Category: Opinion

  • A Blueprint for College Students’ Sense of Belonging

    A Blueprint for College Students’ Sense of Belonging

    A Dr. Terrell L. Strayhornfew years ago, Liu (2023) published, “Everyone is Talking about ‘Belonging’” in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Her opening lines were perennial: “It’s everywhere. College t-shirts, notepads, and posters proclaim, “You Belong!” That was true then and it still rings true today. Indeed, belonging is proudly displayed on a larger-than-life sign at Kent State’s library. It’s part of wayfinding signage at University of Washington and LeMoyne-Owen College. It’s a button at William & Mary. A landing page for student-facing websites at University of Michigan and Amherst College, just to name a few. It’s a cabinet-level position at Belmont University, Harvard University, and University of Massachusetts Boston. 

    There can be no question that this reflects a growing infrastructure to support belonging for all faculty, staff, and students in higher education. Despite these shifts and scaling of efforts, “no one has perfected a blueprint for belonging,” Liu concluded. That’s likely because though everyone is talking about it, few seem to know what to do about it. This is the topic we took to task in “Fostering Healthier Campuses: Applying Sense of Belonging Theory to Student Affairs Research and Practice” at the recent annual meeting of NASPA–Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. 

    2025 NASPA CONFERENCE

    NASPA brought together over 6,600 student affairs professionals from across the country to New Orleans, Louisiana for connection, reflection, and renewal, three anchors of this year’s theme. Being in “The Big Easy” is significant according to NASPA President and long-time student success champion, Dr. Amelia Parnell, who shared on LinkedIn: “I’ll tell anyone that student affairs professionals are some of the most thoughtful people in higher education and our time together in New Orleans confirmed it for me again.” The 5-day annual meeting consisted of keynote speakers, sponsored receptions, and dozens of educational sessions and programs. Interestingly, dozens of conference sessions, like ours, had “belonging” somewhere in the title, according to NASPA’s mobile app.  

    Likely a testament to the urgency of the moment and relevance of the message, our 50-minute session was standing-room only. Typical of what happens when we join forces, fueled by our commitment to a shared mission, we stood on business and spoke to everyone’s mind straight from the heart in ways that would renew many souls. At one point, Terrell exclaimed, “Belonging’s a feeling so it can’t be fabricated, faked, or funked. It must be built…but building it can’t break us!” Builders need blueprints and we offered one using belonging theory as a guide, detailing how to move from having good intentions to making systemic change, from talking about belonging to creating conditions for it where all students, faculty, and staff truly feel it, just the way they are.

    Figure 1 is a visual representation of points shared in the session. 

    Figure 1. Sense of belonging model as a blueprint

    BELONGING 1.0

    Dozens of studies agree that sense of belonging is defined as “a basic…need [and human right], a fundamental motivation, sufficient to drive behaviors and perceptions. Its satisfaction leads to positive gains such as happiness, elation, wellbeing, achievement, and optimal functioning” (Strayhorn, 2019, p. 9). Belonging has seven core elements, one of which is it must be renewed continuously as conditions and circumstances change. For example, students may face new challenges that impact their sense of belonging at every stage of their academic journey. New challenges may require different supports that change semester to semester or year to year. Early on, students may need help navigating the physical terrain of campus, but, as seniors, they may desire coaching for career success. Any blueprint for belonging must consider these factors as part of the masterplan in design.

    J'Quen JohnsonJ’Quen JohnsonRECOMMENDATIONS: BELONGING 2.0 & BEYOND

    During Q&A, a chorus of voices confirmed that many campus professionals are convinced about the importance of belonging and what it can do for students, even some faculty and staff. But what’s much less clear is how to facilitate, engender, or boost belonging for all students, using theory as a blueprint. To this, we etched a few recommendations for “promising practices” on the canvas of gathered minds. Here are three evidence-backed ideas that hold promise for boosting students’ belonging on college campuses:

    Meeting Basic Needs. One building block for belonging is satisfying students’ basic needs: air, water, food, shelter, sleep, and personal enjoyment. When campuses take proactive steps to ensure that students have access to what they need, they open up possibilities for them to become who they are or aspire to be in terms of learning and development. Rutgers’ new, state-of-art Basic Needs Center is a prime example, offering extended operating hours, a mobile pantry, textbook loans, and life skills courses, just to name a few.

    Designing Culturally Relevant Programs. Another building block for belonging is tied to how students’ identities shape their experiences on- and off-campus. College women are more prone to feeling unsafe and recent reports show rising rates of trans violence, especially in light of anti-LGBTQ+ laws. Feeling unsafe and unwanted off campus heightens students’ need for belonging on campus. Hosting trans awareness events, safe zone training, “Take Back the Night,” and “Walk a Mile in Her Shoes,” for instance, are effective strategies for creating inclusive campus climates. University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Educational Justice and Community Engagement hosts events like Women’s Community Love and Leadership Dinner, LGBTQ+ Career Conference, and Feminist Film Fridays.

    Creating Positive Connections. A third building block for belonging is drawn from the middle of the blueprint–underscoring the importance of care, connectedness, and community. Community on campus flows from frequent, positive interactions with others, namely peers, faculty, and staff like advisors, coaches, and mentors. Architects of belonging pay attention to the quantity of students’ interactions with campus personnel, finding ways to nudge more frequent connections with academic advisors through micromessaging campaigns or faculty through first-year experience (FYE), undergraduate research, or “Take Your Professor to Lunch” initiatives. Alongside quantity, belonging builders assess the quality of such interactions to assure they’re warm, welcoming, and supportive.

