Evidence suggests that significant numbers of students experience or are affected by harassment and sexual misconduct each year. Yet student complaints to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) about harassment and sexual misconduct have historically formed a very small proportion of our overall caseload.
The number of complaints about harassment and sexual misconduct we have received has been rising slowly but steadily in recent months. This may in part be a result of greater visibility at providers about mechanisms to disclose, such as “report and support” tools. This is a positive step, but there is more to be done to raise students’ confidence in how their providers can respond to reports.
Today we have published ten case summaries and a casework note on harassment and sexual misconduct, highlighting some key issues for providers to consider when addressing complaints. Although these examples focus on sexual misconduct, the broad principles of good practice can apply across other forms of harassment.
Taking reports seriously
Our recent casework shows that some providers are demonstrating, via the disciplinary action they take against students reported for harassment and sexual misconduct, how seriously they view breaches of their codes of conduct. We’ve seen providers taking swift action to investigate, make findings and apply penalties. In some cases, we have seen well-reasoned and documented decisions and clearly explained outcomes.
However, we have upheld a high proportion of the complaints we have reviewed about harassment and sexual misconduct. We have identified procedural errors and unfairness that have significantly undermined the value of the process for reporting students, and the validity of findings made against reported students.
Overall, providers seem to have more confidence in addressing the disciplinary aspect of these complaints. Disciplinary processes are usually well established and are supported by guidance and tools such as classification of the severity of any breaches of a code of conduct and accompanying tariffs of penalties.
There is less certainty and consistency of approach across the sector in responding to the reporting student. There may be fine nuances between a disclosure, a report or a complaint about harassment and sexual misconduct, and the manner of response to each might be slightly different. Many providers intend to be led by the reporting student’s needs, which is an admirable principle – but not always effective if the student has not been clearly informed about the options available to them and the differences between these routes.
Sharing an outcome
In several cases, providers haven’t understood that informing a reporting student that a disciplinary process has taken place is not a complete outcome.
Providers need to consider how they can support students and lessen the impact upon them of the harassment or sexual misconduct they have experienced. This is especially important when the report concerns the conduct of a member of staff. In our experience, providers have tended to be more transparent about incidents between two students than they have been when a member of staff is involved.
While providers have particular responsibilities to their employees that may be different to the obligations they have towards students, the imbalance of power makes it even more important that students understand how their complaint has been investigated and what will happen next.
Gathering and probing evidence
We recognise that complaints about harassment and sexual misconduct are often complex, and may involve events that unfold over a period of time, multiple incidents or involve numerous individuals. There can be constraints because of concurrent police action, which may not result in a clear outcome for several months. Cases may involve claims and counter-complaints, or turn on the credibility of the parties on nuanced issues such as consent.
Our experience suggests that in some cases, decision makers have not fully understood the importance of moving carefully through a process that genuinely gives all parties an opportunity to tell their own story and allows for gaps and inconsistencies to be explored. It is right that all parties in these processes must be treated with respect, with kindness, and with an awareness of the impact that re-visiting an experience of harassment or sexual misconduct may have.
But panel members who must test evidence appear to feel constrained in asking questions. Trying to re-examine or gather additional evidence at a later date can place an undue burden on all parties and prevent individuals from moving forward.
Consultation on a new section of the Good Practice Framework
The increased focus on tackling harassment and sexual misconduct across the sector – including the new E6 OfS regulatory condition that applies to some of the providers in our membership – is to be welcomed. The emphasis on clear information that is easy to access, and on well-resourced training for both staff and students may go some way to addressing some issues we have seen in complaints.
In 2025, we will consult on a new section of the Good Practice Framework addressing these complex issues. It will build on the learning we have identified from our rising volume of casework. Our intention will be to draw together in one place the principles that apply to complaints about harassment and misconduct.
We look forward to engaging with the sector to benefit from the extensive expertise of hands-on practitioners, to make this as useful a resource as possible. If you’d like to feed in at an early stage, please get in touch with us at [email protected].
We all know higher education has undergone a seismic shift from being a stable, traditional environment in the late twentieth century to a dynamic, complex and fast-moving sector. This transformation isn’t only in the UK – it’s global as well.
Leaders in higher education are now tasked with navigating political and regulatory changes, financial pressures, shifts in social dynamics and technological advancements. And that’s before they are faced with enhancement challenges like building student experience initiatives or boosting research impact.
In the past, leadership has perhaps been viewed as something of an anathema in academia, but its importance today permeates every level of an organisation. It is now a crucial component in the higher education sector’s efforts to successfully navigate current challenges.
We’ve created the Framework for Leading in Higher Education to address these multifaceted issues which can’t be left to executive teams alone. What’s needed most is a joined-up approach, engaging formal and informal leaders right across the institution. The mission, vision and values need to feel intuitive and fitting, so that, in an ideal world, everyone would want to frame their actions around the strategic plans to meet them and to feel part of the bigger picture. And this alignment must be two-way, fostering a sense of ownership and inclusivity, whether it’s about building inclusive cultures or understanding financial imperatives.
The journey to the framework
The story of our framework began in 2021 when Doug Parkin, former Principal Consultant at Advance HE and a research team led by Richard Watermeyer from the University of Bristol asked a deceptively simple question: “what works for leadership in higher education?” This question sparked a literature search and a scoping study, engaging leaders at all levels and functions from around the world. This was followed by Advance HE’s Leadership Survey, published in 2023.
After the report’s publication, we convened a rather brilliant steering group of colleagues from the UK, Australia and the Middle East, chaired by Ben Calvert, vice chancellor at the University of South Wales, and Shân Waring, vice chancellor at Middlesex University. We engaged with the sector through roundtables and workshops in the UK, Australia and Southeast Asia initially, to understand if a framework was wanted and then to determine its details.
The desire for a framework was clear.
We heard repeatedly about the importance of elevating leadership as a career path alongside research or teaching and supporting learning. The need for a common understanding and vocabulary around higher education leadership came across loud and clear.
In the back of our minds throughout all of this was a sense of disconnection between people and institutions. A sense that, sometimes, leadership is like wading through treacle with an intensity of policies, regulations and workload holding us back from being the leaders that we want to be. Unfortunately, the framework can’t shift all the treacle, but it might help find some pathways through, help to join-up thinking across institutions and help us to make friends with the structures, strategies and resources that are needed to sustain the whole organisation.
Who’s it for?
