Category: Politics

  • Cut, Coerce, Control: What Trump Is Doing to U.S. Universities

    Cut, Coerce, Control: What Trump Is Doing to U.S. Universities

    The single biggest story in higher education for the first six months of this year, without a doubt, has been the Trump administration’s remarkable assault on science and universities. Arguably it’s the largest state-led assault on higher education institutions anywhere in the world since Mao and the cultural revolution.

    Billions of dollars already legally allocated to institutions have been stripped from them mainly, but not exclusively through the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Billions more are going to be cut permanently through the budget process. Individual institutions in particular, Harvard, have been threatened with a variety of punishments if they do not obey the administration’s wishes on DEI and the curriculum. International students are being deported and the government has mooted a variety of policies that would see international numbers decline sharply. Low income students are looking at major cuts to both loans and grants. And we’re only, as of this recording, 134 days into this administration’s term, still 1,327 less to go.

    With me today is a returning guest, Brendan Cantwell, from Michigan State University. He joined our show last fall to talk about what, based on his reading of the now notorious Project 2025, a Trump administration might do to higher education. And he was mostly right. Certainly he was more perspicacious than most actual higher education leaders, and so we thought just before we break for the summer, we’d invite him back on, not just to say, I told you so, but to help us understand both the strategies and tactics that the Trump administration is using and where the conflict might be headed next.

    Just one note, we recorded this on Wednesday, the 28th of May. Some things such as the state of the Trump Harvard battle have changed since then, so keep that in mind as you listen.

    And now, over to Brendan.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.34 | Cut, Coerce, Control: What Trump Is Doing to U.S. Universities

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Brendan, let’s start with the big picture. We’re four months—and a week—into Trump’s presidency, with just over three and a half years to go. Let me see if I’ve got this right.

    He’s attacked the major granting agencies—NIH and NSF—and reduced direct funding to individual investigators, often on DEI grounds. He’s also cut overhead payments to universities. On top of that, he’s gone after specific institutions—Columbia, Harvard, and others—trying to pull their funding in ways that, frankly, seem completely illegal. The justification has ranged from their support for EDI to questionable claims of antisemitism or collaboration with the Chinese Communist Party.

    We’ve now got a budget moving through Congress that, as I understand it, takes an axe to the student loan and grant system. And just this week, the government appears to be targeting international students—starting with Harvard, and more broadly by ordering embassies to conduct social media checks before issuing student visas. Am I missing anything?

    Brendan Cantwell (BC): I’m not sure—there’s just been so much. It’s hard to keep up. There have been several executive orders, including ones targeting what we call Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs. Others have touched on accreditation and a range of other topics.

    The thing about this administration is that so much is happening so quickly, and these actions are in various stages of implementation. Some are being held up in court, and with others, it’s not even clear how they’re supposed to be implemented. The president makes a proclamation, but then there’s this uncertainty: what does it actually mean in practice?

    Even for someone who spends a lot of time tracking this, it’s really difficult to stay on top of everything. But the overall thrust seems clear: the administration is using every mechanism it believes it controls—and some it probably doesn’t, legally—to pressure universities to align with the president’s agenda.

    That’s not just my interpretation. It’s actually a common talking point from the administration: if universities want funding, they ought to support the president’s goals. More broadly, there’s a clear effort to weaken the sector—to undermine its role as an independent political and cultural force that could challenge the president or the party.

    AU: I think Linda McMahon actually said exactly that earlier today—that universities are fine as long as they’re aligned with the president and the administration. So, I think you’ve done a good job explaining the through line across these various actions. But how coherent are those actions, really?

    Is this a well-oiled plan, where they expected to be at this point by month three or four? Or is it more like the tariff policies, where the president just thinks of something new each day and rolls it out on a whim?

    BC: I almost want to push back on the either/or framing. It’s definitely true that the president—and to some extent his top policy people and enforcers—are just throwing things at the wall. A lot of it is reactionary: this university defied me, so now I’m mad and I’m going to do something outrageous to show how much authority I have over them.

    So yes, there’s an erratic, incoherent aspect to it. The rationale for their actions shifts constantly: one day it’s antisemitism, the next it’s about violating a Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action, then it’s about foreign collaboration. The justification just keeps changing.

    But if you take a step back and look at the cumulative effect of what the administration is doing—getting universities to be more compliant, weakening their financial position, causing faculty and staff to lose their jobs—that broader objective is being advanced. And that’s exactly the kind of outcome that people like Chris Rufo, who claim to speak for the administration’s education policy, seem to be aiming for.

    So no, it’s not tactically precise—it’s not some kind of meticulously calibrated battle plan. But the overall strategy of flooding the sector with challenges is definitely happening.

    AU: I’ll come back to the strategy in a second, but let’s talk tactics. Do you get the sense that the Trump team is getting smarter in how it’s operating? That maybe they’ve been caught off guard a few times and are starting to adapt?

    I’m just thinking about what’s happened in the last week. First, they attacked Harvard—saying, essentially, “we’re getting rid of all your international students.” Then the court pushes back. But right away, the administration has a response: the court says, “No, you can’t do that,” and they immediately pivot to pulling individual scholarships or research grants for international students—ones that hadn’t already been cut.

    Then they go a step further, announcing cuts that apply not just to Harvard, but to all international students. Are they getting smarter, or not? I never had the sense this group was particularly good at learning, but maybe that’s changing?

    BC: Are they getting smarter? I’m not sure. Are they more determined? Yes. And I think the voices inside the administration that might have constrained the president’s impulses back in 2016 to 2020—those are gone now. He’s unconstrained. He’s persistent. And he and his senior policy advisors genuinely believe in what they’re doing. They’re committed to the project and they’re looking for ways to push it forward.

    Take the example you just mentioned: there’s an injunction—you can’t bar Harvard from enrolling international students, at least not before the courts weigh in. And the administration responds, “Fine. We’ll just create a new process to vet all international student visas.” So suddenly, they’re grinding the whole system to a halt.

    They’re absolutely more willing now to use tactics that are difficult to block—tactics that escalate the situation every time someone pushes back. And they’re building out those tactics in a way that moves them closer to their goals.

