Hiring and job searching are difficult in many industries, but among the most challenging is healthcare.
Healthcare jobs are specialized, and they generally tend to be highly competitive to get. Plus, salaries aren’t always listed, and some jobs posted may be fake. What’s more, most healthcare professionals are already working demanding roles so their time to search for a new job is limited.
Sheldon Arora saw a need — and the potential — for a better way to connect healthcare job seekers with employers.
That’s why Arora designed StaffDNAⓇ, a mobile app that helps facilitate filling healthcare roles, benefitting employers and job seekers alike.
Arora, the CEO of StaffDNA, realized early in his career that hiring was an inefficient process. As a tech entrepreneur, he started companies that helped solve the most challenging aspects of matching employees with the right role at the right time. The industry he noticed had the most inefficient hiring process and could benefit the most from the right technology was healthcare.
“We were looking for ways to make the hiring process in healthcare more efficient for a long time,” Arora said. “We saw that facilities needed on-demand access to healthcare professionals, and healthcare professionals needed more options and transparency in their job searches.”
The resource combines a self-service app with a search platform for various needs for healthcare in all professions, specialties, job types, and settings.
“We built a platform where job seekers and facility hiring managers could connect in real time, and we removed many layers and obstacles that stood in the way of connecting people looking to find the jobs they loved. We knew we wanted to improve the entire process, so we did just that,” said Arora, who launched the app about one month before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, when healthcare jobs were needed most. Downloads skyrocketed.
How it works
“The StaffDNA marketplace is the only platform where all stakeholders in the hiring process, including hospitals, vendors, suppliers, and job seekers, can come together to address the healthcare staffing issue once and for all,” said Arora, adding that candidates can search, apply, and get hired all within the StaffDNA app. “We’re tying together all the participants in healthcare hiring and giving them the platform they need to efficiently get people hired in the right roles.”
In the StaffDNA app, all jobs, specialties, and locations, as well as job descriptions and compensation, are shown up front. “Everything they need can be found directly in the app, from employment in their area to facility details, and even the color of scrubs they’ll need to wear,” Arora noted. “We also give candidates the ability to customize pay packages based on housing and benefit needs so they can have a better idea of what their take-home pay will be.”
Helpful features
Two new features of the StaffDNA app — DNAVault™ and DNAInsights™ — make the app even more beneficial for job seekers and hiring professionals.
DNAVault allows anyone — job seekers, students, or professionals in any industry — to securely store sensitive documents, including licenses and credentials. The app makes it easy and convenient to keep these materials safely in one place, and applicants can send these items directly to their employer, school, or anyone through DNAVault’s secure online storage. DNAVault will also notify users when their documents are about to expire so they know when to renew them.
“The inspiration for DNAVault came from my daughter, Madison, who is in medical school,” Arora said. “She was explaining how many documents and certifications she needed to keep track of and how they were required to access them from anywhere.”
DNAInsights was created for healthcare facilities. It offers data on the number of job openings within a given radius, along with competitive pay rates, which are critical resources for hospital hiring managers. StaffDNA is the first company to provide healthcare facilities with real-time job data for all per-diem, travel, local, and staff positions — for free. “Until now, hiring managers in healthcare have had no tools to gauge pay rates in their markets,” Arora said. “So, we built the technology to support how hospitals and facilities determine pay rates when hiring.”
Making a difference
StaffDNA has been downloaded 2 million times and counting, and Arora has heard from users about its real-life impacts, including candidates taking dream vacations due to high-paying assignments or exploring the country through travel assignments they’ve picked up through the app.
Arora shared that he was attending a healthcare industry conference in Las Vegas when a nurse told him she got a pay raise thanks to StaffDNA. “She said she was working at a hospital and saw a job opening in her profession, which paid more than what she was currently earning,” he said. “She used the data to request an hourly pay raise, and she got it. She thanked me for helping her earn a better income. It was exciting to hear her story.”
Arora is hopeful the app has a broader impact, too — that is, not only on the people using the app but public health as a whole.
“Through StaffDNA, healthcare professionals are empowered to find jobs they love, and hiring facilities can hire the right people for the right roles,” Arora said. “When these two things come together, we know ultimately patient care is improved and communities thrive.”
Last week, The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) put out a discussion paper called Testing Times: Fending Off A Crisis in Post-Secondary Education, which in part is the outcome of a set of cross-country discussions held this summer by RBC, HESA, and the Business Higher Education Roundtable. (BHER). The paper, I think, sums up the current situation pretty well: the system is not at a starvation point but is heading in that direction pretty quickly and that needs to be rectified. On the other hand, there are some ways that institutions could be moving more quickly to respond to changing social and economic circumstances. What’s great about this paper is that it balances those two ideas pretty effectively.
I urge everyone to read it themselves because I think it sums up a lot of issues nicely – many of which we at HESA will be taking up at our Re: University conference in January (stay tuned! the nearly full conference line-up will be out in a couple of weeks, and it’s pretty exciting). But I want to draw everyone’s attention to section 4 of the report, in particular which I think is the sleeper issue of the year, and that is the regulation of post-secondary institutions. One of the things we heard a lot on the road was how universities were being hamstrung – not just by governments but by professional regulatory bodies – in terms of developing innovative programming. This is a subject I’ll return to in the next week or two, but I am really glad that this issue might be starting to get some real traction.
The timing of this release wasn’t accidental: it came just a few days before BHER had one of its annual high-level shindigs, and RBC’s CEO Dave MacKay is also BHER’s Board Chair, so the two go hand-in-hand to some extent. I was at the summit on Monday – a Chatham House rules session at RBC headquarters – which attracted a good number of university and college presidents, as well as CEOs – entitled Strategic Summit on Talent, Technology and a New Economic Order. The discussions took up the challenge in the RBC paper to look at where the country is going and where the post-secondary education sector can contribute to making a new and stronger Canada.
And boy, was it interesting.
