Blog

  • Smarter Student Support: Designing Connected Ecosystems That Drive Equity and Completion

    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

  • Ways to optimize college for real world experience

    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

  • Is the Federal Trade Commission FOIA program still in operation?

    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

  • If free speech only matters when convenient, it isn’t free at all

    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

  • Dishing out healthy food options kids will eat

    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

  • Gender governance and the global grammar of illiberal inclusion

    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.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

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

    Source link

  • Scaling structured literacy with implementation science

    Scaling structured literacy with implementation science

    When districts adopt evidence-based practices like Structured Literacy, it’s often with a surge of excitement and momentum. Yet the real challenge lies not in the initial adoption, but in sustaining and scaling these practices to create lasting instructional change. That’s the point at which implementation science enters the picture. It offers a practical, research-backed framework to help district leaders move from one-time initiatives to systemwide transformation.

    Defining the “how” of implementation

    Implementation science is the study of methods and strategies that support the systematic uptake of evidence-based practices. In the context of literacy, it provides a roadmap for translating the science of reading, based on decades of cognitive research, into day-to-day instructional routines.

    Without this roadmap, even the most well-intentioned literacy reforms struggle to take root. Strong ideas alone are not enough; educators need clear structures, ongoing support, and the ability to adapt while maintaining fidelity to the research. Implementation science brings order to change management and helps schools move from isolated professional learning sessions to sustainable, embedded practices.

    Common missteps and how to avoid them

    One of the most common misconceptions among school systems is that simply purchasing high-quality instructional materials or delivering gold-standard professional learning, like Lexia LETRS, is enough. While these are essential components, they’re only part of the equation. What’s often missing is a focus on aligned leadership, strategic coaching, data-informed decisions, and systemwide coordination.

    Another frequent misstep is viewing Structured Literacy as a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach. In reality, it is a set of adaptable practices rooted in the foundational elements of reading: Phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Effective implementation requires both structure and flexibility, guided by tools like the Active Implementation Formula or NIRN’s Hexagon Tool.

    District leaders must also rethink their approach to leadership. Instructional change doesn’t happen in a vacuum or stay confined to the classroom. Leaders at every level–from building principals to regional directors–need to be equipped not just as managers, but as implementation champions.

    Overcoming initiative fatigue

    Initiative fatigue is real. Educators are weary of the pendulum swings that often characterize educational reform. What’s new today may feel like a rebranded version of yesterday’s trend. Implementation science helps mitigate this fatigue by building clear, supportive structures that promote consistency over time.

    Fragmented professional learning is another barrier. Educators need more than one-off workshops–they need coherent, job-embedded coaching and opportunities to reflect, revise, and grow. Coaching plays a pivotal role here. It serves as the bridge between theory and practice, offering modeling, feedback, and emotional support that help educators build confidence and capacity.

    Building sustainable systems

    Sustainability starts with readiness. Before launching a Structured Literacy initiative, district leaders should assess their systems. Do they have the right people, processes, and tools in place? Have they clearly defined roles and responsibilities for everyone involved, from classroom teachers to district office staff?

    Implementation teams are essential. These cross-functional groups help drive the work forward, break down silos, and ensure alignment across departments. Successful districts also make implementation part of their onboarding process, so new staff are immersed in the district’s instructional vision from day one.

    Flexibility is important, too. No two schools or communities are the same. A rural elementary school might need different pacing or grouping strategies than a large urban middle school. Implementation science supports this kind of contextual adaptation without compromising core instructional principles.

    Measuring progress beyond test scores

    While student outcomes are the ultimate goal, they’re not the only metric that matters. Districts should also track implementation fidelity, educator engagement, and coaching effectiveness. Are teachers confident in delivering instruction? Are they seeing shifts in their students’ engagement and performance? Are systems in place to sustain these changes even when staff turnover occurs?

    Dashboards, coaching logs, survey tools, and walkthroughs can all help paint a clearer picture. These tools also help identify bottlenecks and areas in need of adjustment, fostering a culture of continuous improvement.

    Equity at the center

    Implementation science also ensures that Structured Literacy practices are delivered equitably. This means all students, regardless of language, ability, or zip code, receive high-quality, evidence-based instruction.

    For multilingual learners, this includes embedding explicit vocabulary instruction, oral language development, and culturally responsive scaffolding. For students with disabilities, Structured Literacy provides a clear and accessible pathway that often improves outcomes significantly. The key is to start with universal design principles and build from there, customizing without compromising.