    That said, I don’t think their objectives are ever really precise or coherent. It’s more of a generalized impulse: they don’t like foreigners, they don’t like foreign students, they don’t like Harvard, they don’t like universities. So, they hit where it hurts—and this is one way to do it.

    Now, is that smart? Maybe more effective, yes. I’m not sure it serves the country, or even the president’s long-term agenda, in any meaningful way. But it’s definitely happening.

    AU: So let me turn to the Trump administration’s broader strategy. Last time you were on, we talked about Project 2025 and its implications for higher education. How closely do you think the White House’s actions over the past four months align with what was outlined in Project 2025? And by the way, this is your chance to say “I told you so.”

    BC: Yeah, I love to say “I told you so”—it’s one of my character flaws.

    A lot of what was in Project 2025 has now been implemented—or at least, versions of it have. Take the cap on indirect costs, for example. They’ve implemented a 15% cap, rather than the negotiated rates that were often quite a bit higher for individual campuses. Those rates sometimes raised eyebrows, especially among people unfamiliar with how the U.S. system works.

    And even the rhetoric is the same. They’ve said, essentially, “Marxist foundations only pay 15%, so why should we subsidize Marxist stuff?” That language comes directly from Project 2025.

    There are other examples, too. Many of the student loan reforms currently working their way through Congress have Project 2025 fingerprints on them. The executive order on DEI? Same thing. So yes, there are a lot of specific elements from the plan that are now showing up in policy.

    And beyond the specifics, the overall spirit of Project 2025 is clearly visible in the administration’s posture toward higher education.

    That said, there’s one key difference: Project 2025 envisioned a more active role for Congress and a more deliberative policymaking process than what we’re actually seeing. It assumed, at least implicitly, more checks on presidential power than the president has been willing to accept.

    So, while many of Project 2025’s ideas have been implemented—some fully, some partially—how long they last is still an open question. And ironically, the actual execution by the administration is in many ways less constrained, and possibly less lawful, than what Project 2025 originally proposed. That’s my impression, at least—as a non-lawyer.

    AU: We’ve been talking about the Trump administration. I want to shift now to the higher education sector. For most of February and part of March, the sector seemed… bewildered. Almost unable to process what was happening. It was like, “This must be a mistake—they can’t possibly mean that.”

    And as a result, I think the response was pretty slow. When the administration went after Columbia, which was the first institutional target, many universities seemed to instinctively say, “Let’s stay quiet. Maybe we’ll be spared.”

    You, and a few others, were pretty clear-eyed from the beginning about how this would unfold. Why didn’t university leaders see it coming? This feels like a colossal failure of imagination. What happened?

    BC: Let me start by offering a partial defense of university leaders.

    There are people like me—and others—who are pretty knowledgeable but also pessimistic. We say bad things are going to happen a lot, and often they don’t. During Trump’s first term, there was concern that a lot of his anti-higher-ed rhetoric would turn into policy. And in some ways, it did. But in many ways, it didn’t. Congress constrained him. The courts constrained him. Even people inside his administration held him back. And he also lost focus on higher ed.

    So, I think university leaders had some reason to believe that the best strategy was to remain quiet, lobby Congress, and let the courts do their work. That approach worked last time, so it wasn’t irrational to assume it might work again. It just took them some time to adjust to the new reality.

    Some of that delay is about individual cognitive response, which I’m not really qualified to speak to. But some of it is structural—university bureaucracies and associations take time to pivot. Shifting strategies isn’t easy.

    So yes, it’s fair to say the sector was caught flat-footed. And yes, leaders should have had a better sense of what was coming. That’s a valid critique. But once they figured out what was happening, I think the sector showed a fair amount of agility. Associations started taking a more aggressive posture. ACE, for instance, became part of the resistance—which I wouldn’t have predicted would happen so quickly.

    Universities are still trying to find their footing. And then you have Red State universities, which are really hemmed in by state legislatures. They’re facing a whole different set of challenges, apart from what’s coming out of the federal administration. Those institutions are in a very tough spot.

    AU: What does it say about American higher education that Harvard has become ground zero for the resistance?

    BC: Full credit to Harvard—absolutely.

    Here’s my hedge: they had the benefit of seeing what happened to Columbia. That experience showed there was no good-faith negotiation to be had with this administration.

    In some ways, it makes strategic sense for Trump to pick on Harvard. It’s not the most lovable institution. It’s a big, juicy target.

    But at the same time, it’s also kind of foolish. Harvard has enormous resources—financial, social, institutional. They have more capacity to fight back than almost any other institution in the country.

    I think they recognized what Columbia’s experience revealed: if you give in to this administration, institutional autonomy is gone—possibly for a long time.

    If Harvard wants to preserve the American establishment—which it’s often accused of doing, by reproducing elite institutions and elite classes—then it has to resist Trump. That resistance is a condition of preserving the pre-Trump order.

    So yes, it’s good and necessary that Harvard is doing this. But I wouldn’t interpret this as Harvard becoming some scrappy underdog street fighter. It’s simply one of the few institutions with the resources and standing to try to defend the old order.

    AU: What about going forward, though? I mean, I hear more institutions—maybe not acting, but at least sounding like they understand they all have to hang together, or they’ll hang separately. But will they?

    I mean, take the University of Michigan on DEI—they folded like Superman on laundry day. Part of that was probably about Santa Ono’s personal ambitions. But there are a lot of institutions, both public and private, that have already bent the knee at least once.

    How do you come back from that? And can it really be done through the courts alone? Because right now, it’s all being held up by temporary restraining orders. And as you’ve said, that doesn’t provide clarity. Eventually, these cases are going to have to go up to the Supreme Court—where, incidentally, four or five justices are Harvard alums. Whatever else they believe, they might have some interest in preserving these institutions.

    How do you see the resistance evolving over the next few months?

    BC: I’d be disingenuous if I told you I know exactly how this is going to play out.

    AU: Best guess.

    BC: I think the strategy for the sector is to try to win where it can in the courts, and hope the administration abides by those rulings—which, honestly, is a real concern at this point.

    And then also to behave like a school of fish: move together, so it becomes difficult to single out and take down any one institution.

    The hope is that they can wait the president out—that the administration will shift its focus to something else, burn through its energy on attacks, and that most of the sector will remain intact enough to keep operating.

