Category: Opinion

  • OPINION: Here’s why we cannot permit America’s partnership with higher education to weaken or dissolve

    OPINION: Here’s why we cannot permit America’s partnership with higher education to weaken or dissolve

    Abrupt cuts in federal funding for life saving medical research. Confusing and misleading new guidance about campus diversity programs. Cancellation, without due process, of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants and contracts held by a major university. Mass layoffs at the Education Department, undermining crucial programs such as federal student aid.

    All of this, and more, in the opening weeks of the second Trump administration.

    The president has made clear that colleges and universities face a moment of unprecedented challenge. The partnership the federal government forged with American higher education long ago, which for generations has paid off spectacularly for our country’s civic health, economic well-being and national security, appears in the eyes of many to be suddenly vulnerable.

    America must not permit this partnership to weaken or dissolve. No nation has ever built up its people by tearing down its schools. Higher education builds America — and together, we will fight to ensure it continues to do so.  

    Related: Tracking Trump: his actions on education    

    Some wonder why more college and university presidents aren’t speaking out. The truth is, many of them fear their institutions could be targeted next.

    They are also juggling immense financial pressures and striving to fulfill commitments to teaching and research.

    But the American Council on Education, which I lead, has always stood up for higher education. We have done it for more than a century, and we are doing it now. We will use every tool possible — including litigation, advocacy and coalition-building — to advance the cause.

    ACE is the major coordinating body for colleges and universities. We represent institutions of all kinds — public and private, large and small, rural and urban — with a mission of helping our members best serve their students and communities.

    Let me be clear: We welcome scrutiny and accountability for the public funds supporting student aid and research. Our institutions are subject to state and federal laws and must not tolerate any form of discrimination, even as they uphold freedom of expression and the right to robust but civil protest. 

    We also know we have much work to do to raise public confidence in higher education and the value of a degree.

    However, we cannot allow unwarranted attacks on higher education to occur without a vigorous and proactive response.

    When the National Institutes of Health announced on Feb. 7 a huge cut in funding that supports medical and health research, ACE joined with the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities and a number of affected universities in a lawsuit to stop this action.

    ACE has almost never been a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the federal government, but the moment demanded it. We are pleased that a federal judge has issued a nationwide preliminary injunction to preserve the NIH funding.

    When the Education Department issued a “Dear Colleague” letter Feb. 14 that raised questions about whether campus programs related to diversity, equity      and inclusion would be permissible under federal law, ACE organized a coalition of more than 70 higher education groups calling for the department to rescind the letter.      

    We raised concerns about the confusion the letter was causing. We pointed out that the majority opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts in the Students for Fair Admissions case acknowledged that diversity-related goals in higher education are “commendable” and “plainly worthy.”    

     We invited the department to engage with the higher education community to promote inclusive and welcoming educational environments for all students, regardless of race or ethnicity or any other factors. We remain eager to work with the department. 

    Related: Fewer scholarships and a new climate of fear follow      the end of affirmative action

    Unfortunately, in recent days the administration has taken further steps we find alarming.

    ACE denounced the arbitrary cancellation of $400 million in federal grants and contracts with Columbia University. Administration officials claimed their action was a response to failures to adequately address antisemitism at Columbia, though it bypassed well-established procedures for investigating such allegations. (The Hechinger Report is an independent unit of Teachers College, Columbia University.)

    Ultimately, this action will eviscerate academic and research activities, to the detriment of students, faculty, medical patients and others.

    Make no mistake: Combating campus antisemitism is a matter of utmost priority for us. Our organization, along with Hillel International and the American Jewish Committee, organized two summits on this topic in 2022 and 2024, fostering important dialogue with dozens of college and university presidents.

    We also are deeply concerned about the letter the Trump administration sent to Columbia late last week that makes certain demands of the university, including a leadership change for one of its academic departments. To my mind, the letter obliterated the boundary between institutional autonomy and federal control. That boundary is essential. Without it, academic freedom is at risk.

    Meanwhile, layoffs and other measures slashing the Education Department’s workforce by as much as half will cause chaos and harm to financial aid and other programs that support millions of students from low- and middle-income families. We strongly urge the administration to change course and Congress to step in if it does not.

    Despite all that has happened in the past several weeks, we want President Trump and his administration to know this: Higher education is here for America, and ready to keep building. Colleges and universities have long worked with the government in countless ways to strengthen our economy, democracy, health and security. We cannot abandon that partnership. We must fortify it. 

    Ted Mitchell is president of the American Council of Education in Washington, D.C.

    Contact the opinion editor at opinion@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about academic freedom was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • OPINION: The demographic cliff in higher education should be seen as an opportunity, not a crisis

    OPINION: The demographic cliff in higher education should be seen as an opportunity, not a crisis

    This spring, the number of high school graduates in the United States is expected to hit its peak. Starting in the fall, enrollment will likely enter a period of decline that could last a decade or more.

    This looming “demographic cliff” has been on the minds of education leaders for nearly two decades, dating back to the start of the Great Recession. A raft of college closures over the past five years, exacerbated by the pandemic, has for many observers been the canary in the coal mine.

    In the years to come, schools at all levels — reliant on per-pupil funding for K-12 and on tuition dollars for colleges and universities — will begin feeling the squeeze.

    The question now is whether to treat the cliff as a crisis or an opportunity.

