learning paths. 

    The figures don’t lie: with a predicted 31.2% CAGR through 2030, the $5.88 billion worldwide AI in the education industry is rising. This fast expansion emphasizes one thing: higher education is heavily dependent on AI-powered solutions to improve feedback, simplify tests, and raise learning results.

     

    Key Benefits of AI-Powered Grading in 2025  

    Grading isn’t a never-ending cycle of late evenings and red pens! AI-powered grading is rewriting the rules and transforming a once time-consuming task into an instant, intelligent workflow. AI-driven systems automate grading across tests, essays, and even difficult responses in a quarter of the typical time, therefore eliminating the need for burying oneself in homework.

     

     

    And the resultant influence? Professors save up to 70% of grading time—time better used for real-world instruction, mentorship, and innovation rather than caught in an assessment cycle. AI is freeing professors to concentrate on what really counts—student success—not only saving time.

     

    How AI Enhances Student Learning & Engagement

    Grades are just numbers without context. Many times, traditional grading leaves students with unclear remarks or, worse, none at all. By giving rich, data-driven insights customized to every student, AI-powered grading transforms the game! 

    These clever technologies not only point out errors but also dissect replies, highlighting areas of strength and weakness with laser precision. The outcome of tailored, practical comments that enable students to advance more quickly than before. Customized feedback has been shown in studies to increase student performance by up to 40%; so, it is clear that intelligent grading results in intelligent learning.

    Trust us, this is about changing our assessment and enhancement of student learning, not only about efficiency. See the image below that sums up how AI elevates student learning and engagement! 

     

     

    Grading Powered by AI: Adoption Trends and Rates 

    Artificial intelligence is taking over at full speed; it is not invading higher education. According to a recent EDUCAUSE poll, 52% of institutions use AI to automate administrative tasks while 54% of them currently use it to influence curriculum design.

    Moreover, not only professors—43% of students actively use AI-powered products to improve their educational process.

    These figures clearly show that intelligent evaluation tools and AI-powered grading are not only becoming the new benchmark but also not new. AI is showing to be the future of tests as institutions hurry to improve efficiency, feedback, and learning results.

     

    AI Adoption in Higher Education

     

    Addressing Challenges and Ethical Considerations of AI Adoption

    Rising Artificial Intelligence-powered grading raises serious issues including algorithmic bias, data privacy, and a fear of losing human control. Is human touch ever replaceable by Artificial Intelligence grading? Should it? Institutions have to act early to guarantee ethical implementation: clear AI rules will help academics and students to know how AI evaluations operate.

    Frequent audits of Artificial Intelligence models help to reduce bias and guarantee equitable grading.

    • Combine artificial intelligence with human evaluation—automate the grunts but maintain human judgment in the loop.
    • Institutions can use AI’s efficiency without sacrificing academic integrity by aggressively addressing these concerns. 

     

    Creatrix Campus’s Role in AI-Powered Grading

    Grading should improve learning, not hinder it. Creatrix Campus transforms AI-powered grading into faster, smarter, and more informative evaluations. Our solution lets instructors focus on teaching and mentoring by automating tiresome chores and providing real-time, individualized feedback.

    Why Educators Trust Creatrix Campus: 

    • Accurate AI-driven grading
    • Real-time, tailored feedback
    • Smart analytics, identifying trends and learning gaps before they become issues
    • Integrates seamlessly with your LMS and other platforms.

    Smarter grading. Improved learning. Build the future of assessments together!

     

    Wrapping Up: AI-Powered Grading—The Future Right Now

    AI-powered grading is not only a development but also a revolution in how we evaluate, analyze, and improve student learning as we head farther toward 2025. AI is altering the professor’s job from cutting grading time to providing individualized feedback at scale, freeing more attention on teaching and mentoring than on administrative overburden.

    The next biggest question for higher ed leaders and assessment committees is not whether or not AI-powered grading should be embraced—rather, how quickly can we do it? Institutions may access smarter assessments, better learning outcomes, and a more agile academic ecosystem by adopting intelligent grading systems with a balanced approach—leveraging automation while keeping human oversight—by means of which they can maintain human control.

    Grade’s future is already here. All set to discover how artificial intelligence might change your university? Get in touch with Team Creatrix to see how we are enabling institutions to advance with AI-powered solutions! 

    .