The framework is designed for leaders, aspiring leaders and those involved in leadership and organisational development. It’s intended for a global audience, recognising the many ways to lead in higher education across diverse cultures, contexts, structures and institutions.
Leadership happens throughout an institution, and this framework enables engagement from leaders operating formally and informally, from institutional to individual contributors, and from aspiring leaders to highly experienced ones. It’s designed to be inclusive in terms of culture, geography, institution type, level of responsibility, experience, and function.
The framework explained
At the core of the framework are three sets of leadership attributes, encompassing “knowledge and understanding”, “values and mindsets”, and “skills and applications”. Each of these is broken down into five dimensions for deeper exploration.
Moving outward, the framework articulates the context in which the leader operates: place, people and practice. The outer ring, intentionally blurred to remind us that the lines between individual attributes, context and institutional goals are never clearly defined, and that disruption is most likely to occur in those grey zones.
We’ve then defined three essential functions of university leadership as:
Developing, defining, and operating within organisational culture, strategy and vision: recognising that these will undoubtedly shape you as a leader as they are shaped by you.
Achieving internal measurable outcomes: performance and quality, financial sustainability, employability, curriculum quality and relevance, student and staff attraction, retention, progression, partnerships and collaborations, research and knowledge exchange.
Generating impact on the external world: generating local growth, reputation, addressing and solving global problems, creating economic value, developing cultural capital, social mission and graduate impact.
You might be tempted to ask, “is everyone supposed to do all of that?” To which, thankfully, the answer is no.
This is an all-encompassing framework, and not all leaders will engage with every aspect. Less experienced leaders might focus on a few of the dimensions, while senior leaders might engage across all of them. Similarly, not everyone will be involved in every function of the outer circle, but everyone will be directly or indirectly involved in some aspects.
How to use the framework
Leaders seeking self-development might use the framework for individual reflection, considering their strengths and areas for development, and how their organisation’s people, places and practices support or impede their progress. New leaders might use the framework to understand leadership in the context of higher education, considering their strengths and experiences, and how these contribute to the outer wheel’s functions. Leaders preparing for promotion might reflect on past impacts, connect them to leadership attributes, and identify further development needs.
Team leaders and leadership developers might assess team strengths and attributes, understand how context shapes performance, and use the framework for future-focused conversations. Institutions might use this framework to inform their own context-specific leadership frameworks and development programs.
Organisation development and learning and development professionals might consider the cultural and development needs of their leaders, ideally in consultation with them, to determine necessary structures and interventions for succession planning or responding to change initiatives.
What’s next?
We’ll be launching the framework over several months, with podcasts, interviews, seminars and workshops in the UK, Australia, Europe and the Middle East.
We want the sector to experiment, test it out, and help us shape it into something that will have a lasting impact. In the future, we’re looking at building accreditation to recognise those leading in higher education, similar to how we currently recognise those in teaching and supporting learning with the Professional Standards Framework.
We welcome thoughts, suggestions and feedback on this as well. And if you are involved in research activities in this area, we’d be delighted to hear from you.
GERMANTOWN, Tenn., Feb. 12, 2025 — Christmas in Germantown, Tennessee, might be merry and bright, but be careful if your decorations give a fright: you might get dragged into court and fined.
Today, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a federal lawsuit seeking to strike down on First Amendment grounds the Memphis suburb’s ordinance dictating to residents how and when they’re allowed to display holiday decorations. On Thursday, FIRE will also defend Alexis Luttrell before a municipal court, after the Germantown resident was cited for celebrating Christmas with decorative skeletons.
“There is simply no good reason for the government to care how and when a resident celebrates a holiday in their own front yard,” said FIRE attorney Colin McDonell. “When government officials try to stop that resident from expressing their holiday spirit to others, that violates the First Amendment.”
In October, Alexis set up a decorative skeleton and skeleton dog in her front yard to celebrate Halloween. Then for Election Day, she used the same skeletons to hold political signs. But in December, a Germantown code officer left a notice that she was in violation of Ordinance 11-33, which decrees that home and yard holiday decorations “shall not be installed or placed more than 45 days before the date of the holiday” and must be removed within “30 days, following the date of the holiday.”
So Alexis updated her skeletons for Christmas, dressing them up for the holiday alongside her inflatable tree and Santa Claus.
But Germantown still had (ahem) a bone to pick. On Jan. 6, she received a citation from the city saying she was still in violation and that she would have to appear before a judge on Feb. 13. If found guilty, she could be subject to fines, a court order prohibiting skeletons in her holiday displays, and even city officials entering her property and forcibly removing the skeletons.
“You don’t have to like my decorations, but that doesn’t mean Germantown has the right to force me to take them down,” said Alexis. “This is America. Even our local government has to respect our rights.”
Germantown’s ordinance violates the First Amendment, no bones about it. To start, it targets residents’ displays based on their message — specifically, whether they celebrate a holiday. It’s perfectly legal to have miniature deer figurines in your yard year-round, for example . . . unless there’s nine of them and one of them has a red nose. The Supreme Court has long held that speech restrictions based on content are unconstitutional unless they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
“City governments can impose reasonable restrictions on yard displays that address concerns like safety, noise, or light pollution, but Alexis’s decorations aren’t harming anyone,” said McDonell. “Germantown is simply targeting protected expression.”
The ordinance is also unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination because it allows government officials to enforce their own subjective views on what decorations may celebrate a particular holiday. By refusing to permit Alexis’s skeletons as an acceptable Christmas display, Germantown is telling residents they have to celebrate Christmas the government-approved “right” way, even if they have a macabre sense of humor or just enjoy “The Nightmare Before Christmas.”
How one celebrates a holiday should be dictated by their personal taste, not government officials. And many religions and cultures have different ideas of when a holiday falls or how it should be celebrated that defy Germantown’s narrow view:
A Filipino living in Germantown might want to put up Christmas decorations as early as September.
An Orthodox Christian wouldn’t celebrate Christmas until Jan. 7, and a Hispanic resident might intend their nativity scene to encompass both Christmas and Día de Los Reyes on Jan. 6.
A Chinese resident would only have until Jan. 31 to keep up a “Happy New Year!” sign, even though his traditional New Year started Jan. 30.