    Related: Interested in innovations in the field of higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly Higher Education newsletter.

    As they prepare for enrollment shortfalls, superintendents and college presidents are primarily focused on crisis management. With good reason, they’re spending the bulk of their time on the hard short-term decisions of cutting programs and personnel to meet looming budget shortfalls.

    In the precious few years before the situation becomes even more dire, the question is whether schools should just continue bracing for impact — or if they can think bigger in ways that could be transformative not just for the landscape of education, but for the economy more broadly. In my view, they should think about what it would look like to make a moment of crisis a real opportunity.

    Here are some ideas about how that could happen. The first involves blurring the lines between high school and college.

    Colleges today feel immense pressure because there aren’t enough high school graduates. High schools feel similar pressure because there are fewer young people around to enroll each year — not to mention the chronic absenteeism and disengagement that has persisted since the pandemic.

    What if the two worked more closely together — in ways that helped high schools keep students engaged while enabling colleges to reach a broader range of students?

    In many states, this is already happening. At last count, 2.5 million high schoolers took at least one dual-enrollment course from a college or university. But it’s not enough to just create tighter connections between one educational experience and another. Today’s students — and today’s economy — also demand clearer pathways from education to careers. It makes sense to blur the lines between high schools, colleges and work.

    So imagine taking these changes even further — to a world in which instead of jumping from high school to college, students in their late teens entered entirely new institutions that paid them for work-based learning experiences that would lead them to a degree and eventually a career.

    That’s a lofty goal. But it’s the kind of big thinking that both high schools and colleges may need to reinvent themselves for the country’s shifting demographics.

    Colleges have an opportunity right now to double down on creating and expanding job-relevant programs — and to think even bigger about who they serve. That could include expanding opportunities for adult learners who have gained skills outside the classroom through credit for prior learning and competency-based learning. It could also mean speeding up the development of industry-relevant coursework to better align with the needs of the labor market and leaning into short-form training programs to upskill incumbent workers.

    Related: The number of 18-year-olds is about to drop sharply, packing a wallop for colleges — and the economy

    Not every student is ready to invest four years of time and money to earn a bachelor’s degree. But they shouldn’t have to be — and colleges have a chance to expand their offerings in ways that give students more pathways into today’s fast-changing economy and further education if they so choose.

    Part of the problem with the current trajectory from high school to college is that the wrong things get incentivized. Both K-12 schools and colleges get money and support based on the number of students they enroll and (sometimes) the number of people who graduate — not on how well they do at helping people gain the skills to effectively participate in the economy.

    That’s not anyone’s fault. But it often boils down to a matter of policy. Which means that changing policy can create new incentives to tighten the connections between high school, college and work.

    States like Colorado are already taking the lead on this shift. Colorado’s “Big Blur” task force put out a report with recommendations on how to integrate learning and work, including by creating a statewide data system to track the outcomes of educational programs and updating the state’s accountability systems to better reflect “the importance of learners graduating ready for jobs and additional training.”

    If schools and policymakers stay the course in the decade to come, they already know what’s ahead: declining enrollment, decreased funding and the exacerbation of all the challenges that they’ve already begun to face in recent years.

    It’s not the job of the education system to turn the tide of demographic change. But the system does have a unique, and urgent, opportunity to respond to this changing landscape in ways that benefit not only students but the economy as a whole. The question now is whether education leaders and policymakers can seize that opportunity before it’s too late.

    Joel Vargas is vice-president of education practice at Jobs for the Future.

    Contact the opinion editor at opinion@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about demographic cliff in higher education was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Dismantling Ed Dept. Will Harm More Than 26 Million Kids — and America’s Future – The 74

    Dismantling Ed Dept. Will Harm More Than 26 Million Kids — and America’s Future – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    The layoffs of half of the employees of the U.S. Department of Education clearly demonstrate the Trump administration’s follow-through on one of Project 2025’s mandates, which intends to eliminate the resources, protections and opportunities that millions of children and families across this nation rely on.

    It is evident that the White House will not stop until it wipes out the most basic protections and supports for the American people, including the youngest children. The first step was the attempt to defund Head Start and Early Head Start, impacting 800,000 young children across the nation. This order was halted by a federal judge in Washington, thanks to the lawsuits filed by Democracy Forward and attorneys general from 23 states. 

    The mass layoffs will severely hamper the department’s ability to execute on its core responsibilities. This move is a direct assault on millions of students, teachers and families. It is clearly a precursor to dismantling the department without congressional consent, which would have an even more devastating impact. The department serves and protects the most vulnerable children and young adults, ensuring that they have equal access to education. This includes:

    • 26 million students from low-income backgrounds — more than half of all K-12 students — who rely on the department for reasonable class sizes; school meals; tutoring; afterschool and summer programs; school supplies such as laptops and books; parent engagement programs; and, in some cases, transportation
    • 9.8 million students enrolled in rural schools
    • 7.4. million students with disabilities
    • 5 million English learners
    • 1.1 million students experiencing homelessness
    • 87 million college students who receive Pell Grants and student loans 

    The department was created in 1980 with a single, crucial purpose: to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation. Its creation followed decades of systemic inequities that left children in disadvantaged communities without the same learning opportunities as their more privileged peers. The department’s work has been a critical safeguard against discrimination in schools, whether on the basis of race, disability, gender or income. 

