Blog

Productivity Tips for iSchool Students – SJSU
We’ve all seen the endless lists of study apps and productivity
hacks floating around the internet. They’re useful—sometimes. But
they rarely acknowledge what staying motivated actually feels
like when you’re balancing classes, work, personal obligations,
and the inevitable end-of-semester whirlwind.

Being in my first semester and experiencing the online learning
environment, I’ve taken some time to reflect on the tools and
strategies that have actually helped me stay grounded, organized
and on track this semester. In this post, I reflect on various
tools I’ve explored to help me meet deadlines and produce the
best work, even when classes began ramping up in intensity. I
hope some of these tools will help you, too.

Productivity Apps

Notion

Endlessly versatile and aesthetically pleasing, Notion has been a mainstay
of mine for years to manage time across various aspects of my
life. Beyond the myriads of templates to choose from, it’s easy
to tailor a page to your own liking and make it what you want it
to be.

Most effective usages:
- To-do lists: Creating sections within Notion
  dedicated to weekly or daily checklists is one of the easiest
  ways to track progress visually. You can format tasks with
  toggles, color-coded tags or even embed due dates so they
  automatically appear in your calendar view.
- Dashboards: Design a personal “home base”
  where all your semester essentials live—links to syllabi,
  assignment databases, reading trackers and a calendar of
  upcoming deadlines. Having everything gathered in one place
  reduces tab-hopping and makes it easier to orient yourself
  at the start of each study session.
- Databases: This is where Notion really shines.
  Whether you create a master assignment tracker, a reading log
  or a project board with statuses like “Not Started,” “In
  Progress” and “Done,” database views make it easy to sort,
  filter and see exactly what needs attention each week.
OneNote

One of many note-taking apps out there, OneNote is clean and
simple to use, and available for free for all iSchool students as
a part of the Microsoft Office Suite offered by SJSU.

Most effective usages
- Separate notebooks for each class: This keeps
  everything tidy and minimizes the scramble of
  remembering where you saved something. You can also create
  sections inside each notebook (e.g., lectures, readings,
  assignments and discussion posts) for smoother organization.
- Layered notetaking: Whether you prefer typing,
  highlighting PDFs directly or handwriting on a tablet, OneNote
  is flexible. Having your notes, embedded articles and
  screenshots all in one place makes studying for finals so much
  easier.
- ePortfolio prep: Since OneNote is built for
  long-term organization, it’s a great place to collect artifacts
  and reflections for your ePortfolio as the semester goes on.
  Keeping everything in a designated notebook means you’ll
  already have the pieces you need when it’s time to put it
  together.
Time Management Apps

Google Calendar

Sometimes overlooked, GCal is an easy-to-use and handy tool for
scheduling weekly and monthly workflows. Offered free, it’s an
incredibly accessible way to streamline your weekly commitments.
If you’re more of a visual learner, like me, the colorful blocks
representing events are a useful way to visually structure time.
Messing around with the various features yourself will give you a
feel for what helps you stay organized.

Depending on your own personal work style, plan out your workload
for the upcoming week or month, and check it regularly to make
sure nothing slips through the cracks. By having deadlines and
other pertinent information regarding your workload recorded,
GCal will notify you about schedule conflicts when accepting
a meeting invitation or recording events on other calendars.

Most effective usages
- Layer different calendars: Subscribing to my
  school calendar, work calendar and personal calendar allows for
  each of my commitments to show up together, which is useful in
  for deeper and multi-faceted organization
- Task vs. Event: Using the task option is a
  great way to record deadlines for upcoming assignments.
  Clicking ‘all day’ allows it to show up at the top of the day,
  for easier viewing. And the strikethrough that happens after
  submitting an assignment is satisfying.
- Focus time: Use this feature to block off time
  in your day for uninterrupted work.
Canvas Calendar

If simplicity is more your thing, using Canvas’ calendar to keep
track of work is a great idea. All assignment due dates will show
in your calendar, along with meetings and events for iSchool
students to join. While it’s a great resource, it’s important to
check your class syllabus and weekly modules yourself to make
sure all assignments are accounted for.

Most effective usages:
- Agenda: A visually clean list of upcoming
  deadlines and events. Using the agenda feature is a good way to
  see all upcoming work side by side, and account for deadlines.
- Calendar: A monthly overview of workload. This
  is a good way to see what days assignment deadlines fall on, to
  let you get into your own groove of anticipated workdays
Study Tips

Along with the aforementioned apps, being a good student is a
skill you learn over time and a muscle you must routinely flex.
You know yourself best, so listen to yourself and reflect on
times you’ve been most successful and what specifically you did
that brought you there.
- Listen to your energy levels: I am always most
  productive first thing in the morning, so by planning a block
  of time right when I wake up to knock out assignments and
  lectures, I can relax the rest of the day knowing my to-do list
  is significantly smaller. If you have the flexibility to move
  things around based upon when you’re most equipped to stay
  focused, scheduling out other daily commitments around it can
  help things fall into place.
- Short bursts vs. Long haul: Study strategies
  like the Pomodoro Technique are proven ways for many people to
  stay productive. The technique is simple and easy to follow: 25
  minutes of active work and 5 minutes of rest. Change the time
  to suit the task. This is a great way to manage time, but it’s
  okay if it doesn’t work for you. As I mentioned, I do much
  better when I complete work in large chunks of time, resulting
  in multiple consecutive hours of uninterrupted
  focus.
- Rest: Arguably, the most important tip of them
  all: If you aren’t getting adequate rest in between
  commitments, your fuse for work will be much shorter.
  Scheduling your week in advance is a good way to break things
  up, in turn freeing up time and ensuring you have a dedicated
  rest period and time of day when you set work aside.
Overall Thoughts

As the semester comes to a close, reflect on how things worked
well for you and what could be improved. If you’re like me and
it’s your first semester of graduate school, it’s okay if it took
a little bit to get to where you’d like to be in terms of
effective workload management, or if you didn’t hit that place at
all. Above all, listen to yourself and adjust your strategies and
apps to best suit your unique needs. If you have any tips that
helped you throughout the semester, feel free to share them
below!
Source link
December 1, 2025
Trump’s new housing policies could push another 170,000 people into homelessness (National Low Income Housing Coalition)
Why NLIHC is taking action:

The Continuum of Care Program exists to house people experiencing homelessness using proven, evidence-based solutions and strong local leadership. Yet, this NOFO introduces structural restrictions that contradict its stated purpose — capping permanent housing resources, weakening local decision-making, and threatening the stability of community response systems nationwide.

As many as 170,000 more people could be pushed into homelessness if these changes stand — not as an abstract number, but as real individuals, families, veterans, seniors, youth, and neighbors in every state who depend on CoC-funded housing and services to remain stably housed.

