Category: Featured

  • San Francisco State to require climate justice coursework

    San Francisco State to require climate justice coursework

    San Francisco State University will soon require all incoming students to take a climate justice course, KQED, San Francisco’s NPR affiliate, reported Tuesday. 

    Students will be able to choose from dozens of different courses across various disciplines—including STEM, English, ethnic studies and history—to satisfy the requirement, which is set to take effect as early as fall 2026.

    “Climate change is an all-hands-on-deck crisis that requires understanding and solutions from all different disciplines and sectors of society,” Autumn Thoyre, co-director of the university’s Climate HQ, which supports climate-related work on campus, told KQED. “Our students’ lives are already being impacted by climate change, and so we think it’s part of our responsibility as a university to prepare students for that.”

    Although numerous other colleges and universities across the nation require climate change–focused coursework, SF State officials said in a news release that its focus on climate justice, or “the unequal impacts of climate change on marginalized and underserved populations,” is novel.

    “We are responding to the understanding that all jobs in the future will be climate jobs in some way. Our students, no matter their major and no matter their career, need to understand climate change because it is already impacting their lives,” Thoyre said in the release. “If you come to SFSU, you will learn about climate change and be ready for it in your career and civic life, you’ll be an informed voter and you’ll be ready for discussions with your family and friends.”

    Source link

  • After Trump DEI order, MSU cancels Lunar New Year event

    After Trump DEI order, MSU cancels Lunar New Year event

    A college within Michigan State University canceled a lunch celebrating the Lunar New Year in part because of President Trump’s recent executive orders cracking down on diversity, equity and inclusion in the federal government and elsewhere, the news site Bridge Michigan reported Thursday.

    The order, signed last week, doesn’t define DEI but calls on federal agencies to “combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.” Colleges with endowments valued at $1 billion or more could be investigated for potentially violating the order, under the White House directive. Michigan State has a $4.4 billion endowment.

    A handful of colleges have taken down or reworked websites related to DEI since the order, while others have called off events. For instance, a conference at Rutgers University about registered apprenticeships and historically Black colleges and universities was canceled last week following the order. (Rutgers officials say calling off the conference wasn’t a university decision. Rather, it was canceled because the organizers, a group outside the university, received a stop work order from the Department of Labor.)

    Michigan State administrators told Bridge Michigan they canceled the lunch, which was scheduled for Jan. 29 and has been held four times before, after Chinese students “expressed concern about an event tied to one racial group.”

    The College of Communications Arts and Science was set to host the event. Lauren Gaines, the college’s Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion director, wrote in an email obtained by Bridge Michigan and the State News student paper that the cancellation was in response to concerns related to Trump’s immigration and DEI executive orders.

    “These actions have prompted feelings of uncertainty and hesitation about gathering for events that highlight cultural traditions and communities,” Gaines wrote. “We feel it is important to honor those concerns with sensitivity and care.”

    Heidi Hennink-Kaminski, the college’s dean, wrote in a follow-up email obtained by the news outlets that the decision was not “a statement of policy, but rather as an appropriate on-the-ground response given a very short decision window.”

    Michigan State officials did not respond to a request for comment by press time but confirmed after publication that staff at the college canceled the event, adding that other Lunar New Year events continue.

    Source link

  • Student visa numbers hit record despite Australian clampdown

    Student visa numbers hit record despite Australian clampdown

    Student visa issuances reached record levels in Australia late last year, suggesting that 12 months of policy upheaval have failed to suppress international education flows ahead of a federal election likely to be fought on migration.

    Visa grants to would-be university students applying from overseas reached an all-time high of almost 17,000 in November, the latest month for which Department of Home Affairs statistics are available.

    Monthly issuances have been at or near record levels since mid-2024, well exceeding pre-pandemic tallies and driving a surge in overall foreign student numbers. Higher education typically accounts for two-thirds or more of student visa recipients.

    The figures show that student flows have weathered some 10 separate policy changes unleashed to dampen overseas enrollments since December 2023. They include increased financial capacity requirements on applicants, a doubling of visa fees and a chaotic reprioritization of visa processing that has been blamed for soaring delays and refusals.

    The opposition Liberal Party, which is due to contest a general election by mid-May, has repeatedly berated the Labor government over student volumes since Australia’s post-pandemic reopening of its borders. The surge in student numbers, initially spurred by policies enacted by the opposition when it was in government, has been blamed for housing shortages.

    Liberal leader Peter Dutton promised “stricter caps on foreign students to relieve stress on city rental markets” during an election campaign rally on Jan. 12.

    While treasurer Jim Chalmers has attributed Australia’s lofty migrant tally to low departures rather than high arrivals, the latest statistics suggest both are contributing. And the figures do not include record numbers of applicants fighting to have their visa rejections overturned.

    The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the backlog of international students contesting their visa refusals in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had doubled in five months to exceed 20,000 for the first time, and that two-thirds of visa rejections were being overturned by the tribunal.

    Meanwhile, overseas students are pursuing strategies to extend their time in Australia, including starting new courses or applying for asylum. Immigration expert Abul Rizvi said the tally of onshore student visa applicants had blown out to more than 100,000.

    Home Affairs data provided to a Senate inquiry in October showed that a long-term monthly average of about 300 asylum applications from overseas students had increased to about 450 since mid-2024, reaching 516 by August—the highest figure in at least five years, and probably since the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.