    Without the federal government’s intervention and oversight, the more than 13 million children who live in poverty would be even more vulnerable to systemic inequities. The department ensures that federal dollars are distributed to those students most in need, ensuring that underserved children have the same opportunities for success as their wealthier peers. Without the federal oversight and the department’s support, these students will fall even further behind, and the national achievement gap will grow wider.

    The federal government is the only entity that can ensure a baseline level of educational equity across the entire nation. The department holds states accountable for ensuring that all children, regardless of where they live or what their socioeconomic status may be, receive a quality education. If this accountability is removed, the children most at risk — those in underfunded schools, children of color, children with disabilities, English learners and those experiencing homelessness — will be the first to suffer. These children would be denied the critical services and protections they need to succeed in school and in life.

    Moreover, the president’s plan to turn education policy over to the states would completely dismantle the federal safety net that ensures that the most vulnerable children are not left behind. Each of the 50 states has different priorities, resources and political climates. While some might be able to provide excellent educational opportunities, others will leave children behind, particularly in rural or economically disadvantaged areas. Inequities between states could widen to an intolerable degree, and the resulting lack of uniform educational standards would only further disadvantage the children who need the most help.

    To be clear, the department cannot be dissolved at the whim of a sitting president. Under the Constitution, only an act of Congress can create or dismantle a federal agency. The president does not have the unilateral power to eliminate an entire federal institution that serves the educational needs of millions of children across this country. Attempting to do so would not only undermine the law, but also inflict tremendous harm to the very foundation of America’s educational system.

    The idea that dismantling the department could somehow improve that system is not only misguided, but dangerously naïve.

    It’s vital that we, as a nation, recognize the long-term damage this action would cause. The attempt to dismantle the Department of Education is not just an attack on a government agency — it is an attack on the future of America’s children.

    To parents across the country: This policy is not only unconstitutional — it is a grave threat to your children’s future. Whether your child is in a classroom in New York, Los Angeles or a small town in the Midwest, the U.S. Department of Education has worked to ensure that their educational opportunities are protected, funded and regulated. A president who seeks to eliminate this essential agency is jeopardizing the future of every single student in America.

    This is why we must all rise up and make our voices heard. We must demand that our leaders stop this dangerous plan in its tracks, that they fix what isn’t working and that they use this opportunity to reimagine public education and invest in a more effective, equitable system that gives all children the opportunity to succeed.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Encouraging Families to Promote Racial Identity and Pride in Black and Other Minoritized Children

    Encouraging Families to Promote Racial Identity and Pride in Black and Other Minoritized Children

    Dr. Donna Y. FordNow more than ever, race has become salient in politics, higher education, P-12, and the workforce, especially in this anti-DEI era. It is not uncommon for Black and other minoritized individuals to have feelings of anxiety about discussions around race, particularly for families (e.g., parents, caregivers, guardians, etc.). Having “the talk” about racism and bias has been a rite of passage for many Black children and youth in which their parents/caregivers have to discuss the intersection of race and U.S. societal issues such as how to interact with law enforcement because navigating these circumstances can easily lead to imprisonment or a life-or-death situation. Trauma is undeniable. 

    Keeping “the talk” at the forefront of this op-ed, it is imperative that families have the resources to properly discuss, show, and engage their children in active conversation about race relations so Black and other minoritized youth and families can respond appropriately, particularly in proactive ways. Moreover, families must continue to instill confidence and pride in racial identity. To set the tone, we are eager to share this Sesame Street video “Elijah Explains Race to His Son, Wes, and Elmo.”

    Children are Ready, Caregivers (and Educators) Must Be Too

    Here is an overview from Traci Baxley. Research shows that children form race-related ideas long before they can verbalize about race and racism. It may surprise readers to know that racial awareness begins in infancy. Regardless of their age, all children get clues from their experiences (inside and outside of home) to make sense of the world. Therefore, early, intentional/proactive, honest, and age-appropriate conversations are important for promoting racial identity and pride. Here is a developmental look at children’s understanding.

    •Infants show a preference for the faces of people from their own racial group as early as six months. Babies gaze longer and show happy expressions more frequently with people who look like them. Start early by introducing children to people who don’t look like them, and let children see pictures of people with a variety of skin tones and facial features.

    •Toddlers use social cues such as body language and facial expressions to make sense of their world. They watch the way adults respond to differences in people and mimic our attitudes and racial biases without us even realizing it. As young as three, toddlers associate some racial groups with negative traits and use these associations to develop their own understanding about the world/environment around them. As caregivers, we need to be aware of our own biases and reactions to people whose skin color is different. Using books, videos, and music that highlight and celebrate differences.

    •Preschoolers become even more aware of differences such as skin color and hair texture. They are increasingly observant of how others are similar and different from them. Toddlers compare and group/categorize people by race. Note that some children also begin to show a “pro-white” bias. Thus, they may begin to include or exclude playmates on the basis of race. Furthermore, minoritized children may associate White with wealth, power, and/or beauty.

    Dr. Erik M. HinesDr. Erik M. Hines•Kindergartners and first graders are beginning to notice that race is often a taboo topic – the proverbial elephant in the room. They may continue to include and exclude peers based on race. They are more aware of disturbing news, and they often ask questions about it. This is a timely opportunity to have meaningful conversations about race and racism.