What this lawsuit means for our field and partners:

We are fighting to:
- Prevent hundreds of thousands of people from losing their homes
- Protect proven permanent housing interventions within CoC funding
- Defend the ability of local communities to lead response strategies using data and evidence
- Stand with municipalities and providers working to keep people housed, stabilized, and supported
Source link
December 1, 2025
Grace of Import-Replacing Inbox (Schumacher Center for a New Economics)
The Grace of Import Replacement
by Susan Witt

What I first noticed about Jane Jacobs was the power, breadth, and mobility of her intellect. Only later did I recognize the equally great warmth of spirit that informed her thinking and turned it to a force of change. She stands as one of the most visionary economic thinkers of the last part of the twentieth century.

Her intellect was breathtaking. I first heard her speak at her 1983 Annual E. F. Schumacher Lecture “The Economy of Regions.” From the podium at Mount Holyoke College she painted an image of regional economies in which myriad small industries produce for regional markets—small industries that depend on local materials, local labor, local capital, local transport systems, and appropriately scaled technology to conduct business. She pictured the fruits of this regional industry spilling over to support a rich cultural life in the city at the hub of the region. This bustling creative energy would then foster new innovation and industry, filling in the “niches” of the economy.

The products of a regional economy would be particular to it, using the woods and stones found there—cherry tables, white cedar decks, and granite steps. The choices in the marketplace would vary with the seasons—eagerly anticipated summer berries, autumn apples, the new maple syrup in February, and spring garlic and parsnips.

The diversity of products would require a diversity of workers with a diversity of skills, all part of a face-to-face economy of place with its multiple sidewalk contacts “from which a city’s wealth of public life may grow.” Citizens would have direct knowledge of working conditions in offices and factories and home industries; they would see the results of manufacturing practices on hillsides, fields, and rivers. Landowner, banker, shop keeper, entrepreneur, laborer, secretary, teacher, craftsman, and government official would sing together in the community choir, carpool one another’s children to school, and meet at the farmers’ market. They would see the complexity that shapes the regional economy, understand its various elements, remain accountable to each other in maintaining the web of connections that sustains it. Practiced conservationists, they would recognize the necessity of protecting and renewing the natural resources that form the basis of their economy.

Yes, there would be products exported to other regions—but only the excess, and in moderation. Yes, there would be imports for their variety, exoticness, their sweet breath of other cultures and places. But at the core of these robust and vital regional economies would be the capacity to meet the economic, social, and cultural needs of the people of the region from within the region, not in a spirit of isolationism but in a spirit of self-determination and with the hope that other regions could achieve similar economic independence. In such a scenario the wealth of one region would not depend on exploiting the natural and human wealth of other regions.

Jacobs believed that the best way to achieve such sustainable economies is to examine what is now imported into a region and develop the conditions to produce those goods from local resources with local labor. She referred to this process as “import replacing.”

By contrast, the typical economic development model is for a city to use tax credits and other incentives to lure the branch of a multi-national corporation into its environs. Yet without deep roots in the local economy and local community, the same corporation might suddenly leave the area, driven by moody fluctuations in the global economy, and abandon workers and families.

Building a regional economic development strategy based on import replacement will require appropriately scaled economic institutions to meet the needs of the local businesses.

The elements of any economic system are land, labor, and capital: land and other natural resources are the basis of all production; labor transforms the raw materials into products; and capital organizes the labor and facilitates distribution of the goods.

New import replacement businesses will require:
- affordable access to land on which to locate the enterprise and gather the raw materials used in production;
- capital in amounts and on terms tailored to the business;
- a trained, engaged, and supported work force.
How a society shapes its institutions for land, labor, and capital will determine if it can meet these requirements. These regionally based economic institutions will not be government driven. Rather they will be undertaken by free associations of consumers and producers working cooperatively, sharing the risk of building an economy that reflects shared culture and shared values. Small in scale, transparent in structure, designed to profit the community rather than to profit from it, they can help facilitate a community’s desire for safe and fair working conditions; for production practices that keep air, soil, and water clean, renew natural resources rather than deplete them; for innovation in the making and distribution of food, clothing, shelter, and energy; and for a more equitable distribution of wealth.
Source link
December 1, 2025
Asking the Right Questions- Archer Education
Why Universities Need the Right Partnership Criteria

When a higher education institution outsources its enrollment, marketing, or student engagement efforts, the stakes are high. Missteps don’t just cost money — they cost time and, most critically, can hinder enrollment growth. Many universities make the mistake of selecting vendors that focus on chasing leads, rather than aligning with the school’s mission or long-term goals.

Without clear partnership criteria, even well-intentioned collaborations can falter. Misaligned university partnerships often lead to disjointed campaigns and wasted resources. What begins as a lead generation effort can evolve into dependency on a vendor that operates in isolation, without being guided by the institution’s strategy.

The right partner, by contrast, integrates seamlessly with the institution’s mission, aligns its services with the institution’s desired outcomes, and acts as a true extension of the institution.

The Risks of Choosing the Wrong Partner

The wrong partner can create more problems than it solves. Some vendors sell services focused solely on activities — ads placed, events hosted, emails sent — without tying its efforts to the institution’s overarching strategy. This approach often fails to generate real enrollment growth, causing internal teams to struggle with unqualified leads and retention challenges.

Another potential risk stems from failing to consider how a partner will mesh with the institution’s legacy systems. Universities invest heavily in their marketing resources, such as their customer relationship management (CRM) platforms and brand assets. A vendor that imposes its own tools without considering the university’s existing infrastructure can create costly redundancies.

Equally concerning are long-term, restrictive partnership contracts that lock an institution into dependency and limit its flexibility, leaving it at the mercy of a vendor whose priorities may clash with the institution’s broader objectives or evolving market conditions.

Strategic Alignment as the Core Test

The foundation of any successful university partnership is strategic alignment. True partners base the services they offer on the institution’s unique goals. They view marketing, admissions, and student success teams as interconnected — not completely separate entities.

Shared key performance indicators (KPIs) are a key component of this alignment. When both the institution and its partner commit to tracking metrics such as the conversion rate from inquiry to application, the yield rate from admission to enrollment, and the one-year retention rate, they create mutual accountability across every stage of the student journey.

Archer’s Growth Readiness Assessment offers a model for this type of collaboration. This tool helps an institution evaluate its readiness to scale its programs — whether they are in person or online — by evaluating the university’s internal capacity, identifying any potential hurdles, and aligning its in-house teams and external partners. Performing such an assessment early in the vendor selection process ensures the university partnership is built on a foundation of clarity and trust.

Procurement Criteria That Drive Success

When it comes time for an institution to formalize a partnership, focusing on transparency, flexibility, and accountability can make the difference between achieving sustainable growth and creating new operational challenges.