    CONCLUSION

    If nothing else, we hope this provides higher education professionals a blueprint for boosting belonging on college campuses. It’s a blueprint, not the blueprint as what works best for Institution A may reap little for Institution B, and vice versa. Remember, belonging is a feeling. Just like bricks, feelings can be mixed and hardened over time. Changing people’s feelings is hard work, but that’s no excuse for retreat. Hard work is good work, and we must do good work. Anything less would be unbecoming and yes…unbelonging.

    Dr. Terrell L. Strayhorn is Professor of Education and Psychology at Virginia Union University, where he also serves as Director of Research in the Center for the Study of HBCUs.

    J’Quen Johnson is a research associate and consultant at Do Good Work Consulting Group and a Ph.D. candidate at University of the Cumberlands.

    Source link

  • OPINION: Policy changes sweeping the nation are harming our students. Educators must fight back

    OPINION: Policy changes sweeping the nation are harming our students. Educators must fight back

    Here’s a true story from North Carolina. Two elementary school children under the age of 10 waited for their parents to come home. We know they cleaned the dishes; the house was immaculate when someone finally came.

    The children did not attend school for a number of days. After three days, someone from their school reached out to a community member with concern for their well-being.

    While they were home alone instead of in school, the children made their own food and drank water. Their parents, who had been detained by ICE, had nurtured these skills of independence, so the children were not yet hungry or thirsty when someone finally came.

    Similar scenes are likely happening across the U.S. as President Trump aggressively steps up efforts to deport undocumented immigrants. The new policies sweeping the nation deeply affect and harm our children.

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education.

    Teachers: This is the moment when we need to rise to the occasion, because children are being wronged in uncountable ways. Protections that allow them to express their gender identities are under threat. Their rights to learn their diverse histories and understand the value of their communities are being chipped away bit by bit.

    These threats, one at a time, layer after layer, amount to profound harm. So let us be especially vigilant.

    The responsibility to challenge these threats cannot fall solely on the shoulders of individual teachers. We must have systems in place that allow us to swiftly raise concerns about student well-being.

    Schools, districts, and states must provide resources and structures — like wellness checks, counseling and communication with community services — that allow us to act swiftly when the safety of our students is at risk.

    As public servants, we must live out our charge to protect and advocate for the children we serve by taking immediate action to ensure their safety in whatever ways we are able. That means actively noticing when students are missing and when they are struggling.

    Public education has long wrestled with the role of politics in schools. No matter how we answer questions about political content, educators have been unified in the goal of nurturing children’s thinking and flourishing.

    Our state constitution and many others’ declare that all children are entitled to a “sound basic education,” and our professional responsibilities extend to their safety. In North Carolina, the first category of the code of ethics for educators pertains to professional ethical commitments to students.

    To uphold these professional commitments, the educator “protects students from conditions within the educator’s control that circumvent learning or are detrimental to the health and safety of students.”

    This protection must be more than theoretical. When our students are at risk, we have our constitutional guarantees and ethical commitments.

    The brutal example of the children whose parents were taken away is one of many. We cannot fathom all that the children needed to know in order to survive those harrowing few days alone in their home. We do know they were ready.

    We can assume that perhaps they read their favorite books or calculated measurements while cooking themselves dinner, utilizing skills they learned in our classrooms. What we do know is that the knowledge taught to them by their families and community ensured their safety.

    The community member who ultimately went to check in on the missing students used a “safe word” — one that the children had been taught to listen for before ever opening their door to a stranger.

    The children did not open the door until that word was spoken. Hearing that word, they reportedly asked: “Are Mommy and Daddy OK? ICE?”

    These are the lessons young children are living by today. Safe words to protect themselves from adults who prey on their families. Skills of survival to hide at home, cooking and caring for themselves without seeking help from others if they find themselves alone.

    Related: Child care centers were off limits to immigration authorities. How that’s changed

    A protective silence now envelops all the children in the community where those parents were seized. An example has been made and now those in their community are hiding in fear or fleeing. The idea that this example is a model to be followed is a transgression of our ethical compact to care for these children, who are no longer in school, due to their fear, hiding with family members.

    Recognizing, acting on and speaking back to this injustice is precisely the sort of resistance and professionalism that binds our practice as educators. It is what we write of today.

    The children were ready. Educators need to be as well.

    We must use our voices to illuminate the harm being done to the children we know, honor and teach. Let us replace silences with spoken truths about their power and ours to survive and to resist; let us live out the expectation that public service must be enacted with humanity.

    We have a professional responsibility to not look away. This is not just a moral argument. We are their teachers, and we must ask: How will the students in my classroom survive? And how can we help them?

    Simona Goldin is a research professor in the Department of Public Policy at the University of North Carolina. Debi Khasnabis is a clinical professor at the University of Michigan’s Marsal School of Education.

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

    This story about Trump administration policy changes and students 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

  • COLUMN: Trump is bullying, blackmailing and threatening colleges, and they are just beginning to fight back

    COLUMN: Trump is bullying, blackmailing and threatening colleges, and they are just beginning to fight back

    Patricia McGuire has always been an outspoken advocate for her students at Trinity Washington University, a small, Catholic institution that serves largely Black and Hispanic women, just a few miles from the White House. She’s also criticized what she calls “the Trump administration’s wholesale assault on freedom of speech and human rights.”