    Student visa grants could also increase following the late-December replacement of the controversial ministerial direction 107, which slowed down the processing of many visa applications, with ministerial direction 111.

    International education consultant Dirk Mulder said opinion on the new arrangements was divided, with some operators saying visa processing had sped up while others complained that it was slower than a year ago.

    Both camps expressed concern about the likelihood of further policy changes and the fate of institutions that had reached their “thresholds”—80 percent of the formerly announced international student caps, the trigger point for slower visa processing.

    One worry was that agents might stop referring students to universities and colleges in this position. “There is a large amount of angst as to how recruitment partners will work amongst institutions when they hit their 80 percent threshold,” Mulder wrote on his Koala news site.

    Source link

  • Essay on the panopticon (opinion)

    Essay on the panopticon (opinion)

    Not quite a household word (beyond academia, anyway), “panopticon” nonetheless turns up in news stories with surprising frequency—here and here, for example, and here and here. The Greek roots in its name point to something “all seeing,” and in occasional journalistic usage it almost always functions as a synonym for what’s more routinely called “the surveillance society”: the near ubiquity of video cameras in public (and often private) space, combined with our every click and keystroke online being tracked, stored, analyzed and aggregated by Big Data.

    Originally, though, the panopticon was what the British political philosopher Jeremy Bentham proposed as a new model of prison architecture at the end of the 18th century. The design was ingenious. It also embodied a paranoid’s nightmare. And at some point, it came to seem normal.

    Picture a cylindrical building, each floor consisting of a ring of cells, with a watchtower of sorts at the center. From here, prison staff have an unobstructed view of all the cells, which at night are backlit with lamps. At the same time, inmates are prevented from seeing who is in the tower or what they are watching, thanks to a system of one-way screens.

    Prisoners could never be certain whether or not their actions were under observation. The constant potential for exposure to the authorities’ unblinking gaze would presumably reinforce the prisoner’s conscience— or install one, if need be.

    The panoptic enclosure was also to be a workhouse. Besides building good character, labor would earn prisoners a small income (to be managed in their best interest by the authorities), while generating revenue to cover the expense of food and housing. Bentham expected the enterprise to turn a profit.

    He had similar plans for making productive citizens out of the indigent. The panoptic poorhouse would, in his phrase, “grind rogues honest.” The education of schoolchildren might go better if conducted along panoptic lines; likewise with care for the insane. Bentham’s philanthropic ambitions were nothing if not grand, albeit somewhat ruthless.

    The goal of establishing perfect surveillance sometimes ran up against the technological limitations of Bentham’s era. (I find it hard to picture how the screens would work, for instance.) But he was dogged in promoting the idea, which did elicit interest from various quarters. Elements of the panopticon were incorporated into penitentiaries during Bentham’s lifetime—for one, Eastern State Penitentiary in Pennsylvania, opened in 1829—but never to his full satisfaction. He was constantly tinkering with the blueprints, to make the design more comprehensive and self-contained. He worked out a suitable plumbing system. He thought of everything, or tried.

    Only in the late 20th century did the panopticon elicit discussion outside the ranks of penologists and Bentham scholars. Even the specialists tended to neglect this side of his work, as the American historian Gertrude Himmelfarb complained in a book from 1968. “Not only historians and biographers,” she wrote, “but even legal and penal commentators seem to be unfamiliar with some of the most important features of Bentham’s plan.” They tended to pass it by with a few words of admiration or disdain.

    The leap into wider circulation came in the wake of Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (1975). Besides acknowledging the panopticon’s significance in the history of prison design, Foucault treated it as prototypical of a new social dynamic: the emergence of institutions and disciplines seeking to accumulate knowledge about (and exercise power over) large populations. Panopticism sought to govern a population as smoothly, productively and efficiently as possible, with the smallest feasible cadre of managers.

    This was, in effect, the technocratic underside of Bentham’s utilitarianism, which defined an optimal social arrangement as one creating the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Bentham applied cost-benefit analysis to social institutions and human behavior to determine how they could be reshaped along more rational lines.

    To Foucault, the panopticon offered more than an effort at social reform, however grandiose. Its aim, he writes, “is to strengthen the social forces—to increase production, to develop the economy, spread education, raise the level of public morality; to increase and multiply.”

    If Bentham’s innovation is adaptable to a variety of uses, that is because it promises to impose order on group behavior by reprogramming the individual.

    From a technocrat’s perspective, the most dysfunctional part of society is the raw material from which it’s built. The panopticon is a tool for fashioning humans suitable for modern use.

    The prisoner, beggar or student dropped into the panopticon is, Foucault writes, “securely confined to a cell from which he is seen from the front by the supervisor; but the side walls prevent him from coming into contact with his companions.” Hundreds if not thousands of people surround him in all directions. The population is a crowd (something worrisome to anyone with authority, especially with the French Revolution still vividly in mind), but incapable of acting as one.

    As if to remind himself of his own humanitarian intentions, Bentham proposes that people from the outside world be allowed to visit the observation deck of the panopticon. Foucault explains, with dry irony, that this will preclude any danger “that the increase of power created by the panoptic machine may degenerate into tyranny …” For the panopticon would be under democratic control, of a sort.