    In summary, as soon as children can ask race-based questions and make comments, support their natural curiosity by answering them, even the most difficult ones.  Let them know that it’s fine/not wrong to notice skin color and to talk about race. We concur with Baxley that “the idea is to make differences normal and good!”  We are uncomfortable and not prepared, our children will notice, and experience discomfort. It will be difficult to promote racial understanding and pride, which is so needed for minoritized children in these turbulent times.

    A Final Word

    We are staunch advocates of appreciating Black culture and its legacy of innovation, education, and significant contributions to the history of the United States. Broaching race with children is imperative to ensure that they have the confidence and belief in themselves with no limitations to their talents, creativity, brilliance and genius. These conversations around race not only prepares our youth to thrive but it also normalizes how conversations on race can be proactive as opposed to reactive.

     Dr. Donna Y. Ford is Distinguished Professor of Education and Human Ecology at The Ohio State University.

    Dr. Erik M. Hines is Professor of Counseling in the College of Education and Human Development at George Mason University.

    Dr. Tanya J. Middleton is a Clinical Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Studies at The Ohio State University. 

    Source link

  • It’s Time for Higher Education Leadership to Embrace ‘Good Trouble’

    It’s Time for Higher Education Leadership to Embrace ‘Good Trouble’

    Dr. Detris AdelabuOn the day of his death in 2020, an op-ed appeared in the New York Times, pre-written by Congressman John Lewis, urging Americans to stand up for justice and what he called “good trouble, necessary trouble.  Even in his death, Congressman Lewis fought for a more equitable America, where every individual recognizes their moral obligation to persist in the struggle for a more just nation.

    The recent Supreme Court decision striking down race-conscious admissions policies, followed by anti-equity legislation across more than 40 states and at the highest level of government, erodes decades of collective efforts to rectify a history of gross social and structural inequities. In higher education, these legislative attacks have led to a decline in Black and Latino student enrollment at selective colleges and universities and have prompted institutions to abandon their commitment to equity.  Universities such as Harvard, Rutgers, Northeastern, the University of Texas, and Louisiana State University are scrubbing their website of all references to diversity, equity, and inclusion, shuttering DEI offices and laying off staff, and scrutinizing the curriculum for any references to DEI.  If ever there was a time for “good trouble” in higher education, that time is now.  But can higher education leadership muster the political will to stand firm for equity?

    Institutional Responsibility and Moral Leadership

    Legislative setbacks to equity beckon colleges and universities to take bold and creative strategies to reaffirm their commitment to equitable access to resources and opportunities in education. Institutions can, for example, place greater emphasis on partnering with under-resourced high schools and expand outreach to marginalized communities to signal their commitment to equity. While such measures are imperfect, they signal a refusal to yield to a regressive interpretation of equity and justice.

    Higher education institutions can leverage their platforms to articulate their mission and commitment to equity beyond their campuses by working together to:

    1. Form Multi-Institutional Alliances to Challenge Anti-DEI Legislation: Colleges and universities can form alliances on a national scale to amplify their collective advocacy against policies that restrict access to resources and opportunities. Sharing strategies and best practices can strengthen collective efforts to promote equity. Dr. Felicity CrawfordDr. Felicity Crawford
    2. Invest in Community Partnerships: By deepening relationships with K-12 schools, particularly those in strategically under-resourced areas, institutions can create robust pathways for diverse talent. Mentorship programs, financial support, and academic preparation initiatives can help bridge gaps in access and opportunity.
    3. Prioritize Transparency and Accountability: By publishing detailed reports on their equity and diversity metrics, institutions can enhance accountability and demonstrate their progress towards equity.

    Upholding the Educational Mission of Higher Education

    The mission of higher education extends beyond the transmission of knowledge. It encompasses the cultivation of informed, engaged, and socially responsible citizens. Failing to prioritize equity undermines this mission, leaving graduates ill-equipped to navigate the complexities of a global society. Institutions that acquiesce to the erosion of equity risk not only their reputations but also their relevance in a rapidly changing world.

    Resisting harmful laws and policies that oppose equity is not without risks. Institutions may face political backlash, reduced funding, or legal challenges. However, the cost of inaction—both in terms of societal impact and institutional integrity—is far greater. By taking a principled stand, colleges and universities can position themselves on the right side of history, inspiring future generations to do the same. Equity, when implemented with fidelity, fosters diversity.

    The current sociopolitical landscape presents a defining moment for higher education. Gross social and structural inequities will not resolve themselves. Left unattended, they will continue to generate detrimental social and economic consequences for American society, with effects that can span generations. By developing innovative strategies, advocating for systemic change, and upholding their educational missions, institutions can resist attacks on progress and continue to serve as beacons of opportunity and justice. In doing so, they not only honor their moral and societal obligations but also preserve the transformative power of education for generations to come.Dr. Linda Banks-SantilliDr. Linda Banks-Santilli

    This moment calls for moral leadership in higher education that not only resists the immediate consequences of anti-DEI legislation but also envisions a more just and inclusive future. This moment calls for good trouble. To echo the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

    “In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. This is no time for apathy or complacency. This is a time for vigorous and positive action.”