    In her 36 years as president, though, McGuire told me, she has never felt so isolated, a lonely voice challenging an agenda she believes “demands a vigorous and loud response from all of higher education. “

    It got a little bit louder this week, after Harvard University President Alan Garber refused to capitulate to Trump’s demands that it overhaul its operations, hiring and admissions. Trump is now calling on the IRS to rescind Harvard’s tax-exempt status.

    The epic and unprecedented battle with Harvard is part of Trump’s push to remake higher education and attack elite schools, beginning with his insistence that Harvard address allegations of antisemitism, stemming from campus protests related to Israel’s bombardment of Gaza following attacks by Hamas in October 2023.

    Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education.

    Garber responded that “no government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue” — words that Harvard faculty, students and others in higher education had been urging him to say for weeks. Students and faculty at Brown and Yale are asking their presidents to speak out as well.

    Many hope it is the beginning of a new resistance in higher education. “Harvard’s move gives others permission to come out on the ice a little,” McGuire said. “This is an answer to the tepid and vacillating presidents who said they don’t want to draw attention to themselves.”

    Harvard paved the way for other institutions to stand up to the administration’s demands, Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, noted in an interview with NPR this week.

    Stanford University President Jonathan Levin immediately backed Harvard, noting that “the way to bring about constructive change is not by destroying the nation’s capacity for scientific research, or through the government taking command of a private institution.”

    Former President Barack Obama on Monday urged others to follow suit.

    A minuscule number of college leaders had spoken out before Harvard’s Garber, including Michael Gavin, president of Delta College, a community college in Michigan; Princeton University’s president, Christopher Eisgruber; Danielle Holley of Mount Holyoke; and SUNY Chancellor John B. King Jr. Of more than 70 prominent higher education leaders who signed a petition circulated Tuesday supporting Garber, only a handful were current college presidents, including Michael Roth of Wesleyan, Susan Poser of Hofstra, Alison Byerly of Carleton, David Fithian of Clark University, Jonathan Holloway of Rutgers University and Laura Walker of Bennington College.

    Speaking out and opposing Trump is not without consequences: The president retaliated against Harvard by freezing $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to Harvard.

    Related: For our republic to survive, education leaders must remain firm in the face of authoritarianism

    Many higher ed leaders think it’s going to take a bigger, collective effort fight for everything that U.S. higher education stands for, including those with more influence than Trinity Washington, which has no federal grants and an endowment of just $30 million. It’s also filled with students working their way through school.

    About 15 percent are undocumented and live in constant fear of being deported under Trump policies, McGuire told me. “We need the elites out there because they have the clout and the financial strength the rest of us don’t have,” she said. “Trinity is not on anyone’s radar.”

    Some schools are pushing back against Trump’s immigration policies, hoping to protect their international and undocumented students. Occidental College President Tom Stritikus is among the college presidents who signed an amicus brief this month detailing concerns about the administration’s revocation of student and faculty visas and the arrest and detention of students based on campus advocacy.

    “I think the real concern is the fear and instability that our students are experiencing. It is just heartbreaking to me,” Stritikus told me. He also spoke of the need for “collective action” among colleges and the associations that support them.

    Related: Tracking Trump: His actions to abolish the Education Department, and more

    The fear is real: More than 210 colleges and universities have identified 1,400-plus international students and recent graduates who have had their legal status changed by the State Department, according to Inside Higher Ed. Stritikus said Occidental is providing resources, training sessions and guidance for student and faculty.

    Many students, he said, would like him to do more. “When I’m around students, I’m more optimistic for our future,” Stritikus said. “Our higher education system has been the envy of the world for a very long time. Clearly these threats to institutional autonomy, freedom of expression and the civil rights of our community put all that risk.”

    Back at Trinity Washington, McGuire said she will continue to make calls, talk to other college presidents and encourage them to take a stronger stand.

    “I tell them, you will never regret doing what is right, but if you allow yourself to be co-opted, you will have regret that you caved to a dictator who doesn’t care about you or your institution.”

    Contact Liz Willen at [email protected]

    This story about the future of higher education was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger 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

  • Why History Instruction is Critical for Combating Online Misinformation – The 74

    Why History Instruction is Critical for Combating Online Misinformation – The 74

    Can you tell fact from fiction online? In a digital world, few questions are more important or more challenging.

    For years, some commentators have called for K-12 teachers to take on fake news, media literacy, or online misinformation by doubling down on critical thinking. This push for schools to do a better job preparing young people to differentiate between low- and high-quality information often focuses on social studies classes.

    As an education researcher and former high school history teacher, I know that there’s both good and bad news about combating misinformation in the classroom. History class can cultivate critical thinking – but only if teachers and schools understand what critical thinking really means.

    Not just a ‘skill’

    First, the bad news.

    When people demand that schools teach critical thinking, it’s not always clear what they mean. Some might consider critical thinking a trait or capacity that teachers can encourage, like creativity or grit. They could believe that critical thinking is a mindset: a habit of being curious, skeptical and reflective. Or they might be referring to specific skills – for instance, that students should learn a set of steps to take to assess information online.

    Unfortunately, cognitive science research has shown that critical thinking is not an abstract quality or practice that can be developed on its own. Cognitive scientists see critical thinking as a specific kind of reasoning that involves problem-solving and making sound judgments. It can be learned, but it relies on specific content knowledge and does not necessarily transfer between fields.