    Source link

  • To combat obesity, let’s change how we measure ourselves

    To combat obesity, let’s change how we measure ourselves

    When Mary Garrett was a child, kids walked to school and played outside after school. But today is a different world. Now Garrett worries about the lifestyles of the children she sees at the Tatnall School, in the U.S. state of Delaware, where she is a nurse. 

    “I don’t think kids have that kind of opportunity anymore,” she said. “I think the lifestyle changes, even having fewer sidewalks, like the neighborhood we live in now doesn’t have sidewalks.” 

    Kids, she said, don’t have that flexibility and freedom anymore. And that could be a big reason that so many young people are overweight.

    According to the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), 1 in 6 children ages 2-19 in the United States are classified as overweight, while 1 in 5 children are diagnosed with obesity. Severe obesity has also increased from 7.7% of the population to 9.7% in two years. On the global scale, obesity has similarly skyrocketed. 

    The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that obesity has more than doubled in adults since 1990 and more than quadrupled in adolescents. 

    According to the WHO, in 2022, 2.5 billion adults were overweight. 37 million children under the age of 5 are classified as overweight. 

    Changing the way we measure weight

    Many factors contribute to obesity, such as genetics, types and amount of food and drink consumed, physical activity, sleep habits and access to necessities like areas to exercise and food. Nurse Garrett concludes that two key factors are physical activity and the rising convenience and prevalence of processed snacks. As the rise of a more sedentary lifestyle, for instance, not walking to school, becomes more popular, the need to spend time outdoors engaging in activity becomes even more critical. 

    In a report published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology journal, a group of 58 experts are recommending that obesity should no longer be defined by a BMI, or body mass index that is calculated according to height and weight, but by a combination of measurements, including waist circumference and evidence of health issues.

    The new classification for BMI makes it easier to determine obesity, which begins to tackle the issue of where obesity stems from and how to prevent it in children as young as age two.

    The NIH defines being obese as “a person whose weight is higher than what is considered to be a normal weight for a given height is described as being overweight or having obesity.” 

    However, Garrett said that that definition is not that simple. “BMI was actually based on a white man’s profile. So it doesn’t take into account females versus males, Latino versus white,” Garrett said.

    Yet, obesity is not restricted to one demographic. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the prevalence of severe obesity is 9.4% higher in women than in men in the United States, while it is significantly lower in adults with at least a bachelor’s degree.

    Keeping kids healthy

    Access to nutritional food, outdoor spaces in which to exercise, and unhealthy sleep habits are a global concern, particularly in developing countries. Wilmington, Delaware, is no exception. Doctors calculate a person’s weight status from a young age, beginning with a child’s pediatrician.

    The weight of a child is calculated based on comparison with other same-age and same-sex children using charts from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. The subject of obesity and living a healthy lifestyle is a critical conversation for parents to have as they raise the next generation.

    There are an endless number of factors that can lead to a person being overweight or being diagnosed with obesity. 

    The NIH says that genetics and medical conditions, two variables outside of anyone’s control, can make it difficult to maintain a healthy weight. Obesity can also increase the risk of health problems like type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease. Yet, there are modern societal factors besides just potato chips and soda that have emerged that play a large role in the rising rate of obesity in the United States. 

    Garrett sees kids eating processed foods a lot. “I think there’s also changes in our food and eating habits that could have an impact,” she said. “I think a lot of our food choices have been impacted by marketing.” 

    Pushing junk food

    A rise in advertising for processed foods on television, which the overwhelming majority of children have access to in the United States, contributes to this. 

    Researchers at the University of Ottawa in 2021 found that on average, children see approximately 1,000 food-related advertisements on television each year. Yet, can you remember the last time you saw an ad for a salad, or maybe grilled salmon with vegetables? Probably not. But it’s likely you saw a Burger King ad in the past day, maybe even twice or more a day. 

    Most advertised products boast organic ingredients or appeal to certain dietary plans. Garrett, on the other hand, questions whether a vegan and gluten-free protein bar is healthier than simply making a peanut butter sandwich on homemade or whole bread. 

    This poses the question: What role are parents playing in a child’s view of what is healthy and what isn’t?

    Kids can’t be expected to be well-versed in healthy choices from the moment they are born. It is up to the parents or guardians to educate and provide an example for children as they learn to make their own choices. 