    Dr. Detris Honora Adelabu is a Clinical Professor at the Boston University Wheelock College of Education and Human Development

    Dr. Felicity A. Crawford is a Clinical Associate Professor at the Boston University Wheelock College of Education and Human Development

    Dr. Linda Banks-Santilli is a Clinical Associate Professor at the Boston University Wheelock College of Education and Human Development

    Source link

  • STUDENT VOICE: The path to health equity begins in K-12 classrooms

    STUDENT VOICE: The path to health equity begins in K-12 classrooms

    Imagine a classroom in which young students are excitedly discussing their future aspirations and a career in medicine feels like a tangible goal rather than a distant dream. Now, imagine that most of the students come from historically marginalized communities — Black, Hispanic and Indigenous populations — that disproportionately face higher rates of chronic illness, shorter life expectancies and poorer health outcomes.

    We know that these disparities can shrink when patients are cared for by doctors who share their cultural backgrounds and lived experiences. The problem? Our health care workforce remains overwhelmingly unrepresentative of the communities it serves.

    For many students from underrepresented backgrounds, a medical career feels out of reach. The path to becoming a doctor is daunting, full of obstacles like financial hardship, lack of mentorship and systemic inequities in education. Many students are sidelined long before they consider medical school, while those who persist face an uphill battle competing against peers with far more resources and support.

    To mitigate these disparities, we must look beyond our hospitals and medical schools and into the places where young minds are shaped: our K-12 classrooms. Early exposure to health care careers can ignite curiosity and show students that they belong in places where they have historically been excluded.

    Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter to receive our comprehensive reporting directly in your inbox.

    Organizations like the Florida State University College of Medicine, with its “Science Students Together Reaching Instructional Diversity and Excellence” (SSTRIDE) program, are leading the way in breaking down barriers to medical careers for underrepresented students. SSTRIDE introduces middle and high school students to real-world medical environments, giving them firsthand exposure to health care settings that might otherwise feel distant or inaccessible. Then, the program threads together long-term mentorship, academic enrichment and extracurricular opportunities to build the confidence and skills students need to reach medical school.

    The 15 White Coats program in Louisiana takes a complementary but equally meaningful approach: transforming classroom environments by introducing culturally relevant imagery and literature that reflect the diversity of the medical profession. For many students, seeing doctors who look like them — featured in posters or books — can challenge internalized doubts and dismantle societal messages that suggest they don’t belong in medicine. Through fundraising efforts and scholarships, other initiatives from 15 White Coats tackle the financial barriers that disproportionately hinder “minority physician aspirants” from pursuing medical careers.

    The impact of these programs can be profound. Research shows that students exposed to careers in science or medicine at an early age are far more likely to pursue these fields later in life. And medical students who belong to underrepresented groups are the most likely to return to underserved communities to practice. Their presence can improve communication, foster patient trust and drive innovation in addressing health challenges unique to those communities.

    These programs can even have a ripple effect on families and entire communities. When young people pursue careers in medicine, they become role models for siblings, friends and neighbors. This creates a culture of aspiration in which success feels both possible and accessible, shifting societal perceptions and inspiring future generations to aim higher.

    But programs like 15 White Coats and SSTRIDE cannot thrive without sustained investment. We need personal and financial commitments to dismantle the systemic barriers that prevent students from underrepresented groups from entering medicine.

    Policymakers and educators must step up. Federal and state educational funding should prioritize grants for schools that partner with hospitals, medical schools and health care organizations. These partnerships should offer hands-on experiences like shadowing programs, medical summer camps and health care-focused career fairs. Medical professionals also have a role to play — they can volunteer as mentors or guest speakers, offering valuable guidance and demystifying the path to a medical career.

    Related: The ‘Fauci effect’: Inspired by front-line health care workers, record numbers apply to medical schools

    As a medical student, I know how transformative these experiences can be. They can inspire students to envision themselves in roles they might never have imagined and gain the confidence to pursue dreams that once seemed out of reach.

    Let’s be clear, representation in medicine is not about optics. It’s about improving health outcomes and driving meaningful change. Building a stronger, more diverse pipeline to the medical profession is not just an educational priority. It’s a public health imperative.

    An investment in young minds today is an investment in a health care system that represents, understands and serves everyone. Equity in health care starts long before a patient walks into a doctor’s office. It begins in the classroom.

    Surya Pulukuri is a member of the class of 2027 at Harvard Medical School.

    Contact the opinion editor at opinion@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about health equity was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Affirmative Action, DEI Dead? Ask Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, And RFK Jr.

    Affirmative Action, DEI Dead? Ask Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, And RFK Jr.

    I feel for Nan Zhong, a Chinese American who is suing the University of California because they rejected his son, Stanley, a child prodigy hired by Google at age 18.Emil Guillermo

    They think we live in a land of meritocracy where affirmative action is dead. Well, it depends on who’s boss. Zhong has accused the UC system and the U.S. Department of Education of discrimination against Asian American applicants, the third of its kind in recent weeks, according to AsAm News.

    Earlier this month, the Students Against Racial Discrimination sued the UC system over its holistic approach to admissions. Another group, The Equal Protection Project sued four Pennsylvania state universities for discrimination against Asians. If you thought the Harvard case which used Asians Americans to end affirmative action last year settled things, you’re wrong.

    Some Asian Americans apparently will keep suing until their kid gets in. No lawyer would take Zhong’s case, so he used AI to file his suit. It’s worth it to Zhong to press on because as he puts it, he’s “really p—sed off.”