    “Any member of society,” Foucault notes, had “the right to come and see with his own eyes how the schools, hospitals, factories, prisons function.” Besides ensuring a degree of public accountability, their very presence would contribute to the panopticon’s operations. Visitors would not meet the prisoners (or students, etc.) but observe them from the control and surveillance center. They would bring that many more eyes to the task of watching the cells for bad behavior.

    As indicated at the beginning of this piece, nonscholarly references to the panopticon in the 21st century typically appear as commentary on the norms of life online. This undoubtedly follows from Discipline and Punish being on the syllabus, in a variety of fields, for two or three generations now.

    Bentham was confident that his work would be appreciated in centuries to come, but he would probably be perplexed by this repurposing of his idea. He designed the panopticon to “grind rogues honest” through anonymous and continuous surveillance, which the digital panopticon exercises as well—but without a deterrent effect, to put it mildly.

    Bentham’s effort to impose inhibition on unwilling subjects seems to have been hacked; the panoptic technology of the present is programmed to generate exhibitionism and voyeurism. A couple of decades ago, the arrival of each new piece of digital technology was hailed as a tool for self-fashioning, self-optimization or some other emancipatory ambition. For all its limitations, the analogy to Bentham’s panopticon fits in one respect: Escape is hard even to imagine.

    Scott McLemee is Inside Higher Ed’s “Intellectual Affairs” columnist. He was a contributing editor at Lingua Franca magazine and a senior writer at The Chronicle of Higher Education before joining Inside Higher Ed in 2005.

    Source link

  • Too many communities lack broad-access colleges

    Too many communities lack broad-access colleges

    Most American college students attend broad-access institutions, or public colleges and universities that admit at least 80 percent of applicants. Yet millions of people live in communities without one of these institutions nearby—and millions more live in areas with only one option, according to a new report from the Institute for College Access and Success.

    The report, released today, shows stark disparities in higher ed access based on students’ geography and how some broad-access institutions are single-handedly serving whole regions. It also highlights communities with nearby colleges located across state lines, an understudied college-access issue, higher ed leaders say.

    Researchers analyzed different “commuting zones,” or clusters of counties workers commute between, to see which communities have broad-access institutions within a reasonable commuting distance.

    Nicholas Hillman, an education professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and co-author of the report, believes it’s critical to understand students’ geographical contexts.

    He said conversations about higher ed access often revolve around “informational problems”—whether students know about different college options and understand the college admissions process. But his previous research shows most students, even if well-informed, choose to stay close to home for college. That’s why he wanted to take a deeper look at where residents do or don’t have broad-access institutions within reach.

    “Maybe some of the problems in college access and opportunity are that there aren’t colleges nearby, or that there are not appropriate transportation infrastructures in place for students to access colleges … or that there are cost-prohibitive options nearby,” said Hillman, who also directs the university’s Student Success Through Applied Research Lab. When studying college access through a geographic lens, “you see problems differently. You might come up with a very different set of policy solutions.”

    He also sees the report as a “love letter” to broad-access institutions, especially those that are the only ones in their communities.

    “They’re doing the lion’s share of the work,” Hillman said. “They’re the blue-collar colleges out there, doing the heavy lifting in higher education, serving the most students and doing so oftentimes with the least amount of financial resources and under some of the most pressure.”

    The Findings

    To identify broad-access institutions, the report drew on data from the U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, with the caveat that IPEDS doesn’t account for all branch campuses.

    And then researchers used data from Pennsylvania State University’s Labor-sheds for Regional Analysis tool to measure commuting zones around the colleges. Finally, the report looked at how nearby these institutions were in “large-population commuting zones,” like urban or metropolitan areas, and “small-population commuting zones,” less populous areas, like rural communities.

    The report found that more than 831,000 people living in more populous commuting zones don’t have a local broad-access institution, and another 9.7 million had only one of these colleges nearby. That means about one in 16 people don’t have a broad-access institution nearby or just one, even in the country’s largest local labor markets.

    The issue was even more stark in less populous or rural local labor economies, where 2.8 million people don’t have a single broad-access institution in their area. Another 5.9 million live in areas with only one such institution. Meanwhile, among students who go to college in these less populous areas, 70 percent attend broad-access institutions, meaning these colleges “play an outsized role in creating opportunities and meeting local educational needs” in these communities, the report says.

    Riley Acton, an assistant professor of economics at Miami University in Ohio, said it’s important to differentiate between college access issues in the two types of regions, as the report did, because “what it means to have access, to have something nearby, can be really different in rural and urban environments.” In a rural area, a college might be miles away but easy to travel to by car, while in an urban area, a college could be close by but hard to reach via public transportation, she said, so the report opens up a conversation about those distinctions.

    Hillman added that a granular look at the data might surprise people. For example, some large metropolitan areas, like Chicago, are known for prominent private universities but have relatively few broad-access institutions for residents.

    “Local markets are just very different, depending on where you live, and I think that it’s important to put that out there, just to help remind ourselves that there’s no typical place or experience or market that every student experiences,” Hillman said.

    The report also highlights that some regions have broad-access institutions nearby but they’re across state borders, meaning they may not provide in-state tuition or could be harder to reach. There are 63 small-population commuting zones that cross state borders, which collectively have 77 broad-access institutions and serve about 190,000 students. The report also found 65 large-population zones that cross state lines with a total of 249 broad-access institutions enrolling roughly 1.3 million students.

    Acton said broad-access institutions that draw students from multiple states are an “understudied angle” in understanding students’ geographical contexts and what barriers could be getting in the way of their going to college.

