Category: Featured

  • Unlocking Generative Engine Optimization (GEO): What Marketers Must Do to Stay Ahead

    Unlocking Generative Engine Optimization (GEO): What Marketers Must Do to Stay Ahead

    Remember when SEO was all about keywords and metatags, fueling now-defunct search engines like Yahoo, AltaVista and early Google? Those were the days of “keyword stuffing,” where quantity trumped quality and relevance, delivering poor search results and frustrating users. Google’s PageRank algorithm changed everything by prioritizing content quality, giving birth to the “Content is King” mantra and improving the user experience.

    Fast forward to the Era of the Modern Learner, where digitally astute users demand fast and accurate information at their fingertips. To keep up with their heightened expectations, search engine algorithms have evolved to become more sophisticated, focusing on the intent behind each search query rather than simple keyword matching. This shift has led to the emergence of AI-powered search engines features like Google’s AI Overviews to provide an AI-powered summary which now command prime real estate on the search engine results page.

    In response, Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) is emerging. AI-powered search engines are moving beyond simply ranking websites. They are synthesizing information to provide direct answers. In this fast-paced environment, delivering the right information at the right time is critical now more than ever. All marketers, regardless of industry, must adapt their strategies beyond traditional SEO.

    What is Generative Engine Optimization (GEO)?

    Artificial intelligence is rapidly infiltrating tools across every industry, fundamentally reshaping the digital landscape. Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) is emerging as a new approach to digital marketing, leveraging AI-powered tools to generate and optimize content for search engines. GEO is a catalyst, driving a fundamental shift in how search engines present information and how users consume it

    GEO leverages machine learning algorithms to analyze user search intent, create personalized content, and optimize websites for improved search engine rankings. This advanced algorithmic approach delivers contextually rich information from credible sources, directly answering user searches and proactively addressing related inquiries. A proactive strategy that goes beyond traditional SEO ensures that a school’s information is readily discoverable, easily digestible and favorably presented by AI-powered search engines such as Google’s AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Perplexity and Gemini.

    How GEO Works

    At its core, Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) uses artificial intelligence to bridge the gap between user needs and search engine performance. GEO tools go beyond traditional SEO by harnessing AI to deeply understand user behavior and generate content that’s not only relevant but also personalized and performance driven. Here is how it works across four core functions: 

    • Analyzing User Intent: GEO starts by analyzing user intent. AI models examine search queries, website behavior and browsing patterns to uncover what users are specifically searching for. This helps marketers develop content strategies that directly align with user expectations and needs. 
    • Generating Content: Using these insights, GEO tools generate original content tailored to meet the precise needs of the target audience. The result is content that answers user questions and aligns with how modern search engines evaluate relevance and quality.  
    • Optimizing Content: GEO then optimizes the generated content for performance. AI refines readability, integrates keywords and enhances structural elements for improved visibility in search results, which ensures that content performs well in both traditional and AI-powered search environments.  
    • Personalizing Content: Where GEO truly shines is in content personalization. By leveraging data like demographics, preferences and past interactions, GEO delivers tailored experiences that feel more relevant and engaging to individual users.  

    Comparing SEO and GEO

    While SEO and GEO may seem like competing strategies, they actually complement one another. Both aim to improve visibility in search results and drive meaningful engagement but do so through different methods. Understanding how they align and where they diverge is key to developing a modern, well-rounded digital strategy. 

    Ways GEO is Similar to SEO

    Despite their difference in execution, SEO and GEO share a common goal: delivering valuable content to users and meeting their search intent. Both SEO and GEO strategies contribute to: 

    • Improving website visibility and search rankings in the search engine results pages (SERPs). 
    • Driving organic traffic by making it easier for users to discover relevant information. 
    • Boosting user engagement and conversion rates through informative, well-tailored content.  

    Ways GEO is Different from SEO

    Where SEO and GEO begin to diverge is in their focus, tools, and content strategy:

    • Focus: Traditional SEO emphasizes keyword optimization, meta tags and technical structure. GEO, on the other hand, focuses on understanding user intent and creating dynamic, personalized content that adapts to evolving needs. 
    • Tools: SEO relies on tools like keyword research platforms, backlink analysis, and manual content audits. GEO uses AI-powered platforms to analyze data, generate content, and automate optimization based on real-time user behavior.  
    • Content: SEO often produces static, evergreen content that ranks over time. GEO enables the creation of responsive, personalized content that can shift based on user preferences, past interactions, and demographics. 

    While SEO has historically focused on driving clicks to websites and increasing rankings, GEO recognizes the increasing prominence of zero-click searches—where users find answers directly within AI-powered search overviews. In this new reality, GEO ensures your content remains visible and valuable even when the traditional click doesn’t occur. It does this by optimizing for how AI synthesizes and presents information in search results.

    Is GEO Replacing SEO?

    The rise of GEO has sparked an important question for marketers: Is SEO dead? The short answer is no. Rather than replacing SEO, GEO enhances it.

    GEO builds a foundation of traditional SEO by leveraging artificial intelligence to automate time-consuming tasks, deepen audience insights, and elevate content quality. A strong SEO strategy remains essential, and when paired with GEO, it becomes even more powerful.

    To support marketers in building that foundation, tools like EducationDynamics’ SEO Playbook offer actionable strategies for mastering SEO fundamentals while staying adaptable to innovations like GEO. As the higher education marketing landscape evolves, institutions are reaching a critical inflection point: the status quo no longer meets the expectations of the Modern Learner, and a more dynamic, data-driven approach is essential to stay competitive.

    Here’s how GEO supports and strengthens traditional SEO efforts:

    • Smarter Keyword Research and Optimization: GEO tools analyze search intent more precisely, allowing marketers to choose keywords that better reflect how real users search, creating content that directly answers those queries.  
    • More Personalized Content Experiences: By generating dynamic content based on user behavior, preferences, and demographics, GEO helps ensure the right message reaches the right audience at the right time.  
    • Streamlined Workflows: GEO automates content generation and optimization processes, making it easier to keep web pages fresh, relevant, and aligned with evolving search behaviors—all while saving time and resources.  

    SEO is far from obsolete; however, relying solely on traditional SEO tactics is outdated which is no longer sufficient in today’s evolving higher education landscape. To truly transform their marketing approach, institutions must embrace innovative solutions. 

     As generative AI becomes increasingly embedded in how people search, marketers must adapt. While traditional SEO tactics like on-page optimization, site structure, and link-building still have a role to play, GEO provides the bold innovation needed to drive impactful outcomes. By pairing SEO strategies with GEO’s AI-driven insights and automation, institutions can achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness in their marketing efforts.  

    Together, SEO and GEO provide a holistic, future-ready framework to engage the Modern Learner, enhance digital marketing efforts, and drive both reputation and revenue growth, which are essential for long-term success.

    Integrating GEO and SEO in Your Marketing Strategy for Higher Education Marketers

    As the digital landscape evolves, one thing remains clear: SEO is still essential for institutions looking to connect with today’s students. With the rapid adoption of AI in everyday search habits though, SEO alone is no longer enough.

    According to EducationDynamics 2025 Engaging the Modern Learner Report, generative AI is already transforming how prospective students evaluate their options. Nearly 70% of Modern Learners use AI tools for generative chatbot platforms like ChatGPT, while 37% use these tools specifically to gather information about colleges and universities in their consideration set.