    But Zhong’s anger helps exposed how legal discrimination exists and how it’s allowed to happen. And there’s nothing to do about it. Not when it’s dictated from the top.

    TRUMP’S PERSONAL “DEI” LANDSCAPE

    For example, I don’t know any Asian Americans or Native Hawaiians cheering Tulsi Gabbard’s rise to Director of National Intelligence. Maybe Kash Patel—the guy who wants to run the FBI.  Like Gabbard, Patel and let’s include RFK Jr.—the wormhead, former dope addict, and anti-vax mercenary who has now been confirmed to run the Department of Health and Human Services– are all allied. They are three peas in a pod, three objectively unqualified people, who have risen to the top, not because of merit, but because of allegiance to one man, Donald Trump.

    The records of Gabbard, Patel and RFK Jr have all been exposed and are not stellar. Gabbard has never worked for an intelligence agency and is considered by some conservative legislators a dupe for how she has dealt with Russia and Syrian leaders. Would you share secrets with the U.S. with Gabbard at the helm of intelligence?

    Patel has ties to key Jan. 6 figures. He’s been an original denier that Trump lost the 2020 election. But if you think those are partisan issues, then what about just the idea of managing an agency like the FBI. He doesn’t have a resume to match any of the previous FBI directors.

    And then there’s RFK Jr Let’s just say the worm in his brain qualifies him for a disability, mental and physical. If you put aside the controversial issues like vaccinating his kids, but publicly being anti-vax in situations where people have died, just go with his management experience. Has he ever led anything that qualifies him to run an organization with 13 supporting agencies, 80,000 employees, and a budget around $1.7 trillion in mandatory funding, and $130.7 billion in discretionary funding.

    Is he the guy you choose on merit? The answer to RFK Jr is no. As it is for Gabbard and Patel. And the fact is they wouldn’t be hires in a traditional DEI world either, because there are way more qualified people of color to fill the positions. But in this era, they are hires in Trump’s made to order “DEI.” Trump’s pets. They get in when congressional decision makers fold fearing losing their elected positions from candidates funded by the richest man in the world, Elon Musk.

    And this is the model of meritocracy at the federal level that trickles down to higher ed and in private practice? It essentially says what the boss wants goes. It’s more than “who you know.” You have to get to the top person’s approval and give them your undivided loyalty. To the man, not the constitution. And then your owned. It’s antithetical to diversity, equity and inclusion, AND merit. It works well for Trump, but nobody else.

    Look at Pete Hegseth, the former Fox weekend anchor, now Sec. of Defense, now negotiating away Ukraine’s rights as he seeks Trump-Putin’s vision of an end to war. Trump has a younger more telegenic man standing in for him. And the world is a lot worse off. And that’s where we are in these Trump times. It’s sobering. But so is the fact the Harvard case that went all the way to the Supreme Court really didn’t end disputes in higher ed over who gets into the best schools.

    The Asian “winners” weren’t winners after all, in their quest for meritocracy. They were used of course, by the anti-affirmative action folks. Duped. They only want want’s fair. Unfortunately, they were betrayed. I join them in bristling at the headlines about Gabbard and RFK Jr. Meritocracy?

    And I wish Zhong good luck with his suit against UC. At least his son, Stanley, without a degree, has that great job with Google.

    Emil Guillermo is an award-winning journalist, commentator, and adjunct professor. 

     

    Source link

  • As diversity rates at elite colleges hang in the balance, some students still face increased exclusion and barriers

    As diversity rates at elite colleges hang in the balance, some students still face increased exclusion and barriers

    Diversity rates at several elite colleges and universities have plummeted, a little over a year after the Supreme Court’s restriction on race-conscious admissions. It’s a divisive but unsurprising blow to historically underrepresented students seeking educational opportunity and access.

    While demographic data is still forthcoming, the challenges these students face to attend certain colleges continue to build. MIT, Amherst College, and Tufts have already seen sharp declines in the diversity of their student populations.

    But not all is lost. Ethnically diverse students have options to express their full identities, and organizations providing services to them have options to support these students’ overall success through postsecondary pathways.

    While assessing the state of race in higher education admissions, we cannot ignore its historical context in colleges in America. Colleges and universities were built by and explicitly served the educational needs of wealthy white men. For too long, the only people of color on campus were the (often enslaved) servants of white students.

    We should also bear in mind that, at elite universities today, the students who are overlooked in favor of race-neutral policies are not the only ones who miss out — students already on campus lose out on the richness that having a diverse array of educational experiences can provide, with their opportunities to encounter alternative viewpoints limited.

    Related: Interested in innovations in the field of higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly Higher Education newsletter.

    Oftentimes, first-generation, Black, Hispanic and Native American students experience an inherent and often unspoken isolation on campus at predominantly white institutions.

    As a Black Chicana, I vividly remember being the singular student of color in my freshman-year seminar at Michigan State. My experience was not without the awkwardness of questioning my own merit and if I belonged there in the first place. We traveled to Ireland, and due to the humidity, I put on my silk bonnet to protect my hair. It was met with questions and stares.

    Here we are in 2025, discussing the all-too-familiar concept of racial bias in America, while institutions are bound by new laws that result in restricted access for the students whose right to educational access has historically been systematically denied. So what can we do?