Lastly, Germantown’s ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. Regulations have to be clear enough for the average person to know if they’re breaking the law or not, but the ordinance offers no guidance on what decorations are “intended” to celebrate a particular “holiday.” As a result, Germantown residents are constantly in the dark about which holidays their city will enforce, when they officially begin, and which decorations qualify for that holiday — and which are forbidden.
Alexis’s skeletons are currently dressed, for example, in a “Love is Love” theme. St. Valentine’s Day isn’t an official government holiday — but then neither is Halloween, and Germantown officials targeted her skeletons nonetheless. Her rainbow-colored decorations are intended as a Valentine’s Day message — but it’s also imagery about LGBT acceptance that many people display year-round. Alexis can only guess at whether her display meets the city’s definition.
With FIRE on her side, Alexis is fighting this unconstitutional ordinance. Once Valentine’s Day has passed, she has plans to put her skeletons in costumes for St. Patrick’s Day, Easter, Pride Month and other holidays this year and for years to come.
“Perhaps for President’s Day, I’ll dress the skeleton like a Founding Father and give him a copy of the Constitution,” said Alexis. “Maybe a visual display will make it finally sink in when they ask me to tear it down.”
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; [email protected]
Think about the last time you ordered something online or streamed your favourite show. Remember how pretty seamless it was? That’s exactly what today’s students expect from their college application experience. Gen Z and Gen Alpha students have grown up in a digital world, with all its associated benefits. You have to acknowledge that they’re looking for the same smooth, user-friendly experience when they apply to schools, and this is no easy task.
For colleges and universities, meeting these expectations isn’t just about staying current–it’s about staying relevant. This is why having a well-designed student portal is more important than ever. It is the key to a seamless admissions process–the map that charts a direct, straightforward course from the students’ first click to their first day on campus.
Looking for an all-in-one student information and CRM solution tailored to the education sector?
Try the HEM Student Portal!
Why a Student Portal is Essential
Remember the days of printing out application forms, filling them in by hand, and mailing them back? Those days are long gone, replaced by a more efficient and convenient solution. Today’s students want everything at their fingertips, and they want it to work as smoothly as their favourite apps. A recent study found that 70% of students expect their university’s online experience to match platforms like Amazon, Netflix, and Facebook.
That’s a high bar to meet, but it is the type of bar that a well-designed portal can scale. So what is the purpose of a student portal? A student portal is an online resource that guides students and helps them access helpful resources throughout the journey from exploring to application, enrollment, and beyond.
As education becomes increasingly global, schools are seeing applications from all corners of the world. International students need a system that works across time zones and cultures, making the application process clear and accessible no matter where they’re from. A good student portal can meet these students at the point of their needs and help them achieve all their short and long-term goals.
Example: The University of London’s student portal offers a comprehensive and user-friendly interface, providing students with easy access to academic resources, course materials, and administrative services.
Let’s talk about some challenges schools face without a proper portal:
Picture an admissions office drowning in paperwork, trying to match documents to applications, and manually entering data into multiple systems. Now imagine students waiting anxiously for updates, wondering if their materials were received, or trying to figure out what steps come next. The challenges are well outlined below to put things in perspective:
Complex Workflows: Traditional admissions often involve multiple steps that frustrate students and staff.
Manual Processes: Outdated methods are time-consuming and error-prone.
Global Competition: Institutions must attract students from diverse locations and meet high digital expectations.
These are the kinds of headaches a good student portal eliminates. A well-designed portal tackles these issues head-on by:
Streamlining Workflows: Students can complete applications online, upload documents, and track their progress in real-time.
Enabling Mobile Optimization: A mobile-friendly design ensures accessibility anytime, anywhere.
Offering Personalization: Tailored communications and automated updates keep students informed and engaged.
Improving Efficiency: Administrators can centralize data, track applications, and reduce manual tasks.
These solutions will help make student applications as easy as online shopping. Students can track their progress in real time and receive automatic updates and reminders. You’re giving admissions staff the tools they need to work efficiently and students, more control over how things pan out. All you need is an efficient student login system and you’ll have everything within a click.
This brings us to the question–what is the student login system? A student login system allows students to access everything from application progress to status, academic records, courses, schedules, and campus services through their institution’s online portal, using a username and password.
Example: The Higher Education Marketing (HEM) Student Portal is a comprehensive digital platform designed to streamline student engagement, lead nurturing, and admissions processes for educational institutions. It offers a user-friendly interface where prospective and enrolled students can access personalized information, track application statuses, and access financial aid.
Gone are the days of juggling multiple systems and endless email chains. Modern student portals make applying to academic institutions as straightforward as creating a social media profile. Students can choose their program, pick their campus, and select their start date all in one place. Need to upload transcripts or recommendation letters? Just drag and drop them into the system.
For admissions staff, this means no more shuffling between databases or wondering where a particular document ended up. Everything lives in one place, making it easy to review applications and make decisions quickly. The system even connects with other school software, thanks to the portal integrating with a CRM or SIS, so information flows smoothly and in real-time from one department to another.
2. Automation for Efficiency
Here’s where things get interesting. Imagine having a virtual assistant that never sleeps, sending out reminders, updating application statuses, and answering common questions automatically. That’s what automation brings to the table.
For example, when a student submits their application, the system can automatically:
Send a confirmation email
Check for missing documents
Schedule follow-up reminders
Update the student’s status in real-time
Notify relevant staff members
This is not just about saving time—though it certainly does. It is about ensuring a consistent and reliable experience for every applicant while allowing staff the resources to focus on more meaningful interactions with students.
3. Personalized Student Journeys
Modern portals offer innovative tools that make the application process feel more like a personal journey than a bureaucratic maze.
The Virtual Admissions Assistant (VAA), for example, can serve as a knowledgeable and accessible resource for prospective students. It enables them to independently explore campus options, browse programs, and receive immediate responses to their inquiries at any time. The VAA functions as a personal guide throughout the admissions process.
Then there’s the Quote Builder – a game-changer for students trying to plan their education budget. Instead of struggling with complicated fee structures, students can simply input their choices (program, campus, housing preferences) and get a clear picture of their costs. For international students especially, this transparency is invaluable. No more surprises or hidden fees – just clear, upfront information they can use to plan their future.
Example: The Automotive Training Center, Surrey, offers prospects the opportunity to request information about their admission from a virtual admission assistant, or an admission representative.
One thing that students and staff love is finding everything in one place. Remember that feeling of searching through endless email threads looking for that one important document? A good portal eliminates that headache.