    The role of leadership

    Finally, none of this is possible without strong leadership. Implementation must be treated as a leadership competency, not a technical task to be delegated. Leaders must shield initiatives from political noise, articulate a long-term vision, and foster psychological safety so that staff can try, fail, learn, and grow.

    As we’ve seen in states like Mississippi and South Carolina, real gains come from enduring efforts, not quick fixes. Implementation science helps district leaders make that shift–from momentum to endurance, from isolated success to systemic change.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : Security Threats: Groypers on Campus

    Higher Education Inquirer : Security Threats: Groypers on Campus

    1. Transitional Vulnerability

    First-year students often experience isolation, uncertainty, and identity formation. Groypers prey on this transitional moment by offering belonging, brotherhood, and contrarian confidence.

    2. Political Vacuum
    As universities retreat from serious civic education and as student affairs offices shrink under austerity, space opens for fringe networks to fill the ideological void.

    3. Online Radicalization Pipelines
    Groypers thrive in places like:

    Discord
    Telegram
    X/Twitter
    anonymous forums
    niche livestream communities

    Campus life becomes an extension of these networks, where online provocations evolve into real-world harassment or orchestrated spectacle.

    4. Conservative Student Groups as Entry Points
    Mainstream Republican or “free speech” groups are often targeted for infiltration. Groypers show up:
    to push Q&A sessions into racist or antisemitic talking points,
    to pressure student Republicans to shift further right,
    to create rifts between libertarian, traditional conservative, and MAGA factions.

    The strategy is division, not dialogue.

    Common Groyper Tactics on Campus
    1. Ambush Questioning
    At public lectures or campus Republican events, Groypers coordinate to dominate Q&A sessions, posing racially charged or conspiratorial questions designed to go viral.

    2. Online Harassment and Dogpiling
    Students—often women, LGBTQ+ students, or activists—find themselves targeted with:

    brigade attacks,
    doxxing attempts,
    edited clips taken out of context,
    swarm-like intimidation.

    3. Misery Farming
    Groypers intentionally provoke negative reactions to harvest “proof” that campuses are hostile to conservatives. This content is then fed into national media pipelines.

    4. Grooming and Recruitment
    They seek out students who feel:
    lonely
    unsupported
    resentful
    ideologically adrift
    economically anxious

    A mix of dark humor, contrarian bravado, and “insider knowledge” becomes the grooming pathway.

    The Institutional Problem: Campuses Are Not Prepared
    Universities often misread these actors as:
    “just trolls,”
    “rowdy conservatives,”
    “free speech activists.”

    They’re not.

    Groypers are engaged in ideological recruitment and targeted harassment that can escalate into threats, coordinated disruption, and offline violence. Yet institutions remain slow to respond because:
    they lack digital literacy,
    they fear backlash from right-wing media,
    they outsource security and student affairs to PR firms,
    administrators underestimate decentralized extremist networks.

    Faculty—especially contingent or early-career academics—often feel unsupported or intimidated.

    How Groypers Fit into the Larger Campus Crisis
    The Groypers’ rise exposes deeper fractures:
    neoliberal hollowing of the university
    growing distrust in democratic institutions
    political polarization fueled by billionaire-backed media
    the decline of genuine civic education
    surveillance capitalism and algorithmic radicalization

    Campuses have become battlegrounds—not by accident, but because they sit at the intersection of youth, identity, technology, and national politics.

    What Higher Education Must Do Now
    Universities need to respond with clarity, not panic, and with structural solutions, not symbolic statements.

    1. Treat Digital Extremism as Part of Student Safety
    This means training staff, hiring specialists, and supporting targets of online harassment.

    2. Reinvest in Human Infrastructure
    Student Affairs, counseling centers, and campus journalism must be strengthened—not cut or replaced with outsourcing contracts.

    3. Support Independent Investigative Student Journalism
    Student reporters are often the first to detect radicalization trends—but only if their newsrooms are funded and protected.

    4. Protect Academic Freedom Without Ceding Ground to Harassment
    “Free speech” cannot be a shield for sustained intimidation campaigns.

    5. Strengthen Civic Education Rooted in Truth and Inclusion
    The real antidote to extremism is not censorship—it’s meaningful democratic literacy.

    Seeing the Threat Clearly
    Groypers are not the dominant force on campus. Most students reject their worldview. But they are a growing presence within a broader crisis where U.S. higher education lacks the stability, funding, and courage to defend its mission.

    The real danger is not the meme or the mascot—it’s the vacuum that allows extremist networks to flourish.