    And then, when that moment comes, institutions can manage the fallout: the indirect consequences like how states deal with a recession if healthcare or food assistance burdens shift onto them, or the winding down of research operations as the pool of available grant funding shrinks.

    I think the approach is: keep your head down, don’t explicitly cave, and hope the administration moves on. It’s probably the best available strategy right now.

    But I don’t know if it will work. If the administration manages to keep its attention fixed on higher education and maintains this pace of attacks and cuts, then it’s going to be very difficult for large parts of the sector to emerge unscathed.

    AU: You mentioned at the beginning of the interview an executive order related to accreditation. We haven’t talked about that yet, and I think some people see that as the sleeper issue—not necessarily for the big, wealthy private institutions, but for the vast majority of colleges and universities.

    Changes to the U.S. accreditation system could have huge implications. What’s been happening on that front so far? What’s actually in that executive order, and what could these changes mean for institutional autonomy and academic freedom?

    BC: Most of the executive orders from this administration, it’s not exactly clear what it does. It directs the Secretary of Education—who, by the way, has also been tasked with dismantling the Department of Education, so there’s that contradiction to hold in your mind.

    AU: But she’s still the Secretary. I saw her today.

    BC: Yes, she’s still there.

    So, this order directs her to collaborate with new accreditors and to open up competition in accreditation. The stated goal is to “foster innovation” and “rein in the accreditation cartel”—that’s the language they use. They frame current accreditors as promoters of Marxist, DEI, anti-Semitic, or otherwise ideologically objectionable agendas. It’s a jumble of terms, but it signals their intent.

    There are really two key elements here. First, increasing competition among accreditors. That means recognizing accreditors that wouldn’t have been approved under a Democratic administration—and maybe not even under many Republican ones. These would be organizations willing to give the stamp of approval to short-term or for-profit programs that don’t meet U.S. or international best practices for educational quality. If I were being snarky, I’d call them scammer programs.

    Second, they could use accreditation as a way to impose standards that align with the president’s political agenda. For example, they might require changes to how campuses regulate student conduct, admissions policies, or even faculty hiring practices. They could try to use accreditation to reach into curriculum—mandating, say, a general education requirement focused on Western Civilization or other ideologically favored content.

    Accreditation is the clearest vehicle they have to influence what’s taught and how institutions operate. But these kinds of changes take time and require more methodical planning—something this administration has been less consistent about, as we’ve discussed.

    So, we’ll see what happens. But it’s definitely something to keep an eye on over the next couple of years. If universities are already weakened by all the other pressures—funding cuts, legal battles, political attacks—they may be less able to resist a fundamental restructuring of the accreditation system.

    AU: The sector’s had a lot thrown at it over the last four months. But looking ahead—have we seen the end of all this sabotage innovation, so to speak? Is there more coming? We talked about Project 2025 a little earlier. Is there anything in there that hasn’t been used against the sector yet? What should we be even more worried about?

    BC: I’m not sure there’s any one Project 2025 policy I’d point to and say, “watch out for that specifically.” But a couple of things are worth keeping an eye on.

    One would be if the administration attempts to block institutions—or even groups of institutions, or the entire country—from accessing federal student financial aid. That’s Title IV under the Higher Education Act. If they were to go after Title IV the same way they’ve unilaterally blocked access to research grants or are now targeting international students, that would be hugely disruptive. It’s a big, coercive lever. They could do a lot of damage with it.

    The other thing to watch is the relationship between federal and state policy. We’re already seeing red states passing legislation that mirrors or reinforces the Trump administration’s higher ed agenda. Utah, for example, just passed a bill where institutions face a big cut to their appropriations—unless they agree to evaluate and cut programs the state deems nonessential.

    And even individual boards of governors, particularly in Republican-dominated states, are taking it upon themselves to implement Trump-aligned policies. I think we might be seeing that at the University of North Carolina, for instance, where no one outside of the health sciences has received tenure in the past year. We don’t know exactly what’s going on, but it certainly looks like the board is using its technical authority to enact the administration’s broader political agenda. So those are the kinds of developments to watch.

    AU: Brendan, best of luck—and thanks for joining us.

    BC: Thanks very much, Alex. Always a pleasure to be here.

    AU: That just leaves me to thank our excellent producers—Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek—and you, our viewers, listeners, and readers, for joining us. If you have any questions or comments about today’s podcast, or suggestions for future episodes, don’t hesitate to reach out at podcast@higheredstrategy.com. Run—don’t walk—to our YouTube page and subscribe. That way, you’ll never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education Podcast. Join us next week for what will be our final episode before the summer break. Our special guest? Me. Tiffany will be turning the tables and peppering me with questions about higher education in Canada and internationally during the first half of 2025. I’ll do my best to make it all sound coherent. Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    This episode is sponsored by KnowMeQ. ArchieCPL is the first AI-enabled tool that massively streamlines credit for prior learning evaluation. Toronto based KnowMeQ makes ethical AI tools that boost and bottom line, achieving new efficiencies in higher ed and workforce upskilling. 

    Source link

  • Last Week in Parliament: Three Takeaways

    Last Week in Parliament: Three Takeaways

    It was a busy week in Parliament last week.  The King came to Ottawa to deliver a Speech From the Throne.  His speech – almost exclusively a re-hash of Liberal promises from the April election – was deeply depressing for anyone who thinks the words “knowledge economy” have any meaning.   

    The main feature of the Speech from the Throne was that it spelled out, in excruciating detail, how the Liberals intend to double down on re-creating the Canadian economy of the 1960s.  Oh sure, the King uttered a line in there early on about how his government is committed to “building a new economy.”  But read the document: that sentiment was in no way followed up by anything resembling a commitment to any kind of new economy.  Instead, here are the major economic elements to which the government is committed:

    • Speeding up permits for major construction projects like roads and pipelines and whatnot: because natural resources have to get to the coasts somehow!
    • Building a lot of houses
    • Spending more on defense
    • Breaking down internal trade barriers
    • Er…
    • That’s it.

    Whatever you think of the merits of the various proposals here, this is not a new economy.  It is barely even a warmed-over version of the old economy.  At best, it is about finding new markets for old products, not developing any new products.  I am unsure if it is more that the Liberals have no sweet clue about how to create a new economy, or that they are uninterested in doing so.  But it’s one of those two.