    This shift signals a clear need for higher ed marketers to adapt their digital strategies. GEO provides a pathway to do that while better serving today’s students. By combining the proven fundamentals of SEO with GEO’s advanced AI capabilities, institutions can engage the Modern Learner more effectively at every stage of their decision-making journey.

    Reaching Modern Learners: Integrating GEO and SEO Strategies

    • Speak to What Modern Learners Search For: Modern Learners expect content that speaks directly to their needs and interests. Use GEO tools to identify the actual search terms prospective students use, such as “flexible online MBA,” or “how much does an online degree cost.” Then, develop SEO-optimized pages, blog posts, and FAQs that address these specific questions. Incorporate schema markup, structured headings, and internal links to boost visibility while keeping content informative and student focused.  
    • Personalize the Journey for Every Modern Learner: GEO enables marketers to go beyond generic messaging. Use behavioral data, such as which pages students visit, how long they stay or what programs they explore, to personalize touchpoints across channels. Personalization builds trust and shows Modern Learners you understand what matters to them.  
    • Deliver the Seamless Digital Experiences Modern Learners Expect: Today’s students want fast, seamless experiences. Use GEO insights to identify where users drop off, then optimize navigation and page speed accordingly. Implement clear, scannable layouts with prominent CTAs to enhance your website’s structure and user-friendliness. Consider adding AI-powered chatbots to provide real-time support for everything from application steps to financial aid inquiries.   
    • Use Data to Stay Ahead of the Modern Learner’s Needs: GEO tools give you visibility into what students search for, which content they engage with, and where they lose interest. Regularly review search patterns, click paths, and drop-off points to identify gaps in your content or barriers in the enrollment funnel. Use these insights to refine headlines, adjust keyword targeting, or introduce new resources that better align with what students care about. 

    As prospective students increasingly turn to AI tools to explore their options, higher education marketers must evolve their strategies to keep pace with changing search behaviors. While Search Engine Optimization remains essential for visibility and reach, it no longer fully reflects how today’s students search and engage online. GEO bridges that gap by adapting to real-time behaviors and preferences. To effectively connect with Modern Learners and stay competitive, institutions must evolve their digital strategies to include GEO. 

    The Future of SEO and GEO in Higher Education

    The future of enrollment will be shaped by how well institutions adapt to evolving digital behaviors. GEO is one of the many new components at the forefront of this shift. As AI continues to reshape how students interact with institutions and search for information, GEO will become an instrumental tool for delivering personalized, real-time information to meet their expectations.

    Traditional SEO will still play a vital role in ensuring your institution is discoverable, but GEO takes things further by extracting and tailoring relevant content to meet the specific needs of each user, creating dynamic, intent-driven engagement. With more students using generative AI tools to guide their enrollment journey, institutions must embrace strategies that reflect this new reality.

    Looking ahead, AI-powered SEO strategies will empower higher education marketers to create adaptive content that speaks directly to individual student goals and behaviors. These tools will also make it possible to deliver faster, more relevant information across platforms, often surfacing answers before a student ever clicks a link. With deeper access to behavioral data and user intent, marketers can refine messaging in real time, ensuring they’re reaching the right students with the right information at the right moment in their decision-making journey.

    Unlocking the Power of GEO with EducationDynamics

    As the digital landscape continues to shift, it can be challenging for institutions to keep pace with rapid change—especially when it comes to reaching the demands of today’s students. GEO empowers institutions to transform their digital engagement strategies, moving beyond outdated tactics to cultivate meaningful connections with the Modern Learner. 

    As a leading provider of higher education marketing solutions, EducationDynamics specializes in helping colleges and universities stay ahead. Our team brings deep expertise in foundational SEO and is actively embracing the next wave of digital strategy through Generative Engine Optimization (GEO). We understand what it takes to create meaningful engagement in a competitive enrollment environment and we’re here to help you do just that. 

    Connect with us to discover how we can support your team in building personalized digital strategies—whether it’s laying the groundwork with SEO or embracing innovative approaches like GEO. We’re here to help your institution succeed in today’s ever-changing digital world. 

    Source link

  • Harvard stands firm, rejects Trump administration’s unconstitutional demands

    Harvard stands firm, rejects Trump administration’s unconstitutional demands

    Last Friday, three federal agencies sent a demand letter to Harvard University laying out conditions for the university to continue receiving federal funds. The letter is unprecedented in its scope. It would essentially render Harvard a vassal institution, subjecting much of its corporate and academic governance to federal directives. 

    If Harvard acceded to these demands, faculty hiring, student admissions, student and faculty disciplinary procedures, university programming decisions, student group recognition processes, and much more would be transformed to align with the government’s ideological preferences.

    Among other things, the university would be required to:

    • Abolish ideological litmus tests in hiring and admissions practices and take steps to ensure viewpoint diversity in the faculty and student body. How Harvard can take both steps simultaneously and also commit to merit-based hiring and admissions, another directive, is unclear. FIRE opposes ideological litmus tests, but you can’t abolish them by trading one litmus test for another.
    • Deny admission to international students who are “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence.” These values go undefined. And, as any historian or Supreme Court observer would know, they’re subject to intense debate and varied interpretations. Ironically, this is also an ideological litmus test of the sort prohibited by the directive that Harvard abolish such tests.
    • Audit certain disfavored academic departments. The mandatory audit would include investigations into individual faculty members and would require Harvard to work hand in glove with the government to sanction faculty members who allegedly engaged in anti-Semitic discrimination or otherwise “incited students to violate Harvard’s rules.” The federal government’s definition of anti-Semitism incorporates the IHRA definition, which Harvard recently adopted and FIRE has long criticized as violating First Amendment standards.
    • Discontinue DEI. This would include shuttering all “programs, offices, committees, positions, and initiatives” relating to “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” These terms also go undefined in the letter, and while FIRE has been critical of many university DEI programs for their tendency to chill and censor speech, not all of them do, and many programs are within a university’s prerogative to create. This is especially true at private institutions.
    • Reform student disciplinary processes and procedures. The letter demands Harvard not fund or recognize any student group that “endorses or promotes criminal activity, illegal violence, or illegal harassment.” This amounts to a federal requirement of viewpoint discrimination. While many would find these categories of speech abhorrent, the categories go undefined and would nevertheless be protected by the First Amendment so long as the speech stays confined to endorsement and promotion and the student groups do not themselves engage in any criminal activity, illegal violence, or illegal harassment. The letter also identifies specific student groups that must lose recognition and funding.
    • Implement a comprehensive mask ban. Masks can be used by criminals to commit crimes, the sick to stay healthy, and, yes, protesters to remain anonymous. A blanket mask ban is an overbroad requirement that infringes on individuals’ constitutional right to anonymous speech.
    • Risk double jeopardy. The letter demands that Harvard “carry out meaningful discipline for all violations that occurred during the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 academic years.” To the extent any student was already tried for these alleged violations, this requirement would amount to “double jeopardy,” violating the venerated and centuries-old principle of fundamental fairness, enshrined in the Fifth Amendment, that says no individual should be tried for the same infraction twice.
    • Generally reform corporate governance structure and practices, including by “reducing the power held by students and untenured faculty” in its current structure. How Harvard governs its academic programs, and who should have a say in that governance, is up to Harvard, not the federal government. The First Amendment and basic principles of academic freedom require no less.

    In addition to these demands, the university would be required to undergo frequent and highly intrusive audits to ensure compliance. In short, the federal government would effectively serve as president and provost of Harvard University.