I mean, partly it was some of the outright protectionist stuff being advocated by the corporate sector in the room. I haven’t heard stuff like that since I was a child. Basically, the sentiment in the room is that the World Trade Organization (WTO) is dead, the Americans aren’t playing by those rules anymore, so why should we? Security of supply > low-cost supply. Personally, I think that likely means that this “new economic order” is going to mean much more expensive wholesale prices, but hey, if that’s what we have to adapt to, that’s what we have to adapt to.
But, more pertinent to this blog were the ways the session dealt with the issue of what in higher education needs to change to meet the moment. And, for me, what was interesting was that once you get a group of business folks in a room and ask what higher education can do to help get the country on track, they actually don’t have much to say. They will talk a LOT about what government can do to help get the country on track. The stories they can tell about how much more ponderous and anti-innovation Canadian public procurement policies are compared to almost any other jurisdiction on earth would be entertaining if the implications were not so horrific. They will talk a LOT about how Canadian C-suites are risk-averse, almost as risk-averse as government, and how disappointing that is.
But when it comes to higher education? They don’t actually have all that much to say. And that’s both good and bad.
Now before I delve into this, let me say that it’s always a bit tricky to generalize what a sector believes based on a small group of CEOs who get drafted into a room like this one. I mean, to some degree these CEOs are there because they are interested in post-secondary education, so they aren’t necessarily very representative of the sector. But here’s what I learned:
CEOs are a bit ruffled by current underfunding of higher education. Not necessarily to the point where they would put any of their own political capital on the line, but they are sympathetic to institutions.
When they think about how higher education affects their business, CEOs seem to think primarily about human capital (i.e. graduates). They talk a lot less about research, which is mostly what universities want to talk about, so there is a bit of a mismatch there.
When they think about human capital, what they are usually thinking about is “can my business have access to skills at a price I want to pay?” Because the invitees are usually heads of successful fast-growing companies, the answer is usually no. Also, most say what they want are “skills” – something they, not unreasonably, equate with experience, which sets up another set of potential misunderstandings with universities because degrees ≠ experience (but it does mean everyone can agree on more work-integrated learning).
As a result – and this is important here – it’s best if CEOs think about post-secondary education in terms of firm growth, not in terms of economy-wide innovation.
Now, maybe that’s all right and proper – after all, isn’t it government’s business to look after the economy-wide stuff? Well, maybe, but here’s where it gets interesting. You can drive innovation either by encouraging the manufacture and circulation of ideas (i.e. research) or by diffusing skills through the economy (i.e. education/training). But our federal government seems to think that innovation only happens via the introduction of new products/technology (i.e., the product of research), and that to the extent there is an issue with post-secondary education, it is that university-based research doesn’t translate into new products fast enough – i.e. the issue is research commercialization. The idea that technological adoption might be the product of governments and firms not having enough people to use new technologies properly (e.g. artificial intelligence)? Not on anyone’s radar screen.
And that really is a problem. One I am not sure is easily fixed because I am not sure everyone realizes the degree to which they are talking past each other. But that said, the event was a promising one. It was good to be in a space where so many people cared about Canada, about innovation, and about post-secondary education. And the event itself – very well pulled-off by RBC and BHER – made people want to keep discussing higher education and the economy. Both business and higher education need to have events like this one, regularly, and not just nationally but locally as well. The two sides don’t know each other especially well, and yet their being more in sync is one of the things that could make the country work a lot better than it does. Let’s keep talking.
K12 Inc., now rebranded as Stride, is a Wall Street darling—but for students, it’s a nightmare. Critics call it “one of the worst charter schools in America,” with dropout rates soaring above 50% and graduation rates below 30%. Behind the glossy marketing and investor pitches, Stride operates as a pipeline not to opportunity, but to debt, dead-end jobs, and corporate profit.
Stride presents itself as an innovative online education platform, but the numbers tell a different story. Full-time virtual schools nationally graduate just 54.6% of students, compared to 85% in traditional public schools. K12/Stride’s virtual offerings hover around 56.3%, with blended programs faring slightly better at 80.9%. In some districts, however, the picture is grim: Kansas K12 charters reported graduation rates as low as 26.3%, while local brick-and-mortar schools achieved nearly 90%.
High student churn compounds the problem. Stride-powered schools report turnover of 50–57%, highlighting systemic disengagement and academic instability. Student-teacher ratios are extreme, sometimes exceeding 40:1, more than double the national average. Only a third of K12 schools met Adequate Yearly Progress under No Child Left Behind, illustrating a chronic failure to deliver even basic accountability.
K-12 education is meant to be a pipeline—leading students into college, skilled careers, and financial stability. For students leaving Stride underprepared or without diplomas, that pipeline is broken. Many are pushed into low-wage work, forced into remedial college courses, or trapped in a credential system designed to extract debt rather than confer opportunity. In this way, Stride acts less as an educational institution and more as a conveyor belt funneling vulnerable youth into economic precarity.
Stride is backed by investors and private equity interests that profit from this dysfunction. Its glossy “Graduation Guarantee,” introduced in 2021, promises remediation for students who age out without graduating. But these measures are reactive, not systemic; they don’t address the structural incentives that prioritize profit over learning. Every public dollar flowing into Stride’s coffers is money extracted from communities, while many students exit the system with weak credentials and limited prospects.
The broader story is clear: billionaire-backed for-profit virtual schools like Stride are part of a national effort to privatize public education, monetize student debt, and commodify learning. They transform education from a public good into a profit center, leaving students and families to bear the real cost. Without accountability, oversight, and a renewed commitment to equitable public education, this pipeline—supposed to carry students toward opportunity—will continue to deliver them into debt, underemployment, and economic marginalization.
As students and teachers prepare for a new school year, it’s important to remember that success in the classroom isn’t just about academics; it’s about supporting the whole child. From motor skills and posture to organization, focus, and sensory regulation, the right strategies can make the learning process smoother and more enjoyable for everyone.