    Now some might argue otherwise because look!  Evan Solomon!  Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation!  How New Economy is that?  All I can say is: please try not to be that person.  Solomon is a Minster without a department with a mandate which is completely undefined.  Is it an internally-facing ministry meant to diffuse digital innovation and AI throughout government?  Or an externally-facing ministry meant to diffuse these things across the economy?  Two weeks after Solomon was named Minister, we still have no clue.   And the Liberal Manifesto and the cabinet’s One Big Mandate Letter give conflicting impressions about the extent to which the Government sees its AI/digital strategy is about skill expansion/diffusion vs. handing money to techbros (the mandate letter reads like the former, the manifesto the latter). One would be forgiven for suspecting the Carney government is making things up as it goes along.

    Anyways, the point here is still: despite Carney’s globe-trotting central banker/Goldman Sachs reputation, this government seems to be staying as far away from a Davos/future industry agenda as humanly possible.  The Liberal “new economy” is all pretty much all construction and primary industries.  This is not a world which requires a lot of higher education.

    Scared yet?  We’re just getting started.  Back on Thursday our new Prime Minister was seen to tweet:

    In other words, this government seems determined to continue in the tradition of both the former government – and the opposition parties for that matter – in framing the country’s ills as problems of costs to be solved by tax cuts and giveaways rather than problems of growth and the institutional investments required to generate it.  This way lies Peronism and perpetual stagnation. 

    And this is from our allegedly “serious” party.

    So, takeaway number one.  Universities need to throw away EVERYTHING in their playbooks for Government Relations.  Selling yourself as “the future” to a government that is desperately trying to reverse our economy into the 1960s is pointless.  This government and this Prime Minster Do. Not. Care.   Until they do, arguing for universities as “crucial” investments is a waste of time.  The real fight is over the shape of the Canadian economy.

    On to a more abstract point about budgeting.  One of the reasons we aren’t getting a budget before fall, despite the government just having been elected with a pretty detailed budget-ready manifesto and the Department of Finance being perfectly capable of putting together a set of Main Estimates for the House of Commons (as it showed on Thursday), is that Carney is trying to introduce a new set of rules with respect to public budgeting.  He spent part of this week insisting that he would balance the “operating budget” within three years, which sparked a lot of incredulity given that i) the economy is about to be in the tank and ii) the Liberals have ring-fenced most of the federal budget by saying they won’t touch transfers to provinces or transfers to institutions.  In theory, that means very significant cuts to program spending.  Like, say, research budgets.

    Except: there is currently no such thing as an “operating budget”.  What Carney wants to do is to exempt from the budget balance requirement anything that can be seen as “capital investment”, which means basically that the main game in Ottawa over the next few years is going to be how to get your favourite piece of spending classed as “capital” instead of “operating”.  And that’s a live issue because the definition the Liberals touted in the election campaign, to wit…

    …anything that builds an asset, held directly on the government’s own balance sheet, a company’s or another order of government’s.  This will include direct investments the government makes in machinery, equipment, land and buildings, as well as new incentives that support the formation of private capital (e.g. patents, plan and technology) or which meaningful raise private sector productivity.

    …is so loose you could drive a truck through it.  Will CFI spending count as capital?  Probably, but not necessarily since universities (in most provinces anyway) are neither a government nor a company.  Will tri-council spending?  Probably not, but that’s not going to stop folks claiming it supports capital formation/raises productivity, so who knows?  So, takeaway number two: get used to arguing distinctions between capital and operating because this might be the only place the sector gets traction in the next little while.

    A final point of importance is something that is not exactly new but has been given fresh salience by being in the Throne Speech, and that is the government’s commitment to limit temporary immigration – that is Temporary Foreign Workers (TFWs) plus international students – to below five percent of the population by 2027.  Or, to put it another way: every extra TFW is one international student less.  What the government has done here is set up a zero-sum game between institutions of higher education and people like the manager of the Kincardine Tim Horton’s whose business model simply cannot work if they are not allowed to employ foreign nationals at below-market rates. 

    This, my friends, is the fight post-secondary education needs to pick and needs to win.  It won’t be easy, because the captains of Canadian industry are largely clueless about competing on anything other than price, meaning low-wage labour is pretty dear to their hearts and they will fight hard for TFWs.  But it is the dilemma this country faces in a nutshell: should we use our scarce temporary immigration spots to make things cheaper in the short-term?  Or should we use them to develop a skilled workforce and build our scientific and technological talent base for the long term? 

    So, I know this won’t come easy to institutions but: screw Bay Street.  Light the torches.  Find the pitchforks.  Pick up anything you have handy and smash the windows of your local Tim Horton’s.  Fight for international students and against TFWs.  This is an existential contest: it decides whether Canada is going to be a country that gets wealthier based on investments in skills, education and science, or a country that bathes in mediocrity because we go mental if the price of a cruller goes up twenty-five cents. 

    And if the sector ducks this fight because direct confrontation with business is icky and makes some Board members uncomfortable?  Well, then the sector deserves everything it gets.  That’s the third, and most important takeaway of the last week.

    Source link

  • New shadow education minister selected, Sarah Henderson “disappointed” – Campus Review

    New shadow education minister selected, Sarah Henderson “disappointed” – Campus Review

    Former opposition education spokeswoman and senior Liberal party member Sarah Henderson has been replaced by Tasmanian senator Jonathon Duniam.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Why Global Talent is Turning Away from U.S. Higher Education—and What We’re Losing – Edu Alliance Journal

    Why Global Talent is Turning Away from U.S. Higher Education—and What We’re Losing – Edu Alliance Journal

    In 2025, much of my professional focus has been on small colleges in the United States. But as many of you know, my colleague and Edu Alliance co-founder, Dr. Senthil Nathan, and I also consult extensively in the international higher education space. Senthil, based in Abu Dhabi, UAE—where Edu Alliance was founded was asked by a close friend of ours, Chet Haskell, about how the Middle East and its students are reacting to the recent moves by the Trump Administration. Dr. Nathan shared a troubling May 29th article from The National, a UAE English language paper titled, “It’s not worth the risk”: Middle East students put US dreams on hold amid Trump visa crackdown.