    The ostensible justification for these demands stems from the government’s belief that Harvard has allowed for a hostile environment for Jewish students in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. But federal law also dictates specific procedures for adjudicating alleged noncompliance — procedures the government circumvented here. 

    If allowed to stand, the government could revoke federal funding from any institution regardless of the merit of the government’s allegations. This processless approach is a loaded gun for partisan administrations to target institutions and individuals that dissent from administration policies and priorities.

    What Harvard does — for better or worse — others follow. Those of us who support free inquiry, academic freedom, and fair procedures on campus — not to mention institutional autonomy — can hope that maybe its action will inspire other institutions to grow a backbone.

    It’s true that institutions take federal funding voluntarily. But it’s also true that the government cannot condition federal funding on institutions giving up their autonomy and constitutional rights. A requirement that Harvard relinquish its authority to guide core academic programs certainly violates its free speech and academic freedom rights, as well as those of its students and faculty.

    It’s also true that Harvard doesn’t have clean hands. For the past two years, it has sat at the bottom of FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings, and it may well have violated Title VI by failing to meaningfully respond to conduct creating a hostile environment for Jewish students on campus. But just as with individuals, we don’t punish institutions based on allegations alone. And we cannot restore free speech with censorship.

    This isn’t the first time FIRE has objected to a presidential administration using federal civil rights law to violate rights. Under the Obama and Biden administrations, the federal government weaponized Title IX to erode campus due process and free speech protections. The fight over the Obama/Biden rules lasted over a decade, and has been largely resolved (for now) in court and with President Trump’s Department of Education promulgating federal rules that protect free speech and due process rights in campus sexual misconduct investigations.

    That’s why we’re deeply concerned that the administration doesn’t recognize that what was wrong and unlawful in the Title IX context is also wrong and unlawful in the Title VI context. Indeed, these federal requirements go even further than what we saw in the Title IX context.

    Fortunately, Harvard is fighting back. Yesterday, Harvard President Alan Garber wrote in an open letter:

    The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.

    Garber’s response didn’t sit well with the federal government, which soon announced it was freezing $2.2 billion in grants to the university. The fight will continue.

    What Harvard does — for better or worse — others follow. Those of us who support free inquiry, academic freedom, and fair procedures on campus — not to mention institutional autonomy — can hope that maybe its action will inspire other institutions to grow a backbone.

    There is some evidence of that already. On the same day Harvard announced it was rejecting the administration’s demands, Columbia University’s new acting president announced Columbia would not agree to any federal demands that “require us to relinquish our independence and autonomy as an educational institution.”

    In addition to Columbia, the administration also froze grants at Cornell University and Northwestern University and is investigating nearly 60 other universities.

    Behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated. Until more universities stand alongside Harvard in opposing the government’s unconstitutional demands, we can be sure these demands won’t be the last.

    Source link

  • HR and the Courts — April 2025

    HR and the Courts — April 2025

    by CUPA-HR | April 15, 2025

    Each month, CUPA-HR General Counsel Ira Shepard provides an overview of several labor and employment law cases and regulatory actions with implications for the higher ed workplace. Here’s the latest from Ira.

    NCAA and Critics Clash Over Proposed $2.8 Billion Settlement of Class Action College Athlete NIL Antitrust Settlement

    The proposed NCAA $2.8 billion settlement of the challenge to the NCAA’s past refusal to allow payment to college athletes for their name, image and likeness (NIL) was criticized in open federal court in California on April 7, 2025 (In re College Athlete NIL Litigation (N.D. Cal. No. 40:20-cv-03919)).

    The federal district court judge held an open hearing to consider the proposed settlement to include college athletes participating in Division I athletics from 2016 to the present. The proposed settlement would pay the athletes a total of $2.8 billion over a 10-year period. Participating colleges would share up to 22 percent of their annual athletic department revenue with athletes, which would be capped at $20 million for the 2025-26 academic year and increase from there in the future. The judge expressed concern over future athletes being bound by a 10-year agreement that they did not negotiate. We will follow future developments in this case as they unfold.

    Volunteer Baseball Coaches Settle $49.3 Million Antitrust Case With NCAA – Separate Case for Other Division I Volunteer Coaches Continues

    A class of former Division I volunteer baseball coaches have reached a proposed settlement of their antitrust claim against the NCAA for a proposed $49.3 million, which must be approved by the federal court handling the litigation (Smart v. NCAA (E.D. Cal. No. 2:22-cv-02125, 3/24/25)). The volunteer coaches argued that the NCAA enforced unfair anti-competitive rules which forced them to work for nothing while they often performed the same duties as paid coaches and worked more than 40 hours per week. The baseball coaches in this case included a class of 1,000 people who worked as volunteer baseball coaches in Division I from Nov. 29, 2018, to July 1, 2023.

    Under the proposed settlement, each class member would receive $36,000 for each year coached during the period. A hearing on this settlement will take place on April 28, 2025.

    A separate class action was recently certified and will move forward independently on behalf of 1,000 Division I, non-baseball coaches (Colon v. NCAA (E.D. Cal. No. 1:23-cv-00245, 3/11/25)). We will report on developments in this case as they unfold.

    Federal Court Rules for University and Rejects Claim That Anti-Racism Training Created a Hostile Work Environment – Professor’s Claim Dismissed on Summary Judgment

    A federal district court judge, who had previously denied Pennsylvania State University’s motion to dismiss hostile work environment claims related to anti-racism training and subsequent “negative” workplace comments, granted the university’s motion for summary judgment on the professor’s claims. The professor claimed that job-related anti-racism trainings and later discussions regarding anti-racism and White privilege made his work environment unlawfully hostile. The judge concluded that 12 alleged incidents over three and a half years of employment were not frequent enough to be pervasive under federal or state law (De Piero v. Pennsylvania State University (2025 BL 73228, E.D. Pa., No. 2:23-cv-02281, 3/6/25)).

    The plaintiff professor claimed that he was exposed to discriminatory comments and a hostile work environment during scholarly discussions, a campus-wide town hall meeting, a professional development meeting, and a guest lecture presentation. The plaintiff also alleged that he voiced discomfort with statements such as, “White teachers are a problem.” The judge noted that the professor was assured by an affirmative action officer that the statements were not an attack on him personally, that he does not “carry the burden” of the White race, and that he is not responsible for what White people have or have not done.

    Finally, the judge rejected the professor’s argument that this case would have been treated differently if the topic involved deriding Black people or Black privilege. The judge concluded that the 3rd Circuit precedent includes cases in which “equally offensive comments directed at Black employees have been found to be insufficiently pervasive.”

    Court of Appeals Reverses Federal Court Injunction Precluding Enforcing the Trump Administration Executive Order Ban on DEI Subject to Its Decision on Constitutionality

    The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a federal district court judge’s injunction precluding enforcement of the Trump administration executive orders banning DEI. The judge had issued the injunction, concluding that it was likely that the plaintiffs, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, would prevail on their claim that the executive orders violated the First Amendment by chilling free speech rights without due process (National Association of Diversity Officers v. Trump (D. Md, No.21-cv-333, 3/10/25)).

    The initial injunction was issued on Feb. 21, 2025, and appealed by the Trump administration. The Court of Appeals stayed the injunction on March 14, 2025. The executive orders now remain enforceable subject ultimately to the Court of Appeals and possibly Supreme Court decisions on constitutionality.