    The Higher Education Inquirer will continue monitoring this issue as the 2026 and 2028 election cycles approach, when radical groups often intensify campus recruitment and provocation.

    Source link

  • Northeastern Technical College Fires President

    Northeastern Technical College Fires President

    Northeast Technical College fired its president last week, reversing course on a resignation agreement accepted by the board just two weeks earlier that would have reportedly kept him in the job until June.

    Kyle Wagner, president of the public college in South Carolina since 2016, submitted his resignation Nov. 11 and then went on medical leave, according to Queen City News. But two weeks later, NETC’s governing board rescinded the agreement and fired the longtime president with little explanation, the local news outlet reported. The decision was effective immediately.

    The board also voted to immediately begin a search for the college’s next president.

    Wagner’s firing comes after a tumultuous year for the college and the president. Last December, Northeastern Technical College was sanctioned by its accreditor, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, for compliance concerns that included not employing adequate numbers of full-time faculty members, among other issues cited in a report.

    That same month, the South Carolina Office of the State Inspector General determined that Northeastern Tech had placed some high school students in a dual-enrollment program in additional classes, unbeknownst to them, which resulted in unexpected bills from the college.

    College employees, including Wagner, benefited financially from the mistake, according to the OIG’s office.

    “NETC failed one or more invisible students, transforming them, via a flawed fast track scheme, into ghost students—haunting the reliability of NETC’s enrollment numbers. Inflated enrollment numbers provided additional funding to NETC which served select faculty and staff justifying salary increases and/or bonuses,” Inspector General Brian Lamkin wrote in his report. “Due to the inadequacies of NETC staff, some students were left with grade discrepancies, issues with financial aid eligibility at future institutions, and unreconciled student account balances.”

    Local politicians called for Wagner to resign late last year, citing the accreditation and dual-enrollment issues. Despite lawmakers’ concerns, then–board chairman Dan Bozard said in January that they backed Wagner “without reservation.” But some 11 months later, that support has evidently diminished.

    Contacted by LinkedIn, Wagner did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed. College officials also did not respond to a media inquiry about Wagner’s reported firing.

    Source link

  • Associate Provost on Coordinated Attack on Academic Freedom

    Associate Provost on Coordinated Attack on Academic Freedom

    Valerie Johnson has watched—and fought against—political attacks on academic freedom for years. A political scientist and associate provost of diversity, equity and inclusion at the Catholic DePaul University, Johnson understands well the political incentives for conservatives to bring universities to heel.

    This year brought an avalanche of new and continuing attacks on what professors can teach, speak about and research at American colleges and universities, led by the Trump administration and exacerbated in states like Florida and Texas, where Johnson describes these changes as swift and effective.

    Together with co-authors and editors Jennifer Ruth, a film professor at Portland State University, and Ellen Schrecker, a professor emerita of American history at Yeshiva University, Johnson wrote The Right to Learn: Resisting the Right-Wing Attack on Academic Freedom (Beacon Press, 2024). In October, the book was granted the American Association of Colleges and Universities’ Frederic W. Ness Book Award, an annual honor that highlights the “book that best illuminates the goals and practices of a contemporary liberal education.”

    Johnson spoke with Inside Higher Ed over Zoom about the impetus for the book and how she interprets the escalating attack on academic freedom today.

    The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

    Q: What prompted you to write this book? Was there a specific moment when the scope of this campaign against academic freedom that you describe became unmistakable for you?

    A: Yes, it was the summer of 2021. A friend of mine was working with the African American Policy Forum, and they wanted to sound the alert that we were seeing a rollback of rights. And so they had asked Jennifer Ruth, my co-author and co-editor of the book, to work on what they called the Faculty Senate campaign. Twenty twenty was a momentous year. We began to see gag orders about what could be taught. So Jennifer and I … wanted to alert all faculty senates across the United States that we were seeing this erosion of academic freedom and that they should pay attention. We asked them to write resolutions asking their administrations to reaffirm academic freedom.

    Q: How have faculty senates or governing bodies adapted—or failed to adapt—to the current legislative landscape?

    A: Well, I would like to say I’ve seen quite a bit of resistance, but unfortunately people have a way of conceding when their livelihoods are at stake. And how you answer that question is also determined by where you are in the country. If you’re in a red state—like Florida, like Texas—where there are prohibitions like, “Hey, you cannot teach on this, this, this and this,” then either you stay there and withstand some degree of punishment, or you leave. A lot of faculty are leaving red states for bluer states.