    The article begins with this chilling line:

    “Young people in the Middle East have spoken of their fears after the US government decided to freeze overseas student interviews and plan to begin vetting their social media accounts. The directive signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and sent to diplomatic and consular posts halts interview appointments at US universities.”

    The UAE, home to nearly 10 million people—90% of whom are expatriates—is a global crossroads. Many of their children attend top-tier international high schools and are academically prepared to study anywhere in the world. Historically, the United States has been a top choice for both undergraduate and graduate education.

    But that is changing.

    This new wave of student hesitation, and in many cases fear, represents a broader global shift. Today, even the most qualified international students are asking whether the United States is still a safe, welcoming, or stable destination for higher education. And their concerns are justified.

    At a time when U.S. institutions are grappling with enrollment challenges—including a shrinking pool of domestic high school graduates—we are simultaneously sending signals that dissuade international students from coming. That’s not just bad policy. It’s bad economics.

    According to NAFSA: Association of International Educators, international students contributed $43.8 billion to the U.S. economy during the 2023–2024 academic year and supported 378,175 jobs across the country. These students fill key seats in STEM programs, support local economies, and enrich our campuses in ways that go far beyond tuition payments.

    And the stakes go beyond higher education.

    A 2024 study found that 101 companies in the S&P 500 are led by foreign-born CEOs. Many of these executives earned their degrees at U.S. universities, underscoring how American higher education is not just a national asset but a global talent incubator that fuels our economy and leadership.

    Here are just a few examples:

    • Jensen Huang: Born in Taiwan (NVIDIA) – B.S. from Oregon State, M.S. from Stanford
    • Elon Musk: Born in South Africa (Tesla, SpaceX) – B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania
    • Sundar Pichai: Born in India (Alphabet/Google) – M.S. from Stanford, MBA from Wharton
    • Mike Krieger: Born in Brazil (Co-founder of Instagram) B.S. and M.S. Symbolic Systems and Human-Computer Interaction, Stanford University
    • Satya Nadella: Born in India (Microsoft) – M.S. from the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, MBA from the University of Chicago
    • Max Levchin: Born in Ukraine (Co-founder of PayPal, Affirm), Bachelor’s in Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
    • Arvind Krishna: Born in India (IBM) – Ph.D. from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
    • Safra Catz: Born in Israel (Oracle) – Undergraduate & J.D. from University of Pennsylvania
    • Jane Fraser: Born in the United Kingdom (Citigroup) – MBA from Harvard Business School
    • Nikesh Arora: Born in India  (Palo Alto Networks) – MBA from Northeastern
    • Jan Koum: Born in Ukraine (Co-founder of WhatsApp), Studied Computer Science (did not complete degree) at San Jose State University

    These leaders represent just a fraction of the talent pipeline shaped by U.S. universities.

    According to a 2023 American Immigration Council report, 44.8% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children, including iconic firms like Apple, Google, and Tesla. Together, these companies generate $8.1 trillion in annual revenue and employ over 14.8 million people globally.

    The Bottom Line

    The American higher education brand still carries immense prestige. But prestige alone won’t carry us forward. If we continue to restrict and politicize student visas, we will lose not only potential students but also future scientists, entrepreneurs, job creators, and community leaders.

    We must ask: Are our current policies serving national interests, or undermining them?

    Our classrooms, campuses, corporations, and communities are stronger when they include the world’s brightest minds. Let’s not close the door on a future we have long helped build.

    Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on international partnerships and market evaluations.

    Source link

  • Top Tips: Be naive

    Top Tips: Be naive

    Young people are often accused of naivety. But in journalism, naivety can be powerful.

    Being naive means sounding innocent or unsophisticated about something. You often get accused of naivety when you question why things are the way they are. Many people hate being accused of that, so they accept generally accepted standards — a fancy term I like is “prevailing paradigms.” 

    Often these are notions that some problems are so rooted that they can’t be fixed so you just have to accept them: polluted rivers or entrenched corruption or homelessness or discriminatory policies. 

    When you question these notions you might be accused of being naive. I say wear that like a badge. Why? Because if we accept problems without seeking solutions we won’t ever improve a community or society or nation. And that means that you must reject the idea that some problems can’t be solved. 

    It means we have to go back to the idea that everyone deserves clean air and water, healthy food, a basic education, shelter and safety. Nowadays you might add internet access, heat and electricity to that list and maybe a decent transportation system. The more I add, the more naive I sound. 

    Question prevailing paradigms.

    Good journalism comes from asking why people don’t have these things, not from accepting that they don’t have them. 

    So I suggest this: Draw an imaginary line. It represents a perfect world. In a perfect world everyone would have those things I listed: clean air and water, healthy food, etc. Then draw a line next to it that represents the current situation, and make the space between them wider the more off we are from that perfect world. Therein lies your story. 

    How far off is your community from having clean water or clean air? How bad are diets or how bad is the food shortage? 

    Then ask why. Why are people drinking or fishing out of contaminated water streams? Why are people going hungry? Why are people homeless? These are basic questions that come from the naive perspective that these problems shouldn’t exist in a perfect world. 

    Only when you ask these questions can you get to the heart of causes. Here is the hard part. The accusation of naivety comes not because these problems can’t be solved. It comes because the solutions are complicated. Sometimes they are really complicated. So the naivety comes in the idea that no one — including you or me — is willing to take the time and effort and brain power to unravel all those complications to get to solutions. 

    Prove them wrong.

    This all gets to the two traits that make someone a great journalist: Persistence and patience. It is the persistence to not just walk away when someone tells you that you are being naive or that a problem is too complicated, and the patience to work through the complicated elements. 

    All the complications people will throw at you are like protective layers around a problem. They are like the levels you need to surmount in a video game. 

    Once you peel them away, you get to causes that are pretty basic: Not enough money because people with money aren’t willing to spend it; a lack of power because people with power aren’t willing to cede it; and basic human failings like racism, homophobia, sexism or greed.

    If you can call out people or communities or government representatives on their racism or homophobia or sexism or greed, maybe you can get them to work on solutions. Only by finding solutions to problems can we get a little closer to that perfect world.

    Isn’t a perfect world the one you want to work towards? Or am I being naive?

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. What does the author mean by “prevailing paradigms”?