    EEOC and DOJ Publish Guidance About DEI Plans and Discrimination

    On March 19, 2025, the EEOC and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) published two technical assistance documents aimed at “unlawful discrimination” in workplace DEI programs. The first document is a short primer entitled, “What to Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work.” It describes the process of filing a discrimination claim under the Civil Rights Act and examples of actions that could be grounds for filing such charges.

    The second document is an FAQ entitled, “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work.” One of the Q&As explains the circumstances under which DEI could be unlawful.

    Court Rejects Professor’s First Amendment Claim After Revised Lawsuit Fails to Address Earlier Dismissal Over Gender Slurs in Class

    A San Diego State University philosophy professor, who was suspended without pay following student complaints that he used gender-based slurs in his philosophy class in a way “unrelated” to his teaching, had his amended complaint dismissed. The federal district court judge in California concluded that the amended complaint did not satisfy the court’s original dismissal based on the conclusion that the slurs were unrelated to his teaching (Corlett v. Tong (2025 BL 110938 S.D. Cal. 4/1/25)). The professor had, prior to this incident, been reassigned classes following complaints that he used a race-based slur in another class.

    The professor claimed that he used the language in his philosophy class as a way to demonstrate to students that terms can have multiple meanings. His claims were dismissed by the court, citing a four-page comprehensive investigator report received by the university prior to imposing the suspension, which concluded that the “slurs” were inappropriate and also violated the California Education Code. The court concluded that his amended complaint did not establish a basis to conclude that the university’s reliance on the independent investigator’s report was unreasonable.

    Because of the unprecedented and fast-changing pronouncements of the new presidential administration and the intervening court challenges, the developments contained in this blog post are subject to change. Before acting on the legal issues discussed here, please consult your college or university counsel and, as always, act with caution.



    Source link

  • Could Trump’s tariffs end up spurring green innovation?

    Could Trump’s tariffs end up spurring green innovation?

    U.S. President Donald Trump has never been a champion of the environment. From gutting climate policies to rolling back crucial environmental protections, the track record of the U.S. president speaks for itself. 

    But his announcement this month of steep tariffs on a sweeping range of foreign-made goods intended to boost U.S. production may also inadvertently fuel a global shift toward green innovation and a more sustainable future.

    During his first term, Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement, slashed pollution regulations and gave the fossil fuel industry a free pass. One of his most controversial moves was opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling — a pristine, ecologically-sensitive area home to polar bears, caribou and Indigenous communities that depend on the land.

    Now, he’s back — and this time, his weapon of choice is tariffs. The Trump administration has imposed tariffs on all imports from China, Mexico and Canada, as well as on steel, aluminium and cars from around the world.

    By targeting key imports like clean energy components and critical minerals, Trump’s latest trade war threatens to derail climate progress, drive up costs for renewable energy and push the United States further into fossil fuel dependence. The damage is real and the consequences could be catastrophic.

    Tariffs could hamper climate change efforts.

    The implementation of broad tariffs is poised to significantly hinder efforts against climate change and weaken environmental legislation. Here’s how:​

    Disruption of clean energy supply chains: The tariffs, particularly those targeting imports from China like steel, aluminium and lithium directly affect the availability and cost of clean technology components. For instance, the United States imports a substantial amount of lithium batteries from China — $1.9 billion worth in December 2024 alone. Increased tariffs on these imports could raise costs for renewable energy projects and electric vehicles, slowing the transition to cleaner energy sources. ​

    The energy sector is already grappling with shortages of essential parts. New tariffs exacerbate this issue, making it more challenging to procure necessary components for renewable energy infrastructure. This could delay projects and increase reliance on fossil fuels, counteracting efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ​

    Strain on environmental initiatives: The stock market’s negative reaction to the tariff announcements, with the Dow Jones dropping nearly 1,700 points and erasing approximately $3.1 trillion in market value, indicates broader economic instability. Such financial turmoil can lead to reduced funding and support for environmental programs, as both public and private sectors may prioritize immediate economic concerns over long-term environmental goals. ​

    As Trump imposes tariffs, his administration is also rolling back environmental protections. His Environmental Protection Agency is now questioning a key 2009 ruling that classifies greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide as harmful to human health. If the courts overturn it, this could weaken U.S. climate laws and make it harder to fight climate change.

    Unintended consequences

    While Trump’s tariffs largely threaten climate progress in the United States, they could have unintended environmental benefits elsewhere.

    Boosting green manufacturing in other countries: If U.S. tariffs make Chinese solar panels, batteries and EV components more expensive, other countries — especially in Europe, India and Latin America — may ramp up their own clean energy production. China itself may increase investment and focus on domestic EV adoption, hydrogen technology or battery recycling. 

    This could lead to a more diversified and resilient global supply chain for renewable technologies, while also strengthening domestic energy resilience by encouraging countries to develop and secure their own clean energy resources, reducing reliance on foreign imports.

    Strengthening regional trade alliances for green tech: With the imposing trade barriers, countries looking to avoid tariffs might strengthen regional partnerships, such as the EU-India green energy collaboration or China’s push to supply African and Latin American markets with solar and wind technology. This could decentralize the clean energy economy, reducing reliance on any single country.

    Reducing export-driven deforestation: If tariffs make U.S. imports of commodities like beef, palm oil and timber more expensive, countries that export these products (e.g., Brazil, Indonesia) may face declining demand. Less demand equals less incentive to clear forests for agriculture.

    On the other hand, the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), adopted in June 2023, aims to block imports of commodities linked to deforestation unless they can be verified as deforestation-free. The EU is a huge consumer of these commodities. 

    With two major markets (U.S. and EU) becoming less profitable for deforestation-linked goods, exporters might change their practices to comply with stricter regulations. This could encourage more sustainable supply chains.

    However, this would depend on whether other countries, like China, pick up the slack and implement EUDR-like regulations.

    Backing off petroleum

    If trade wars escalate and tariffs disrupt global markets, long-term investments in fossil fuel projects could become riskier due to economic uncertainty. Tariffs on fossil fuel-related goods — like equipment, machinery or raw materials — can increase production costs for oil and gas companies. 

    As the cost of extraction, refining and transportation rises, companies could face shrinking profit margins, making fossil fuel investments less appealing. This, and shifting focus to clean energy, might push investors toward renewables, which are increasingly seen as more stable and future-proof.

    There’s a catch: These benefits depend on how other countries respond. If the U.S. tariffs cause economic slowdowns, some nations might double down on fossil fuels to stabilize their economies. So while tariffs could have some green silver linings, they’re more of a chaotic wildcard than a deliberate climate strategy.

    While the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration present significant challenges to global climate efforts, they also create opportunities for positive change. The disruptions in the clean energy supply chain, economic instability and rollbacks of environmental protections are certainly concerning. However, the unintended side effects of these actions might just catalyze a shift in global energy dynamics.

    In the long run, this “chaotic wildcard” could make fossil fuel investments riskier and accelerate the global pivot toward renewables. Countries and industries could be forced to innovate and adapt faster than expected. 

    While the path ahead may seem uncertain, there’s a silver lining: resilience, innovation and adaptability are key to overcoming these challenges. As the world adjusts to these new realities, the opportunity to cultivate a cleaner, more sustainable future is within reach — if leaders recognize this moment and take bold action to seize it. 

    So, while the road ahead may be bumpy, there is still reason to hope and act. 