    Tackling family obesity

    Globally, there is a clear relationship between parent and child obesity. In a study published in 2021, researchers from Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine in South Korea found that children with overweight or obese parents are 1.97 times more likely to be overweight or obese than peers with healthy-weight parents.

    Garrett is a parent and believes that a lack of education could be one of the reasons why so many parents struggle to properly educate their children on healthy choices. 

    “I don’t think we learn enough about nutrition and guidance for families to best raise their children as healthy eaters and healthy people,” Garrett said. She pointed to the ‘MyPlate’ symbol created by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to showcase the five food groups and how much of each should be consumed at each meal. “I’m not really sure that the [U.S. Department of Agriculture] is always giving us the most comprehensive healthy information,” she said.

    What we need, she said, is to teach more about nutrition. When giving students guidance on what healthy eating looks like, as well as educating parents on nutritional components, a healthy diet is sure to be an easy skill to master. 

    Another flaw with how we define obesity is its lack of incorporation of athletes. Researchers in Australia in 2018 found that athletes, or those who train daily for a specific sport, have a significantly lower BMI than the average person. 

    Weight differs from person to person

    Garrett said that the absence of a clearly specified description of BMI for athletes can pose many types of problems.

    “You could put an athlete who weighs, I’m just making this up, but say 5’10” weighs 160 next to another person who’s 5’10” and weighs 140 and their BMI could be the same, but the athlete is more muscle and the other person is perhaps more fat,” Garrett said. 

    This explains what many athletes struggle with: knowing what is healthy when performing and exercising at a high level.  Two teens may have a similar height and weight, but one may be a top-notch athlete who practices their sport for up to three hours a day. This difference completely changes what the USDA or other medical resources may say about appropriate nutrition. 

    This factor, which includes many school-age children who participate in school or club sports, adds another layer to the question of whether the body mass index is a good way to measure obesity and being overweight or not. 

    As a distance runner since the sixth grade, proper fueling has long been a topic of both interest and necessity for me. However, with the rise of ads for different processed foods and fitness influencers online, I began to question my own relationship with food. Was what I was eating healthy enough? Would eating less make me faster?

    Food and health

    Food not only provides for your body physically, but also mentally. A positive relationship with nutrition has long been something I have worked on achieving, particularly as I became more competitive in my sport. I learned that not only does food give me strength, but it also gives me the power to perform to my best ability. 

    Underfueling can be the source of injury and a negative and self-deprecating mindset, and is not talked about enough when discussing an athlete’s mental and physical health.

    I can’t compare my body to another that doesn’t run 40-mile weeks or who doesn’t race competitively. Learning about the right choices to keep my body healthy and ready to perform at a high level has been one of the most critical aspects of my athletic career. 

    As obesity rates continue to rise, it is critical to continue educating the next generations on the right steps to take in making healthier choices. It can be as simple as promoting fruits and vegetables over a bag of chips at school or planning a family bike ride instead of playing video games. 

    With new definitions for BMI adding a new complex layer to the quest to reduce obesity, nothing is as important as staying on top of suggestions and guidelines from medical experts. Becoming well-educated on healthy habits can affect not only an individual but also the people around them. 

    As Garrett concludes: “I think we could change a lot by teaching our kids and families.”



    Questions to consider:

    • How is obesity measured?

    • What are some factors that contribute to weight problems?

    • Can you think of ways schools can help children and teens live a healthier lifestyle?


     

     

    Source link

  • Ex-NIH Director Says Trump Silenced Him, Others

    Ex-NIH Director Says Trump Silenced Him, Others

    A former director of the National Institutes of Health—who resigned in February—told CBS’s 60 Minutes that working at the agency became “untenable” after President Donald Trump started his second term Jan. 20. 

    Like “every other scientist, I was not allowed to speak in any kind of scientific meeting or public setting,” Francis Collins, a geneticist who had worked for the biomedical research agency since the 1990s, said during an episode that aired Sunday. He believed staying at the agency wouldn’t have helped. “I would have been pretty much in the circumstance of not being able to speak about it.”

    Over the past few months, the Trump administration has announced sweeping budget cuts and ideologically driven policy changes at numerous agencies across the federal government, including at the $47 billion NIH. The NIH is the largest funder of biomedical research in the world, sending about 80 percent of its budget to universities, medical colleges and other institutes in the form of extramural grants that support research on fatal diseases, such as cancer, Alzheimer’s and diabetes. 