    It’s actually been very surprising to me. This period in American history has really caused me to rethink what I originally believed about human nature. It is very surprising how cowardly people are … I am a political scientist by training, and I [know] only about 4 to 5 percent of people will protest anything. And we have seen various rallies, protests, etc., but it hasn’t been as engaging as I would like to see.

    Q: One of the things that the book addresses is that efforts on the right to degrade academic freedom are strategic rather than reactive. What evidence convinced you that this was an organized, long-term project?

    A: There’s always been attempts to erase history. Frederick Douglass said a long time ago that America is false to its past. It’s false to its present, and it resigns itself to be false to the future.

    America has always created a story that it is something it is not, and I think the values that we have are largely aspirational. When universities talk about their mission statements, they’re not saying it’s [complete], they are saying, “This is who we’d like to be.” There has always been a concerted effort to blame the victim when it comes to people who have marginalized identities and to ensure that, largely, their stories are not told. And so through education, if you could limit discussions of race and social equality, then people aren’t thinking about it. They’re not thinking about passing legislation that pursues those goals. And you could make people believe that, “Hey, all the problems of the past have been resolved,” when, in fact, if you look empirically, they haven’t.

    Q: When you were doing your research, were there any state-level policies or actors that really surprised you, either in their influence or how quickly they spread?

    A: Yeah, I would say Florida and Texas. It was very quick. [Governor Ron] DeSantis definitely took over the university system very quickly [with] Don’t Say Gay and Anti-Woke. I mean, it’s amazing, but it’s an easy setup. For the average citizen, it’s a part of the culture wars where they see LGBTQIA rights, for example, or women’s rights, and they’re alarmed by them … It is “me against them,” and particularly in red states and the Bible Belt, it has been a pretty easy sell to the citizenry because it aligns with some of their well-cherished values, but it doesn’t promote human rights. It doesn’t promote a country or a world where people are seen not by any sort of cultural or identity markers, but by their membership in the human race.

    Q: Are there any aspects of the current debate that you think are most misunderstood, either by the media or the public or folks in higher ed?

    A: Yes, I think there are a couple of things that are really misunderstood. One is structural inequality, or when you look at, for example, inequality by race. I think most people think that the civil rights movement resolved any social economic inequality when, in fact, it did not. I always use the metaphor of a Monopoly game gone wrong—just because you change the policy doesn’t mean you change the conditions. So let’s say you and I are playing a game of Monopoly, and halfway through the game, I realize you’ve been cheating all along. So I call you out on it, and your response to that is, “OK, let’s change the policy. No more cheating.” And then you say, “Let’s resume the game.” The problem with that is you have already amassed the red hotels, the green houses. Generation by generation, those people who benefited from slavery or land appropriation of the Native Americans and Mexicans, or Jim Crow and residential segregation, that’s a cumulative advantage. For those people who were disadvantaged, there’s a cumulative disadvantage that moves forward from generation to generation. Existing racial inequality—I don’t think people actually understand it. They saw shows like The Cosby Show, and they are like, “Oh, wow, all people from minoritized backgrounds, they’ve made it.” In fact, it’s really a myth.

    To that extent, if you say that you want to provide opportunities that create inclusion on college campuses, they’re looking at that like, “Well, wait a minute. They’ve made it. So this is unfair to me.” Then you have this disdain for DEI. Of course, for people between the ages of zero and 18 in America, the majority of them are nonwhite. So every single year, campus enrollment is becoming less white … and American universities and colleges that are going to have to depend on American students for their enrollment will increasingly have to court and recruit students who are nonwhite because of the demographic shift.

    Q: How should universities communicate with the public about academic freedom without reinforcing the right wing framing that expertise equals elitism?

    A: One thing that is constantly on my mind is: How do you talk about something as heavy as academic freedom? In a way, I wish we would have retitled the book something like “The Right to Learn: Resisting the Attack on What You Can Learn,” or something like that. When you put “academic freedom,” people ask, what is academic freedom? People know about free speech, but people don’t know about academic freedom. That is why you have an increasing number of students who come to college campuses believing that they should get a tailor-made curriculum.

    So, what can universities do? I believe in community education. I love it when community groups and politicians ask me to come and speak to regular community folk. We have to see our enterprise as not only teaching in the university, but outside of the university, and that could be done with op-ed pieces or just going where people are—churches, community institutions … I think that’s the only way it’s going to happen. We have to get out of the ivory tower.

    Source link