For students, it means:
One login to access everything
A clear overview of their application status
Easy access to all their submitted documents
A record of all communications with the school
For staff, it’s like having a super-organized digital filing cabinet where everything is just a click away. Whatever you need to do, from sending students a reminder to checking their application status or when they lastlogged in, you only need to Click.
Example: The MyUCLA App by the University of California, Los Angeles, is a one-stop-shop student-run portal that offers everything from academic to administrative, student engagement, and financial support.
Online application management is an area where modern portals shine. A well-designed portal system will keep students engaged throughout the process instead of waiting for them to reach out with questions or concerns.
For example, The system can pick up that a student began an application but hasn’t completed it. Rather than letting that potential student slip away, it automatically sends a friendly reminder, offering help with any questions they might have. This kind of thoughtful follow-up can make the difference between a completed application and one that gets abandoned.
Enhancing the Student Journey: A Real-World Example
Now, let’s talk about something you’ve probably heard before. What is the student journey? The student journey begins with exploration and moves to application, admission, and enrollment. Beyond that, it involves academic learning, campus involvement, career preparation, and other experiences that shape their overall education and personal growth.
Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s follow Sarah, a prospective student, through her application journey:
Day 1: Sarah discovers your school’s portal and completes a quick inquiry form. Within minutes, she receives a personalized email with virtual tour links and program information tailored to her interests.
Week 1: Using the Virtual Admission Assistant (AAA), she explores different programs and campuses. The system notices she’s particularly interested in paralegal training and automatically sends her information.
Week 2: Sarah uses the Quote Builder to calculate her costs, including housing and tuition plans. The transparency helps her and her parents make informed decisions about financing her education.
Week 3: Ready to apply, Sarah finds much of her application pre-filled with the information she’s already provided. She uploads her documents and can track every step of the process until acceptance and admission.
Throughout: The system sends friendly reminders about deadlines and missing documents, keeping her on track without feeling pressured. By the time she arrives on campus, she will have experienced a streamlined, personalized admissions process that sets a positive tone for her educational journey.
This is what a good student portal aims to achieve. With tools like a Student Information System (SIS), a Virtual Admission Assistant (VAA), and a Quote Builder integrated into your school’s student portal, you can expect excellent results that’ll leave everyone satisfied. It will make a difference in the student’s journey, helping them make a seamless transition from inquiry to enrollment.
For the school involved, it’ll help reduce your workload and create enhanced tracking reporting results for better decision-making. This will ultimately increase student enrollment.
Example: A goodSIS incorporates elements and records all aspects of a student’s journey, from recruitment to graduation. It is usually integrated into your student portal, as this example shows.
A good portal doesn’t just make life easier for the schools that use it–it facilitates streamlined workflows for these schools, which is useful for helping them finetune and improve their admissions process. As a school looking to increase its prospects, it’ll help you know what’s working and what’s not so you can adjust as appropriate. With the right analytics tool, schools can easily track:
Which programs are getting the most interest
Where students might be getting stuck in the application process
How quickly staff are responding to applications
Which recruitment efforts are most effective
How international student applications compare to domestic ones
This data provides valuable insights that schools can process to produce better outcomes. It’s a wealth of actionable information that helps schools make better decisions about where to allocate resources and refine their processes. The ultimate goal is to serve prospective students better and help them achieve their enrollment goals first.
The Long-Term Impact of a Student Application Portal
The benefits of a well-designed student portal extend far beyond the admissions process. Some of these benefits include:
Increased student satisfaction and connection with the institution upon arrival on campus
Increased staff efficiency, allowing them to spend less time on paperwork and more time assisting students
Improved institutional reputation
Significant cost savings due to reduced paperwork and manual processing
Higher enrollment rates
Key Takeaways
A modern student portal can make a big difference in the student journey from inquiry to enrollment. It helps schools to:
Streamline Workflows: Simplify the application process for students and administrators.
Automate for Efficiency: Save time and reduce errors with automated tasks that produce consistent and more efficient results.
Personalize the Journey: Engage students with tailored tools like VAA and Quote Builder to consistently engage and help them make well-informed decisions.
Centralize Data Management: Keep all application-related information in one system to aid easy access and retrieval.
Proactively Engage Prospects: Use timely communication to meet students at their points of need and to increase application completion rates.
Optimize for Success: Leverage data insights to improve processes and track ROI for better planning now and in the future.
Conclusion
As technology continues to evolve, student portals will only become more important. A robust student portal is no longer a luxury—it’s a necessity for institutions aiming to meet the demands of today’s tech-savvy learners. The schools that succeed will be those that embrace these changes while keeping the student experience at the heart of everything they do.
By adopting a student portal, these schools can enhance the student experience, improve administrative efficiency, and ultimately boost enrollment rates. From the first click to the first day on campus, the journey becomes seamless, personalized, and rewarding for both students and staff.
Looking for an all-in-one student information and CRM solution tailored to the education sector?
Try the HEM Student Portal!
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: What is the purpose of a student portal?
Answer: A student portal is an online resource that guides students and helps them access helpful resources throughout the journey from exploring to application, enrollment and beyond.
Question: What is the student login system?
Answer: A student login system allows students to access everything from application progress to status, academic records, courses, schedules, and campus services through their institution’s online portal, using a username and password.
Question: What is the student journey?
Answer: The student journey begins with exploration and moves to application, admission, and enrollment. Beyond that, it involves academic learning, campus involvement, career preparation, and other experiences that shape their overall education and personal growth.
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.
EEOC Reports That It Collected a Record $700 Million for Workers in 2024 in Discrimination Claims
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission collected nearly $700 million for workers in 2024, eclipsing the previous record of $660 million collected in 2023. The agency reported that almost $470 million was collected for private sector, state and local workers through mediation, conciliation and administrative settlements. Nearly $200 million was collected through mediation, conciliation and administrative settlements for federal workers. An additional $40 million was collected for employees through litigation.
Of the 111 lawsuits filed by the agency in fiscal year 2024, 40% involved claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and 6% involved claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Most of the remainder involved Title VII claims of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin discrimination. More than a dozen of these lawsuits involved systemic allegations raised for multiple employees.
Trump Administration Firing of NLRB and EEOC Members Leaves Agencies Without a Quorum to Do Business
The Trump administration discharged, in unprecedented fashion, sitting members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, leaving both agencies without a quorum to do business. The Supreme Court has ruled that the NLRB cannot issue decisions without a quorum. This means that the NLRB cannot decide unfair labor practice cases or decide appeals of union election cases until it regains three members confirmed by the Senate. In addition, the Trump administration terminated the sitting independent NLRB general counsel who makes decisions on what cases to prosecute before the board.