Institutions that emphasize these criteria are better positioned to form partnerships that deliver measurable results and long-term value.
- Transparency in reporting and asset ownership is vital. An institution should establish whether it will retain full ownership of the assets created and determine how often performance reports will be shared. A transparent partner will make reporting accessible and collaborative, not proprietary.
- Flexible contracts are another hallmark of a strong university partnership. The institution should have the freedom to pivot when markets shift or as its internal capacity grows. It should avoid rigid, long-term agreements that limit its control or create dependency.
- Accountability across the student journey should be among the institution’s demands. The most effective partners understand that success extends beyond generating leads and inquiries. Contracts should define what accountability looks like from marketing through enrollment and retention, with clearly articulated performance standards for each stage.
Integrating With Legacy Systems

Integration is a crucial element of successful university partnerships. A capable partner doesn’t replace or disrupt the institution’s existing systems — it strengthens them.

When integration is done well, the partner respects the university’s existing data, assets, and workflows, leading to a more unified, seamless experience for both staff and students. When integration is done poorly, the results can be costly, creating redundancies, inefficiencies, and siloed teams.

Archer’s Onward student engagement platform demonstrates how thoughtful integration can amplify an institution’s capacity without disrupting its operations. Onward uses behavior-based triggers and personalized multichannel engagement efforts to guide students from inquiry through enrollment — working alongside admissions services and complementing the institution’s existing systems rather than supplanting them.

By respecting the institution’s infrastructure, this kind of partnership model helps the university scale its engagement strategies without losing its operational continuity.

10 Questions to Ask Before Choosing a Partner

Selecting the right partner for an institution requires more than comparing price points or promises of lead volume. The most beneficial partnerships are built on mutual accountability, transparency, and shared metrics for success. The right partner should have staff with extensive institutional knowledge and higher ed industry experience, enabling it to provide universities and colleges with the best tools to improve their operations and achieve growth.

Asking the right questions early helps ensure alignment and prevent costly missteps. Institutions can consider asking the following 10 questions when vetting potential partners:
1. How do you handle internal and external communications? Institutions need to know who their main points of contact will be, and how knowledge and strategies will be shared across teams.
2. What metrics do you use to measure success across the student journey? The ideal vendor should be able to provide full-funnel visibility and focus on metrics that truly drive enrollment growth.
3. How frequently will our teams review results together? Successful partnerships depend on transparency and regular communication.
4. What have you learned from working with other institutions, and how will that inform our partnership? Vendors should always be willing to adjust their services based on past wins and challenges. They should also have the right resources to serve all of their clients with equal urgency.
5. How will you collaborate with us to set enrollment goals and forecast program growth? Credible vendors rely on historical data to inform their projections, and take the time to carefully explore existing growth drivers.
6. How do you differentiate marketing strategies at the institutional level from those at the program level? Institutions can benefit from asking for examples that illustrate this distinction.
7. What can we expect from this partnership in the first 90 days? Vendors should be able to communicate clear timelines for processes, such as onboarding steps, reporting cadence, and performance metrics.
8. Will our institution own all assets, data, and creative from day one? Institutions should have ownership of any assets created and have a clear understanding of how they will be shared and managed.
9. Are there any additional fees we should be aware of? Items such as creative assets will need to be refreshed over time, so institutions need to understand what associated costs may arise.
10. What questions do you have for us? An ideal partner wants to understand the institution’s unique needs, strengths, and challenges. Using historical data, it can shape a data-driven strategy for the institution, including realistic marketing budgets and lead goals.
These questions establish a framework for transparency, accountability, and scalability — ensuring the partnership begins from a place of trust and aligned goals.
Key Takeaways

Effective university partnerships start with asking the right questions.

When your institution prioritizes alignment, accountability, and integration, you can avoid critical missteps.

The right partner will strengthen — not replace — your institutional vision and help equip you to scale sustainably.
Build University Partnerships That Advance Your Goals

At Archer Education, we work with accredited universities to build strategic partnerships rooted in a shared vision that drive scalable enrollment growth. With decades of higher ed experience, our team of industry experts has developed a flexible partnership model that supports internal growth, so that institutions can build self-sufficiency over time.

Contact our team to learn how our tech-enabled marketing, enrollment, and retention services can support your institution’s long-term goals.
Source link
December 1, 2025
Smarter Student Support: Designing Connected Ecosystems That Drive Equity and Completion
Across higher education, student support systems are often built for institutions, not for students. As a result, many learners encounter a maze of disconnected services that feel reactive, impersonal, or inaccessible. For students already balancing work, caregiving, and financial pressures, this fragmentation can be the difference between staying enrolled and stopping out.

As Chief Academic Officer, I’ve seen how crucial it is to align support structures with academic goals and student realities. Institutions must move beyond piecemeal solutions and instead design holistic ecosystems that prioritize student experience, equity, and completion from the start. That means leveraging data, embracing design thinking, and fostering cross-campus collaboration.

Where fragmentation undermines student outcomes

Many institutions approach support through isolated units: advising, student success, IT, and academic departments each operating in silos. The result is a disjointed experience for students, where important information is delayed or missed altogether. Without a unified view of the student journey, opportunities for early intervention or personalized support fall through the cracks.

This fragmentation disproportionately affects students from historically underserved backgrounds. When support isn’t accessible or timely, those with less institutional knowledge or fewer resources are more likely to disengage.

Disconnected systems can lead to:
- Missed early warning signs
- Delayed or generic interventions
- Frustration from navigating multiple systems
- Lower retention and completion rates
It’s not enough to offer services. It’s crucial to ensure those services are connected, visible, and tailored to real student needs.

In my experience, when institutions treat student support as a set of tasks rather than a strategic function, it limits their ability to make meaningful progress on equity and completion. Students shouldn’t have to navigate a patchwork of websites, offices, and policies to get the help they need. They deserve a system that anticipates their challenges and responds in real time.

What a connected, learner-first ecosystem looks like

A modern support ecosystem begins with data. Institutions need to unify data from across the student lifecycle (from admissions to advising to classroom performance) to create a comprehensive view of each learner. With integrated platforms, faculty and staff can access timely insights to guide interventions and support decisions.

At Collegis, we’ve seen how data-powered ecosystems — supported by platforms like Connected Core® — drive measurable improvement in retention and equity. But technology alone isn’t enough. Data needs to be paired with personalization. That means using predictive analytics to identify students at risk and deliver outreach that is relevant, proactive, and human.

It’s not about automation replacing connection. It’s about enabling the right kind of connection at the right time.

I often ask, “Are support systems designed for students or around them?” A learner-first ecosystem doesn’t just meet students where they are academically. It considers their time constraints, personal responsibilities, and evolving goals. It removes barriers rather than creating new ones.

Key elements of a connected ecosystem include:
- Unified, actionable student data
- Proactive, personalized interventions
- Support that reflects real student lives
- 24/7 digital services and hybrid options
Flexible course scheduling, hybrid advising models, and round-the-clock support aren’t just conveniences. They’re equity tools that recognize the unique needs of today’s student body.