    Early studies on chess players and physicists in the 1970s and ’80s helped show how the kind of flexible and reflective cognition often called critical thinking is really a product of expertise. Chess masters, for instance, do not start out with innate talent. In most cases, they gain expertise by hours of thoughtfully playing the game. This deliberate practice helps them recognize patterns and think in novel ways about chess. Chess masters’ critical thinking is a product of learning, not a precursor.

    Because critical thinking develops in specific contexts, it does not necessarily transfer to other types of problem-solving. For example, chess advocates might hope the game improves players’ intelligence, and studies do suggest learning chess may help elementary students with the kind of pattern recognition they need for early math lessons. However, research has found that being a great chess player does not make people better at other kinds of complex critical thinking.

    Historical thinking

    Since context is key to critical thinking, learning to analyze information about current events likely requires knowledge about politics and history, as well as practice at scrutinizing sources. Fortunately, that is what social studies classes are for.

    Social studies researchers often describe this kind of critical thinking as “historical thinking”: a way to evaluate evidence about the past and assess its reliability. My own research has shown that high school students can make relatively quick progress on some of the surface features of historical thinking, such as learning to check a text’s date and author. But the deep questioning involved in true historical thinking is much harder to learn.

    Social studies classrooms can also build what researchers call “civic online reasoning.” Fact-checking is complex work. It is not enough to tell young people that they should be wary online, or to trust sites that end in “.org” instead of “.com.” Rather than learning general principles about online media, civic online reasoning teaches students specific skills for evaluating information about politics and social issues.

    Still, learning to think like a historian does not necessarily prepare someone to be a skeptical news consumer. Indeed, a recent study found that professional historians performed worse than professional fact-checkers at identifying online misinformation. The misinformation tasks the historians struggled with focused on issues such as bullying or the minimum wage – areas where they possessed little expertise.

    Powerful knowledge

    That’s where background knowledge comes in – and the good news is that social studies can build it. All literacy relies on what readers already know. For people wading through political information and news, knowledge about history and civics is like a key in the ignition for their analytical skills.

    Readers without much historical knowledge may miss clues that something isn’t right – signs that they need to scrutinize the source more closely. Political misinformation often weaponizes historical falsehoods, such as the debunked and recalled Christian nationalist book claiming that Thomas Jefferson did not believe in a separation of church and state, or claims that the nadir of African American life came during Reconstruction, not slavery. Those claims are extreme, but politicians and policymakers repeat them.

    For someone who knows basic facts about American history, those claims won’t sit right. Background knowledge will trigger their skepticism and kick critical thinking into gear.

    Past, present, future

    For this reason, the best approach to media literacy will come through teaching that fosters concrete skills alongside historical knowledge. In short, the new knowledge crisis points to the importance of the traditional social studies classroom.

    But it’s a tenuous moment for history education. The Bush- and Obama-era emphasis on math and English testing resulted in decreased instructional time in history classes, particularly in elementary and middle schools. In one 2005 study, 27% of schools reported reducing social studies time in favor of subjects on state exams.

    Now, history teachers are feeling heat from politically motivated culture wars over education that target teaching about racism and LGBTQ+ issues and that ban books from libraries and classrooms. Two-thirds of instructors say that they’ve limited classroom discussions about social and political topics.

    Attempts to limit students’ knowledge about the past imperil their chances of being able to think critically about new information. These attacks are not just assaults on the history of the country; they are attempts to control its future.

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Source link

  • UTS is showing how to achieve student equity now, not in 2050 – Campus Review

    UTS is showing how to achieve student equity now, not in 2050 – Campus Review

    The University of Technology Sydney (UTS) has taken bold steps to reach its own equity targets in a time when sector voices are calling on institutions to take action.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • DEI Under Attack: The Truth from the Frontlines of Academia

    DEI Under Attack: The Truth from the Frontlines of Academia

    Moderator: Dr. Jamal Watson, Professor Trinity Washington University, Executive Editor of Diverse: Issues In Higher Education.                                                 

    Panelists:

    Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, Distinguished Professor, Vanderbilt University

    Dr. Christina Greer, Associate Professor, Fordham University,

    Dr. Annette Gordon Reed, Professor, Harvard University  

    Natasha S. Alford, SVP, The Grio.

    The 2025 National Action Network (NAN) Convention continues to be a clarion call for justice, strategy, and truth-telling. In a climate where DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) is being vilified, this year’s panels didn’t hold back. Amid attacks on civil rights, public education, and academic freedom, one of the most critical conversations came from a powerful panel of scholars and journalists who delivered an unflinching perspective on the state of DEI in higher education and beyond.

    As states roll back DEI programs and silence academic voices, these experts stood firm and affirmed that this is not simply a political moment—it’s a moral crisis.

    The War on DEI: A Strategic, Anti-Black Attack Pam McElvanePam McElvane

    Panelists opened with a clear message: what’s happening now is not new—it’s a rebranding of old tactics. As one professor framed it, “We are the canaries in the coal mine.” The dismantling of DEI isn’t isolated, it’s a warning of broader regression.

    They urged us to stop abbreviating “DEI.” Say the words: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. The administration’s weaponization of the acronym has become a strategic assault to reassert white supremacy, particularly that of white male dominance. What we are witnessing, they said, is anti-Black racism cloaked in policy and politics.

    This is not a slip or misunderstanding—it is a calculated dismantling of progress.