Without a quorum, the EEOC cannot issue new regulations or guidance, nor revoke or edit existing ones. In addition, without a quorum, the EEOC cannot vote to initiate new class action cases and is limited in taking on new enforcement litigation.
Court of Appeals Revives Challenge to Fellowship Program — Case Dismissed After Mutual Settlement
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Connecticut, New York and Vermont) reversed a trial judge’s decision dismissing a challenge to a fellowship program at Pfizer. To address challenges in recruitment, retention and promotion of diverse employees, Pfizer created and reserved its fellowship program for Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, and Native American students. The plaintiffs contended that the fellowship program unlawfully discriminated against non-minority individuals (Do No Harm v. Pfizer Inc. (2nd Cir. No. 23-15, Opinion 1/10/25)). The three-judge panel remanded the case back to the trial judge to review whether the dismissal was proper.
This case is another example of increased scrutiny of DEI programs in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision on Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which curtailed the use of race in college admissions. Bloomberg reported that the parties reached an agreement to settle the case. The full settlement is not available but it appears the fellowship program will end with the induction of the current year’s recipients.
NLRB’s Authority to Impose Employee Remedial Orders for “Consequential” Damages Trimmed by Court of Appeals
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently trimmed the scope of permissible remedial orders granted by the NLRB to employees who win unfair labor practice cases. The appeals court drew a distinction between traditional make-whole remedies for employees who are fired as a result of an unfair labor practice and traditional back pay and reinstatement. The latter continues to be permissible, but the NLRB’s authority to order “consequential” damages for reimbursement for late credit card fees, medical expenses and the like are not permissible (NLRB v. Starbucks (3rd Cir. No. 23-1953, 12/27/24)).
As a practical matter, absent a decision on this issue by the Supreme Court, the NLRB will continue to assert its authority to render consequential damage awards, but the awards will not be enforceable in the states covered by the 3rd Circuit, which includes Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Hostile Work Environment Challenges to DEI Training Pass Summary Judgment Stage — First Amendment Claims Have Been Filed on Both Sides
Bloomberg reports that a number of challenges to DEI training — on the grounds that they create a hostile work environment for White employees — are surviving the summary judgment stage of initial litigation. Nonetheless, commentators conclude that most of that litigation will ultimately fail to clear the hurdle that requires the action to be “pervasive” in order to prove a hostile work environment case. Commentators also point out that the anti-DEI movement is likely to grow during the new Trump administration.
In addition to hostile work environment cases, public employees have challenged public employers under the First Amendment for forcing the employee to listen to and affirm DEI concepts. However, employers that support DEI training have successfully used the First Amendment to challenge a Florida law restricting the use of certain workplace DEI training concepts (Honeyfund.com Inc. v. Florida (11th Cir. No. 22-13135, 3/4/24)).
ACLU, NAACP and Professors Raise First and Fourteenth Amendment Challenge to Alabama Law Barring Public Funding of DEI Programs
The Alabama chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, and a group of Alabama professors have filed suit in federal court, alleging that the new Alabama state law barring public funding of DEI programs violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution (Simon v. Ivey (N.D. Ala. No. 2:25-cv-00057, complaint 1/14/25)). The complaint alleges that the Alabama law restricts the funding of teaching “academic viewpoints” deemed to be “divisive” and prohibits funding of student groups espousing such views in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The complaint further alleges that such viewpoint bans disproportionately affect Black students and Black faculty members. The complaint also alleges that the Alabama law violates minority students’ and professors’ right to equal protection from intentional discrimination and freedom of association under the First Amendment. The complaint further argues that the Alabama law should be struck down as “void for vagueness” under the applicable constitutional standard.
U.S. Supreme Court Eases Standard for Employers to Prove Employees Are Not Entitled to Overtime Pay
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a heightened standard of proof needed to show that employees are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime requirements (E.M.D. Sales v. Carrera (U.S. No. 23-217 Opinion 1/15/25)). This will make it somewhat easier for employers to show that employees are not entitled to overtime pay. The Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision written by Justice Kavanaugh that employers are subject to the regular “preponderance of the evidence” rule in proving that an employee is not subject to the applicable overtime rules rather than the higher “clear and convincing” standard.
Justice Kavanaugh concluded on behalf of a unanimous court that, where a law is silent on the applicable standard of proof, as the FLSA is, the regular preponderance of the evidence rule applies. Under this standard, an employer must show that it is more likely than not that the employee is exempt from the overtime requirements.
Cengage authors dedicate themselves to producing high-quality content, while also prioritizing a functional learning experience for students, equipping them with background information and tools necessary to analyze the important topics covered in their courses. We’re happy to introduce you to the authors of two first edition titles, and one upcoming fifth edition title, within the Major Problems Anthology series, which familiarizes students with important topics in U.S history, world history and western civilization.
Ready to meet these authors and learn about their titles? We can’t wait for you to get to know them all.
Jackson J. Spielvogel and Kathryn Spielvogel ― authors of Major Problems in Western Civilization, Volume I and Volume II, 1e 2025
“Major Problems in Western Civilization,” 1e includes a variety of supporting materials and historical prose, guiding a carefully curated set of primary and secondary source selections. This text preps instructors and students so they can engage primary sources at the highest level.
Jackson J. Spielvogel is Associate Professor Emeritus of History at The Pennsylvania State University. He received his Ph.D. from The Ohio State University, where he specialized in Reformation history. His work has been supported by fellowships from the Fulbright Foundation and the Foundation for Reformation Research. He is the author of “Western Civilization,” now in its 12th edition, as well as co-author (with William Duiker) of “World History,” now in its 10th edition. Professor Spielvogel has won five major university-wide teaching awards.
Kathryn Spielvogel earned a B.A. in history, and M.A. in art history from The Pennsylvania State University. She continued her graduate studies in history at the University at Buffalo, SUNY, before working as a research editor on history textbooks for the past fifteen years. Passionate about historic preservation and economic development, Kathryn volunteers for several non-profit organizations while renovating historic homes and commercial buildings throughout Pennsylvania.