Using design thinking to reimagine support systems

Design thinking offers a powerful framework for this work. It starts with empathy — understanding the lived experience of students and mapping the friction they encounter in navigating institutional systems. From there, you can co-create solutions that reflect students’ realities, prototype interventions, and iterate based on feedback and outcomes.

I’ve found this approach invaluable for aligning innovation with mission. It brings together diverse voices (students, faculty, advisors, technologists) to build support systems that are not just efficient, but equitable.

Design thinking allows us to move beyond assumptions. Instead of designing around legacy processes or internal structures, we start with real student stories. This helps us ask better questions and arrive at more inclusive answers.

It’s not just about solving problems—it’s about solving the right problems.

The role of academic leadership in cross-campus collaboration

No single office can transform student support in isolation. It requires a coalition of academic, technical, and operational leaders working in sync. Academic affairs plays a central role in this work, bridging the gap between pedagogy and operations.

In my experience, success begins with a shared vision and clear metrics:
- What are we trying to improve?
- How will we measure progress?
From there, we build alignment around roles, resources, and timelines. Regular communication and an openness to iteration keep the momentum going.

One of the most powerful things academic leaders can do is model cross-functional thinking. When we approach student success as a collective responsibility, we shift the culture from reactive to proactive. And when data is shared across departments, everyone can see the part they play in helping students succeed.

Turning strategy into action

At Collegis, we’ve partnered with institutions to bring student-centered strategies to life:
- Our Connected Core data platform enables the kind of integration that underpins personalized support.
- Our deep higher education experience ensures solutions align with academic priorities.
We believe in the power of aligning strategy with execution. We don’t just talk about transformation. We build the infrastructure, train the teams, and help institutions scale what works. From data strategy to digital learning design, we act as an extension of our partners’ teams.

This work is about more than improving services. It’s about advancing equity, accelerating completion, and fulfilling our mission to support every learner.

Designing for what matters most

If we want better outcomes, we have to start with better design. That means asking not just what services you offer, but how and why you deliver them. It means shifting from reactive support to intentional, data-informed ecosystems that center the student experience.

By embracing design thinking, unifying your systems, and working across traditional boundaries, you can build the kind of support that today’s learners deserve and tomorrow’s institutions require.

Student success shouldn’t depend on luck or persistence alone. The most impactful institutions are those that view support not as a service, but as a strategy — one that helps every student reach their full potential.

Let’s talk about how to design smarter student support together.

Innovation Starts Here

Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.
Source link
December 1, 2025
Ways to optimize college for real world experience
“Top Ways To Optimize College Education For

The Real World Work Environment”

There’s a tremendous amount of work—and sustained effort—that goes into guiding a high school student through graduation and into a great college or university. But once they arrive on campus at their dream school, students quickly learn that a whole new set of exciting (and often challenging) expectations awaits them.

One of the most important things we do as advisors is help families optimize their efforts—not just in high school, but throughout the college years as well. Preparing for a successful college experience and a rewarding career takes more than financial planning. It requires strategy, self-awareness, and an understanding of what truly matters over the next four years.

Because here’s the reality: getting into college is a big achievement, but it doesn’t mean much if a student becomes part of the roughly 32% of college freshmen who never complete their bachelor’s degree. And even among those who do graduate, many enter the workforce without the skills, direction, or experiences that make them competitive job candidates.

With this in mind, this month’s newsletter highlights several key steps students can take to make their college years meaningful preparation for life after graduation. Students who use these strategies early and intentionally can avoid the frustration far too many new graduates face—earning a diploma but struggling to find a rewarding job.

After reviewing this month’s newsletter, if you have questions about helping your student prepare for college—and everything that comes after—please reach out. We’re here to support both the academic and the financial pieces of the journey, and our guidance can strengthen your family’s planning for the exciting years ahead.

1) Begin With the End in Mind

Some students start college with a clear career path. Many do not. Both situations are perfectly normal—but students without a firm plan should use the early college years to explore interests, build strong academic habits, and open doors for future opportunities.

A smart first step is front-loading required courses. Knocking out general education classes early gives students more flexibility later—exactly when internships, major coursework, and professional opportunities start to emerge. It also helps them adjust to the academic rigor of college without the added pressure of advanced major-specific classes.

Students who enter college knowing their intended career path can benefit from the same approach. General education courses are unavoidable, but careful planning—often with the help of an advisor—can reveal classes that count toward both major and core requirements. This streamlines the path to graduation and keeps future options wide open.

2) Work With Good Academic Advisors

A good academic advisor is worth their weight in gold. Many colleges assign advisors simply by last name or department availability. While these advisors can help students understand which classes meet which requirements (and that’s important!), they aren’t always the best resource for career-specific guidance.

Most campuses also have specialty advising offices for competitive career tracks like medicine, law, engineering, or business. These advisors understand the nuances of graduate school applications, interviews, and prerequisite planning.

Outside of campus, professionals in a student’s field of interest can offer invaluable real-world insight. A strong advisor—whether found inside or outside the university—helps students understand not just what to study, but why it matters for their long-term goals.

The bottom line: students should actively seek accurate, timely, and career-aligned advice—not just settle for the first advisor they’re assigned.

3) Don’t Ignore the Value of a Minor

Majors get most of the attention, but minors can be incredibly useful. They require fewer courses, yet they still add depth and versatility to a student’s academic profile.

A minor can:
- highlight a secondary area of interest
- demonstrate broader skills
- add practical abilities (like a second language or computer programming)
- naturally emerge from completing certain prerequisites
For example, many pre-med students accidentally complete a chemistry minor simply by taking the courses required for medical school applications.

Minors also look great on résumés. They show commitment, intellectual curiosity, and a willingness to explore beyond the basics.

4) Diversify Your Options

We always encourage students to work hard toward their goals—but to stay open-minded, too. Success rarely follows a straight line. Career paths evolve, interests shift, and opportunities arise in unexpected places.

Students who diversify their plans—by exploring different fields, staying curious, and being open to new experiences—often discover opportunities they never knew existed. Flexibility, paired with ambition, is a powerful combination.

Encourage your student to aim high, stay engaged, and keep their eyes open. College is a time of tremendous discovery, and the students who embrace that mindset often enjoy the most rewarding outcomes.

Until next month,
Source link
December 1, 2025
Is the Federal Trade Commission FOIA program still in operation?

In light of recent developments at the Federal Trade Commission under the current administration — including staffing reductions and a temporary 2025 government shutdown — many observers and researchers are questioning whether the FTC’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) program is still functioning. The answer remains: yes — the FOIA program is still formally operational, but its capacity and responsiveness appear diminished under current conditions.