    The Policy Implications

    To expand students’ access to these colleges, the report recommends that states offer nearby out-of-state students tuition discounts and that local leaders explore ways to improve transportation infrastructure, among other policy suggestions.

    Hillman emphasized that it’s also important to ensure broad-access institutions that are the only ones in their communities are well resourced. He suggested these colleges have a special federal or state designation that comes with extra financial support.

    “Sometimes a college is … serving a great need and is really an anchor for that community,” he said.

    Particularly in rural areas, broad-access institutions often do so much more for their communities than confer degrees, said Cecilia Orphan, associate professor of higher education at the University of Denver and founding co-director of the Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges. In some cases, these campuses provide local internet access and serve as major employers, among other services. Western Carolina University, for example, is home to its community’s power plant and has police officers that serve its surrounding area.

    “It’s very tempting for policymakers to simply look at enrollment numbers … and to ask themselves whether or not that institution is needed,” Orphan said. “But if you think about the broader services that institution likely provides a local community, closing it could be catastrophic.”

    Acton noted that limited access to broad-access institutions can especially hurt some of the most vulnerable students.

    She previously conducted research with a team of economists focused on how community college proximity affected Texas high school students’ college-going decisions. They found that Black, Hispanic and lower-income students without a community college nearby were less likely to pursue higher ed, while white, Asian and upper-income students were more likely to travel to go to college.

    She agrees higher ed decision-makers need to think carefully about what a college means to particular communities when they make policy choices.

    “Where do we open new colleges? Where do we close colleges? Where do we merge colleges?” she said. If an institution closes, “what are the other options for the people in this area? Are the people who are in this area ones who would be able to travel and go to something further away? … Those are conversations for state policymakers and institutional leaders to be having.”

    Source link

  • Florida board approves extensive gen ed overhaul

    Florida board approves extensive gen ed overhaul

    Students at Florida State University can cheer on the Seminoles across multiple sports, but they can no longer learn about the namesake tribe of Indigenous Americans as part of FSU’s general education offerings after the Florida Board of Governors approved sweeping curriculum changes Thursday.

    Florida colleges have spent months rethinking their general education requirements following a change in state law. Thursday’s vote marked the final step in a contentious and controversial process that brought significant changes to all 12 state universities. Critics accuse the board and system officials of taking a heavy-handed approach and targeting specific topics or courses, while state officials have argued revisions were necessary both to simplify the curriculum and to strip it of “indoctrination.”

    Now, American History 583: The Seminoles and the Southeastern Indians is one of hundreds of courses across Florida’s public universities that will no longer count toward general education credit as part of the extensive overhaul. Neither will Black Women in America or LGBTQ History, both of which were previously included as general education offerings at FSU. Those are just three of numerous courses touching in some way on race, gender or sexuality that institutional boards voted in recent months to drop from general education. All 12 Boards of Trustees then submitted a pared-down list of classes to FLBOG for approval. Three Bible courses remain eligible for general education credit at FSU.

    (An FSU spokesperson noted in an email to Inside Higher Ed that American History 583, which currently has about 150 students enrolled this semester, will now be offered as an elective. Pressed on the rationale for why the course was dropped from gen eds, FSU did not respond.)

    Florida State University’s Board of Trustees dropped a course on Seminole history from the list of general education offerings, but fans can still cheer on the Seminoles.

    Chris Leduc/Icon Sportswire/Getty Image

    State lawmakers required colleges in 2023 to review general education classes in an effort to cut “courses with curriculum based on unproven, speculative or exploratory content,” according to materials shared with the Board of Governors in a presentation for Thursday’s vote.

    The Florida Board of Governors unanimously approved the new suite of gen ed classes Thursday, though some members tried to downplay the notion that the state was trying to limit knowledge.

    “We are not prohibiting universities from offering courses,” Timothy Cerio, chair of the Academic and Student Affairs committee, said at the meeting. Instead, he emphasized that those courses are just being removed from general education curriculum and will remain available as electives.

    State University System of Florida chancellor Ray Rodrigues depicted the vote on general education as stripping indoctrination from curricular offerings. Rodrigues argued that the American public has lost faith in higher education, citing a recent Gallup poll that noted shrinking public confidence in the sector. Among the reasons for that diminished confidence, particularly among Republican respondents, is the belief that colleges push liberal agendas.

    “The general education curriculum that was approved today makes Florida the only state in the nation to address the No. 1 reason why the American people have lost confidence in higher education,” Rodrigues said during the meeting. “We can confidently say that our general education courses that students have to take in order to graduate will not contain indoctrinating concepts.”

    ‘Political Overreach’

    But critics allege administrators have overstepped, as curriculum has traditionally been the faculty’s purview. They also worry that removing courses from general education will cause enrollment in such classes to plummet, limiting the number of students who will be introduced to certain majors like sociology—a discipline state officials have taken aim at for an allegedly liberal tilt—which will subsequently weaken academic departments and potentially decrease staffing levels.

    United Faculty of Florida, a union representing 25,000-plus professors, denounced the move toward scaled-back general education offerings.

    “Florida is at the forefront of an assault against public education, restricting the subjects students can study from K-12 to the colleges and universities,” UFF declared in a news release ahead of Thursday’s vote, casting FLBOG’s actions as “bureaucratic and political overreach.”