While occupational therapy (OT) is often associated with special education, many OTs like me use and share the supportive tips and tools described below in general education settings to benefit all learners. By integrating simple, classroom-friendly strategies into daily routines, teachers can help students build independence and confidence and see long-term success.
Motor skills
One of the most crucial areas to address is motor skills. Many children entering kindergarten have not yet fully mastered tasks such as cutting or forming letters and shapes correctly. Simple strategies can encourage independence, such as using a “scissor template” taped to a desk to guide proper finger placement or offering verbal cues like “thumbs up” to remind children how to hold the tool correctly. Encouraging the use of a “helper hand” to move the paper reinforces bilateral coordination.
For writing, providing small pencils or broken crayons helps children develop a mature grasp pattern and better handwriting skills. Posture is equally important; children should sit with their feet flat on the floor and their elbows slightly above the tabletop. Adjustable desks, sturdy footrests, or non-slip mats can all help. Structured warm-up activities like animal walks or yoga poses before seated work also prepare the sensory system for focus and promote better posture while completing these tasks.
Executive function
Equally important are executive function skills–organization, planning, and self-regulation techniques–that lay the foundation for academic achievement. Teachers can support these skills by using visual reminders, checklists, and color-coded materials to boost organization. Breaking larger assignments into smaller tasks and using timers can help children manage their time effectively. Tools such as social stories, behavior charts, and reward systems can motivate learners and improve impulse control, self-awareness, and flexibility.
Social-emotional learning
Social-emotional learning (SEL) is another vital area of focus, because navigating relationships can be tricky for children. Social-emotional learning helps learners understand their emotions, express them appropriately, and recognize what to expect from others and their environment.
Traditional playground games like Red Light/Green Lightor Simon Says encourage turn-taking and following directions. Structured programs such as the Zones of Regulation use color-coded illustrations to help children recognize their emotions and respond constructively. For example, the “blue zone” represents low energy or boredom, the “green zone” is calm and focused, the “yellow zone” signals fidgetiness or loss of control, and the “red zone” reflects anger or frustration. Creating a personalized “menu” of coping strategies–such as deep breathing, counting to 10, or squeezing a stress ball–gives children practical tools to manage their emotions. Keeping a card with these strategies at their desks makes it easy to remember to leverage those tools in the future. Even something as simple as caring for a class pet can encourage empathy, responsibility, and social growth.
Body awareness
Body awareness and smooth transitions are also key to a successful classroom environment. Some children struggle to maintain personal space or focus during activities like walking in line. Teachers can prepare students for hall walking with warm-up exercises such as vertical jumps or marching in place. Keeping young children’s hands busy–by carrying books rather than using a cart–also helps. Alternating between tiptoe and heel walking can further engage students during key transitions. To build awareness of personal space, teachers can use inflatable cushions, small carpet squares, or marked spots on the floor. Encouraging children to stretch their arms outward as a guide reinforces boundaries in shared spaces as well.
Sensory processing
Supporting sensory processing benefits all learners by promoting focus and regulation. A sensory-friendly classroom might include fabric light covers to reduce glare, or subtle scent cues used intentionally to calm or energize students at different times. Scheduled motor breaks during transitions–such as yoga stretches, pushing, pulling, or stomping activities–help reset the sensory system. For students with higher sensory needs, a “calming corner” with mats, pillows, weighted blankets, and quiet activities provides a safe retreat for regaining focus.
The vital role of occupational therapists in schools
Employing OTs as full-time staff in school districts ensures these strategies and tools are implemented effectively and provides ongoing support for both students and educators alike. With OTs integrated into daily classroom activities, student challenges can be addressed early, preventing them from becoming larger problems. Skill deficits requiring more intensive intervention can be identified without delay as well. Research demonstrates that collaboration between OTs and teachers–through shared strategies and co-teaching–leads to improved student outcomes.
Wishing you a successful and rewarding school year ahead!
Linda Rini, OTD, MS, OTR/L, CLC, Touro University School of Health Sciences Occupational Therapy Program
Linda Rini, OTD, MS, OTR/L, CLC, is an assistant professor in the Touro University School of Health Sciences Occupational Therapy Program.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
For the first time in more than a decade, interest rates across the world are rising from what some say were their lowest levels in 5,000 years.
You heard that right. The idea of lending money — and charging a fee for doing so — is as old as civilisation. Central banks, the institutions now responsible for guiding a country’s rates, are much more recent. Sweden’s Riksbank, in 1668, was the first, closely followed by the Bank of England in 1694.
Don’t worry. This spin through history is meant only to show that interest rates have a long, if not always respected, past.
In our drama-filled present, the world is watching — with interest — where they will go from here.
So why do interest rates matter? And why now, in particular?
Why do interest rates matter?
To vastly oversimplify the argument: lending rates matter because prices matter. And interest rates are the most tried-and-tested tool for keeping prices under control.
Even those who prefer getting their financial advice from TikTok and YouTube, rather than consulting traditional financial institutions, would be hard-pressed to miss the fact that prices for essentials such as food, fuel and cooking oil are rising faster across the industrialized world than they have in decades.
This can be particularly hard for those starting their working lives. Nearly half the Generation Zs and Millennials in a 46-country Deloitte poll said they live paycheque to paycheque. Of the thousands surveyed, nearly one-third (29% of Gen Zs and 36% of Millennials) said inflation was their most pressing worry right now.
The global rise in prices is the result of a perfect storm of factors: among others, a food shortage caused by Russia’s blockade of Ukraine’s ports, soaring energy costs and the effects of droughts, heatwaves and other climate-linked extreme weather on agriculture; a resurgence in consumer buying deferred during COVID-19 lockdowns; and a surge in demand for workers.
And while wages are also rising after years of near dormancy, they are not increasing fast enough to keep pace with prices. So even the most carefully managed household budget is facing new strains.
That’s where interest rates come in.
Slowing inflation without stalling economies
Central banks hope that by making it more expensive to borrow, they can slow the pace of inflation. That they have been able to keep rates at or near zero for so long is because the world was in an extraordinary period of extended price stability.