The FTC continues to administer FOIA through its Office of General Counsel (OGC), which processes all FOIA requests. As of the 2024 fiscal year, the FTC’s FOIA Unit comprised four attorneys, five government-information specialists, and one paralegal, with occasional support from contractors and other staff. In that year, the agency processed 1,919 requests (and 29 appeals), up from 1,812 in 2023. The agency’s publicly available “FOIA Handbook,” last updated in April 2025, continues to outline how requests should be submitted, what records are on the public record, and how exemptions are applied.

The FTC’s website still provides instructions for submitting a FOIA request via its online portal, email, fax, or mail. That means requests remain legally eligible — including those related to for-profit colleges, student loan servicers, institutional behavior, complaints, or decision-making memos.

However, HEI’s own experience in 2025 highlights some of the challenges with the FTC’s current FOIA responsiveness. In January 2025, we submitted a FOIA request asking for a record of complaints against the University of Phoenix. Beyond an automated message, there was no response. In August 2025, we submitted another FOIA request asking for complaints against a company that dealt with student loans; in that case, not even an automated acknowledgment was received. On November 30, 2025, we received an automated response to our FOIA request about AidVantage, a student loan servicer and subsidiary of Maximus. While we did receive a reply, it reflected a stale message stating they would respond after the government reopened — even though the government had reopened on November 13.

These examples illustrate that while FOIA is formally operational, actual responsiveness has deteriorated. For years, HEI had a good relationship with the FTC, obtaining critical information for a number of investigations in a timely manner. It remains to be seen whether that reliability can be restored.

Compounding the issue are broader staffing and operational changes at the FTC. In testimony before Congress in May 2025, FTC Chair Andrew N. Ferguson reported that the agency began FY 2025 with about 1,315 personnel but had reduced to 1,221 full-time staff, with plans to potentially reduce further to around 1,100 — the lowest level in a decade. These staffing reductions coincide with scaled-back discretionary activities, such as rulemaking, public guidance publishing, and outreach. During the October 2025 lapse in government funding, the FTC announced that FOIA requests could still be submitted but would not be processed until appropriations resumed.

For researchers, journalists, and advocates — including those pursuing records related to for-profit colleges, student loan servicers, regulatory decisions, or historical investigations — FOIA remains a legally viable tool. The path is open, though response times are slower, staff resources are constrained, and releases may be more limited, especially for sensitive or exempt material.

Sources

Congressional budget testimony on FTC staffing and budget: https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/118225/witnesses/HHRG-119-AP23-Wstate-FergusonA-20250515.pdf

FTC FOIA Handbook (April 2025): https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/FOIA-Handbook-April-2025.pdf

FTC 2024 Chief FOIA Officer Report (staffing, request volume): https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/chief-foia-officer-report-fy2024.pdf

FTC website instructions for submitting FOIA requests: https://www.ftc.gov/foia/make-foia-request

FTC 2025 shutdown plan showing FOIA processing paused during funding lapse: https://www.ftc.gov/ftc-is-closed

Reporting on FTC removal of business-guidance blogs in 2025: https://www.wired.com/story/federal-trade-commission-removed-blogs-critical-of-ai-amazon-microsoft/

Source link

December 1, 2025
If free speech only matters when convenient, it isn’t free at all

The recent controversies surrounding Charlie Kirk — and the extraordinary reaction that followed his campus appearances and commentary — offer a revealing window into the fragile state of free expression in contemporary America.

Two recent New York Times opinion pieces examining the backlash were right to highlight how quickly public discourse has hardened into a zero-sum contest in which speech itself becomes grounds for professional punishment, social ostracism, and institutional retaliation. But the deeper lesson is even more unsettling: Free speech is increasingly treated not as a constitutional principle, but as a conditional privilege — one that applies only when speech is politically comfortable.

This concern is not confined to the Kirk episode alone.

A mature liberal democracy does not protect speech because it is agreeable. It protects speech precisely because it is controversial.

In recent essays and commentary in the Times, Steven Pinker and Greg Lukianoff have voiced parallel anxieties about the narrowing of permissible speech in American life. Pinker, writing in response to the wave of cancellations following Kirk’s assassination, argued that the public reaction revealed something larger than partisan outrage: It exposed a culture increasingly governed by moral intimidation rather than democratic confidence. He warned that Americans have begun to treat disagreement itself as a form of complicity, a dynamic that pressures institutions to distance themselves from speakers not because of what they say, but because of how others might react.

In Pinker’s telling, this logic shrinks what he calls the “theater of ideas,” replacing open argument with reputational panic, association anxiety, and pre-emptive suppression. When leaders apologize not for their own actions but for the mere fact of conversation, he argued, they signal their inability to withstand the volatility of public outrage — a sign that our intellectual ecosystem is growing narrower, thinner, and more brittle.

Lukianoff’s column makes a complementary point from a different angle. Drawing on years of work at FIRE, he noted how quickly both institutions and individuals abandon their stated commitments to free expression the moment those commitments become uncomfortable. The Kirk episode, he wrote, was simply the latest example of a pattern he has watched unfold across campuses for more than a decade: a willingness to tolerate speech only when it fits within prevailing ideological or cultural fashions.

Lukianoff emphasized that the most troubling aspect is not the criticism of Kirk — criticism is central to free speech — but the eagerness to impose professional penalties, public shaming, or formal censure on anyone associated with him. The principle collapses the instant it is tested. Taken together, Pinker and Lukianoff reveal with unusual clarity that America is drifting toward a model of free expression that survives only when it flatters majority sentiment — a vision entirely at odds with the core purpose of the First Amendment.

In defense of fiery words

In the wake of political violence, calls to criminalize rhetoric are growing louder. But Brandenburg v. Ohio set the bar — and it’s a high one.

Read More

This is not an argument about whether one agrees with Kirk’s public statements. Many do not. Nor is it a defense of every remark, posture, or provocation associated with his political brand. That is beside the point. A mature liberal democracy does not protect speech because it is agreeable. It protects speech precisely because it is controversial — because democracy requires open contestation, not the selective silencing of whatever unsettles the cultural majority.

And yet, across universities, professional settings and online spaces, we have witnessed a familiar pattern repeat itself: organized efforts to deplatform, disrupt, shame, or punish those associated with political positions deemed unacceptable. Speakers are shouted down. Venues are pressured. Faculty and students who express dissenting views risk reputational harm or institutional discipline. Even civil engagement becomes suspect if it involves “the wrong people.”

This reflex is often defended as moral clarity. In reality, it is institutional cowardice.

There is a great irony here. The very individuals and institutions that loudly proclaim their commitment to diversity, inclusion, and pluralism often prove least capable of tolerating genuine intellectual diversity. They champion the language of openness even as they tighten the boundaries of permissible speech. What results is a shallow performance of tolerance that collapses the moment speech becomes genuinely uncomfortable.