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. How can governments turn the economic disruptions caused by tariffs into opportunities for advancing clean energy and climate goals?

    2. How can a decentralization of green energy technology be a good thing? 

    3. How can government intervention combined with market forces, like the rising cost of fossil fuels, accelerate the transition to renewable energy?

     

    Source link

  • U of Utah Urges Compliance After State Restricts Pride Flags

    U of Utah Urges Compliance After State Restricts Pride Flags

    A University of Utah lawyer last week urged faculty to comply with the state’s new prohibition on the “prominent“ display of pride flags and other flags on campus, The Salt Lake Tribune reported.

    Deputy general counsel Robert Payne urged faculty in a meeting not to “be a lightning rod to the Legislature” and said state lawmakers “have a lot of power over us,” the newspaper reported. Payne also suggested that if employees tried to get around the law by hanging pride posters instead of flags, legislators might “come back with something worse,” the Tribune reported.

    Utah’s Republican-controlled Legislature passed House Bill 77 last month, and Gov. Spencer J. Cox, a Republican, let it become law without signing or vetoing it. When it takes effect May 7, it will ban government entities, including public colleges and universities, from displaying flags on government property “in a prominent location.” Some flags are exempted, such as the U.S. flag and the prisoner of war/missing in action flags.

    Trevor Lee, a Republican Utah House member and HB 77’s chief sponsor, told Inside Higher Ed he didn’t file the legislation specifically to ban pride flags. But “that’s just been the biggest, biggest issue of any political flag,” he said. “I mean, it’s not even close.”

    Lee said the flags go beyond representing inclusivity. He said, “It’s a sex flag. It tells everyone what sexual ideology you believe in.”

    The University of Utah has released guidance online saying the law generally bans pride flags, Juneteenth flags and others from prominent locations. The guidance notes exemptions, including that students and employees can “wear or carry a flag as a personal expression of free speech,” and that employees can decorate their offices with flags “so long as they are not easily visible outside of their personal space (e.g., posted in an office window).”

    Payne said the university hasn’t yet decided how it will enforce the flag ban, according to the Tribune. The university’s guidance says, “Flags may also be used as decorations in connection with a brief cultural celebration hosted by the university within a university building,” but can’t be up for more than a week. It’s unclear whether pride will be considered a cultural celebration.

    Source link

  • Federal Grants Website Gets DOGE’d

    Federal Grants Website Gets DOGE’d

    The Department of Government Efficiency has taken control of a federal website that universities and other organizations use to find out about—and apply for—federal grant opportunities, The Washington Post reported Friday. 

    Federal officials have historically listed on Grants.gov more than $500 billion in annual federal grant opportunities from numerous agencies, including the Defense, State and Interior Departments, that fund research on a range of topics, such as cancer, cybersecurity and wastewater management. However, an engineer from DOGE—the agency run by billionaire Donald Trump donor Elon Musk—deleted, without notice, many of those officials’ permissions to post those funding opportunities.

    Agency officials have been instructed instead to send their planned grant notices to a Department of Health and Human Services email address that DOGE is monitoring. The HHS, which has long managed Grants.gov, said it’s “taking action to ensure new grant opportunities are aligned” with the Trump administration’s priorities outlined in its Make America Healthy Again agenda, according to the Post. 

    Now DOGE is responsible for posting grant opportunities. And if it delays them or stops posting them altogether, that “could effectively shut down federal-grant making,” an anonymous federal official told the Post.

    Source link

  • Students and Institutions in Limbo After Mass Layoffs at OCR

    Students and Institutions in Limbo After Mass Layoffs at OCR

    A month after the Department of Education closed seven of its 12 regional civil rights offices and laid off nearly half the staff in the Office for Civil Rights, there’s still uncertainty about how the agency will perform its functions with such reduced numbers.

    OCR was founded to ensure equal access to education for all students and is responsible for investigating claims that schools and institutions of higher education failed to protect their students from discrimination. But under the current administration, the office has shifted gears to focus on President Donald Trump’s top priorities: removing trans women from women’s sports teams, protecting against alleged discrimination against white students, and protecting students against alleged antisemitism.

    Back in February, the office’s acting head, Craig Trainor, told employees to pause all investigations except for a handful that aligned with those priorities, according to ProPublica. Trainor quickly told investigators they could once again begin investigating disability-related complaints, which made up the largest share of the pending complaints, but not those related to race- or sex-based discrimination.

    Tracey Vitchers, the executive director of It’s On Us, a nonprofit advocacy organization focused on combating campus sexual violence, says this harks back to the first Trump administration: At the time, a large number of complaints were “quietly ignored” by OCR, leading to a massive backlog for former president Joe Biden’s administration to handle when he came into office in 2021.

    “That was the playbook during the first administration, and it was just that they just sat on shelves, essentially—digital shelves. Those cases were put on the digital shelf, ignored, not opened, not investigated,” she said.

    When Trump took office, more than 12,000 cases were open with OCR, including over 3,000 at institutions of higher education, according to a database of open OCR cases.

    Over half of all OCR cases were being handled by a regional office that is now closed, according to a report from Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont Independent who is the ranking member on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Following the layoffs, each investigator’s caseload—which was already at an all-time high of 42 cases—is expected to skyrocket to 86 cases as a result of the cuts, significantly reducing investigators’ ability to resolve each complaint, per the report.

    The data in the report reflects concerns from former OCR staffers who warned that the layoffs would make protecting students’ civil rights more difficult.

    Experts say that OCR complaints going unresolved can be a serious impediment to a student’s ability to learn.

    “At the postsecondary level, common complaints are refusals to accommodate,” said Paul Grossman, an attorney who worked at OCR for 41 years and is now executive counsel for the Association for Higher Education and Disability. “A student wants a particular kind of accommodation, and the school says, ‘No, that’s a fundamental alteration or an undue burden,’ and the student, as a result, may get dismissed because they don’t meet the academic standards, may get dismissed because they don’t meet conduct standards, whatever the case may be. Or the student may just be unhealthy—they may not be well enough to continue, because they don’t get the accommodation.”

    The public repository of open OCR cases, which used to be updated weekly, has not been updated since Jan. 14, just before Inauguration Day. But ProPublica reported in late February that only about 20 new cases have been opened since Trump took office, whereas about 250 cases were opened in the same period last year.

    That most likely comes down to OCR’s decisions about what to investigate. But Vitchers also noted that, since even before Trump’s second term began, she hasn’t been as eager to advise students to open a case with OCR in response to their institutions mishandling Title IX complaints. After the Biden administration finalized its Title IX regulations, which offered protections to transgender students and which organizations like It’s On Us said were much more sympathetic to victims of sexual violence than Trump’s previous regulations, in the summer of 2024, numerous states sued to block the regulations. The legal tussle made for a complicated environment for students seeking justice for sexual harassment or assault through Title IX, and the Biden rule was eventually vacated just over a week before Inauguration Day.

    “Very honestly, with the back-and-forth on Title IX, and particularly once we saw the Biden rule get challenged, we sort of, somewhat quietly, encouraged students to really pause and take a hard look at, what was the outcome that they were looking for? And help them assess, is the OCR complaint going to get you the outcome that you’re actually looking for here?” she said. “If it is, then we will support you in finding an attorney and filing a case. But with so many of the students that we work with, many of them made the decision to, essentially, protect their own peace.”

    ED did not respond to a request for comment.