There is little that even the cleverest economic steward can do to fix the external factors affecting inflation — Ukraine, droughts, labour shortages — but they can try to put the brakes on internal drivers such as consumer demand.
So that’s why rates are increasing in most major economies faster than they have since the latter part of the last century.
The U.S. Federal Reserve, arguably the world’s most powerful central bank, has raised rates three times this year and is expected to increase them again this week. Peers such as the European Central Bank and the Bank of England are following suit, although some are taking a cautious approach because they want to slow their economies without stalling them completely.
The question is: How far will rates rise and how will that affect a global economy that has been buffeted in the past few years by a pandemic, geopolitical turmoil and a supply chain crisis?
Consider hypothetical futures.
Economists say a few possible paths lie before us.
The best-case scenario is what they call a “soft landing”: interest-rate rises could put a quick end to the price spiral without causing a halt or, worse, a reversal in economic growth. When prices stop rising, rates do too.
There are potential pluses for the young in this brightest of hypothetical futures. It could allow wages to catch up with costs, boosting buying power. And if there is a halt or reversal in property prices, they could at last have a chance to buy without having to face cripplingly high mortgage rates.
The second-best scenario is a brief recession that ends quickly and brings with it tamer prices and stable or lower lending rates. See above for benefits.
“I am not confident in the soft-landing scenario,” said Greg McBride, Chief Financial Analyst at Bankrate.com. “A recession is very likely the price to be paid for getting inflation under control. And painful as recessions are — even mild recessions are not fun for anybody — that is medicine we are better off taking now in an effort to get back to price stability.”
If interest rates rise too slowly or not enough, this opens the door to the worst of all possible worlds — a phenomenon known as stagflation.
Stagflation is an ugly thing. Prices soar, economic growth slows and it becomes harder and harder to make ends meet. The fact is that economic growth will slow as rates rise, even in the best of our possible outcomes. But as long as prices follow, we will escape the economic purgatory that big economies faced in the 1970s.
Now is the time for smart financial management.
Whatever future lies ahead, McBride said, the best way to ride it out is to practice sound financial management. That applies whether you are a student, just joining the job market or starting your own business.
“The fundamentals are critically important,” he said. “That is: invest in yourself and your future earning power; watch your expenses; live beneath your means; save and invest the difference; and don’t rely on debt to support your lifestyle if your income cannot.”
This last is particularly important in a time of rising rates.
“There are points in life where you need debt,” he said. “You may need to borrow to get through school. You’re probably going to have to borrow to buy a house.”
But you must never lose sight of “the end game” of paying that debt off, particularly if, as with most credit cards, it carries high or variable interest rates. And don’t borrow for non-essentials.
McBride said: “Leaning against debt, like a crutch to support a lifestyle your income cannot, doesn’t lead anywhere good.”
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
1. What is stagflation and why is it the worst-case scenario?
2. How can policymakers tame inflation?
3. How have the prices for food, fuel and other goods changed where you live?
News of the policies comes after a Texas bill was signed into a law that prohibits people from using bathrooms that differ from their sex assigned at birth in state buildings.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | rustamank/iStock/Getty Images
Employees at Angelo State University in Texas could be fired for displaying a pride flag or discussing any topic that suggests there are more gender identities than male and female.
Spokespeople for Angelo State have not confirmed or denied details of the policies reportedly discussed at meetings Monday between faculty, staff and institutional leaders. But, local news magazine the Concho Observer reported that the policies would ban discussion of transgender topics or any topics that suggest there are more than two genders.
The policies would also require instructors to remove information about transgender topics on syllabi and refer to students by their given names only, not any alternative names. Safe space stickers and LGBTQ+ flags would be banned and employees wouldn’t be allowed to include their pronouns in their email signatures.
News of the policies comes just as Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill on Monday that prohibits people from using the bathroom that differs from their sex assigned at birth in state buildings, including public universities, NBC reported. Institutions that violate this law face fines of up to $125,000.
The Angelo State policies are the latest in a string of attacks on academic freedom at Texas public universities in recent weeks. Texas A&M University officials terminated a professor, demoted two other faculty members and, as of Thursday, accepted the president’s resignation in response to a viral video that showed a student challenging a professor in class for teaching about gender identity.
“What is happening at ASU is part of a larger assault on higher education and marginalized communities across Texas and the nation,” Brian Evans, president of the Texas Conference of the American Association of University Professors, said in a statement. “Moreover, it is an overt attempt to erase individuals of diverse backgrounds and experiences by limiting not only what can be taught but also what ideas students can explore. These policies and this extremist push to censor open inquiry, debate, and discovery is an affront to the U.S. and Texas Constitutions and an assault on the very foundations of our colleges and universities.”
It is unclear exactly whom the new policies at Angelo State will apply to, and whether there are exceptions, particularly for displays and conversations held in private offices or for conversations outside of the classroom.
Angelo State spokespeople did not answer any of the questions Inside Higher Ed asked about the new policies, and instead provided the following statement: “Angelo State University is a public institute of higher education and is therefore subject to both state and federal law, executive orders and directives from the President of the United States, and executive orders and directives from the Governor of Texas,” spokesperson Brittney Miller wrote. “As such, Angelo State fully complies with the letter of the law.”
Miller also sent a link to a Jan. 30 letter from Abbott that said, “All Texas agencies must ensure that agency rules, internal policies, employment practices, and other actions comply with the law and the biological reality that there are only two sexes—male and female,” as well as President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order stating that the United States only recognizes two genders, male and female.
What type of legal case faculty could bring in response—and whether they may have a case at all—will depend largely on the policy details, said Eugene Volokh, a professor of law emeritus at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law.
There are no Texas state laws that explicitly prohibit faculty members from discussing LGBTQ+ topics in classrooms. Even Brian Harrison, the Texas state representative who is largely responsible for making the Texas A&M video go viral, said as much during an interview Sept. 13 on a conservative radio show.