    “General education courses are the foundation of critical thinking and informed citizenship, and censoring them limits not only what students can learn but also what they can become. These proposed cuts are an insult to our students and to the world-class faculty that instruct and guide them,” UFF president Teresa M. Hodge said in a Monday webinar ahead of the meeting.

    Hodge argued that the courses being targeted were just “words and numbers on a spreadsheet” to the Florida Board of Governors, but “for the rest of us, they are the future of our students, our jobs, and our democracy” and the “foundation of critical thinking” and “informed citizenship.” She also accused Republican governor Ron DeSantis, who pushed for the legislation that led to the changes, of prioritizing “his personal political ambition” over students.

    Robert Cassanello, a history professor at the University of Central Florida, argued on the call that it was lawmakers—not professors—who were attempting to indoctrinate students.

    “They tell us that classes have to be removed from the curriculum that focus on race, gender and sexuality, but at the same time, they want courses and lessons on the centrality of Western civilization, free-market libertarianism and patriotic histories of this country infused into the general curriculum and life on our campuses,” Cassanello said.

    Students on the call also noted that general education courses set them on career pathways.

    Tessa Barber, a graduate student at the University of South Florida, began college as a biology major but is now working toward a doctorate in politics and international relations. She attributed that change to general education courses in anthropology and political science that pushed her in a different direction. She expressed concern about “political interference” in the education of undergraduates.

    Some speakers at Thursday’s meeting also pushed back on the gen ed overhaul.

    Jono Miller, president of NCF Freedom, a group that has been critical of the state’s conservative takeover of New College of Florida, alleged that the overhaul of its core curriculum was “rushed and chaotic” with “minimal faculty input” and a “lack of transparency.” Miller argued that “telling faculty what to teach translates directly to telling students what to think.”

    Thursday’s vote followed prior action on general education courses from the State Board of Education, which oversees the 28 institutions in the Florida College System. Earlier this month that board removed 57 percent of FCS general education courses, according to state officials.

    Source link

  • Trump tackles higher ed during his first 10 days in office

    Trump tackles higher ed during his first 10 days in office

    During his first 10 days in office, President Trump signed a plethora of executive orders to combat so-called woke ideology, reversed a long-standing immigration policy that barred ICE officers from raiding college campuses and sought to freeze federal grants that don’t align with his agenda—a move blocked by a federal court.

    So far, his actions have had few immediate consequences for higher ed, and policy experts say more guidance is necessary to understand their implications. But the president has certainly created chaos and confusion, raising concern among university administrators across the country and inciting pre-emptive responses from some.

    Throughout the past two weeks, higher ed experts have told Inside Higher Ed they are trying to walk the thin line between necessary caution and undue alarm.     

    Many of Trump’s initial actions will take time to enforce and may face intervention from the courts. And while the president has nominated former wrestling mogul Linda McMahon as secretary of education and former University of Florida vice president Penny Schwinn as deputy, neither has a confirmation hearing scheduled. Trump has yet to nominate an under secretary—the highest-ranking official overseeing colleges and universities. So it will likely be at least a few weeks, if not more, until the department reaches full capacity.

    Until then, it will be run by acting secretary Denise Carter, who was already working in the department as head of the Office of Federal Student Aid, and a collection of 10 appointees who do not require confirmation. Of the 10, four have previously worked with the America First Policy Institute, a pro-Trump think tank that McMahon formed in 2021.

    Though the department is not yet fully staffed, the small landing team has leaped into action. In a Jan. 23 new release, department officials said they had removed or archived hundreds of documents, dissolved councils and canceled service contracts that go against the president’s “ongoing commitment to end illegal discrimination and wasteful spending.”

    Executive Orders

    The president signed a record number of executive orders on his first day in office and has added to the tally nearly every day since. But the three that hold the most weight for colleges and universities concern DEI, “gender ideology” and antisemitism. Higher ed, free speech and civil rights advocates predict all three will create a significant chilling effects on campuses.

    “Gender Ideology”

    Signed on Inauguration Day, the first order declares that there are only two sexes, which the White House defines as “male” and “female.” The order also mandates that federal agencies use those definitions when “interpreting or applying statutes, regulations, or guidance and in all other official agency business, documents, and communications” and bans the federal funding of any program that goes against those definitions or defends transgender and nonbinary students.

    Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

    The executive order Trump signed the following day, Jan. 21, tackled all things DEI, though unlike the first order, it never defined the term. Instead, it broadly ordered agencies—including the Education Department—to “enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws and to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.”

    The document instructs the department to provide guidance for colleges and universities on how to comply with the 2023 Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action. It also designates all institutions that receive federal financial aid as subcontractors and says that as such, they “shall not consider race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin” in their programs or hiring decisions. Finally, it commissions the department to conduct an investigation of up to nine colleges with endowments worth more than $1 billion to scrutinize compliance.

    Antisemitism

    The most recent order, signed Wednesday, piggybacks on the tensions over recent campus protests and vows “forceful” measures to combat antisemitism. Its four main components define antisemitism, direct the Office for Civil Rights to reconsider closed investigations on ethnic and religious discrimination, encourage the Department of Justice to take action, and allow immigration officers to deport international student “sympathizers” who support antisemitic groups.

    DEI, LGBTQ+ and pro-Palestinian advocates, along with free speech and academic freedom groups, are pushing back against the order, and some are even encouraging colleges and universities not to comply unless pressured to do so.