    The Media and the Misuse of “Woke”

    Journalist Natasha Alford shared how mainstream media has failed to accurately report the DEI backlash. “They took our word—woke—and twisted it into something divisive and dangerous,” she said. The original term was meant to empower and enlighten people of color, yet now it’s used as a slur to silence those demanding equity.

    She called out the need for media literacy among our youth, who are often misled or confused about what’s true. “We must leverage today’s information cycles to educate, not manipulate,” Alford said. Following Black media outlets that tell the truth—like The Grio, Roland Martin Unfiltered, and others—is critical to staying grounded in reality.

    DEI is About Competition—and They Don’t Want That

    Dr. Michael Eric Dyson laid the issue bare: Diversity forces competition, and some in power are unwilling to compete. “When America wants to segregate again, it’s because it longs for a time when it didn’t have to compete with us,” he declared.

    He challenged not only the far right but also white liberals who remain silent, excusing their inaction. “Diversity is what makes America what it is. Equity means recognizing that not everyone starts in the same place. Inclusion means everyone belongs,” he said. And we must beware of the temptation to accept compromises or “payoffs” from those who ultimately seek to suppress our progress.

    Collateral Damage: The Loss of Intellectual and Scientific Power

    Beyond social issues, this anti-DEI movement threatens the entire intellectual infrastructure of the nation. The cancellation of Pell Grants and threats to federal funding for universities that support DEI policies don’t just impact Black communities—they hurt poor and working-class white students too.

    Researchers—some of the greatest minds of our time—are losing funding, careers, and platforms. “We’re watching the dismantling of the very fabric that holds America’s innovation and academic leadership together,” one professor warned.

    What Do We Do Now? Marching Orders for the Movement

    The panel didn’t just offer critique—they offered marching orders:

    • Invest in Black institutions, including churches and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), that are doing the work.
    • Raise your voice. Universities must return to being incubators for critical thought and independent minds.
    • Educate our children at home. If public schools are being silenced, churches and families must step in.
    • Support leaders who support us—vote with intention and integrity.
    • Read—daily. Even just 15 minutes of truth can change your perspective and fuel your power.

    They reminded us that history holds the answers: “We’ve already come through what we’ve been through,” one speaker said. We were once outlawed from reading, yet we learned to read in secret and built institutions that shaped this country. We must now read, remember, and reclaim our narrative.

    A Final Word: This Is the Time to Fight

    “Welcome, white America, to the Black experience,” one professor said, poignantly summing up this moment. As this administration strips away rights, rewrites history, and silences voices, it’s more important than ever to stand on truth.

    This isn’t the end—it’s the beginning of a new resistance. And we must fight not just to be seen or heard—but to lead.

    Pam McElvane is the CEO & Publisher of Diversity MBA Media.

    Source link

  • How Being a Mother and Academic Helped Me Fix Higher Education’s Transfer Crisis

    How Being a Mother and Academic Helped Me Fix Higher Education’s Transfer Crisis

    Dr. Alicia M. AlveroWhen my daughter transferred to Queens College in Spring 2019, I could not have been more excited. As associate provost at the college, I’ll admit I was biased but even two decades of experience in higher education couldn’t fully prepare me for her struggle to transfer credits. 

    Queens College is one of The City University of New York’s 25 colleges. My daughter transferred from another school within the system yet despite mastering course material, she was told to take what was basically the same course all over again. 

    Fortunately, I understood the appeals process and was able to point her in the right direction. As a result, she obtained credit for the course, which counted toward her major. At the same time, reality struck: A student should not need to have an associate provost as a parent to transfer college credits. Frankly, they shouldn’t even need to appeal credits within the same system. 

    Nationally, the transfer system has been set up to let students fail for decades. On average, students lose a fifth of their credits when transferring to a four-year college, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. This leads to wasted tuition dollars and makes it more challenging to earn a bachelor’s degree. A 2023 report by the Community College Research Center found that only 16% of community college students earned a bachelor’s program within six years and just 10% of low-income students did. 

    As the largest public urban university system in the nation, CUNY had a real opportunity to make a change. In 2023, CUNY’s Board of Trustees charged the University’s leadership – including myself – to fix the transfer system. 

    CUNY has long been dedicated to eliminating the obstacles that result when a student transfers. In fact, the expectation that CUNY should provide a seamless ability to transfer between its constituent colleges dates to its formation as a centralized system in the 1960s. 

    Enshrined in New York state education law is the mandate for CUNY to “maintain its close articulation between senior and community college units.” Each year, up to 15,000 CUNY students – like my daughter – transfer between campuses, most commonly from a community college to a four-year college. 

    The purpose of an integrated university system is to offer an array of options for students which transfer seamlessly across all colleges. And over the years there have been efforts to achieve that at CUNY.  

    In 2013, the University implemented the Pathways initiative which established the seamless transfer of general education courses across its undergraduate colleges.  There are also many individual articulation agreements between colleges. But such agreements, between a singular CUNY community college’s program and a corresponding bachelor’s level program at another college, could only go so far in addressing a systemic problem and sometimes result in credits transferring as blanket elective, which does not help a student make progress in their major. Truly universal transferability would require faculty buy-in and better digital tools. 

    And so, one of the first things I knew I needed to do was engage our University Faculty Senate, both out of respect for their role in our decision-making process as part of shared governance and to leverage their expertise. This would come to be one of the most important steps in making this effort successful. 