“The governor and lieutenant governor and speaker have been telling everybody for two years now that we passed bans on DEI and transgender indoctrination in public universities,” Harrison said. “The only little problem with that? It’s a complete lie. The bill that was passed to ban DEI explicitly authorizes DEI in the classroom—same thing with transgender indoctrination.” Harrison has introduced several bills to ban these topics, but so far none have been passed.
The legislation Harrison referred to is Texas Senate Bill 17, which bans diversity, equity and inclusion efforts by public institutions. It was signed into law in 2023 and includes carve-outs for academic instruction, scholarly research and campus guest speakers. Meanwhile, House Bill 229 took effect on Sept. 1 and specifies that the state recognizes two genders. It applies to data collection by government entities only and does not restrict academic instruction or speech.
Public employers, because they only speak through their employees, can generally tell people what to say as part of their job, Volokh said. “A police department may order police officers to talk in certain ways to their citizens and to not talk in other ways to citizens, right? In fact, we expect the police department to do that,” he said. “The question is whether there’s a specific, special rule that protects the rights of college or university professors.”
The courts are largely undecided on that, he added. “It’s being litigated right now in other federal courts. It’s been raised in past cases, and there isn’t really a clear answer,” he said.
“It’s certainly possible that [professors] may have First Amendment rights to choose to teach what they want to teach, but it’s also possible that boards will also say, ‘No, when you’re on the job and talking to a captive audience of students that the university provided for you … we, the university, get to tell you what to teach.’”
Other state university systems have implemented similar policies with the opposite effect. For example, the University of California system requires university-issued documents to offer three gender identity options—male, female and nonbinary—and for all university documents and IT systems to include an individual’s “lived name” instead of their legal name. If an individual’s lived name is different from their legal name, their legal name must be kept confidential.
This article has been updated to correct the Texas Senate bill number.
A former provost at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill accused the Board of Trustees of systematically violating open records and meetings laws on multiple occasions, including to retaliate against him, according to a lawsuit filed earlier this week.
At the heart of the lawsuit from Chris Clemens, who resigned in April, is a delayed tenure vote.
In March, the UNC Board of Trustees postponed a vote to grant tenure to 33 faculty members. At that meeting, held March 20, the board moved into closed session, with Clemens present, apparently to discuss individual tenure cases. Instead, trustees launched into a debate over the value of tenure, with some voicing their philosophical opposition to the practice and others arguing that they should delay such approvals for financial reasons, according to the lawsuit.
The board eventually approved tenure for all 33 candidates in June via an email vote.
According to the lawsuit, Clemens shared details from the meeting with other academic leaders, noting that no tenure decisions were made or individual candidates considered and that the board instead “engaged in a sweeping policy discussion about tenure’s institutional value and global costs.” Following that briefing, the Board of Trustees allegedly communicated through Signal, a private messaging application that includes a feature to automatically delete messages after they are read, to call for a vote of no confidence in Clemens. UNC leadership asked Clemens to step down shortly thereafter, according to the lawsuit.
But even if Clemens’s suit is successful and the violations are proven to be true, the board will likely face few repercussions given past precedent.
A Systemic Pattern
Clemens’s lawsuit also accused Jed Atkins, director and dean of the School for Civic Life and Leadership, of relaying the former provost’s briefing to then–board chair John Preyer via Signal. (Clemens had taken issue with the hiring practices at the civic life school before stepping down.)
The lawsuit alleges that Atkins “requires that his leadership team subscribe to a Signal group and conducts a substantial portion of official communications via Signal with auto-delete enabled not only in exchanges with trustees but as a routine practice,” in violation of state law. Atkins did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.
Beyond the tenure flap, Clemens has accused the board of defying state open meetings laws on multiple occasions in an effort to “hide policy debates from public view,” according to his lawsuit.
“Over the past four years, the Board has engaged in a pattern and practice of systematically violating the Open Meetings Law by improperly invoking closed session exemptions to shield policy and budget deliberations from public scrutiny,” the former provost alleged.
Contacted by Inside Higher Ed, Clemens declined to comment.
In his legal filing, Clemens cited three specific examples beyond the March tenure discussion in which he alleged the board violated open meetings laws. He specifically pointed to a closed session discussion in November 2023, when UNC discussed athletic conference realignment; further secret deliberations over athletics in May 2024 involving both conference realignment and finances; and an “emergency meeting” in December 2024 to hire a head football coach. At the December meeting, UNC Chapel Hill hired NFL legend Bill Belichick on a $10 million annual contract.
(Responding to a separate legal complaint over the May 2024 meeting, trustees previously agreed to reaffirm their commitment to open meetings laws and pay $25,000 in attorneys’ fees.)
“Each episode follows the same pattern: the Board invokes a statutory exemption, enters closed session, then discusses broad policy or budget matters that must be debated publicly,” the lawsuit states.
Despite being allegedly pressured to step down, Clemens isn’t seeking a payout or his job back. Instead, he’s asking the court to prevent the board from continuing its alleged defiance of open meetings laws, to produce minutes or a transcript of the March 20 closed session and to mandate that trustees participate in training on state open meetings and public records laws.
Responses
Contacted by Inside Higher Ed, UNC Chapel Hill spokesperson Kevin Best wrote by email, “We’re aware of the litigation and are reviewing it closely,” but he declined to comment further given the pending nature of the case.
The Board of Trustees released a more forceful statement Wednesday.
“The former Provost’s baseless assault on this volunteer Board and how it conducts its business stands in stark contrast to the widely recognized excellence the University has achieved under this Board’s leadership,” chair Malcom Turner said. “His allegations are disappointing and inaccurate, not to mention a waste of taxpayer dollars, for which this former officer of the University shows no regard. His claims will not withstand scrutiny.”
Most of the individuals named in the lawsuit either declined to comment or did not respond to media inquiries. Multiple faculty and staff members at the School of Civic Life and Leadership (none of whom are defendants in the lawsuit) also did not respond to requests for comment.