    But several colleges have already taken pre-emptive actions in an attempt to avoid financial penalties. For example a conference at Rutgers University about registered apprenticeships and historically Black colleges and universities was canceled last week, and Michigan State University canceled a Lunar New Year event this week. Rutgers officials, however, say calling off the conference wasn’t a university decision. Rather, it was canceled because the organizers, a group outside the university, received a stop work order from the Department of Labor.

    Immigration Actions

    Although less directly targeted at institutions of higher ed, the president has also taken executive actions related to immigration. He attempted (and failed) to strip the children of undocumented immigrants of birthright citizenship; rescinded guidance that prevented immigration arrests at schools, churches and colleges; and signed the Laken Riley Act into law, potentially putting the approval of some U.S. visas into the hands of state attorneys general.

    The first executive action might have impacted some students’ access to in-state tuition or financial aid but would have had no direct implication on the colleges themselves. But the latter two could force university administrators to decide whether they will assist in deportation efforts and may impact the enrollment and hiring of international students and scholars.

    Funding Freeze

    Perhaps the most direct cause of chaos and concern among colleges, however, was the product of an internal Office of Management and Budget memo leaked Monday, which directed all federal agencies to pause thousands of grants and loans in order to conduct a “comprehensive analysis” and ensure they align with the president’s priorities.

    The unprecedented guidance specifically exempted Social Security, Medicare and other programs that provide direct financial assistance to individuals. But initially many institutions feared the mandate would strip students of access to the Pell Grant and federal loans. The White House clarified that was not the case in a press conference and in follow-up memos, but colleges, universities and higher education nonprofit groups were still concerned.

    Policy experts warned that even if temporary, lack of access to grants could impact minority-serving institutions, college preparation programs, childcare for student parents, food banks, student retention and graduation initiatives, campus hospital systems, and more. Multiple legal challenges quickly followed, and on Tuesday afternoon a federal judge in Washington blocked the freeze, just hours before it was scheduled to take effect.

    Since then, the Trump administration has rescinded the original memo, although it has criticized news organizations for saying the freeze was reversed entirely. Instead, officials argued in a news release—titled “Another Day, More Lies”—that the analysis of all programs is ongoing and Trump’s order remains “in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented as the administration works to root out waste, fraud, and abuse.”

    Pauses on research grant applications through the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation that started prior to the OMB memo remain in place. The agencies are responsible for billions of dollars in research funding at universities across the country, and faculty members are still largely concerned that the stoppage will interfere with critical STEM research projects, including those that have advanced treatments for common diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s.



    Source link

  • Harvard lays off staff at its Slavery Remembrance Program

    Harvard lays off staff at its Slavery Remembrance Program

    Harvard University last week laid off the staff of the Harvard Slavery Remembrance Program, who were tasked with identifying the direct descendants of those enslaved by Harvard-affiliated administrators, faculty and staff, The Boston Globe reported.

    The work, which was part of the university’s $100 million Legacy of Slavery initiative, will now fall entirely to American Ancestors, a national genealogical nonprofit that Harvard was already partnering with, according to a news release.

    A Harvard spokesperson declined to comment on the layoffs to the Globe.

    The Harvard Crimson first reported the news, noting that the HSRP staff were terminated without warning Jan. 23.

    Protesting the move, Harvard history professor Vincent Brown resigned from the Legacy of Slavery Memorial Project Committee, which was assigned the task of designing a memorial to those enslaved by members of the Harvard community.

    Brown wrote in his resignation letter, which he shared with Inside Higher Ed, that he had recently returned from a productive research trip to Antigua and Barbuda when he “learned that the entire [HSRP] team had been laid off in sudden telephone calls with an officer in Harvard’s human resources department.” He called the terminations “vindictive as well as wasteful.”

    “I hope and expect that the H&LS initiative will weather this latest controversy,” Brown wrote. “I only regret that I cannot formally be a part of that effort.”

    Harvard’s Legacy of Slavery Initiative has repeatedly come under fire since it was announced in 2022. Critics assailed its lack of progress last year. The two professors who co-chaired the memorial committee resigned last May, citing frustration with administrators; the executive director of the initiative, Roeshana Moore-Evans, followed them out the door. Then HSRP founding director Richard Cellini told the Crimson last fall that vice provost Sara Bleich had instructed him “‘not to find too many descendants.’”

    A university spokesperson denied that charge, telling the Crimson, “There is no directive to limit the number of direct descendants to be identified through this work.”

    Cellini was among those fired from the HSRP last week.

    Source link

  • Smart Campus Energy Management and Green Campuses

    Smart Campus Energy Management and Green Campuses

    Introduction: How Educational Technology Promotes Green Campuses

    Sustainability is now a requirement, not a slogan, especially concerning educational institutions given the tremendous environmental impact of paper-based systems! Textbooks and administrative paperwork from colleges and institutions contribute to worldwide paper consumption. Panic not, the good news is that technology and smart campus energy management is making a difference.

    Universities may encourage sustainability by using innovation that eliminates waste, conserves energy, and optimizes resources. With the correct tools, becoming green may become the norm. Creatrix Campus’s educational innovations in the form of smart campus energy management are turning campuses into eco-friendly centers while improving efficiency.