William J. Duiker, author of Major Problems in World History, Volume I and Volume II, 1e 2025
“Major Problems in World History,” 1e is a comprehensive source for documents and secondary essays dealing with a broad sweep of world history. Each chapter begins with a short introductory essay providing historical context for that period of history.
William J. Duiker is Liberal Arts Professor Emeritus of East Asian studies at The Pennsylvania State University. He earned a Ph.D. in East Asian history at Georgetown University in 1968. A former foreign service officer with assignments in Taiwan and South Vietnam, he is the author of several books on East Asia. He is also co-author with colleague Jackson Spielvogel of “World History,” 10e. He has traveled widely and was awarded a Faculty Scholar Medal for Outstanding Achievement in 1996.
Plus a new fifth edition
Elizabeth Cobbs, Edward J. Blum and Vanessa Walker ― authors of Major Problems in American History, Volume I and Volume II, 5e 2025
“Major Problems in American History” includes both primary sources and analytical essays on important U.S history topics, with an overall goal towards helping students refine their critical thinking skills.
Elizabeth Cobbs is a Professor and Dwight E. Stanford Chair in American Foreign Relations at San Diego State University and has won literary prizes for both history and fiction, including the Allan Nevins Prize and Stuart Bernath Book Prize. She earned her Ph.D. in American history at Stanford University. She has served on the jury for the Pulitzer Prize in History and on the Historical Advisory Committee of the U.S. State Department. She has received awards and fellowships from the Fulbright Commission and other distinguished institutions. Her essays have been published in the New York Times, Jerusalem Post and Los Angeles Times, among others. Her current project is a history of women soldiers in World War I.
Edward J. Blum is a Professor of History at San Diego State University. He received his B.A. from the University of Michigan and his M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Kentucky. He is the author and co-author of several books on United States history and the winner of numerous awards, including the Peter Seaborg Award for Civil War Scholarship and the Gustave O. Arlt Award in the Humanities.
Vanessa Walker is the Gordon Levin Associate Professor of Diplomatic History at Amherst College, where she teaches classes on U.S. politics, foreign relations and human rights. She received her B.A. from Whitman College and her M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is the recipient of fellowships from the Miller Center for Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, the George Mosse Program at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Stanton Foundation Applied History Program.
By Timothy Zick, William & Mary Law School Robert & Elizabeth Scott Research Professor and John Marshall Professor of Government and Citizenship.
I want to thank Ron Collins for inviting me to contribute a regular feature on the Trump administration and the First Amendment. To say I am delighted to be here masks a certain uneasiness with the project.
As Ron’s kind introduction noted, six years ago I published a book, “The First Amendment in the Trump Era,” that examined challenges to free speech and press during the 2016 campaign and roughly the first half of the first presidential term for Donald Trump. The fact that there was already enough material by then for a manuscript on the subject was deeply alarming. Matters did not improve. The book was published prior to (among other things) Trump’s threat to use military force to blanketly suppress all Black Lives Matter protests, and before Trump was accused of inciting the January 6 insurrection.
Skeptics at the time wondered how long the subject would be relevant — after all, how long could the First Amendment challenges of the “Trump Era” last? With the latest examples of disturbing suppressive actions, we now have at least a partial answer to that question.
Prof. Timothy Zick (William and Mary Law School)
In all of this, it is important to keep at least three preliminary points in mind: First, suppression is not confined to a political party, be it Woodrow Wilson or Richard Nixon, and beyond. Second, since the First Amendment is a constitutional guarantee expressly limiting government power when it comes to free expression and faith, the primary focus is on suppression. Third, in this realm, as with any other controversial one, differences of opinion are inevitable.
That said, I have tried to confine my analysis to reasonably demonstrable claims of executive branch overreach and government-related forms of suppression. Although I acknowledge the difficulties in suing a president for First Amendment violations, the present concerns extend to the executive branch as a whole. In any event, I am interested not just in protecting individual rights but also the broader effect of executive actions on First Amendment institutions, values, and principles.
While presidential actions have historically raised significant First Amendment concerns, the frequency and implications of Trump’s actions in this area are unprecedented. The current Trump administration has been described as “a kind of legal hydra, in which the defenders of the Constitution are facing one body with many heads, and those heads are acting in concert.”
While my book focused primarily on Trump, “Executive Watch” will take a broader view of the actions not just of the president himself but those working across the executive branch — as well as those, like Elon Musk and his underlings, who work on Trump’s behalf in a quasi-governmental capacity. While President Trump’s own statements, lawsuits, and executive actions will necessarily be part of the discussion, current threats to free speech and the press emanate from actors, institutions, and agencies beyond the Oval Office. Even early on, the Trump administration has initiated a whole-of-government effort that affects the First Amendment rights and interests of private speakers, reporters, legacy and social media, K-12 teachers and students, university students and faculty, government employees, and the public.
Starting to keep a record
President Trump’s litany of executive orders, including those relating to free speech and the press, have already received significant attention — some even positive. But given the general character and overall pace of things, it is easy to focus on the moment and miss the broader implications of the present time. When it comes to the First Amendment, in some notable ways the first Trump term and the second are related. However, this time the Trump administration’s actions will often be part of a more comprehensive agenda to challenge, and in some cases upend, bedrock First Amendment principles and values.
My hope is that “Executive Watch” will be a valuable resource for those interested in how the administration’s policies affect First Amendment concerns. As Ron notes, it is important that we compile and keep a record of this period for current and future reference. Toward that end, to close out this post I will provide a list of general First Amendment topics, with selected sources concerning each. I will update that repository as events unfold.
Overview: Eight categories of threats to free expression
With that introduction, this first installment of “Executive Watch” provides an overview and identifies various categories of First Amendment concerns relating to the Trump administration’s latest agenda. Subsequent contributions (which may be shorter) will place these actions in context and explain how specific executive branch actions relate to broader themes. I might also comment on notable executive policies as they are adopted and implemented, and in which ways they advance or curb free speech freedoms.
‘The lawsuit is the punishment’: Reflections on Trump v. Selzer — First Amendment News 453
Blog
First Amendment News is a weekly blog and newsletter about free expression issues by Ronald K. L. Collins and is editorially independent from FIRE.
In just a few short weeks, the Trump administration has taken an extraordinary number of actions implicating a range of First Amendment concerns. One of President Trump’s many recent executive orders expresses unwavering support for the First Amendment and promises to end censorship. However, some recent actions by Trump and his administration are antithetical to those goals.