    As we engaged faculty in discussions about transfer, we shifted the focus from simply identifying equivalent courses to defining the essential competencies students must master in the first half of their major. Faculty across institutions readily reached consensus on the core knowledge and skills students needed to succeed in the second half of their program.

    This competency-based approach then led to productive conversations about how specific courses developed these critical skills. Initially, the goal was to group courses into equivalent “blocks,” ensuring students could transfer seamlessly. In some cases, this process led faculty to align their individual courses more closely; others maintained course groupings but ensured consistency across institutions. Both approaches resulted in universal transfer pathways, guaranteeing students full credit toward their major at any receiving college. 

    At the same time, faculty helped us navigate practical roadblocks. For instance, we recognized that a universal approach could not always apply to programs leading to licensing exams— such as the CPA exam— where external accrediting bodies impose strict curricular requirements. While this nuance was clear to accounting faculty, it underscored for others the importance of discipline-specific constraints in shaping transfer policy. 

    Ultimately, this collaborative process ensured that transfer credit advances students’ progress toward degree completion rather than being lost as elective credit. Through collaboration, more than 300 courses, or blocks of courses, are now universally equivalent to each other across all colleges. 

    Starting in fall 2025, for over 75% of students transferring anywhere within the system, they will carry over most credits in their major. The University tackled the six most common transfer majors first – accounting, computer science, biology, math, psychology and sociology – ensuring credits transfer retroactively. We will work to align 100% of majors next. 

    The new system creates consistency on what students across CUNY campuses need to learn in the first half of their major and is expected to save students an average of $1,220 in wasted credits. 

    The CUNY Transfer Initiative extends beyond curricular alignment; it also involves evaluating the tools, policies, and practices that affect transfer student success. By reviewing policies, we identified gaps where new policies were needed and determined where existing policies required adjustments to better achieve their intended outcomes. We enhanced the CUNY Transfer Explorer (T-Rex), a tool that shows students how their credits transfer across the system, by adding leaderboards with key transfer metrics for each college and a feature that estimates how much of a degree would be completed at any CUNY school. 

    On January 21, the University automated a critical process in its student information system, known as CUNYfirst, ensuring admitted transfer students can immediately see how their credits apply at their new college. Previously, this was a manual, campus-specific process that required student advocacy and often caused delays. On its first day, the automation benefited 18,850 students, reducing stress and supporting informed academic decisions. 

    Fixing the transfer crisis will take continued effort. 

    To make sure that this system does not break again, we will be working with faculty to  adjust how we develop the curriculum for new courses. This means we will now proactively consider how a potential new course will transfer across the CUNY system before it even exists. As the initiative grows, we will have 100% of credits in the first half of a major count towards a degree when students transfer from one of CUNY’s associate programs to the same major in a CUNY bachelor’s degree program.

    The conversation is also continuing across the country. In 2023, the United States Department of Education hosted a summit of 200 higher education leaders on improving the transfer process. Then-U.S. Secretary of Education Dr. Miguel Cardona acknowledged that the current state of the college transfer system is broken, saying that it, “stacks the deck against community college students who aspire to earn four-year degrees.” 

    As part of my research when starting this effort, I reached out to my colleagues from colleges across the country to see what I could learn about what may work in improving outcomes for our transfer students. The collective response? “If you find a solution, please let us know.” 

    Everyone sees that the current state of our higher education system does a great disservice to students who transfer, presenting logistical and financial challenges that derail students who are otherwise dedicated to enhancing their education. While there is still work to be done, I am proud to say that we’ve truly begun to dismantle those barriers in an effort that I hope other public institutions of higher education will take inspiration from. 

    Dr. Alicia M. Alvero is the interim executive vice chancellor and university provost at The City University of New York. A professor of organizational behavior management for nearly two decades at CUNY’s Queens College, she also served as the college’s associate provost for academic and faculty affairs.   

    Source link

  • With higher education under siege, college presidents cannot afford to stay silent 

    With higher education under siege, college presidents cannot afford to stay silent 

    Higher education is under siege from the Trump administration. Those opposing this siege and the administration’s attacks on democracy would do well to heed the wise advice of Benjamin Franklin given just prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776: “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” 

    This is particularly true right now for college and university presidents.

    College presidents come from a tradition based on the importance of ideas, of fairness, of speaking the truth as they understand it, whatever the consequences. If they don’t speak out, what will later generations say when they look back at this dark, dark time?

    The idea that Trump’s attacks on higher education are necessary to combat antisemitism is the thinnest of covers, and yet only a very few college presidents have been brave enough to call this what it is. 

    The president and those around him don’t care about antisemitism. Trump said people who chanted “Jews will not replace us” were “very fine people”; he dined with avowed antisemites like Nick Fuentes and Ye (Kanye West). 

    Marjorie Taylor Greene blamed the California wildfires of 2018 on space lasers paid for by Jewish bankers. Robert Kennedy claimed that Covid “targeted” white and Black people but spared Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people. The Proud Boys pardoned by Trump for their part in the January 6 insurrection have routinely proclaimed their antisemitism; they include at least one member who has openly declared admiration for Adolf Hitler.

    Fighting antisemitism? That was never the motive for the Trump administration’s attacks on colleges and universities. The motive was — and continues to be — to discipline and tame institutions of higher learning, to bring them to heel, to turn them into mouthpieces of a single ideology, to put an end to the free flow of ideas under the alleged need to combat “wokeism.”