    But scientists and medical research advocates say the work of the NIH—and the millions of patients it supports—is in jeopardy. 

    In late January, the NIH temporarily froze spending and communication and halted most reviews of grant applications; so far in 2025 it’s awarded about $2.8 billion less than usual at this point over the past five years. It’s also announced a plan to cap indirect research cost rates, which universities say would create gaping budget holes and slow the pace of medical breakthroughs. (A federal judge has since blocked the guidance.)

    The agency has also fired some 1,300 employees and terminated roughly $2 billion in grants—many focused on the health of women, LGBTQ+ people and racial minorities—that no longer effectuate “agency priorities.” (Researchers have since sued over the grant terminations). And earlier this month, The Washington Post reported that an internal White House budget proposal outlined plans to cut $20 billion from NIH’s annual budget and consolidate the NIH’s 27 institutes and centers into eight.

    Although research advocates have protested the cuts, the drastic changes have created an environment of fear and anxiety for both university scientists and the remaining NIH employees who support them and conduct their own medical research. 

    “I’ve never seen the morale of an institution change so abruptly to where we feel fear,” said an NIH researcher who spoke to 60 Minutes on the condition of anonymity. “You can’t run an organization as complicated as NIH without a support system … That has now been decimated … This doesn’t feel like a strategic plan to make the NIH better and more efficient. It feels like a wrecking ball.”

    Source link

  • At Least 15 Florida Institutions Have ICE Agreements

    At Least 15 Florida Institutions Have ICE Agreements

    At least three members of the Florida College System have signed agreements with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to allow their campus police departments to enforce immigration law, bringing the total to 15 institutions across the state.

    Florida SouthWestern State College, Northwest Florida State College and Tallahassee State College have all signed 287(g) agreements with ICE, which allows the agency to delegate immigration enforcement powers to other law enforcement agencies, such as campus police. Those three agreements have been approved by ICE, according to a federal database. Others approved as participating agencies are the police at Florida A&M University, New College of Florida, the University of Central Florida, the University of Florida and the University of West Florida.

    None of the three latest colleges responded to requests for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    Santa Fe College also has a draft agreement in place that has not yet been signed, a spokesperson said, noting the earliest that would be done is at a May 20 board meeting. A spokesperson for Pensacola State College said its campus police are considering an application to partner with ICE.

    Other institutions that have already signed agreements with ICE are:

    • Florida A&M University
    • Florida Atlantic University
    • Florida Gulf Coast University
    • Florida International University
    • Florida Polytechnic University
    • Florida State University
    • New College of Florida
    • University of Central Florida
    • University of Florida
    • University of North Florida
    • University of South Florida
    • University of West Florida

    While all 12 institutions in the State University System have signed on with ICE, Florida SouthWestern State, Northwest Florida State and Tallahassee State appear to be the first of the 28 members in the Florida College System to enter such arrangements.

    Not all of the state colleges have campus police departments. But of those that do have campus police departments, signing on with ICE isn’t a given. For instance, Florida State College of Jacksonville and Polk State College told Inside Higher Ed that neither have a memorandum of agreement with ICE.

    Leaders Defend Agreements

    The agreements with ICE come amid an immigration crackdown driven by Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida’s Republican-controlled Legislature. In February, DeSantis directed state law enforcement agencies to sign agreements with ICE “to execute functions of immigration enforcement within the state” to make deportations more efficient, according to a news release.

    Florida colleges and universities soon followed by signing memorandums of understanding with ICE that will deputize campus police officers to carry out immigration duties on campus. Institutions have largely declined to speak publicly about the arrangements. However, a recent Faculty Senate meeting at Florida International University with FIU chief of police Alexander Casas yielded insights into why agreements were signed but left many lingering questions.

    Casas argued at the April 18 meeting that it would be better for university police to carry out immigration enforcement duties on campus than outside agencies.

    “I can’t control what ICE does. I can’t control what a state agency does that has jurisdiction. But if I don’t enter the agreement, I don’t even have the opportunity to say, ‘Call us first, let us deal with our community.’ That’s not even an option,” Casas said. He added he wanted to be “in the driver’s seat” but “without the agreement, I’m not even in the car.”

    FIU interim president Jeanette Nuñez, the former lieutenant governor under DeSantis, also defended the deal, telling the Faculty Senate the ICE agreement follows similar arrangements “at almost all of the state universities and many other universities across the country.”