    2. Why can naivety be powerful in journalism?

    3. What are some problems in your community that people seem to accept without question?

     

    Source link

  • Podcast: Governance, apprenticeships, trends | Wonkhe

    Podcast: Governance, apprenticeships, trends | Wonkhe

    This week on the podcast we examine the OfS penalty imposed on Leeds Trinity over subcontractual partnerships oversight. What does the £115,000 fine and a new proposed code of “ethical” governance tell us about decision-making at the top?

    Plus we discuss the government’s decision to axe level 7 apprenticeships from levy funding, and explore incoming OfS chair Edward Peck’s ten trends shaping the future of campus universities.

    With Alex Stanley, Vice President for Higher Education at the National Union of Students, Pam Macpherson Barrett, Head of Policy and Regulation at the University of Leeds, David Kernohan, Associate Editor at Wonkhe and presented by Mark Leach, Editor-in-Chief at Wonkhe.

    Read more

    Poor quality teaching and student outcomes. But where?

    The new OfS chair identifies ten trends

    A code of ethical university governance is overdue

    Should governance reform be horizontal or vertical?

     

    Source link

  • The politics of representation

    The politics of representation

    When I searched for Sarah McBride’s name on March 12, the first thing I saw was a story about a member of the U.S. Congress calling her “Mr. McBride” in an official hearing.

    Ms. McBride is the first congressional representative in United States history to be openly transgender.

    Since 18 November 2024, when McBride was elected to Congress, I’ve seen dozens of articles in which the only thing in question is her gender identity. It’s funny that Republicans in the U.S. Congress have made such a fuss over McBride’s gender, while McBride – the only congressperson representing the state of Delaware – has done nothing of the sort.

    For someone so polarised and one-dimensional by the media, McBride seems intent on collaboration.

    Delawareans have been overwhelmingly supportive of McBride. A University of Delaware poll, which recorded the pre-election numbers, had McBride at 52% of the vote, while her opponent, John Whalen, received 30%. Sarah McBride ended up with a 58% return, which could be considered a landslide.

    This starkly contrasted primaries across the country, with many states flipping Republican, that had gone Democrat in 2020.

    So, what’s the difference between Delaware and McBride, compared to the rest of the nation?

    What voters care about

    For starters, Delaware, where I live, is minuscule compared to its sister states. These conditions make Delaware not only ideal grounds to break history on, but also the only place it could have happened for McBride.

    Delaware does not boast a large number of gay and trans people. A UCLA poll found that only 4.5% of citizens in Delaware are queer and trans and over half are under voting age. By and large, McBride was elected by a primarily straight electorate.

    This election did not contrast with the national sentiment of Democrats. A Pew Research study found that about 64% of Americans believe trans people should be protected from discrimination when it comes to employment, housing, and education. Additionally, democrats had even stronger support of the notion that gender is not assigned at birth.

    Simply put, Delaware and McBride are a good fit.

    McBride is calm, composed, and focusing on her Delaware constituents more than anything else. In fact, she is the first freshman democrat in the 119th Congress to bring a bill to the floor. A bipartisan bill protecting consumers from credit appraisal scams.

    Opposition from Republicans

    Some congressional Republicans prefer to call McBride names rather than work to make a stronger nation.

    Describing McBride’s welcome to D.C. can be summarized in two words: Political Theatre.

    On McBride’s first visit to D.C., she was greeted by a ban on the use of bathrooms in the house by transgender people brought forward by Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace. This pointed attack by Representative Mace didn’t seem to affect McBride, who was more focused on: “Delivering on the issues that keep Delawareans up at night.”

    In recent months, McBride has been subject to even more unwarranted scrutiny and misnomers from her republican colleagues.

    I spoke with McBride to hear her plans for Delaware, her response to President Trump’s actions, and what she has accomplished thus far in her congressional term.

    Jack McConnel: What was your main reason to run for congressional office? 

    Sarah McBride: So my interest in politics was really rooted in my own journey to authenticity as a young person, as someone growing up here in Delaware, I was scared. I wondered whether the heart of this country was big enough to love someone like me.

    And I faced a crisis of hope. And in that crisis of hope, I went searching for solutions and examples of our world becoming kinder and fairer. And I found a little glimmer of hope as I read history books and saw the through line of every chapter was a story of advocates, activists and a handful of courageous and effective elected officials working together to right the wrongs of our past, to address injustice, to bring people from the shadows and the margins of society into the circle of opportunity.

    I ultimately decided to run for office, though, in 2019 for the state Senate was really the byproduct of my experience as a caregiver to my husband during his battle with terminal cancer.

    Because I know despite the fact that Andy lost his life to cancer, I know how lucky we were. I know how lucky he was to have health insurance that allowed him to get care that prolonged his life. And I know how lucky both of us were to have flexibility with our jobs that allowed him to focus on the full-time job of getting care and me to focus on the full-time job of caring for him.

    McConnel: What are you most proud of so far in your term?

    McBride: First is that I’ve introduced multiple bipartisan bills.

    One with [California Republican] Young Kim that provides consumer protections for Americans against the predatory practices of so-called credit repair organizations.

    The second more recently with [Republican] Representative Mike Lawler from New York, which protects farmers and in so doing helps to lower costs for Delawareans at the grocery store by investing in combating avian flu.

    McConnel: How do you think the Democratic party should respond to the results of the 2024 election?

    McBride: What we can do is we can help to mobilize the public against [President Donald Trump]. Public opinion still matters. We are still under democracy. These people still care about their popularity. They still care about the next election and the goal in this moment as we defend Medicaid in the short run.

    The goal in this moment also has to be to make sure that this president, that the public understands the harms that this president is inflicting on people of every political persuasion across the country. As the public mobilizes against this president, it throws sand in the gears of an authoritarian machine that slows it down, that extends the runway of our democracy so that we can get to the next election and get to the next election.

    McConnel: How do you plan on responding to these movements?

    McBride: Fighting back against that is at the top of my priority list at this moment. In the longer term, obviously, there is an answer to your question, a real effort by this president to illegally and unconstitutionally consolidate power to essentially create absolute power.

    I mean, his first step is to employ what’s called the unitary executive theory, which is absolute authority within the executive branch under the purview of Congress. But he’s also clearly trying to undermine the main power of Congress, the power of the purse. He’s questionable about whether he’s going to listen to the Supreme Court and when all is said and done, making sure that we can’t stop every action by this president. The results of the last election give us limited institutional levers.