     

    Benefits of Educational Technologies for Eco-friendly Campus Management

     

     

    Paperless Classrooms and Administration

    Reducing paper waste is a simple but effective way for institutions to become green. Paperwork is massive in conventional classrooms and administrative systems due to the proliferation of various forms of paper-based documentation. However, campuses may reduce paper use, simplify operations, and save time by moving digital!

    Paperwork is a thing of the past with cloud-based tools for resource optimization that manage student work, grades, and attendance. With a few clicks, students may turn in their work online, instructors can digitally grade and comment, and attendance can be kept tabs. In addition to enhancing efficiency, all of this helps save environment. On top of that, everything is well-organized and simple to find, which simplifies administrative duties.

     

    Controlling Energy Consumption Using Intelligent Devices

    Energy regulation is crucial to a sustainable campus. Smart campus energy management have increased university energy efficiency. Smart meters, IoT devices, and cloud-based energy management software can analyze energy usage, identify inefficiencies, and reduce carbon footprint on campuses.

    According to a new study out of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, campuses can save 30% on their energy bills by implementing smart campus energy management solutions. Colleges can significantly reduce their energy use by installing smart lighting, HVAC systems, and energy-efficient equipment.

    Additionally, facilities staff may reduce waste and promote eco-friendly practices across the board by making smarter decisions on energy usage based on data-driven insights. It’s about more than just cutting costs; it’s about making a better, more sustainable future for generations to come.

     

    Learn to Reduce Carbon Footprint Online

    More than just a convenient way to attend classes, online learning changes the atmosphere. Universities may substantially reduce travel by going digital, reducing traffic, carbon emissions, and cars on the road. Online education reduces carbon footprints by up to 90% compared to on-campus instruction, according to The Global e-Sustainability Initiative.

    But it’s not just about travel cuts!  Online learning minimizes the need for environmentally harmful paper books, handouts, and other materials! Students get to access course materials instantaneously from anywhere, saving resources and giving the planet a respite.

    Students can get degrees from home while protecting the environment—a win-win!

     

    Sustainable Resource Management

    Building a green campus requires efficient resource management. AI and IoT-powered smart campus energy management systems are changing how universities measure and optimize resource use. Educational institutions may now make smarter judgments about water, electricity, paper, and plastic to reduce waste and save money.

    Real-time data and predictive analytics helped institutions employing smart campus energy management systems cut energy use by 15% reports The International Energy Agency. It’s not just about turning off lights in empty classrooms—it’s about using energy-hungry equipment sparingly and conserving water in dorms and cafeterias.

    Cloud-based technologies and AI-powered analytics help colleges improve their sustainability initiatives and achieve lasting impact! Understanding how and when resources are used helps institutions reduce waste, save money, and promote sustainability.

     

    Environment Awareness

    Environmental knowledge is crucial to creating tomorrow’s leaders on campuses. Sustainability in the curriculum and green campus projects can teach students to be eco-friendly. This approach may even help students become environmental activists.

    According to a National Environmental Education Foundation research, 79% of students think their institutions should address sustainability, and 67% prefer to work for green companies. University environmental awareness programs teach lifelong habits and educate students to take responsibility for their ecological footprint.

     

    Remote Collaboration Encouragement

    Carbon footprint reduction doesn’t require face-to-face interaction. Virtual classrooms and cloud-based technology let students and teachers communicate anytime, anywhere, minimizing travel and meetings. Trust us, remote collaboration for group tasks or faculty discussions saves time, cuts travel emissions, and makes their workspace more flexible and sustainable.

    Remote work and collaboration tools reduce travel and their organization’s environmental effect, according to 60% of McKinsey respondents.  

     

    Data-driven Sustainability Planning

    Sustainability requires educated decisions, not just good intentions. Data helps higher eds design better, more customised sustainability plans. Leveraging AI and IoT for green campus operations aids to analyze real-time energy, waste, and resource allocation data to improve.

    According to a Gartner report, 70% of organizations utilizing data analytics have improved their sustainability initiatives, from waste reduction to energy optimization. Same with universities. Educational technologies let institutions track success, identify areas for development, and make long-term environmental decisions. Data-driven sustainability is a game-changer, not a buzzword.

     

    Conclusion

    University greening can jump forward with technology. Sustainable, eco-friendly education is possible through paperless classrooms in universities, smart campus energy management, and online learning. By using cloud-based tools for resource optimization, institutions lower their environmental footprint and inspire future leaders.

    Is your organization ready to impact? Greening your campus is easy with Creatrix Campus and its creative solutions. Connect with us.

    Source link

  • UKRI increases PhD stipend by 8 per cent

    UKRI increases PhD stipend by 8 per cent

    Let’s get the headlines out of the way first.

    UKRI is increasing its PhD stipend by eight per cent to £20,780 from 1 October 2025. Wonkhe understands that this will not be funded by a reduction in the overall number of grants but instead forms part of UKRI’s funding settlement for 2025–26.

    Pay

    This means that UKRI will provide a take home income that is equivalent to the take home National Living Wage. This is not the same as the Real Living Wage but it is nonetheless a significant and welcome increase.

    This is the single largest real terms increase of the stipend for funded students since 2003. Given that UKRI supports 20 per cent of doctoral students, and many universities choose to mirror the terms of UKRI, this will undoubtedly have a significant impact on improving the conditions of PGR students.