    Mediation, Digital Accessibility and More

    On top of concerns about the backlog of complaints going unanswered, experts are also worried about other, lesser-known functions of OCR that likely are not currently happening.

    In some cases, complainants can opt for early mediation, a type of resolution that is more informal and generally quicker than an investigation. But it is unclear if such mediations are happening currently; Grossman said he has heard one example of a planned mediation being canceled, and ED did not respond to a question from Inside Higher Ed about the issue. Grossman also noted that OCR is responsible for continuing to monitor the aftermath of investigations that have already been resolved.

    Jamie Axelrod, director of disability resources at Northern Arizona University and a past president of AHEAD, pointed out that OCR is responsible for conducting digital compliance reviews, in-depth surveys of whether a school or university’s digital resources, such as its website and learning management systems, are accessible to students with disabilities. During the previous Trump administration, Axelrod said, ED stood up a specialized team to complete these reviews and provide technical assistance to institutions to help them make their digital resources more accessible. Now, that team has been reduced significantly, according to Axelrod.

    He also noted that OCR is supposed to be a tool schools and universities can turn to in order to answer any questions about how to appropriately accommodate their students.

    “The point of that is to avoid circumstances that wind up causing discrimination against students with disabilities, and so that’s a key role,” he said. “And it’s hard to really calculate how many instances of discrimination [that prevented from] happening in the first place. It’s hard to count what you prevented, but that is an important role, and I’m sure it leads to resolution of lots of complicated circumstances.”

    The impacts of the cuts are likely to go even deeper than the individual cases that have been displaced to new investigators and the specific programs that will likely fall by the wayside.

    “Like any postsecondary educational institution, there’s a lot of institutional memory that’s developed,” Grossman said. “You have to develop connections, relationships, understandings, insights, experience, and all these people who are going out the door, you’re just lighting a match to all that expertise and experience. And to me, that’s a really sad thing.”

    Source link

  • How to Better Support Deans (opinion)

    How to Better Support Deans (opinion)

    Being a president is hard. Seriously hard. We are watching the rapidly increasing presidential turnover rate collide with the lack of formal succession planning at a time when higher education is under significant political pressure. This is a serious problem for higher education.

    But contrary to the popular perception, the president is not the sole difference-maker to an institution’s success. Once we look outside the spotlight of the presidency, we remember the institution’s core mission: academics. Skilled, effective academic leadership is vital to the ongoing success of an institution.

    Standing at the forefront of the academic mission is the provost. In case you are wondering what a provost does, they are, on paper, the chief academic officer, responsible for the vision and oversight of all academic affairs. As important as that sounds, Larry A. Nielsen, in his book Provost: Experiences, Reflections and Advice From a Former “Number Two” on Campus, describes the provost as the university’s “stay-at-home parent.” Not so glamorous.

    It is those leaders at the next level below the provost, the deans, who have responsibility for the vision and oversight of their respective colleges or schools. It is in these units where the bulk of the work happens for the academy to accomplish its mission, in research, teaching and service.

    In the current climate for higher education, where its value is being challenged and the fight for student enrollment is running high, the provost and deans hold the key to academic transformation, as they strive to make their institution a strong destination that changes students’ lives and opens doors to new careers. Additionally, the deans and their faculty are closer to the ground in terms of understanding what students and their communities need and want. They primarily shape which courses, programs, majors and minors are offered. They do this work. Not the president.

    This raises a question: What can be done to better support the deans?

    Deans operate at a critical transition point. They serve at the discretion of the provost and president, and, as such, take direction (or sometimes lack of direction) that comes down to them. At the same time, deans are serving and representing their faculty and staff, working to support their success in doing the actual work of educating, advancing knowledge and serving the institution as good citizens and stewards. This crunch between above and below brings a lot of pressure for deans, even in the best of circumstances.

    Thus, having coached and/or consulted with close to 100 deans over the years, I offer the following strategies.

    Give Them Resources and Get Out of the Way

    Being a dean is more closely aligned in its responsibilities to a presidential role than that of a provost. The dean oversees their school, with responsibility to set vision, create strategy, raise money, build and oversee administrative teams, manage politics, and drive results.

    What a dean is not is a “stay-at-home parent.”

    For deans to be most successful, the provost needs (to the best of their abilities) to provide deans with resources, professional development, time and clear direction. The provost (and at times the president) then needs to clear roadblocks, make introductions to key donors and stakeholders, and be available to the deans, as needed. You might say that the provost could consider the deans their most important constituents. If the deans are successful, it will greatly enhance the provost’s success.

    Allow Deans to Meet Alone Regularly

    Being a dean can be lonely. There is no one in their school to whom they can express insecurities or speak candidly, especially about sensitive issues. Providing space for the deans to meet and talk openly, candidly and even vulnerably with one another builds a group of trusted peers and advisers and creates a safe space to discuss challenges and give and get feedback from colleagues who may be experiencing the same.

    This process yields tremendous benefits for a campus, where challenges and opportunities across the schools can become aligned, resulting in better institutional decision-making, accountability and communication. The provost may think they should be in the room for these conversations (to hear what’s happening for the deans, to be helpful, etc.), but their presence limits the quality and openness of the conversations. If provosts want to be helpful, sponsor a monthly breakfast or dinner for the deans to meet alone. At a large R-1 where I have co-facilitated a new department chairs program for many years, the program has become affectionately known as “chairapy.” The same support could be provided for deans (deanhabilitation? I’m still working on a name for this one).

    Build a Team of Deans

    The deanship is an isolating role. The default setting for deans is to engage in turf wars with other deans, each jockeying for the attention and resources from the president, provost and CFO. As a result, many institutions fail to recognize how to leverage the deans as a true governing body on campus. Instead, both the provost and the president would benefit from investing their time and energy in supporting a deans’ council that has (as the Center for Creative Leadership proposes) shared direction, alignment and commitment. A unified team of deans allows for better decision-making, mutual support and resource sharing, as well as more consistent communication throughout the institution. Instead of fueling the common narrative of individual fiefdoms, invest in the deans as a team and reap the rewards of a better-functioning organization.

    Provide Deans With Information

    Deans like independence, running their shops with minimal interference. However, deans also need information and from all directions: above, below, across and outside. When information is lacking, rumors fill the void. Faculty will speculate, staff will complain or withdraw, stakeholders will wonder, “What is that dean doing, anyway?”

    To mitigate these issues, stakeholders need to share information and in particular, give the why, the context and rationale behind an issue. So if anyone wants to be helpful to their deans, overinform them and always include reasons why the information is important. If too much information is being provided, let the dean set the limits. And when a dean asks about an issue, please answer them (barring legal reasons not to). Don’t withhold. A dean left in the dark is only as good as the flashlight they have.

    Be a Thought Partner

    Deans attend a relentless number of meetings. As a client of mine once shared with me, “I have more requests for standing monthly meetings than there are hours in a month.” To avoid crushing deans with ineffective usage of their time, any meeting with them should be generative, one in which problems are being solved, decisions are being made, strategies are being forged and deals are being closed. Come to deans with solutions, with innovations and with energy. As the famous line from the film Jerry Maguire goes, “Help me help you!” Offer to be the dean’s thought partner, to stand (metaphorically) shoulder to shoulder and think through an issue together.

    Get Them a Coach

    As an executive coach, I recognize this one comes with my own inherent biases. And yet, I have seen firsthand the payoffs of providing executive coaching to deans. The return on investment easily justifies the financial cost. I do not wish to oversell this service. Just know it is super helpful—some might even say vitally.