However, one source alleged that the former provost instructed employees to use Signal and that he also used it for university business, which Inside Higher Ed confirmed via screenshots.
Allegations that Clemens used Signal come amid an opaque investigation by outside counsel into the School of Civic Life and Leadership that was announced earlier this month. While Chapel Hill leadership has said little about the investigation, it comes after multiple resignations from faculty members in the school, some of whom have alleged it has “lost sight of its mission.”
Dustin Sebell, a School of Civic Life and Leadership professor, told Inside Higher Ed via text message that Clemens “habitually used Signal for university business” and encouraged others to do so. To Sebell, the lawsuit seems like an effort by Clemens to sidestep the investigation.
“By hastily filing a hypocritical lawsuit, Chris is trying to avoid investigators’ questions about his misconduct as Provost by claiming privilege pending ongoing litigation,” Sebell wrote.
But some faculty members, such as Michael Palm—president of the UNC Chapel Hill chapter of the American Association of University Professors—expressed concern about political influence on the board.
“Open meetings laws are important for public universities. Unfortunately, right now we don’t need them to know that the UNC [Board of Trustees] considers UNC faculty to be their enemy,” Palm wrote to Inside Higher Ed via email. “The crisis we’re in is political, not procedural.”
Although North Carolina has historically been considered a swing state, the UNC Chapel Hill board appears to be overwhelmingly comprised of Republicans. Some have previously worked for Republican officials, while others have donated heavily to GOP candidates and causes.
Of 14 voting members on the UNC Chapel Hill board, at least 10 have donated to conservative politicians and organizations, some contributing tens of thousands of dollars, according to a review by Inside Higher Ed. Several others have direct GOP connections, including Preyer, who previously worked for former senator Lauch Faircloth. Three other trustees previously held state office: Robert Bryan III, James Blaine II and Patrick Ballantine. All were elected as Republicans.
Potential Consequences
Should the allegations in the lawsuit be proven true, consequences will likely be fairly light—at least, that has been the outcome in other cases where boards allegedly violated sunshine laws.
The Pennsylvania State Board of Trustees, for example, was required to complete training on the state’s Sunshine Act recently as part of a settlement with the news organization Spotlight PA over alleged violations of opening meetings laws related to secretive practices by the board.
But in other cases, universities have largely escaped consequences for clandestine actions.
Kentucky attorney general Russell Coleman has found that multiple state institutions have violated open records laws, adding up to 10 times this year alone. Coleman found that the University of Kentucky violated open records law four times and had four partial violations, while Northern Kentucky University had one violation and the University of Louisville had a partial violation. However, none of those violations resulted in punitive actions from the state.
Last year Indiana’s public access counselor found that Indiana University’s Board of Trustees violated open meetings laws when members claimed that they were holding a private meeting to discuss litigation. But trustees also discussed IU president Pamela Whitten’s performance and a campus climate review, expanding the private meeting beyond its stated aims. A complaint from a news organization prompted scrutiny from state officials, but no punitive or corrective actions.
UNC Chapel Hill was also previously accused of violating state open meetings laws, including in 2021 when it hired Clemens as provost, choosing to approve “Action 1” on its agenda with a vague reference to personnel matters, raising concerns that trustees violated state law via a secretive vote. Board leadership defended the vote and Clemens remained in place until April.
This story has been updated with a statement from the UNC Chapel Hill Board of Trustees.
In June, in an escalation of the Trump administration’s pressure on Harvard University to bow to its demands, a federal Office for Civil Rights announced that the institution was violating federal law.
The office released a nearly 60-page report accusing Harvard of “deliberate indifference” to ongoing discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students, which is illegal under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “OCR’s findings document that a hostile environment existed, and continues to exist, at Harvard,” the office said in an accompanying news release.
But this wasn’t the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights. It was an office of the same name within the Health and Human Services Department that’s been playing a more public role as part of Trump’s crackdown on higher ed. Officials who served in previous administrations said agencies used to generally defer to the Education Department when it came to civil rights issues in higher ed. But since Trump retook office, colleges and universities are facing increased pressure from probes by HHS and other agencies enforcing the new administration’s right-wing interpretation of civil rights.
HHS OCR said it began its Harvard investigation in February by looking into the university’s medical school, after alleged antisemitism during the May 2024 graduation ceremony. But, in April, it widened its probe to “include Harvard University as a whole and to extend the timeframe of review to include events and information from October 7, 2023, through the present.” (The HHS OCR has jurisdiction over institutions that accept HHS funding, including National Institutes of Health research grants and Medicaid dollars.)
And this wasn’t the HHS OCR’s only investigation into parts of Harvard that didn’t appear related to health or medicine. The news release noted the “findings released today do not address OCR’s ongoing investigation under Title VI into suspected race-based discrimination permeating the operations of the Harvard Law Review journal.” And Harvard is just one of several universities that this non–Education Department OCR has targeted since Trump retook the White House in January.
Civil rights advocates say the HHS OCR has become just one more pawn in Trump’s strategy to target universities and end protections and programs that aid minority groups. For universities, Trump’s HHS OCR represents a new threat to their funding if they’re accused of promoting diversity, equity and inclusion; fostering antisemitism; or letting transgender women play on women’s sports teams.
It’s unnecessary to do what the administration is doing now, unless one is operating like a mob boss.”
—Catherine Lhamon, former head of OCR at the Education Department
The office’s investigations and public denunciations add to the work of the ED OCR, which the Trump administration has also shifted to focus on the same issues. The two OCRs announced a joint finding of violations against Columbia University, but they’ve also trumpeted independent probes into other institutions.
“As we feared, the Trump administration is abusing civil rights tools to advance a radical and divisive agenda that aggressively hoards access to education, living wage jobs, and so much more,” the NAACP Legal Defense Fund said in a statement. “Unfortunately, HHS and many other federal agencies are being used as one of the vehicles to carry out that agenda.”