    While it requires creativity, students can still highlight who they are in their applications by foregrounding their lived experiences outside of their grades, test scores and academic histories. For example, students can share the intricacies of being a historically marginalized person in America — from being asked to speak English to being pulled over for driving while Black. They can write about their experiences and identities in personal statements and on their resumes and through discussions of their community involvement. Students owe it to themselves to share their personal moments of overcoming barriers in everyday life.

    Related: What’s a college degree worth? States start to demand colleges share the data

    Institutions can ask essay questions that provoke such responses and allow students to share without prejudice or fear of reprisal. Students’ insightful perspectives should be applauded by educational institutions, and the power of their words should be respected.

    Underrepresented students also have options other than the traditional elite universities. Historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) are an alternative to predominantly white institutions like the ones mentioned above. Students can make the college experience what they want and need, and it is no different at smaller institutions like Lane College, an HBCU, or Colorado State University, Pueblo, an HSI.

    At these schools, a student’s culture and identity are revered and shared. Educational institutions that see the value in diversity should be reconsidered as the best option for ethnically diverse students.

    And, as educational institutions grapple with the effects of the Supreme Court ruling, they should support the students from historically marginalized populations already on their campuses to ensure that they feel welcome, supported and valued. Building robust affinity groups not only provides current students with communities they can co-create and adapt to their needs, but also demonstrates that the institutions are committed to creating spaces for all students.

    Scholarship providers and organizations that support underrepresented students will continue to play a vital role in fostering diversity on college campuses. Mission-driven organizations like the one I work for, the Sachs Foundation, still help Black students who lack the financial capacity or easy access to attend elite schools like MIT and Brown.

    Students deserve to have their whole selves valued, welcomed and supported when applying for higher education.

    Pamela Roberts-Mora is the chief operations officer at the Sachs Foundation, serving Black youth from Colorado through educational and community programs. She was a first-generation college student.

    Contact the opinion editor at opinion@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about college diversity was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for our higher education newsletter. Listen to our higher education podcast.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • A Solicitation for Black Scholars to Shine Amidst the Storms and Sickness

    A Solicitation for Black Scholars to Shine Amidst the Storms and Sickness

    In this season of ongoing celebrations, as we remember and reflect on the life and legacy of the late civil rights icon and leader, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.,Dr. Ronald W. Whitaker, II we position this op-ed as a prophetic call to Black scholars. This call draws inspiration from Dr. King’s last public address on April 3, 1968, affectionately known as his Mountaintop Speech. 

    Upon arriving in Memphis, Tennessee, on April 3, 1968, King was physically exhausted, weighed down by the burdens of leadership, and grappling with his lifelong struggle with depression. What is less widely known; however, is that King arrived in Memphis the day before his assassination, in the midst of a fierce storm and tornado warnings.

    Indeed, King began his address to the crowd that evening with the words, “I’m delighted to see each of you here tonight in spite of a storm warning. You reveal that you are determined to go on anyhow. Something is happening in Memphis, something is happening in our world” (King, 1968). The storm King referred to that night symbolizes the socio-political storms that many Black scholars are currently navigating, as turbulence and change rage both inside and outside of campus environments.

    Twelve years ago, in his book Strategic Diversity Leadership: Activating Change and Transformation in Higher Education, DEI scholar and thought leader Dr. Damon A. Williams issued a warning to academics and campus leaders about what he termed a “perfect storm.”Dr. Adriel A. HiltonDr. Adriel A. Hilton

    Williams writes: “The degree shortfall, along with changing demographics and an increasingly turbulent political landscape, has created a ‘perfect storm’ for leaders contemplating the role of diversity in higher education. To understand and overcome the challenges of this perfect storm, academic leaders must fundamentally reframe how they approach issues of diversity in our colleges and universities” (Williams, 2013, p. 31).

    According to Williams, several “critical pressures” are fueling the perfect storm on college campuses. However, one of the most concerning threats, particularly for those advocating for authentic justice within higher education, is the ongoing legal and political assault on diversity and affirmative action. Following the second presidential election of Donald J. Trump, we have already begun to see the promised reverse of DEI initiatives within some of the country’s largest corporations. Similarly, as argued in this article, there is a continued effort to dismantle DEI programs in higher education.     

    Yet, on the evening of April 3, 1968, King was not only confronting a storm; he was also addressing a deeper, more pervasive, and pernicious problem, which he framed as a “sickness.” After introducing the historical context and poetic reflections on the movement, King did not mince words, asserting, “the nation is sick. Trouble is in the land; confusion all around.” 

    At the core of King’s assertion that “the nation is sick” was his identification of three major evils: (1) “the evil of racism,” (2) “the evil of poverty,” and (3) “the evil of war.” As a leading figure within the Black Prophetic Tradition, King understood that a nation rooted in systemic injustice, economic inequity, and racial oppression is inherently “sick.”

    Unfortunately, as we write this article today, we are still confronting a serious “sickness” on campuses. Systemic equity gaps and disparities continue to persist across demographic groups, particularly impacting our most vulnerable students. Additionally, the rising cost of college tuition disproportionately affects students from lower-income families, further exacerbating the barriers to higher education. Economic inequities within higher education also highlight broader systemic inequalities, such as the underfunded programs designed to support vulnerable student populations (Mitchell, Leachman, & Masterson, 2018).