    There is a sort of unwritten expectation that providers will generally peg their own grants to the levels of UKRI’s. Albeit, as we learn from the accompanying financial analysis that goes with the main report about around one in five students receive an amount above the minimum stipend. However, while half of respondents to a survey on the UKRI stipend indicated that at least 90 per cent of their non-UKRI funded doctoral students received a stipend equivalent to that of UKRI’s minimum level, around one in ten indicated that all of their non-UKRI funded doctoral students receive a stipend lower than UKRI’s minimum.

    The potential implications of this are that some providers will further stretch their already stretched resources in maintaining UKRI’s funding levels, or that some providers will fall behind the UKRI minimum rate for students they fund directly. Prior to today’s announcement providers were generally positive about mooted increases. However, while 72 per cent of respondents say they would increase their own stipends to match the National Living Wage this is lower than the 89 per cent who said they would be very or somewhat likely to increase their own stipends by inflation (and a little higher than the 66 per cent said who said they would be very or somewhat likely to increase their stipend if it was anchored to the Real Living Wage).

    Providers, for their part, stated in interviews that

    Institutions would endorse in principle an increase in line with price inflation (at a minimum) or National Living Wage (which institutions feel, morally, would be preferable) and thought they would be able to match this for university funded stipends. However, for UKRI training grants, were such a raise not accompanied by additional grant funding from UKRI, ROs might need to reduce student numbers in the future to ensure they can continue paying the minimum stipend.

    Providers may see some good news in the increase in the minimum fee for a UKRI student increasing by 4.6 per cent to £5,006.This should mean that providers can recoup a slightly greater amount of funding for their students and like with grants many providers will align their home PGR fees to the UKRI minimum. This is an entirely different question as to whether providers are anywhere close to recouping the actual cost of teaching PGR students.

    Terms

    The funding increase will grab the headlines but the revisions to UKRI’s Standard Terms and Conditions of Training Grant (TGCs) are likely to be as impactful.

    In February 2023 UKRI commissioned Advance HE to carry out a review of its TGCs from an EDI perspective which has been considered alongside UKRI’s own new deal for postgraduate research. There is also a new companion document to the update to the TGCs by the UKRI commissioned Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Caucus (EDICa). In their report EDICa highlighted the impacts of child support on the continuation of studies, the wide variability in disabled students getting the support they need, the inflexibility in moving between full and part-time study, and the considerable time it takes in getting medical evidence for securing adjustments. As the authors state

    However, for many current doctoral training students, the system of support in its current form is entrenching wider inequalities, particularly relating to caring responsibilities, disability and the benefits that may be achieved through change of mode of study.

    This seems to be a message that UKRI has taken seriously.

    The first thing to point out is that UKRI is not a regulator and it is at pains to point this out

    UKRI is not a regulator and while we for the first time are explicit that we expect compliance with consumer law, employment law, Office for Students and Medr regulation (all where applicable), providers remain responsible for their own compliance and regulators for enforcement.

    It feels self evident but the revised terms make it explicit that the role of UKRI is to steer the organisations it funds, and by extension the sector, toward better conditions for PGR students. UKRI will impose conditions on its own grants but it has a wider set of expectations for the sector on improving the conditions for PGRs.

    The reason it is steering not shoving the sector are numerous. Primarily, it has limited powers within HERA but it also acknowledges that it is providers that are best placed to make decisions on their own students. The revision to the terms is the moment where some of the ambitions of the Tickell review have come to life in loosening the conditions and reducing the bureaucracy on student grant funding.

    This new flexibility comes in a number of forms. UKRI has extended the time a student can draw their stipend while on sick leave from 13 to 28 weeks. UKRI is also removing the requirement for students to provide medical evidence when taking medical leave, instead this process will be more closely managed by a students’ provider. This is because obtaining a diagnosis was a barrier to students taking the leave they needed.

    It is in their approach to supporting disabled students where the dynamic of UKRi improving its own conditions while encouraging universities to do likewise comes to light. They note

    We will require that disabled students are offered reasonable adjustments at the earliest opportunity and that the research organisation or provider has a policy to support this. For our part, we will update UKRI’s Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA) Framework in April 2025.

    Again, the expectation is that providers will not just act reasonably but they will only ask students for evidence of a disability where it is necessary to do so. This is a reflection of EHRC guidance, recommendations of the OfS Disabled Students’ Commission and the Bristol v Abrahart judgement.

    Finally, UKRI is removing restrictions on students moving between full or part-time modes of study. Their view is that providers are better placed to advise on student modes of study, and they may offer additional funding if they wish.

    There are other important measures within here which deserve consideration. Grant funding will include an individual risk assessment when a student is pregnant, breastfeeding or has given birth in the last six months. There is not strong evidence that PGR students are disadvantaged when joining a trade union. And there are still a whole range of challenges in getting support for international students due to the interplay between visa regulations and PGR study.

    In total this feels like the kind of policy change that the sector has been calling for. It is not the kind of public argument, back and forth debate, that has been seen on other culture measures like updating the REF. Instead, it is a considered series of changes to the actual conditions of PGR students that will put more money in their pockets while allowing greater flexibility around: leave, illness, support for disabled students, and mode of study. It is not perfect and the wider pressures PGR students will feel are still acute, but it is a big step forward.

    UKRI has taken an approach which the sector may recognise as reasonable. They have updated their own conditions based on the evidence presented to them, explained where they have chosen not to, and given greater flexibility to providers to do the things they believe are important.

    Source link