    Ask Deans What They Need

    Finally, if you are not sure how to be helpful to a dean(s), ask them. They will know. A savvy dean, given the right mix of resources, support and collaboration, can accomplish great things, ultimately guiding their school to make the lasting impacts higher education so desperately needs these days: good news stories, student successes and positive contributions to their communities and country. A dean’s success can be a great counterbalance to the political side show that distracts from what truly makes the academy invaluable.

    Rob Kramer is a special adviser to the provost at Southern Oregon University, the former senior leadership adviser at the University of North Carolina’s Institute for the Arts and Humanities, and an executive coach and consultant in higher education and academic medicine.

    Source link

  • Cash-Strapped Colleges Opt for Wellness Vending Machines

    Cash-Strapped Colleges Opt for Wellness Vending Machines

    A wellness vending machine helps increase access to reproductive health products at College of the Redwoods.

    ADragan/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    According to a May 2024 Student Voice survey, roughly one in five community college students (19 percent) believe their institution should invest in wellness facilities or services to promote well-being. A recent pilot program across the state of California seeks to remove barriers to accessing health supplies for community college students.

    The Wellness Vending Machine Pilot Program, a state-funded program established by Assembly Bill 2482, which passed in 2022, aims to make preventative care products more accessible to college students. The program provides funding for 18 colleges to address students’ physical health and overall academic success in a unique, lower-cost way: through vending machines that dispense everything from Band-Aids to birth control.

    For some institutions, like College of the Redwoods, the vending machine is the primary source of personal care products on campus.

    Community colleges in particular are often underresourced and limited in their ability to provide students with wraparound support services. A 2024 survey by the Richmond Federal Reserve of 80 community colleges in the District of Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and most of West Virginia found that only 3.8 percent of responding institutions offered on-site health services during the 2022–23 academic year. The greatest obstacle to offering such resources is funding.

    Katrina Hanson, manager of retention, basic needs and well-being for the College of the Redwoods community college district in Central California, applied for the vending machine grant in July 2023 to address a service gap on the main campus in Eureka.

    The College of the Redwoods closed its Eureka student health center in spring 2023, shifting from having a part-time nurse to instead offering tele–mental health services through TimelyCare. It also purchased three wellness vending machines: two for Eureka and one for one of its other two campuses, on the Hoopa Indian reservation.

    “It’s not a complete substitute for in-person care,” Hanson said. “But it is more equitable for our students on our Hoopa [Klamath-Trinity Instructional City] and Crescent City [Del Norte Education Center] campuses, as well as all of our online students.”

    How it works: The college set up the three wellness vending machines in August 2023, placing one in Eureka’s library and the other in a residence hall, as well as one on the Hoopa campus. The grant requires participating colleges to place vending machines in a central location that students can access at any time.

    The requirements also outline the products that should be sold, including condoms, dental dams, menstrual cups, lubricants, tampons, menstrual pads, pregnancy tests and emergency contraception pills. College staff identify and supply the machines with other popular or needed supplies.

    Eureka’s wellness vending machine is located in the library, which has the most hours of availability for students, allowing them to access it when they need various health supplies.

    Katrina Hanson/College of the Redwoods

    For example, when Eureka’s health center closed, Hanson asked which services were most popular. She learned that pregnancy tests and urinary tract infection tests were most commonly used, so she now ensures that the campus vending machines has those supplies available.

    Other popular items are Band-Aids, which are free in the machine, and Benadryl, which is discounted.

    The machines themselves are rented from a company that also handles snack machines around campus, so the college does not have to deal with maintenance or money collection. Grant funding will cover the machines for the five years of the pilot, but supplies are budgeted by the institution.

    “We are trying to get it to be at least somewhat self-sustaining by trying out different items,” Hanson said. “The sexual health and menstrual health supplies are free or discounted, per our grant agreement. The other items we can offer at regular price to try to make some money to keep the project going.”

    Survey Says

    Inside Higher Ed’s Student Voice survey of college students found that about two-thirds of respondents (n=5,025) rated the variety and quality of campus health and wellness offerings as good or average; about 5 percent indicated they had poor resources. Numbers were similar for respondents at two- and four-year institutions.

    Two birds, one machine: In addition to offering tailored health products for students, the vending machines also work as a resource hub, displaying informational posters in English and Spanish to equip learners with important information.

    Poster content includes what to know about emergency contraception, how to use the opioid overdose–reversing drug Narcan/naloxone, sexual wellness education and how to provide feedback to the college about using the machine.

    Rightsizing: Since setting up the machines, college staff have noticed that two machines (the one on the reservation campus and the one in the Eureka dorm) weren’t being used often, or students were only buying certain supplies. In the residence hall, for example, students only really wanted condoms. So campus leaders elected to downsize and just keep the one machine in the library, offering free supplies in other places instead.

    This academic year, the most purchased items have been condoms, menstrual cups, fentanyl tests, Narcan, tampons and acetaminophen. Students also frequently purchase deodorant, energy gels, LiquidIV, lip balm, ibuprofen, pregnancy tests and cough drops.

    So far, the machines haven’t been profitable, but staff pull supplies from the Basic Needs Center or local partners to keep costs low and continue to vary their offerings.

    The college is planning to reopen its student health center following construction, so the vending machines will support students in the meantime, Hanson said.

    Do you have a wellness intervention that might help others promote student success? Tell us about it.

    Source link

  • Some Rules for Campus Resistance (opinion)

    Some Rules for Campus Resistance (opinion)

    Given what’s happened at Columbia University (and what is happening now at other Ivies, and beyond), every university leader in the United States ought to be planning in advance what they will do when similar pressures are brought to bear on them. Academics ought to as well; all the citizens of our republics of learning should care about their institutions and be willing to defend them.

    Over a decade ago, here at the University of Virginia, we had a nasty little fight with our Board of Visitors when they tried to fire President Teresa Sullivan with little more logic or rationale than we’re currently seeing come out of Washington. (The American Association of University Professors produced a pretty good report about it, if you want to read something unsettling.)

    Our opponents in that little pas de deux had a degree of ignorance that amply matched their arrogance, but we were lucky in discovering allies far beyond Charlottesville in our alumni base and other institutions.

    At the time, I recognized that we had learned some smaller, tactical lessons in the whole shindig that might be relatively portable across different universities. I almost published them, but decided that it was better to let my university go forward without adding my two cents.

    Now, however, in our moment, these seem relevant again. So, in the wake of Columbia’s capitulation to Trump’s assault, I dusted them off and polished them up. They didn’t need much polishing, to be honest. Consider this a small pamphlet for thinking about hosting “a little rebellion now and then” on your campus, when such is needful.