    McConnel: Thank you, Representative McBride.

    The main concern McBride reiterated again and again was what she was doing for the Delawareans who elected her. McBride took every opportunity during our interview to highlight the issues most relevant to her constituents. She talked to me about the effort to defund programs Delawareans rely on.

    When asked about what the Democratic Party should be doing going forward, McBride said that Democrats have lost the “art of social change” and that they must be willing to meet people where they are and engage in conversations where people disagree. She pointed towards the 2026 midterms as a place to build momentum towards.

    McBride said when Democrats try to sound the alarm about everything the president is doing, it dilutes the effect of the message. “We can’t ever go to 10 if we’re always at 10,” she said.

    McBride’s goal? Slow down Trump where she can and build support going into 2026.

     

    Questions to consider: 

    1. In what way does Representative Sarah McBride get treated differently than her Congressional colleagues?

    2. What did Delaware voters care about when they voted to elected McBride to Congress?

    3. If you were to vote for a government representative, what issues do you most want that person to tackle?

     

    Source link

  • With no warning

    With no warning

    The term ‘observations’ comes from the days trained weather observers recorded standard meteorological information. Now observations from radiosondes — attached to weather balloons rising to the upper stratosphere — collect data on temperature, humidity, air pressure and wind. 

    Automated surface-observing systems on land provide real-time data and satellites gather imagery and more data which is fed into supercomputers to provide forecasts.

    So what are the benefits of accurate weather forecasts?

    Staying prepared for the worst

    Evan Thompson, the director of the Meteorological Service in Jamaica, has seen his island hit by extreme weather events as seasonal hurricanes have become more severe.

    Thompson said that people need to know how to protect themselves from extreme weather such as tropical storms and hurricanes.

    “Whether it means moving to higher ground in the moment or at least ensuring you don’t take chances crossing flooded roadways that are with waters moving fast, or rivers,” he said.

    Thompson wants his country to be prepared for severe weather. “More data always means better observations which in turn leads to better forecasts.”

    Over the last decades, the accuracy of weather forecasting in the United States has vastly increased what is known as storm resiliency, helped airlines reroute flights, farmers to plant crops at the optimal times and power companies to deal with demand from their customers.

    Climate change intensifies weather.

    Elsewhere, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the World Environmental Programme (WEP) have targeted the need for more observation stations in countries across the Middle East, Africa, South America and Pacific Island states, countries which are at risk of seeing economic progress wiped out by increasing impacts of climate change. 

    The WMO target is for weather observation to reach the levels of countries in Europe and the United States. But it may not be citing the United States as a model in the future. Since January, the United States has been reducing its capacity to provide weather data.

    The cuts come at a time when the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events have increased due to climate change linked to human induced warming according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report of August 2021. However, the Trump administration has taken a decision to eliminate the term “climate change” from federal websites. 

    Especially dependent on accurate forecasts are the construction industry, agriculture, power companies and aviation. 

    Fabio Venuti of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts inputs weather data into a supercomputer. “Global weather forecasting like ours can assimilate data then produce high resolution local forecasts for each country,” he said. “They can be more prepared.”

    Information farmers can rely on

    Fabio said that the ability to forecast rain and drought can help farmers and governments plan food crops. And it can help public health officials prepare for and lessen the spread of diseases, such as malaria, that are affected by environmental factors as insects transported by winds. 

    Thompson in Jamaica said that the policies and plans that governments take are affected by weather forecasting. “For example, building codes can be adjusted because we recognise more severe downpours in areas that don’t normally have flooding,” he said. 

    In the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the parent agency of the National Weather Service, is tasked with daily weather forecasts, severe storm warnings and climate monitoring. In 2025 NOAA has already lost 800 employees and a further 500 have been offered buyouts.

    According to the former heads of the National Weather Service, the proposed cuts of close to 30% for NOAA would essentially eliminate NOAA’s research function for weather.

    Inger Anderson, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, said that accurate weather forecasting pays off in many ways — lives saved, improved disaster management, protecting livelihoods, biodiversity, food security, water supply and economic growth. 

    Besides cutting staffing, the Trump administration has also cut back on funds used to record tidal predictions and weather disasters such as heat waves, hurricanes, tornados, floods and wildfires. The U.S. National Centers for Environmental Information, the agency that collates historical meteorological records, will cease to update its Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters database beyond 2024. Previous records will be archived. 

    Jeff Masters, a meteorologist for Yale Climate Connections says the database is the “gold standard” used to evaluate the costs of extreme weather. “It’s a major loss, since it comes at a time when we need to better understand how much climate change is increasing disaster losses,” he said.

    Weather forecasting can tell us more than whether to carry an umbrella, when to plan a picnic or plant flowers in the gardens. Accurate forecasting can save your life, your home and your livelihood. 

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. How do you use weather forecasts?

    2. Should politicians work more closely with scientists?

    3. Have you experienced a severe weather event?

     

    Source link

  • Podcast: Cuts, student suicide, widening access

    Podcast: Cuts, student suicide, widening access

    This week on the podcast we examine the government’s brutal funding cuts to universities.

    What does the £108m reduction in the Strategic Priorities Grant mean for higher education, and why are media studies and journalism courses losing their high-cost subject funding?

    Plus we discuss the independent review of student suicides, and explore new research on widening participation and regional disparities.

    With Shân Wareing, Vice Chancellor at Middlesex University, Richard Brabner, Executive Chair at the UPP Foundation, Debbie McVitty, Editor at Wonkhe and presented by Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor at Wonkhe.

    Read more

    Why not take a risk-based approach to discrimination or harassment on campus?

    Whatuni Student Choice Awards

    For those in HE cold spots, higher education isn’t presenting as a good bet

    A review of student suicides suggests that standards are now necessary

    What have coroner’s reports said about student suicide?

    A brutal budget for strategic priorities from the Department for Education

    Why are we so embarrassed about Erasmus?

    Source link

  • Among explosions and gunfire, a quiet place to study

    Among explosions and gunfire, a quiet place to study

    A 2017 study found that 45% of the adult population of the Kashmir Valley — around 1.8 million people — suffer from some form of psychological distress. It reported high rates of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.