    Despite the rhetoric suggesting that we have entered a “post-racial” society, studies present counternarratives expose widening gap on racial inequality in higher education. In the face of the storms and sickness described in this op-ed, it is easy to feel discouraged and downtrodden.

    This is why we draw from the wisdom and courage of King, who, even in the midst of adversity, possessed the uncanny ability to speak the painful truth while simultaneously offering hope for a better tomorrow. For example, after asserting that the nation is sick, King reminded us that “only when it is dark enough can you see the stars.” 

    We believe this is the focal point of King’s message. Specifically, despite the dark storms and sicknesses in society and within the academy, this may be the moment for us as Black scholars and leaders to shine. Our call to shine is not rooted in the pursuit of promotions, tenure, senior administrator positions, or the building of our professional brands. No, we argue that we must authentically shine in order to critically reflect on the issues plaguing campuses and, more importantly, to find the courage to stand for truth and justice.

    We shine when we, as King urged America to do on April 3, 1968, remind campus leaders and colleagues to be “true to what you said on paper.” Each college has a mission statement, vision statement, code of ethics, values, and strategic plan that underscores the importance of moral behavior. Therefore, when we receive reports and data suggesting that vulnerable populations are being targeted within social catalytic spaces on college campuses, it is an urgent call to remind leadership to adhere to the values stated in official documents, such as websites, marketing materials, and other institutional communications.

    Lastly, we shine when we confront the existential realities of our existence. As those closest to King have shared, on the night of April 3, 1968, he knew his time on earth was short. Similarly, despite our accolades and titles, our time in academia is relatively brief, and we must decide what legacy we wish to leave. In honoring our ancestors, elders, students, and communities we serve, we must stay focused on the promised land—a promised land rooted in justice, democracy, freedom, safety, security, opportunity, and solidarity. As such, we must not lose hope in the belief that things will get better for “we as a people!” 

    In closing, do not give in to pessimism and fear. Instead, choose to shine. By doing so, we might not only be saving the soul of our institutions of higher education, but collectively, we might be saving the soul of this nation.

    Dr. Ronald W. Whitaker, II, is a Visiting Associate Professor of Education at Arcadia University, Director of the MEd in Educational Leadership Program, and Co-Director of the Social Action and Justice Education Fellowship Program at Arcadia University.  Additionally, Dr. Whitaker is an inaugural faculty fellow at Vanderbilt University for the Initiative for Race, Research, and Justice. 

    Dr. Adriel A. Hilton serves as Director of Programs, Transition and Youth Success Planning (staffing the Assistant Secretary of Juvenile Rehabilitation) in the Washington State Department of Children, Youth and Families. Most recently, he served as vice-chancellor for student affairs & enrollment management and associate professor of education at Southern University at New Orleans.

     

    Source link

  • Poor Harvard Numbers Show Impact of SCOTUS Affirmative Action Ruling

    Poor Harvard Numbers Show Impact of SCOTUS Affirmative Action Ruling

    No one feels like confirming nor denying how affirmative action’s death is destroying a sense of inclusion in higher ed.Emil Guillermo

    But make no mistake, the destruction is under way. 

    Harvard College sent out letters to its early admits, but hasn’t disclosed what the demographics are yet for this year. Waiting until all the admits are sent out in the Spring buys them time to make excuses. But Harvard Law has issued its numbers and the alarm bells should be going off. There were just 19 first year Black students, 3.4 percent of the Harvard Law school class, according to data from the American Bar Association, as reported by the New York Times. It’s the lowest number since the 1960s, a period when affirmative action and civil rights was much more in vogue. 

    Woke wasn’t considered a disease back then. People were interested in fighting racist segregation. Inclusion and diversity weren’t institutionalized notions back then. They were the values we hoped would take us out of the darkness. But compare this years 19 Harvard Law admits with the 43 admits from the previous year, and you see the wounds have been reopened. David Wilkins, a Harvard Law professor who has kept tabs on these matters told the Times it was related to the Supreme Court ruling, and its “chilling effect.”

    Since the 60s, the numbers have been around 50-70 a year. And then came this year’s 19. Hispanic students were also lower at 39, 6.9 percent of the class versus 63 students or 11 percent of the class in 2023.

    The big winners in the admissions at Harvard Law? Whites and Asian American students, the latter, the principal plaintiffs in the suit before the court last year.

    Now that we have diminished the game to numbers, the numbers don’t lie. When you can’t address the need of inclusion directly, we leave it up to chance. 

    This year at Harvard Law was not a good year. Harvard miscalculated by not settling with the anti-affirmative action SFAA front and going to court. But that allowed for a right-wing Supreme Court to set the precedent for all schools not just Harvard. Anti-affirmative action advocates will try to put a positive spin on the low numbers, saying it’s not as low as it sounds. They’ll talk about different recording standards set by the A.B.A. There’s also the issue of multi-race students, and those who decline to state. 

    But secretly opponents of affirmative action are gleeful. They got their way. Their court. And last November their president, elected by voters who believe that educational attainment, not race nor class, is the new dividing line in America. The less education the better. Who needs affirmative action?  Let that sink in academia.

    Consider the Harvard Law School numbers the first of many signs to come that will let us know just how fast we are an America in reverse.

    Emil Guillermo is a journalist, commentator, and former adjunct professor. 

     

    Source link