    1. Don’t start the fight. Have a prompting event—even if you invite it merely by doing your job. We were lucky to have a “day of infamy” jump-start our events in 2012. It was dropped, gift wrapped, into our lap. We were, from the beginning, in the position of the victim—the one who was wronged. Being the aggrieved party from the start helps. A lot.
    1. Be a big tent, but have one common aim. Because the misdeed was so expansive in its implications, the scope of our “we” was enormously wide. The “we” who was violated included not just the president, but the administration, faculty and staff—and not just them, but the students, and the alumni, and indeed the community of Charlottesville, and possibly all those interested in the future of academia in America and beyond. And anyway, you’re not seeking consensus: You’re seeking alliance. This is hard for us academics, because we are so excellent at invidious distinctions. But remember: World War II was won by an alliance of the British empire, the anticolonialist liberal United States and the definitionally revolutionary U.S.S.R. If those three states could work together, you can say something nice about professors in the business school, or vice versa. The same goes for deans and administrators: They are not the enemy. By coordinating the most expansive community as the community to whom voice could be given, we ensured not just that numbers were on our side, but that the widest set of complaints and grievances were brought to bear on the most precise targets.
    2. Lean into shared governance. No one ever expected the UVA Faculty Senate to be consequential, least of all the Faculty Senate. It was the place where we sent junior faculty “to learn about the university”; given how much import anyone normally gives to learning about the university, that shows you what we thought of it. But, to borrow from Don Rumsfeld, you go to war with the institutions you have, not the institutions you wish you had, and now everyone knows that the Faculty Senate can matter, and matter decisively. I hope we never forget it. I hope you can learn from our example and not your own.
    3. Tenure counts. You know that thing we say about tenure mattering for free expression and for ensuring that you can speak your mind on academic matters without getting fired by administrators who don’t like what you have to say? I used to find it annoying and silly— “of course that’s not going to happen, not today,” I thought; “no one will be so dictatorial.” Well, lookie here—I was wrong. The first and consistently most vocal group in the whole UVA fracas was the faculty. The staff members were behind us (especially the women on the university’s staff, who had felt represented by Sullivan in a powerful way), but obviously they were in the most vulnerable position. And the deans and administrators were by and large ready to accept the coup as a fait accompli. (While the deans of the various schools eventually came around, it took them some time; only after they realized that almost every last one of the faculty were extraordinarily pissed, and shopping their CVs around, did they realize that they were hurting themselves more by not saying anything than they would by saying something.)
    1. “If a problem cannot be solved, enlarge it.” Dwight D. Eisenhower said that, and it’s true here. The prompting event of our crisis was of course the firing of our President Sullivan by our board rector, Helen Dragas, and a few others (let’s be honest about what it was and who did it). But it was clear from the beginning that there were larger issues here—about the disconnect between oversight, management and teachers and researchers, about the creeping “corporatization” of the board (though that does a terrible disservice to wise governance of corporations around the world, which would never be run the way most university boards try to run their institutions), about the failure of faculty to take seriously how the higher levels of the university were operating—matters far larger than simply this act. As the crisis developed, we realized we were reaping the consequences of structural contempt toward the faculty (and the rest of the university, really) by the Board of Visitors and a crisis of apathy about university governance on the part of the faculty. The problem may be larger than you first realize: Get it in focus, first and foremost.
    2. “Do you expect me to talk?” “No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die.” The idea that disputes of these sorts are amenable most basically to conversation is mistaken. Statements were continually communicated to our Board of Visitors, but we knew almost at once that argument was not our real weapon. Once you decide to dissent, the time for talk is over, at least with opponents such as these; they will not be amenable to conversation—not without a great deal of pressure from other forces and sources. Your aim is not to convince your opponents; your aim is to beat them. To do that, you must persuade potential allies, not actual enemies. That said, it never hurts to be reasonable and produce strong arguments directed at your opponents, so long as you know those arguments are largely valuable because they are overheard by others.
    3. At no point should you demonize or vilify your opponents. It weirdly invests them with power you need not bestow. You’re in a fight with someone who’s like a toddler—do not descend to their level. Speak calmly, as to a toddler having a temper tantrum. You won’t convince them, but you will demonstrate you are not afraid. That will upset them more. If they lose, of course they will say you did demonize and belittle them; they’ll call you “so mean,” “ungracious” and “nasty in tone.” Don’t worry; everyone else knows otherwise. Saying that may be their only consolation prize. Let them have it. You’re walking out with the Benjamins. Or, in our case, the Sullivan.
    1. Time is not your friend, but nonetheless, boil the frog slowly. In a delicious irony, the coup at UVA was reversed “incrementally”—a bad word for Rector Dragas, a good word for President Sullivan. Resistance to the coup began with some immediate disquiet from the faculty and a few students on campus when it was first announced. But the faculty knew from the beginning they wouldn’t be the material cause of any change; they needed more powerful allies. The momentum built slowly, then snowballed at the end. And the momentum built both inside the institution and outside it: inside, mostly by growing outrage at the trickle of information released and the little bit we could discover (or, more properly, the media could discover) over time, and outside, by the gradual but eventually approaching exponential expansion of numbers and kinds of UVA stakeholders who expressed outrage.

    The end of the first week saw the Faculty Senate meeting where 800 faculty and others listened as our provost, John Simon, expressed real and powerful concern, and subtle outrage, over what had happened and how it had happened. By the end of the second week, we had politicians, alumni, other university faculties—and a number of major donors—speaking out in outrage. And then, too, we began to see newspaper editorial boards—and Katie Couric—condemn the firing. Had the Board of Visitors waited a bit longer to reverse its action, no doubt the United Nations, the E.U., the Nature Conservancy, the NBA, al Qaeda and Justin Bieber would have issued statements.

    The lesson here? Don’t try to get everyone on board all at once. Trust the swarm method, but go through your list of stakeholders methodically—moving from the most swayable to the least so. Rank them in their “get-ability,” and then get them, encouraging the ones you already have on your side to increase pressure on the next-most-gettable ones. On day two of a crisis, you probably won’t get The Washington Post and your institution’s major donors to sign on to calling this an outrage; but by day 10, or 14, with a little help, and momentum from other people, you may. And better still, while this is happening, your opponents probably won’t notice the pressure gradually ratcheting up, as they are simply trying to keep responding to different constituencies. By the time they realize that there are a lot of people angry at them, there’s little they can do to quell the anger, except give in.

    1. Have a lousy enemy, and let everyone see that. Maleficence is usually associated with incompetence, and in the case of this episode, that was true. We were extraordinarily fortunate in our foe. The Kremlin-like silence of the Board of Visitors as the shock and anger mounted; the Politburo-like prose when the board decided to speak; the slow uncovering of the incredibly flimsy reasoning behind the decision, revealed in emails over the previous months; the remarkable stubbornness, coupled with utterly no sense of the appearance of absurdity regarding the irrationality of the stubbornness—it’s as if we couldn’t have had a better opponent for this fight.

    But it is important that what gets publicized is your opponents’ badness, not your contempt for them. Academics are really, really skilled at expressing contempt. Few of us realize it doesn’t make us look good, either in faculty meetings or on social media. You never win an argument by judging your opponents. Instead, let your opponents be seen for who they are.

    This is mostly out of your control, but it might be possible to imagine different ways of framing your opponent, so that different profiles of them emerge. In our case it was clear early on that it would be very important not to make this about the entire Board of Visitors but to focus on a small clique inside it so that pressure could be put upon the whole in such a way that some fractures would result; we hoped that such fractures, once they appeared, would quickly cause the whole to shatter. And they did: In the end Sullivan’s reinstatement was a unanimous board decision, the unanimity induced by the fact that the Dragas faction knew they had lost and quickly crumbled.

    Anyway, these are some things I think we learned. Best of luck if you get in a position to need them. You’ll need all the luck you can get. We certainly did. But, you know, luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. That was on a motivational poster I saw once. Occasionally such things are useful. If you don’t know what I mean, I fear you will soon.

    Charles Mathewes is a professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia.

    Source link