    The most recent India-Pakistan escalation on May 7, involving cross-border shelling, further worsened conditions, damaging homes and killing civilians in border districts like Uri, Poonch and Kupwara.

    Jan said such stories often lead her to question what went wrong in their society and why such tragedies continue to emerge from her homeland. Her parents advised her to shift to a private reading hall. She describes the atmosphere there as refreshing — a place filled with peers preparing for the same exam. The environment, she says, is motivating and focused, making it easier to concentrate and feel a sense of community.

    Spaces for students

    In recent years, the trend of private reading halls has seen a sharp rise across Kashmir. More and more students now prefer these dedicated spaces over studying at home, seeking focus and stability amid the turmoil. While such reading halls were once limited to urban centres like Srinagar and semi-urban towns like Anantnag and Baramulla, they’ve now expanded into far-flung areas such as Achabal and Kupwara — regions located miles away from the city hubs.

    Muazim Altaf, a pharmacy graduate and the owner of Pulse Library in Achabal — where Jan studies — recalls how the idea for the reading hall came to him. 

    He noticed that many students from nearby villages were travelling all the way to Srinagar, which is 70 kilometres from Achabal, staying in hostels just to access reading halls and a better study environment. “That’s when I thought, why not create something similar here in Achabal?” he said.

    In October last year, he opened Pulse with the intention of offering an affordable alternative to students who couldn’t afford hostel rents in Srinagar. The initiative wasn’t purely profit-driven, he said. His goal was to support local students by providing a productive study space within their own region.

    Initially, he started with 60 study cabins, which were fully booked within days. Encouraged by the overwhelming response, he expanded the facility. “Now we have 120 cabins, all booked until June,” he said. Each student is charged a modest monthly fee of nine pounds to use the space.

    He admits he hadn’t anticipated such a strong turnout. Students aged 17 to 29 now frequent Pulse — some preparing for competitive entrance exams, while others focus on passing exams required for government jobs. 

    One trend stood out to him: nearly 60% of the students are girls.

    A hunger to learn

    In 2022, more than 250,000 people visited just 131 public libraries across Jammu and Kashmir, highlighting both a hunger for learning and the shortage of adequate study spaces. With thousands of aspirants preparing for exams, existing public libraries are overwhelmed and operate only during daytime hours, making it tough for students who need longer study sessions.

    In response, young people across the region have stepped in, launching private reading halls that offer 24/7 access. Equipped with Wi-Fi, heating, cooling, kitchen spaces and discussion zones, these modern study hubs have quickly become essential for serious exam takers in Kashmir.

    Javed Pathaan, a recent PhD graduate from Kashmir University, runs a private reading hall in Srinagar’s Rajbagh area. “Having personally gone through the rigors of competitive exam preparation, I understand how valuable these extras can be,” he said. “Students who study for long hours need occasional breaks, so we’ve created a designated space for short naps.”

    He said that young students face intense mental and physical strain while preparing for exams in a conflict-ridden region. That’s why many choose private services like his over free public libraries.

    Shazir Ahangar, who wants to pass an exam to get a government job in Kashmir, shifted to Pulse Library at Achabal after leaving the public library in Anantnag. He found the public facility overcrowded and said it was hard to concentrate there. 

    “They’re open for just eight to nine hours a day, which isn’t enough when you’re preparing for competitive exams,” he said.

    The exchange of knowledge

    One of Ahangar’s main concerns was the lack of basic facilities. The public libraries he visited didn’t offer air conditioning during summer or designated kitchens for making tea or coffee. Nor do they have discussion rooms. 

    “At Pulse, it’s more than just studying,” he added. Students engage in group discussions, exchange ideas and even enjoy small breaks together. He especially appreciated the privacy provided by individual study cabins.

    Last year, Manan Bhat, 28, from Soura area of Srinagar, secured the 88th rank in India’s civil service exam, a major feat considering that every year, more than one million people appear for India’s Civil Services Examination, but fewer than 1,000 candidates are selected.

    When he first began coming to reading halls they were often nearly empty. “Now, they’re packed with students,” he said. 

    Manan said that the biggest advantage of reading halls is the individual focus they offer, allowing students to concentrate without distractions. He also highlighted how being surrounded by peers preparing for similar exams creates a supportive environment that encourages the exchange of knowledge.

    Safe spaces to study

    Owners of reading halls often play an active role in encouraging students, staying in touch with their parents to share updates on their performance and dedication. The atmosphere in these halls is competitive, similar to coaching centres.

    Muazim Altaf said that admitting students to the reading hall comes with significant responsibility, as parents place a great deal of trust in them. 

    “We share weekly reports with parents, including details like how much time their children spend studying and whether they arrive on time,” he said. This becomes especially crucial in a region battling widespread drug addiction. Parents often urge him to keep a close watch on their children. According to Muazim, any form of indiscipline or violation of library rules results in immediate expulsion.

    In December last year, Shri B.L. Verma, the minister of state for social justice and environment, told the Indian parliament that more than 823,000 people in Jammu and Kashmir — around 8% of the region’s population — use drugs of some kind, including cannabis, opioids or sedatives.

    Basit Fayaz, who recently secured an All India Rank of 70 in the national exam that determines placement in professorships and research fellowships, believes that joining a reading hall played a crucial role in his success. He said that without the focused study environment it offered, cracking the exam — let alone making it to the top 100 — would have been nearly impossible.

    “The reading hall in Achabal [Pulse] provided exactly the kind of calm and distraction-free atmosphere I needed,” he said, adding that it helped him stay insulated from the recurring disturbances like crackdowns and gunfights that are common in Kashmir.

    Fayaz appreciated the peer group he found there. He recalled how group discussions and study sessions with fellow NEET aspirants added great value to his preparation. He added that without such spaces, constant exposure to conflict-related events often disturbs one’s mental state and heightens anxiety.

    “In situations like escalations between India and Pakistan, gunfights or political crackdowns, these spaces help us stay focused and shielded from the chaos,” Fayaz said.

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. What distractions from studying do so many young people in the Kashmir region face?

    2. How can political turmoil at the national level affect people who live far from city centres?

    3. How important is it for you to have a safe, quiet space to study?

     

    Source link