Free speech is not a decorative ideal meant for ceremonial brochures or abstract jurisprudence seminars. It is a living civic discipline, and it demands that we cultivate tolerance even — especially — when it offends our sensibilities. That discipline has historically been one of the United States’ most distinguishing features: the belief that robust public debate, rather than enforced consensus, is the engine of democratic resilience.

But today’s culture increasingly treats emotional discomfort as a kind of injury, speech as a form of violence, and dissent as a moral failing. Within that framework, the logic of suppression becomes not only tempting but virtuous: If speech causes harm, then silencing it becomes an act of justice. Once adopted, that logic expands rapidly. Today it is Charlie Kirk. Tomorrow it will be someone else. The principle does not survive the politics.

The Times essays were right to note how the fear of association now extends far beyond extremist rhetoric to include basic engagement. Students who meet with controversial speakers, professors who host debates, and institutions that tolerate ideological diversity all find themselves scrutinized. The mere act of conversation becomes dangerous territory. That should alarm anyone who values the university as a space for intellectual exploration rather than ideological enforcement.

This is not merely a cultural concern. It is institutional. When administrators respond to pressure campaigns by canceling speakers, disciplining faculty, or issuing vague statements about “community harm,” they send a powerful message: Conformity is safer than inquiry. Over time, this breeds self-censorship. Students learn that advancement depends not on argumentation but on alignment. Faculty learn that silence is prudent. The public sphere narrows, not because debate has been resolved, but because people have learned to be afraid.

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, colleges must not burden speaking events

After an assassin cut short a campus speech, colleges must keep in mind that passing security costs to speakers or canceling events under the guise of “safety” hands victory to the heckler’s veto — and invites more violence.

Read More

History tells us where this road leads. Societies that abandon free expression do not become kinder or more just. They become brittle. They lose the capacity for correction. Without dissent, errors calcify into doctrine. Without debate, divisions deepen underground until they erupt elsewhere; often violently.

A healthy society requires a different posture: one that refuses to reward political violence or celebrate rhetorical cruelty, but also refuses to treat speech as a crime. It is possible and necessary to maintain both moral standards and civic tolerance. We can condemn genuinely hateful language without constructing an environment where only preapproved opinions are allowed to exist.

This distinction matters. There is a difference between criticism and coercion, between moral disagreement and institutional suppression. The first is essential to democratic life. The second corrodes it.

The American tradition of free speech was never intended to be easy. It was built to withstand tension, disagreement, even anger. It requires a certain moral maturity — the ability to hear something one detests without immediately seeking to destroy the speaker. That maturity is thinning. And institutional leadership has not helped. Rather than modeling resilience and restraint, too many leaders respond to every controversy with ritualized apologies and performative distancing.

This, in turn, reinforces a culture in which power flows not through argument but through outrage. The loudest voices do not persuade; they intimidate. The most extreme reactions set the rules. The center retreats.

Defending free speech in this environment is not a partisan exercise; it is a civic one. Conservatives should care when progressive speech is suppressed. Progressives should care when conservative speech is silenced. And all citizens should recognize that the erosion of expressive freedom is rarely symmetrical or stable. It expands. It metastasizes. It eventually reaches those who once applauded it.

If free speech only survives during moments of convenience, it’s not really free.

Supporting the right to speak does not mean endorsing what is said. It means believing that a free society is strong enough to withstand unpopular ideas without resorting to coercion. It means valuing persuasion over prohibition. It means recognizing that democracy requires friction.

Charlie Kirk may be a lightning rod, but the underlying issue is larger than any one figure. The question is whether we still believe in a public square robust enough to sustain disagreement. Whether our institutions still trust citizens to confront ideas rather than suppress them. Whether discomfort is something to be navigated or eliminated.

If free speech only survives during moments of convenience, it’s not really free. It is permission masquerading as principle. And permission always has an expiration date.

What this moment demands is not perfect harmony but civic courage: the willingness to say that speech should be protected even when we dislike the speaker, that debate should remain open even when it unsettles us, and that the strength of a liberal society lies not in silencing dissent but in enduring it.

That endurance is not weakness. It is democracy.

Source link

December 1, 2025
Dishing out healthy food options kids will eat

In New York City, a surprising culinary shift is happening where few expect it: inside city agencies that serve up to 219 million meals and snacks a year. From hospitals to shelters, New York is quietly leading a global experiment to reshape the diets of millions, not by persuasion but through policy.

Food is sitting at the crossroads of two global crises: chronic disease and climate change. The World Health Organization estimates that in 2017, 11 million deaths were attributable to unhealthy diets that were high in processed meat, sodium and added sugar and low in fruits, vegetables and whole grains.

Climate change, in addition to the consequences of extreme weather events, makes existing challenges worse on communities, environments and systems that sustain life.

More than half of the world’s population lives in urban areas, where 70% of global CO2 emissions are generated from transport, buildings and energy use. According to a report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, roughly 1.7 billion people living in cities and areas around them face food insecurity, making cities the new frontline in the fight against malnutrition.

The report calls on governments to use public budgets to buy and serve healthier food, prioritize buying from local, agroecological and small-scale farmers and integrate food planning into urban policies on health, transport, housing and waste.

We are what we eat.

According to the United Nations Environment Programme, how people live — what they eat, how they move and what goods they consume — matters just as much as what governments do. Some governments, like New York’s, are turning sustainable living from a personal choice into a shared system: using their purchasing power to serve millions of plant-forward meals that put vegetables, legumes and grains at the center of the plate across public institutions, and coupling procurement with education and food policy to make diets a driver of both health and sustainability.

This makes these cities critical testing grounds for climate solutions, where policies that reshape diets toward more plant-rich, low-carbon meals can contribute directly to urban emissions reduction while improving health.

Since signing the C40 Good Food Cities Declaration in 2019, mayors across the world have pledged to make healthy and sustainable eating the norm by buying food aligned with the Planetary Health Diet, which promotes serving more plant-based meals, cutting food waste by half and working across communities, businesses and institutions to integrate these goals into their climate action plans.

New York is not alone. In Copenhagen, kitchen staff across more than 500 public kitchens are being trained to prepare nutritious, organic and climate-friendly meals as the city works toward its goal of making 90% of its food organic. In Quezon City in the Philippines, a partnership with Scholars of Sustenance, a nonprofit environmental organization tackling food waste, helped recover and distribute surplus food, providing roughly 22,000 meals for people in need within the first four months of the program. Across the world, cities are rethinking how the meals served through public programs can nourish both people and the planet.

In 2021, New York launched an ambitious 10-year plan with five goals: to support food businesses and strengthen protections for food workers; to modernize supply chains; to provide food that is produced, distributed and disposed of sustainably; to promote community engagement and cross-sector co-ordination; and to improve the nutrition and food security of New Yorkers.