The Legal Defense Fund said, “Colleges and universities are being targeted precisely because of the critical role they play in opening the doors of opportunity and preparing the next generation to lead our multi-racial democracy. By attacking institutions that help level the playing field for Black students and other students of color, the Trump administration is ultimately weakening our democracy and our economy as a whole.”
Former officials at the Justice Department, to which HHS OCR can forward cases if the targets of investigations don’t comply, told Inside Higher Ed that HHS OCR historically deferred probes into universities to the Education Department.
Catherine Lhamon, former director of the Education Department’s OCR under Presidents Biden and Obama, said, “There are 13 federal agencies with external civil rights enforcement, of which HHS is one, and it’s relatively large.” She said they’re pieces of Trump’s broader strategy.
“The administration has used every agency in a contemporaneous, simultaneous assault on universities,” Lhamon said, multiplying the amount of federal funding it can threaten.
The HHS OCR’s announced investigations under Trump show it’s investigating similar issues to the Education Department OCR—or what’s left of that office after the administration’s cuts. Lhamon said the practice for decades has been for the agency with principal expertise over an area to investigate that area—hence why universities were mostly investigated by the Education Department OCR.
“It’s unnecessary to do what the administration is doing now, unless one is operating like a mob boss,” Lhamon said.
An HHS spokesperson said, “We’re leading implementation of the president’s bold civil rights agenda,” which includes four focuses: upholding religious conscience rights, fighting antisemitism, ending race-based discrimination embedded in DEI programs and “defending biological truth” in sex-discrimination enforcement. She also said that fighting antisemitism, for instance, is a priority across the whole administration, “so our office is going to be a part of that and going to participate to the fullest extent that we can.”
It remains unclear how much of the HHS OCR’s daily workload is now devoted to Trump’s targeting of higher ed. HHS OCR did investigate higher ed institutions even before Trump took office, the HHS spokesperson said.
“We may be being more public about it now,” the spokesperson said, “particularly because that’s where the issue areas with respect to this administration are.”
She said the office also continues to investigate non–higher ed–related medical providers and non–civil rights issues that it has responsibility for despite the office’s name—such as information privacy under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
The spokesperson said the HHS OCR news releases don’t tell the full story of what the office is currently investigating because—out of the roughly more than 40,000 complaints it receives annually—it doesn’t normally disclose which complaints lead to probes “to protect the integrity of the investigation.” The office also launches some investigations without receiving complaints, she said.
“In the past we’ve not announced through press releases that we’ve opened major investigations,” she said.
She didn’t provide Inside Higher Ed a list of the office’s current investigations. She also didn’t say how many employees HHS OCR has. HHS’s fiscal year 2026 budget request said that “in FY 2010, there were 111 investigators onboard, and in FY 2022, this number fell to 60, while simultaneously HHS received the highest number of complaints in its history (51,788).” (For comparison, the ED OCR, in a FY 2024 report, said it had received its highest-ever volume of complaints, but the number was only 22,687.)
Since taking power, the Trump administration has been slashing the federal workforce—the administration laid off nearly half of the Education Department’s OCR staff in March. It’s unclear how much HHS OCR has been cut. The FY 2026 budget request said the HHS OCR “has faced a continually growing number of cases in their backlog, rising to 6,532 cases by the end of FY 2024.” And that was before the office launched these new probes based on Trump’s priorities.
The HHS OCR receives roughly more than 40,000 complaints annually, a spokesperson said.
Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images
A String of Investigations
Since Trump’s Jan. 20 inauguration, HHS OCR has announced a spate of higher ed investigations, mostly without naming the institutions. The spokesperson said most are ongoing.
In early February, it announced investigations of four unnamed medical schools, also citing reports of antisemitism during their 2024 commencements. (That was the same month the Harvard investigation began, HHS OCR later said, so Harvard was likely among the four.)
On Feb. 21, Trump told Maine governor Janet Mills during a televised White House event that her state must bar transgender women from women’s sports or lose federal funding, to which Mills replied, “See you in court.” In response to this, the HHS OCR issued a news release that same day announcing an investigation into “the Maine Department of Education, including the University of Maine System,” due to reports that the “state will continue to allow biological males to compete in women’s sports.” (The HHS spokesperson said the investigation eventually found that the most relevant issues were unrelated to higher ed.)
In March, the office announced investigations into four unnamed “medical schools and hospitals” over “allegations and information” concerning medical education or scholarships “that discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex.” The news release didn’t have much further detail but referenced a Trump executive order targeting “illegal” diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Later that month—again citing the anti-DEI order—it announced it was investigating “a major medical school in California” over whether it “gives unlawful preference to applicants based on their race, color, or national origin.”
In April, it announced it was investigating an “HHS-funded organization” over whether it excludes “certain races” from a “health services research scholarship program.” Later in April, it launched an “online portal where whistleblowers can submit a tip or complaint regarding the chemical and surgical mutilation of children”—the Trump administration’s phrase for gender-affirming care. Simultaneously, it announced it’s investigating “a major pediatric teaching hospital” for allegedly firing a whistleblower nurse who “requested a religious accommodation to avoid administering puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to children.” (The HHS spokesperson said the first Trump administration brought a focus on religious conscience rights to the office that disappeared under Biden but has now returned.)
Also in April, it announced a second Harvard probe: a joint investigation with the Education Department’s OCR into both Harvard and the Harvard Law Review “based on reports of race-based discrimination permeating the operations of the journal.” The HHS OCR news release said an editor of the law journal “reportedly wrote that it was ‘concerning’ that ‘[f]our of the five people’ who wanted to reply to an article about police reform ‘are white men.’” The office also raised concern about another editor allegedly suggesting expedited review for an article because the author was a minority.
In May, the HHS OCR announced it’s investigating a “prestigious Midwest university” over alleged discrimination against Jewish students. Later that month came its announcement of its joint finding with the Education Department OCR that Columbia University violated Title VI through “deliberate indifference towards student-on-student harassment of Jewish students.” (This was part of the administration’s pressure campaign on Columbia that culminated with a controversial July settlement.)