Threats to the institutional press: “The First Amendment in the Trump Era” identified maintaining a free and independent press as a critically important bulwark against executive abuses of power. That concern has persisted — indeed, it has become more acute. As he did in his first term, Trump has continued to identify many in the institutional press as the “enemy of the American people.” This should not be treated as mere political hyperbole. The Trump administration has promised retribution and is targeting individual journalists. It has threatened to investigate reporters in national security cases, block media mergers, and deny outlets and reporters access to information. There is evidence these threats are already taking a toll on the press’s independence.
Private lawsuits: One of Trump’s preferred strategies for bringing his critics to heel is the private lawsuit. Trump recently sued “60 Minutes” and CBS for allegedly editing an interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris in ways that obscured or improved her answers to questions, ABC and George Stephanopoulos for statements that Trump had been found liable for rape in a civil case, an Iowa pollster and The Des Moines Register for publishing a flawed poll showing Trump trailing Harris in Iowa, and the Pulitzer Board for recognizing The New York Times for its reporting on the Russia investigation. Fearful of government overreach, some media outlets have already settled defamation lawsuits for millions of dollars, raising serious concerns about press obeisance and lack of independence. High-level executive branch appointees have warned that the press should expect more lawsuits based on allegedly biased or critical press coverage of the administration.
Threats to broadcast media: Broadcast media are also in the Trump administration’s crosshairs. The Federal Communications Commission has instituted investigations of media outlets, ostensibly for violating their obligation to broadcast in the “public interest.” The agency recently compelled CBS to disclose the transcript of the Harris “60 Minutes” interview and is investigating CBS based on that broadcast. Agency officials have also indicated that broadcast licenses may be revoked or suspended based on editorial and advertising activities or simply for alleged “bias.” Trump and his allies have also proposed defunding all public broadcasting, including NPRandPBS, which present educational and other content including shows like “Elmo,” “Big Bird,” and “Fresh Air.”
Threats to digital media: The Trump administration has likewise taken steps to influence and control the digital public sphere. Trump recently extracted a $25 million settlement from Meta (formerly Facebook) for banning him for his false and incendiary posts about the 2020 election. As president, Trump has refused to enforce a law requiring that TikTok divest from Chinese ownership, even though the Supreme Court upheld it. Whatever one makes of that ruling, after Trump’s effort to “save” TikTok, digital media moguls lined up to donate millions of dollars to his inaugural. Social media platforms also changed content moderation policies in ways that facilitate election denial, public health misinformation, and hateful expression. One thing Trump gets right in his executive order on free speech is that governmental efforts to coerce social media companies to remove content is problematic. However, unleashing online disinformation, misinformation, and threatening speech will fundamentally alter the culture of online expression.
Threats to educational institutions: Similarly, the Trump administration has taken steps to control curricular and other expression in the nation’s educational institutions. An executive order calls for withholding federal funding from any K-12 school that teaches that the United States is “fundamentally racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory.” Another order purports to “end radical indoctrination” in the nation’s K-12 schools by ordering various federal agencies to develop a plan to eliminate federal funding for instruction relating to “gender ideology” or “discriminatory equity ideology.” The same order requires agencies to adopt “patriotic education measures” for use in K-12 schools. The Education Department has also been ordered to scour the nation’s university campuses and classrooms for anti-Semitism and discussions about race, gender identity, and other disfavored topics. President Trump has also ordered the Department of Justice to crack down on student protesters. The federal government has advised universities to monitor the activities of their foreign students studying on visas — so that officials can deport them if they speak out in favor of Palestine or Hamas.
Threats to government employees: Agency actions and executive orders have threatened the speech rights of agency employees and government contractors. There is a widespread effort underway to purge public employees based on their lack of loyalty to Trump, their real or perceived political biases, or their participation in lawful trainings and other activities. FBI employees recently filed privacy and free speech retaliation lawsuits against the Department of Justice, alleging the agency has targeted them for dismissal based on their work investigating January 6 cases. The DOJ has also fired prosecutors for working on January 6 prosecutions. At executive agencies, new rules bar federal employees, contractors, and agency materials from referencing gender identity or fluidity. Executive orders forbid the federal workforce from engaging in events or discussions relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion and even bar employees from using gender identification in email correspondence.
Suppression of vital information: The federal government provides vital information to the public concerning health, the environment, and other matters. Since the election, however, many agency websites have gone dark. The Trump administration has ordered executive agencies to remove information from their websites concerning gender, gender identity, contraception, climate change, and other topics. It has also ordered agency employees not to share the results of their ongoing work and paused federal funding for scientific and other research. Although the executive branch can set agency policies and formulate public messaging, efforts to broadly curtail the public’s access to information affect both the press’s ability to report on such matters and the public’s ability to receive information about public health, the environment, and other topics.
Imposing official orthodoxies and suppressing dissent: Many Trump administration proposals and measures are aimed at imposing an official orthodoxy concerning various topics and issues. Still others target protected political dissent. The administration is seeking to impose official definitions of gender and approved narratives regarding American history, race, and patriotism. Since his first term, President Trump has made no secret of his desire to crack down on protest and dissent. During the 2024 campaign, Trump vowed to “crush” the pro-Palestinian movement. He has long supported making flag burning a crime. Imposing official orthodoxies and suppressing dissent are two of the broad themes that tie many of the Trump administration’s recent actions together.
Media on the run: A sign of things to come in Trump times? — First Amendment News 451
Blog
First Amendment News is a weekly blog and newsletter about free expression issues by Ronald K. L. Collins and is editorially independent from FIRE.
This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.
Back in the fall, StatsCan released a mess of data from the Labour Force Survey looking at education participation rates—that is, the percentage of any given age cohort that is attending education—over the past 25 years. So, let’s go see what it says.
Figure 1 shows total education participation rates, across all levels of education, from age 15 to 29, for selected years over the past quarter century. At the two ends of the graph, the numbers look pretty similar. At age 15, we’ve always had 95%+ of our population enrolled in school (almost exclusively secondary education, and from age 26 and above, we’ve always been in the low-tweens or high single digits. The falling-off in participation is fairly steady: for every age-year above 17, about 10% of the population exits education up until the age of 26. The big increase in education enrolments that we’ve seen over the past couple of decades has really occurred in the 18-24 range, where participation rates (almost exclusively in universities, as we shall see) have increased enormously.