Building health into a food system

The city’s updated Food Standards go further: They ban processed meats and deep frying, require two or more servings a week at lunch and dinner to feature plant proteins and limit beef and other meats, such as lamb and mutton, to a maximum of two servings a week at facilities serving three meals a day. These standards touch nearly every corner of city life; they guide what’s served in schools, hospitals, homeless shelters, correctional facilities and senior centers, which adds up to 219 million meals and snacks each year.

New York challenges the idea that sustainable diets are solely individual choices, reframing them as civic responsibility.

“Food standards are the reinforcement piece for our departments and agencies to align with those values,” said Ora Kemp, senior policy adviser in the Office of the Mayor of New York City. “So those get developed with a very clear and distinct goal of being able to promote, protect and preserve the health of those that we serve through our food service, while simultaneously ensuring that the food is delicious and is culturally representative of the people that we serve.”

Transparency is also a central tool in this transformation. The Good Food Purchasing initiative, established in 2022, requires vendors to share data, such as the origin of the food and meals the city buys.

The lesson of the city’s policies for the public’s health is simple: People embrace change when it still feels like home.

“We have a policy that if 20% of the population is of any religious or ethnic group, then we need to make sure that food is provided for that group,” says Lorraine Cortés-Vásquez, commissioner of the New York City Department for the Aging. “It is very important for us that we manage the requirements, but also look at demand, interest and palate, because we want to respect culture and respect traditions, but we also want people to consume the food.”

Sustainable food choices

In a citywide Cook-Off hosted by the Department for the Aging, chefs came together to demonstrate the flavor, creativity and nutrition of plant-based food, while also bringing the community together.

“Most older adults want to live in the community, in the communities that they build,” Cortés-Vásquez said. “They’re an asset, they bring revenue.”

Kemp said that plant-based menu options are also a low-effort way to encourage sustainable food choices.

“It’s not just the first and not just the second [exposure], but we offer the plant-based default multiple times throughout someone’s stay within any of our health and hospital systems in an attempt to encourage them to choose healthier diets,” Kemp said.

Preliminary data from New York City Health and Hospitals demonstrate that the shift is clear: 90% of patients who received plant-based meals report satisfaction.

Nicole Bonica, deputy director of menu management at the Office of Food and Nutrition Services for New York City Public Schools, says success depends on building a menu that students also like and that they feel will benefit them. This can be tricky. “Older students, they have preferences,” Bonica said. “Girls may not want to eat so many calories, because they’re watching themselves, whereas the boys actually want more protein items, maybe because they’re in more athletics.”

The success of Plant-Powered Fridays, where school cafeterias feature a plant-based dish as the primary menu item, has led to additional offerings of plant-powered meals throughout the week in schools. Rich in vitamins, minerals, fiber and protein, these meals must align with both New York City Food Standards and U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

While this experiment is still unfolding, city governments may offer the most hopeful ingredient of all: changing what a city eats can change what a city stands for. In kitchens that once served convenience, chefs now serve climate action, health and dignity on the same plate. If New York can make sustainability taste good, perhaps the rest of the world can too.

Questions to consider:

1. How is food connected to climate change?

2. What is one thing New York City is doing to get young people to eat healthier?

3. Can you think of ways you could change your diet to make it healthier?

Source link

December 1, 2025
Gender governance and the global grammar of illiberal inclusion

by Ourania Filippakou

Across global higher education, the terms of justice, equality and inclusion are being rewritten. In recent years, the rollback of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the United States (Spitalniak, 2025) has unfolded alongside a global resurgence of anti-gender, ultra-nationalist, racialised and colonial politics (Brechenmacher, 2025). At the same time, the rise of authoritarian and far-right ideologies, together with deepening socioeconomic inequalities fuelled by an ascendant billionaire class (Klein and Taylor, 2025) and the growing portrayal of feminist and queer scholarship as ideological extremism (Pitts-Taylor and Wood, 2025), signal a profound shift in the rationalities shaping the politics of higher education. These developments do not reject inclusion; they refashion it. Equality becomes excess, dissent is recast as disorder, and inclusion is reconstituted as a technology of governance.

This conjuncture, what Stuart Hall (Hall in Hall and Massey, 2010, p57) would call the alignment of economic, political and cultural forces, requires a vocabulary capable of capturing continuity and rupture. It also reflects the deepening crisis of neoliberalism, whose governing logics become more coercive as their legitimacy wanes (Beckert, 2025; Menand, 2023). As Hall reminds us, ‘a conjuncture is a period when different social, political, economic and ideological contradictions… or as Althusser said ‘fuse in a ruptural unity’’ (Hall in Hall and Massey, 2012, p57). A conjuncture, in this sense, does not resolve crisis but produces new configurations of ideological coherence and institutional control. In my recent article, ‘Managed Inclusion and the Politics of Erasure: Gender Governance in Higher Education under Neoliberal Authoritarianism’ (Review of Education, Pedagogy & Cultural Studies, 2025), I theorise these developments as a global grammar of illiberal inclusion: a political rationality that appropriates the language of equity while disabling its redistributive, democratic and epistemic force. The article develops a typology of symbolic, technocratic and transformative inclusion to examine how feminist, anti-caste and critical vocabularies are increasingly absorbed into systems of civility, visibility and procedural control. Transformative inclusion, the configuration most aligned with redistribution, dissent and epistemic plurality, is the one most forcefully neutralised.

Across geopolitical contexts, from postcolonial states to liberal democracies, gender inclusion is increasingly appropriated not as a demand for justice but as a mechanism of control. The techniques of co-option vary, yet they consolidate into a shared political rationality in which equity is stripped of redistributive force and redeployed to affirm institutional legitimacy, nationalist virtue and market competitiveness. This is not a rupture with neoliberal governance but its intensification through more disciplinary and exclusionary forms. For example, in India, the National Education Policy 2020 invokes empowerment while enacting epistemic erasure, systematically marginalising the knowledges of women from subordinated caste, class and religious communities (Peerzada et al, 2024; Patil, 2023; Singh, 2023). At the same time, state-led campaigns such as Beti Bachao elevate women’s visibility only within ideals of modesty and nationalist virtue (Chhachhi, 2020). In Hungary, the 2018 ban on gender studies aligned higher education with labour-market imperatives and nationalist agendas (Barát, 2022; Zsubori, 2018). In Turkey, reforms under Erdoğan consolidate patriarchal norms while constraining feminist organising (Zihnioğlu and Kourou, 2025). Here, gender inclusion is tolerated only when it reinforces state agendas and restricts dissent.

Elsewhere, inclusion is recast as ideological deviance. In the United States, the Trump-era rollback of DEI initiatives and reproductive rights has weaponised inclusion as a spectre of radicalism, disproportionately targeting racialised and LGBTQ+ communities (Amnesty International, 2024; Chao-Fong, 2025). In Argentina, Milei abolished the Ministry of Women, describing feminism as fiscally irresponsible (James, 2024). In Italy, Meloni’s government invokes ‘traditional values’ to erode anti-discrimination frameworks (De Giorgi et al, 2023, p.v11i1.6042). In these cases, inclusion is not merely neutralised but actively vilified, its political charge reframed as cultural threat.