In June came the HHS OCR’s Title VI finding against Harvard in the investigation of alleged antisemitism. Then, in July, HHS OCR said it was investigating “allegations of systemic racial discrimination permeating the operations of Duke University School of Medicine and other components of Duke Health,” which includes “other Duke health professions schools” and “health research programs across Duke University.” In a statement alongside that announcement, HHS secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said, “Federal funding must support excellence—not race—in medical education, research, and training.”
And last week, after months of silence on new higher ed–related investigations, the HHS OCR announced an investigation into the legal scholarship of an HHS-funded “national organization,” over allegations that it “preferences applicants of certain races and national origin groups.”
Lhamon, the former Education Department OCR head, said what the administration has called civil rights investigations into Harvard, Columbia and other universities aren’t really investigations. She noted the administration has used a “mob theory” by going ahead and pulling HHS and other funding from multiple institutions before the investigations are over.
Instead, she said, this is “an assault on universities, which is a very different thing from ensuring compliance with the civil rights laws as Congress has enacted them.”
A federal court order issued late Monday evening provides significant financial relief to the University of California, Los Angeles, restoring about $500 million in federal research grants amid an ongoing lawsuit with the Trump administration over alleged instances of antisemitism on campus.
The preliminary injunction, first reported by CalMatters and Politico, is temporary. But for now it reinstates more than 500 grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense and the Department of Labor, allowing hundreds, if not thousands, of university researchers to resume their work. That’s on top of a previous order in August from the same court that unfroze about 300 grants from the National Science Foundation.
Between the two rulings, almost all of UCLA’s federal research grants have been restored.
The funds were first withheld in late July, less than a week after the Justice Department accused the university of tolerating discrimination against Jewish students, faculty members and staff, in violation of federal civil rights law. The Trump administration later said UCLA could resolve the situation by paying $1.2 billion and agreeing to lengthy list of policy changes.
But university researchers pushed back, using an existing broader lawsuit and injunction to challenge the grant freeze.
In the end, District Judge Rita F. Lin, a Biden appointee, ruled in favor of the faculty members, saying the indefinite suspensions of grants was “likely arbitrary,” “capricious” and a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
University of Southern California professor Helen Choi had a pretty basic assignment for her students this fall: Read a book.
To be sure, Choi’s pedagogical choice isn’t novel for many faculty; 71 percent of professors use print materials in some capacity in their classroom, a Bay View Analytics survey found.
But Choi teaches Advanced Writing for Engineers, a course focused on teaching STEM students how to write across disciplines. Many of them “think nothing of shoveling a writer’s work into a chatbot for a summary,” Choi said. So this fall, Choi is encouraging students to close their laptops and spend time with Karen Hao’s book Empire of AI, about the evolution and tech behind AI.
Choi chronicled her decision in a Substack article titled, “I’m Making My Students Read a Book!” The post caught the attention of some faculty on Bluesky, including Vance Ricks, a Northeastern computer science and philosophy professor. Ricks had similarly selected Empire of AI for his master’s-level students to read this term.
Both Choi and Ricks hope to encourage their students to relearn how to read critically and engage in robust conversations with their peers. And after finishing the books, Choi and Ricks’s students will get the chance to reflect together on the book during a virtual meeting, where they will discuss the role of AI in their lives.
What’s the need: In the past, Choi would assign short online articles for students to inform their writing responses. “The questions I was getting from students indicated to me that the engagement with the underlying materials wasn’t as deep as I wanted,” Choi said. “Sometimes it was just straight up reading comprehension.”
In 2024, only 34 percent of students were considered proficient, which NAEP classifies as connecting key details within and across texts and drawing complex inferences about the author’s purpose, tone or word choice. Thirty-two percent of 12th graders ranked below “basic,” unable to locate and identify relevant details in the text to support literal comprehension.
In addition to helping students apply deeper learning and thinking skills, Choi hopes having print material will allow them to step away from their laptops and connect with peers in a more meaningful way.
In the classroom: Choi and Ricks have assigned the 482-page book to be read over four to five weeks, with students responsible for annotating and reflecting on the assigned sections on a weekly basis. Neither assigns content-based quizzes or reviews, relying on student discussions to reveal participation with the text.
At the start of the term, both Choi and Ricks said they spent time in class discussing why they were requiring a physical book, and specifically Hao’s book.
“You have to justify why you’re doing this abnormal thing,” Choi said.
Students seemed to get it and were excited about the opportunity, both professors said.
“They’re genuinely eager to have those conversations and engage in that sort of reflection,” Ricks said.
The assignment has, however, required some additional attention and time on their part to help students grasp reading.
“I’ve spent more time than I had anticipated literally walking around the book and saying, like, ‘This is an epigraph; why are the quotes here? What’s a prologue? What’s the index?’ Things like that,” Choi said.
Both professors said they’ve had to adjust their expectations for how quickly students would be able to complete the text. The book itself also proved more difficult than anticipated for students who speak English as a second language, so Choi and Ricks are considering ways to better support these students in the future.
The impact: “So far, students have shared that they are enjoying Hao’s book because it is relevant to their fields and lives outside of school,” Choi said. Their written responses to the reflection prompts also show improvement in clarity and organized reasoning.
In Ricks’s class, the print format has proven a fruitful learning experience in and of itself. “Just hearing from students about how they are engaging physically with the book, tactilely, in terms of the smell of the pages or the sound of turning the pages—all of those things, let alone the material that the book is about,” Ricks said.
The two classes will meet over Zoom on Sept. 26 for a student-led discussion on the book’s materials and themes.
While the overall goal is to promote better reading and writing for her students, Choi said the exercise has also been a bright spot in her courses.
“It’s really fun for me to teaching reading as part of writing,” she said. “It’s about the students, but I think having a joyful teaching experience is important for the classroom experience. Every day I’m pretty excited about having this book, and seeing the students with books makes me super happy.”