    Immigration experts have told Inside Higher Ed they are unfamiliar with such agreements at universities in other states. Only Florida institutions appear in an ICE database that tracks active and pending 287(g) agreements. (FIU did not respond to questions about Nuñez’s claims.)

    FIU Faculty Senate members, however, did not seem swayed by Casas or Nuñez. Several professors spoke about their distrust for ICE—some clearly emotional—and referenced recent questionable actions by ICE, such as the widely publicized arrest of Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez, an American citizen who was detained earlier this month and falsely accused of illegally entering Florida as an “unauthorized alien.” Federal officials later blamed Lopez-Gomez for his arrest.

    Ultimately, the Faculty Senate approved a resolution calling for the university to withdraw from the ICE agreement, which members argued ran counter to the values of the institution.

    Statewide Concerns

    Concerns about such agreements have also emerged at universities across the state.

    Students and faculty have protested such agreements at FIU, FAU and elsewhere. United Faculty of Florida, a union that represents professors across the state, condemned the agreements with ICE as a betrayal of the core values of higher education in a recent statement.

    “Our campuses must be institutions of learning, critical inquiry, and inclusion—not instruments of surveillance and state-sponsored oppression,” United Faculty of Florida officials said in a statement last week. “The presence and involvement of ICE on our campuses sows fear among students, staff, and faculty, particularly those from immigrant, undocumented, or international communities. It undermines the very mission of our higher education system: to foster open dialogue, intellectual freedom, and the free exchange of ideas across borders and identities.”

    The agreements also prompted pushback from the Florida Advisory Council of Faculty Senates, which issued a resolution that urged universities to withdraw from existing agreements with ICE.

    “To effectively protect our universities, campus police cultivate a unique relationship with campus communities,” council members wrote in a recent resolution. “They come to know our students, our educational spaces, and our communities. They are present at peaceful protests, in classrooms, and at student events. Repurposing this unique trust for federal immigration enforcement makes our campuses less safe, puts our officers in an untenable position, and chills students’ access to the support services they critically need to succeed.”

    That resolution has already been endorsed by some faculty senates, including at FAU.

    Source link

  • AAUP Report Backs Tenured Pro-Palestine Prof. Who Was Fired

    AAUP Report Backs Tenured Pro-Palestine Prof. Who Was Fired

    A new American Association of University Professors investigative report concludes that Muhlenberg College violated the academic freedom of a tenured associate professor who said the institution fired her for pro-Palestinian speech.

    Maura Finkelstein’s situation made headlines last year as the first instance that major academic freedom advocacy groups had heard about of a tenured faculty member being fired for pro-Palestine or pro-Israel statements. Complaints against Finkelstein also became the subject of a U.S. Education Department Office for Civil Rights investigation.

    Finkelstein previously said she was fighting her May 2024 termination and was continuing to be paid during the appeals. But a college spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed this week that Finkelstein has now “resigned from the college to pursue other scholarship opportunities.” Finkelstein didn’t respond to Inside Higher Ed’s requests for comment.

    Finkelstein, who is Jewish, had said a panel of faculty and staff recommended axing her over her Instagram repost that told readers not to “normalize Zionists taking up space” and called Zionists “genocide-loving fascists” who shouldn’t be welcome “in your spaces.”

    Members of the college’s Faculty Personnel and Policies Committee later unanimously concluded that Finkelstein shouldn’t be fired, according to the AAUP report released Tuesday. The report is from a Committee of Inquiry composed of three faculty from other higher education institutions, and it’s been approved by the AAUP’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure.

    The report concludes, among other things, that “by initially dismissing Professor Finkelstein from the faculty solely because of one anti-Zionist repost on Instagram and without demonstrating—in fact, without ever seeking to demonstrate” that she was professionally unfit, “the Muhlenberg administration violated Professor Finkelstein’s academic freedom of extramural speech.” The report says the firing has “severely impaired the climate for academic freedom” at the college.

    A college spokesperson said the institution “has not been afforded the opportunity to review the amended report,” but pointed to the administration’s response to an earlier AAUP draft. That response, included in the final AAUP report, says Finkelstein “was afforded a fair and equitable process” and that “the cumulative effect of Professor Finkelstein’s conduct and post that called for the shaming of Zionists and to ‘not welcome them into your spaces,’ violated College policy.”

    Source link