Even when inclusion is celebrated, it is tethered to respectability and moral legibility. In France, femonationalist discourses instrumentalise gender equality to legitimise anti-Muslim policy (Farris, 2012; Möser, 2022). In Greece, conservative statecraft reframes inclusion through familialist narratives while dismantling equality infrastructures (Bempeza, 2025). These patterns reflect a longer political repertoire in which authoritarian and ultra-nationalist projects mobilise idealised domestic femininity to naturalise social hierarchies. As historian Diana Garvin (Garvin quoted in Matei, 2025) notes, ‘what fascisms old and new have in common is they tend to look to women to fill in the gaps that the state misses’, with contemporary ‘womanosphere’ influencers in the US reviving fantasies of domestic bliss that obscure intensified gendered precarity (Matei, 2025).

Such gendered constructions coexist with escalating violence. More than 50.000 women and girls were killed by intimate partners or family members in 2024, which means one woman or girl was killed every ten minutes, or 137 every day, according to the latest UNODC and UN Women femicide report (UNODC/UN Women, 2025). This sits within a wider continuum of harm: 83.000 women and girls were intentionally killed last year, and the report finds no sign of real progress. It also highlights a steep rise in digital violence, including harassment, stalking, gendered disinformation and deepfakes, which increasingly spills into offline contexts and contributes to more lethal forms of harm. These global patterns intersect with regional crises. For example, more than 7.000 women were killed in India in gender-related violence in 2022 (NCRB, 2023); eleven women are murdered daily in femicides across Latin America (NU CEPAL, 2024). At the same time, masculinist influencers such as Andrew Tate cultivate transnational publics organised around misogyny (Adams, 2025; Wescott et al, 2024). As UN Secretary-General António Guterres (2025) warns: ‘Instead of mainstreaming equal rights, we are seeing the mainstreaming of misogyny’.

These global pressures reverberate across institutions that have historically positioned themselves as democratic spaces, including universities, which increasingly recast gender equity as a reputational risk or cultural flashpoint rather than a democratic obligation (D’Angelo et al, 2024; McEwen and Narayanaswamy, 2023). Equity becomes an emblem of modernity to be audited, displayed and curated, rather than a demand for justice. Ahmed’s (2012) theorisation of non-performativity is essential here: institutions declare commitments to equality precisely to contain the transformations such commitments would require. In this context, symbolic and technocratic inclusion flourish, while the structural conditions for transformative inclusion continue to narrow.

These shifts reflect broader political and economic formations. Brown (2015) shows how neoliberal reason converts justice claims into performance demands, hollowing out democratic vocabularies. Fraser’s (2017) account of ‘progressive neoliberalism’ illuminates the terrain in which market liberalism coupled with selective diversity politics absorbs emancipatory discourse while preserving inequality. Patnaik (2021) argues that the rise of neofascism is a political necessity for neoliberalism in crisis, as rights are redefined as privileges and inclusion is repurposed to stabilise inequality. In this conjuncture, these tendencies intensify into what Giroux (2018, 2021, 2022a) names ‘neoliberal fascism’, a formation structured by three interlocking fundamentalisms: a market fundamentalism that commodifies all aspects of life, a religious fundamentalism that moralises inequality; and a regime of manufactured ignorance and militarised illiteracy that discredits critical thought and erases historical memory (Giroux 2022b, p48-54).

The United States now offers a further manifestation of this global pattern, illustrating how attacks on DEI can function as a broader assault on higher education. As recent analyses of US politics show, the first and particularly the second Trump administration is actively modelling itself on Viktor Orbán’s illiberal statecraft, centralising executive power, purging public institutions and mobilising ‘family values’ and anti-‘woke’ politics to reshape education and media governance (Giroux, 2017; Smith, 2025; Kauffmann, 2025). The dismantling of DEI under the Trump administration, framed as a defence of merit, free speech and fiscal responsibility (The White House, 2025), marks the beginning of a wider attempt to consolidate political influence over higher education. Executive orders targeting DEI have been followed by lawsuits, funding withdrawals and intensified federal scrutiny, prompting universities such as Michigan, Columbia and Chicago to scale back equality infrastructures, cut programmes and reduce humanities provision (cf Bleiler, 2025; Pickering, Cosgrove and Massel, 2025; Quinn, 2025). These developments do not simply eliminate DEI; they position anti-gender politics as a mechanism of disciplining universities, narrowing intellectual autonomy and extending political control over academic life. They exemplify wider global tendencies in which inclusion becomes a field through which illiberal projects consolidate authority. The assault on DEI is thus not a uniquely American phenomenon but part of a broader authoritarian turn in which inclusion is recoded to stabilise, rather than challenge, existing power.

Understanding gender governance in higher education through this conjunctural lens reveals not merely the erosion of equity but the emergence of a political formation that reconfigures inclusion into an apparatus of civility, visibility and administrative control. These tendencies are not aberrations but expressions of a larger global grammar that binds emancipatory rhetoric to authoritarian-neoliberal governance. The result is not the dilution of equality but its rearrangement as a practice of containment.

The implications for the sector are profound. If inclusion is increasingly reorganised through metrics, decorum and procedural compliance, then reclaiming its democratic potential requires an epistemic and institutional shift. Inclusion needs to be understood not as a reputational asset but as a commitment to justice, redistribution and collective struggle. This means recovering equality as political and pedagogical labour: the work of confronting injustice, protecting dissent and renewing the public imagination. Academic freedom and equality are inseparable: without equality, freedom becomes privilege; without freedom, equality becomes performance.

As Angela Davis (Davis quoted in Gerges, 2023) reminds us: ‘Diversity without structural transformation simply brings those who were previously excluded into a system as racist and misogynist as it was before… There can be no diversity and inclusion without transformation and justice.’ And as Henry Giroux (2025) argues, democracy depends on how societies fight over language, memory and possibility. That struggle now runs through the university itself, shaping its governance, its epistemic life and the courage to imagine more just and democratic possibilities.

Ourania Filippakou is a Professor of Education at Brunel University of London. Her research interrogates the politics of higher education, examining universities as contested spaces where power, inequality, and resistance intersect. Rooted in critical traditions, she explores how higher education can foster social justice, equity, and transformative change.

Like this:

Like Loading…

Categories: Leadership Governance & Management | Tags: conjuncture, DEI, diversity, EDI, equality, feminist, gender, governance, inclusion, liberal, neoliberal, neoliberalism and higher education, social justice, technology | Permalink.

Author: SRHE News Blog

An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

Source link

December 1, 2025