Figure 1: Participation rates in Education (all institutions) by Age, Canada, select years 1999-00 to 2023-24
Figure 2 shows current participation rates by age and type of postsecondary institution. People sometimes have the impression that colleges cater to an “older” clientele, but in fact, at any given age under 30, Canadians are much more likely to be enrolled in universities than in colleges. Colleges have a very high base in the teens because of the way the CEGEP system works in Quebec (I’ll come back to regional diversity in a minute), and it is certainly true that there is a very wide gap in favour of universities among Canadians in their mid-20s. But while the part rate gap narrows substantially at about age 25, it is never the case that the college participation rate surpasses the university one.
Figure 2: Participation Rates by Age and Institution Type, Canada, 2023-24
Figure 3 shows college participation rates by age over time. What you should take from this is that there has been a slight decline in college participation rates over time in the 19-23 age range, but beyond that not much has changed.
Figure 3: College Participation Rates by Age, Selected Years, 1999-2000 to 2023-24
Figure 4 uses the same lens as figure 3 only for universities. And it’s about as different as it can be. In 1999, fewer than one in ten Canadians aged 18 was in university: now it is three in ten. In 1999, only one in four 21 year-olds was in university, now it is four-in-ten. These aren’t purely the effects of increased demand; the elimination of grade 13 in Ontario had a lot to do with the changes for 18-year-olds; Alberta and British Columbia converting a number of their institutions from colleges to universities in the late 00s probably juices these numbers a bit, too. But on the whole, what we’ve seen is a significant increase in the rate at which young people are choosing to attend universities between the ages of 18 and 24. However, beyond those ages the growth is less pronounced. There was certainly growth in older student participation rates between 1999-00 and 20011-12, but since then none at all.
Figure 4: University Participation Rates by Age, Selected Years, 1999-2000 to 2023-24
So much for the national numbers: what’s going on at the provincial level? Well, because this is the Labour Force Survey, which unlike administrative data has sample size issues, we can’t quite get the same level of granularity of information. We can’t look at individual ages, but we can see age-ranges, in this case ages 20-24. In figures 5 and 6 (I broke them up so they are a bit easier to read), I show how each province’s university and college participation rates in 2000 vs. 2023.
Figure 5: University Participation Rates for 20-24 Year-olds, Four Largest Provinces, 2000-01 vs. 2023-24
Figure 6: University Participation Rates for 20-24 Year-olds, Six Remaining Provinces, 2000-01 vs. 2023-24
Some key facts emerge from these two graphs:
The highest participation rates in the country are in Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia.
In all provinces, the participation rate in universities is higher than it is for colleges, ranging from 2.5x in Quebec for over 4x in Saskatchewan.
Over the past quarter century, overall postsecondary participation rates and university participation rates have gone up in all provinces; Alberta and British Columbia alone have seen a decline in college participation rates, due to the aforementioned decision to convert certain colleges to university status in the 00s.
Growth in participation rates since 2000 has been universal but has been more significant in the country’s four largest provinces, where the average gain has been nine percentage points, and the country’s six smaller provinces, where the gain has been just under five percent.
Over twenty-five years, British Columbia has gone from ninth to second in the country in terms of university participation rates, while Nova Scotia has gone second to ninth.
New Brunswick has consistently been in last place for overall participation rates for the entire century.
Just think: three minutes ago, you probably knew very little about participation rates in Canada by age and geography, now you know almost everything there is to know about participation rates in Canada by age and geography. Is this a great way to start your day or what?
During the Covid pandemic, nations realized they needed to work together to keep their people safe. That’s where the World Health Organization comes in.
The value of college endowments collectively grew 4% in fiscal 2024 thanks to a combination of strong investment returns and a rise in donations, according to the latest data from the National Association of College and University Business Officers and asset management firm Commonfund.
The total value of the endowments of the 658 institutions that participated in the study reached $873.7 billion for the year, with a median endowment value of $243 million. Of the survey respondents, 144 had endowments of $1 billion or more,comprising roughly 86% of the total value reported.
Gifts to endowments rose to $15.2 billion from $12.7 billion last year, according to the study. Draws on funds rose as well, by 6.4% year over year to $30.1 billion in spending at institutions.
Dive Insight:
Investment returns remained strong through 2024, supporting institutions’ spending from their endowments. Ten-year average annual returns stood at 6.8% for fiscal 2024,down slightly from last year but still robust enough to make spending with endowment money “possible and prudent,” NACUBO and Commonfund said in a press release. The average one-year return hit 11.2%, a 3.5 percentage point increase over 2023.
On average, endowments funded 14% of institutions’ operating budget, up from 10.9% in fiscal 2023, according to the NACUBO-Commonfund study.
Student aid represented the largest share by far of endowment spending, at 48.1%, followed by academic programs and research at 17.7%.
Colleges spend the largest share of endowment funds on student financial aid
Endowment spending distribution by function in fiscal 2024
“Faculty and staff certainly benefit from this philanthropy, but students remain the primary beneficiaries, as the bulk of these resources is used to maintain student aid and affordability,” NACUBO President and CEO Kara Freeman said in a statement.
The list of the largest endowments looks very similar to that of years past. In the No. 1 spot, once again, is Harvard University, with a value of about $52 billion, up 5% from last year. Harvard is followed by the University of Texas System ($47.5 billion) and Yale University ($41.4 billion).
Harvard University has the largest endowment — again
Endowment sizes in fiscal 2024 by total market value and value per student
Those wealthy endowments are once again in the spotlight as President Donald Trump and Republicans eye higher tax rates on colleges’ investment funds.
During Trump’s first term, he signed a tax bill containing a 1.4% levy against the investment income of private colleges whose endowments are valued at $500,000 or more per student. House Republicansthis year floated a plan to jack that rate up to 14%. Others have proposed yet higher rates, including 21%, to be in line with the same rates paid by for-profit corporations.
NACUBO addressed the politics around endowments in its release of the latest data.
Pointing to how institutions use their endowments on student aid and other core functions, Freeman said, “This is incredibly important work and demonstrates how short-sighted it would be to further tax these funds and divert them from their true purpose.”
Mark Anson, Commonfund CEO and chief investment officer, said at a Tuesday media briefing that institutions would have to take a close look at post-tax investment returns should higher rates become law. That could in turn push many to look at more aggressive investing strategies, while others would likely see the share of their operations financed by endowments fall, Anson added.