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

    Columbia University has been a prime target of the Trump administration’s financial threats. I’ve been a university provost. I’m not naïve about the tremendous damage the withholding of federal support can have on a school. But the fate of Columbia should be a cautionary tale for those who think keeping their heads down will help them survive. (The Hechinger Report is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization based at Teachers College, Columbia University.) 

    Columbia was more than conciliatory in responding to concerns of antisemitism. The administration suspended two student groups, Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace, for holding rallies that allegedly included “threatening rhetoric and intimidation.” 

    They suspended four students in connection with an event featuring speakers who “support terrorism and promote violence.” 

    They called in police to dismantle the encampment created to protest the War in Gaza. Over 100 protesters were arrested. 

    They created a Task Force on Antisemitism, and accepted its recommendations. They dismissed three deans for exchanging text messages that seemed to minimize Jewish students’ concerns and referenced antisemitic tropes. 

    President Minouche Shafik resigned after little more than a year in office. (Last week, the university’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong, also resigned.) In September 2024, the ADL reports, the university went so far as to introduce “new policies prohibiting the use of terms like ‘Zionist’ when employed to target Jews or Israelis.” 

    None of this prevented the Trump administration from cancelling $400 million worth of grants and contracts to Columbia — because responding to antisemitism was never the real impetus for the attack. 

    Related: Tracking Trump: His actions to dismantle the Education Department, and more

    Was Marjorie Taylor Greene asked to renounce antisemitism as a condition for her leadership in Congress? 

    Was Robert Kennedy asked to renounce antisemitism in order to be nominated for a Cabinet position?

    Were the Proud Boys asked to renounce antisemitism as a condition for their pardoning? 

    This is an attack on higher education as a whole, and it requires a collective defense. Columbia yesterday. Harvard today, your school tomorrow. College presidents cannot be silent as individual schools are attacked. They need to speak out as a group against each and every incursion. 

    They need to pledge to share resources, including financial resources, to resist these attacks; they should mount a joint legal resistance and a joint public response to an attack on any single institution. 

    These days, as many have observed, are much like the dark days of McCarthyism in the 1950s. In retrospect, we wonder why it took so long for so many to speak up. 

    Today we celebrate those who had the moral strength to stand up right then and say, “No. This isn’t right, and I won’t be part of it.” 

    The politicians of the Republican Party have made it clear they won’t do that, though most of them understand that Trumpism is attacking the very values — freedom, democracy, fairness — that they celebrate as “American.” 

    They have earned the low opinion most people have of politicians. But college and university presidents should — and must — take a stand. 

    Rob Rosenthal is John E. Andrus Professor of Sociology, Emeritus, at Wesleyan University. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

    This story about higher education and the Trump administration was produced byThe Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’sweekly 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

  • Bridging the Gap: Why Intergenerational Learning is Crucial Now More Than Ever

    Bridging the Gap: Why Intergenerational Learning is Crucial Now More Than Ever

    Dr. Maureen RubyAccording to the Stanford Center on Longevity, “The hundred year life is here. And we’re not ready.” The Center identified 10 principles to guide working through the challenges of longevity and capitalize on the opportunities. As a soon-to-be septuagenarian, current university faculty member and educational researcher, the guiding principle “learn throughout life” resonates with me. In my personal journey, I completed a second doctorate as I reached the half-century mark. Both then, as K-12 educator and grandmother of six, and now in my university work, my life is iteratively enriched through intergenerational learning. I am lucky.

    While we may not share the 122-year life span of Jeanne Calmet, Stanford’s The New Map of Life Years to Thrive reports that half of current kindergartners will have a life expectancy of 100. Given the projected certainty of a future of centenarians, universities must embrace intergenerational learning. The OECD states that education is a predictor of the quality of life as it positively influences physical and mental health, financial stability, cognitive functions, resilience social status and engagement. Thus, with our unprecedented longevity, it’s important for the traditional image of college students, those transitioning from high school and primarily in the second and third decades of life, to evolve. The work and research of the Stanford Center on Longevity and the Age-Friendly University Global Network advocate for supporting our “globally aging world” by harnessing the power of intergenerational learning. 

    Intergenerational learning engages different generations in learning together, exchanging knowledge and experiencing mutual growth. Beyond coexisting, it is about genuine dialogue, connection and shared learning. Intergenerational learning programs combat ageism, reduce social isolation, promote community and demonstrate benefits to both older adults and younger generations. Age diversity in colleges and universities is a net asset for our global society.

    For college students, intergenerational learning is more than interacting with older adults. It provides valuable perspectives to challenge assumptions and deepen understanding of the world. Through the “elders’” firsthand accounts of history, culture or societal events, students gain insights unavailable from textbooks and PowerPoints. Imagine hearing directly from a participant in the Civil Rights Movement in history class; a person living the aging process in a sociology class; a retired bank executive or CEO in an accounting or finance class; or a physical therapist in an anatomy class. Such interactions bring together research and theory with lived experience and practice and contribute to an enriched learning culture that capitalizes on empathy, critical thinking and authenticity.

    Social media, virtual interactions, and fragmented communication are abundant today and have negative consequences for our youth. As shared by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL), developing empathy and strong social-emotional skills are essential to future success. Intergenerational learning offers students opportunities to engage in face-to-face dialogue with people from different generations and backgrounds. Through these interactions, students practice active listening, respect for diverse perspectives, development of interpersonal skills and emotional awareness. These skills are essential for effective communication and building healthy relationships in academic settings, the workplace and personal life. 

    For older adults, in addition to the intellectual stimulation so essential for cognitive wellness, a college environment offers opportunities to remain socially connected, contribute meaningfully, and participate in cultural, sports, personal conditioning and academic activities offered on campus. Intergenerational programs reduce time spent alone and ignite an augmented sense of belonging and purpose. Older adults feel valued for the knowledge and experience they bring to the table while also reaping opportunities to learn new skills and stay mentally sharp. Intergenerational program participation increases life satisfaction, while mentoring younger generations promotes a sense of accomplishment and a positive outlook on life. 

    Intergenerational learning also fosters mutual understanding, reduces ageism and helps break down stereotypes. In an increasingly polarized society, where the media and social media often reinforce generational biases, divisions and misunderstandings and create barriers between generations, intergenerational learning leads to social cohesion and inclusive communities, and bridging generational divides.

    Through seeking and celebrating diversity of thought, intergenerational learning in academia will advance more holistic, compassionate learning environments. Colleges and universities, as centers of learning and innovation, are uniquely positioned to lead the way in supporting a new learning paradigm by incorporating intergenerational programs into their curricula and campus life. From shared classrooms to mentorship programs, the integration of older adults into the academic experience is an essential step toward creating a culture of inclusive learning requisite for our changing global demographics. Intergenerational learning supports creation of a society that values mutual respect, shared knowledge and lifelong growth. It’s time for educational institutions to embrace intergenerational learning, paving the way for a future where people of all ages learn, grow and thrive together. We will be learning alongside our grandchildren. I am excited for my next 30 years!

    Dr. Maureen Ruby is an associate professor at the Farrington College of Education & Human Development at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, CT.

    Source link

  • No Free Lunch? But for Some, Harvard is Now Free

    No Free Lunch? But for Some, Harvard is Now Free

    Emil GuillermoAre  you or your kids ready for Harvard?

    It’s free.

    As in F-R-E-E, free. At least for most families where the household income is $200,000 or below.

    Of course, you still have to pass the standards of the school’s admissions board.  But don’t assume that means straight-A’s and perfect scores.

    You can just be you. If you feel you are truly special and worthy.

    But now money, or class, shouldn’t get in the way.

    And no one has to mention that bad word these days: Race.

    So, if you’ve been shooting for two years at your local JUCO, followed by two years at the big state school, in order to save money, aim higher. Harvard has had alumni like Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first African American woman to the high court. There’s Alvin Bragg, the District Attorney of New York who successfully prosecuted Donald Trump in the Stormy Daniels/Hush Money case.

    In the arts, there’s Courtney B. Vance, the actor, who played a lawyer, the O.J. Simpson defense attorney Johnnie Cochran, in FX’s “American Crime story.”  Vance is now running to be an overseer at the Harvard.

    And now after what Harvard did this week, you or your kids could be the next Ketanji Brown Jackson, Alvin Bragg, or Courtney B. Vance.

    Harvard’s decision follows the path of other schools that have come to the conclusion, that elite schools like Stanford and MIT,  can afford to be more magnanimous to more people, especially those potential students and families who aren’t wealthy. 

    These days, a household income of $200,000 a year is unfortunately just a decent middle class income. It’s a family of a nurse and mid-level manager. An administrator and a fire fighter. Maybe some overtime involved.

    Previously, the income number for Harvard was set at around $85,000 which is fairly modest, but more like households of two fast food managers. It’s also not as realistic in terms of attracting the most people who might give Harvard a second look. Some of course will,  but at that income level, the pool is relatively small. There are more first-time college admits.

    By lifting the income level, the number of people broadens to include more college educated households, and helps the school lose the tag of being elitist. There’s also likely to be a more diverse racial pool.

    And that may be the prime motivator of going free. It overcomes the hurdle placed by the Supreme Court that bars the use of race in admissions through the process often called “affirmative action.”

    Subsequent to that ruling, diversity at Harvard had taken a hit. Indeed, the school has been so gun-shy about using or talking about race in order not to violate the SCOTUS ruling.  But with an expanded pool, maybe the numbers of Black and Latino students improve.

    It’s a workaround to get by the legal roadblocks put up by those against race and diversity. And it gets past the biggest obstacle about a school like Harvard.

    It’s always been, “can I afford the $80-90,000 it costs to go there?”

    Harvard isn’t the first to reach out in this way. In many ways, Harvard was forced to. But why did it take so long?

    Harvard is well-endowed. Harvard could always afford it. They could call it a scholarship, but it just makes better marketing sense to say Harvard is Free. Still, we all know there’s no free lunch, will Harvard really be free? Will there be a stigma attached to getting in free?

    If people know, will that impact one’s status among those who want to preserve the school’s elitist tag? As an alumnus, I like the idea. But then when I applied, my family relied exclusively on  Social Security and SSI. An income of $200,000 is middle-class in America. There will be more diversity in this group, without trying to appeal to race.

    If this is the way to overcome the legal attacks on race-based admissions, and a bad  SCOTUS decision, that’s great. It’s premeditated accidental social justice. It also shows there’s a way to fight all the present anti-DEI, anti-higher ed decisions, if colleges can be ever more creative with costs and accounting.

     But the upside is worth it. Schools that may have seemed distant and unreachable can act more for the public good than they ever have. Removing the cost factor makes sense. Harvard isn’t a public school. But at least now to a segment, it’s free.

    Emil Guillermo is a journalist, commentator, and former adjunct professor. You can reach him at www.amok.com

     

    Source link