Blog

  • ¿Qué ha pasado desde que Texas eliminó las matrículas estatales para los estudiantes indocumentados?

    ¿Qué ha pasado desde que Texas eliminó las matrículas estatales para los estudiantes indocumentados?

    SAN ANTONIO — Ximena tenía un plan. 

    La joven de 18 años de Houston iba a comenzar clases este otoño en la Universidad de Texas en Tyler, donde le habían concedido una beca de 10.000 dólares al año. Esperaba que eso le permitiera alcanzar su sueño: un doctorado en Química, seguido de una carrera como profesora o investigadora.

    “Y entonces se produjo el cambio en la matrícula estatal, y fue entonces cuando supe con certeza que tenía que dar un giro”, dijo Ximena. (The Hechinger Report se refiere a ella solo por su nombre de pila porque ella teme represalias por su situación migratoria).

    Aunque Ximena pasó sus primeros años en el norte de México, la mayoría de sus recuerdos son de después de mudarse a Estados Unidos con su padre. Ha asistido a escuelas en Estados Unidos desde el jardín de infancia y, para ella, el 12.º grado consistió principalmente en explicar conceptos avanzados de química a sus compañeros de clase y dirigir laboratorios como asistente de enseñanza.

    Pero en junio, los sueños de Ximena se vieron truncados cuando la oficina del fiscal general de Texas y la administración Trump colaboraron para poner fin a las disposiciones de una ley estatal que ofrecía a miles de estudiantes indocumentados como ella tasas de matrícula más bajas en las universidades públicas de Texas. Los funcionarios estatales y federales argumentaron con éxito ante los tribunales que la política vigente desde hacía mucho tiempo discriminaba a los ciudadanos estadounidenses de otros estados que pagaban una tasa más alta. Ese razonamiento se ha replicado ahora en demandas similares contra Kentucky, Oklahoma y Minnesota, como parte de una ofensiva más amplia contra el acceso de los inmigrantes a la educación pública.

    En la UT Tyler, la matrícula y las tasas estatales para el próximo año académico ascienden a un total de 9.736 dólares, frente a los más de 25.000 dólares que pagan los estudiantes de fuera del estado. Ximena y su familia no podían permitirse el elevado coste de la matrícula, por lo que la joven se retiró. En su lugar, se matriculó en el Houston Community College, donde los costos para los estudiantes de fuera del estado son de 227 dólares por hora semestral, casi tres veces más que la tarifa para los residentes en el distrito. La escuela solo ofrece clases básicas de química de nivel universitario, por lo que, para prepararse para un doctorado o para trabajar en investigaciones especializadas, Ximena seguirá necesitando encontrar la manera de pagar una universidad de cuatro años en el futuro.

    Su difícil situación es precisamente lo que los legisladores estatales de ambos partidos políticos esperaban evitar cuando aprobaron la Texas Dream Act o Ley de Sueños de Texas, una ley de 2001 que no solo abrió las puertas de la educación superior a los estudiantes indocumentados, sino que también tenía por objeto reforzar la economía y la mano de obra de Texas a largo plazo. Con esa ley, Texas se convirtió en el primero de más de dos docenas de estados en aplicar la matrícula estatal a los estudiantes indocumentados, y durante casi 24 años, esta política histórica se mantuvo intacta. Los legisladores conservadores propusieron repetidamente su derogación, pero a pesar de los años de control de un solo partido en la legislatura estatal, no hubo suficientes republicanos que apoyaran la derogación, incluso esta primavera, días antes de que la oficina del fiscal general de Texas y el Departamento de Justicia federal decidieran ponerle fin.

    Ahora, a medida que se acerca el semestre de otoño, los estudiantes inmigrantes están sopesando si darse de baja de sus cursos o esperar a que se aclare cómo les afecta el acuerdo de consentimiento firmado por el estado y el Departamento de Justicia. Los defensores de los inmigrantes temen que las universidades de Texas estén excluyendo a posibles alumnos que se encuentran en situación legal y siguen reuniendo los requisitos para pagar la matrícula estatal a pesar de la sentencia judicial, incluidos los beneficiarios del programa de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA), los solicitantes de asilo y los que tienen Estatus de Protección Temporal o TPS, porque el personal de la universidad carece de conocimientos sobre inmigración y no ha recibido directrices claras sobre quién debe pagar exactamente la matrícula más alta.

    En el Austin Community College, que presta servicio a un área tan grande como el estado de Connecticut, los miembros del consejo de administración no están seguros de cómo aplicar correctamente la sentencia judicial. Mientras esperan respuestas, hasta ahora han decidido no enviar cartas a sus estudiantes solicitándoles información confidencial para determinar las tasas de matrícula.

    Una valla publicitaria que promociona el Austin Community College en español se encuentra en una autopista que conduce a Lockhart, Texas. Credit: Sergio Flores for The Hechinger Report

    “Esta confusión perjudicará inevitablemente a los estudiantes, porque lo que vemos es que, ante la falta de información y la presencia del miedo y la ansiedad, los estudiantes optarán por no continuar con la educación superior o se esconderán en las sombras y se sentirán como miembros marginados de la comunidad”, afirmó Manuel González, vicepresidente del consejo de administración del ACC.

    Por su parte, los expertos en políticas públicas advierten de que la mano de obra de Texas podría verse afectada, ya que los jóvenes con talento, muchos de los cuales han cursado toda su educación en el sistema de escuelas públicas del estado, ya no podrán permitirse los títulos de asociado y licenciatura que les permitirían seguir carreras que ayudarían a impulsar sus economías locales. En virtud de la Ley Texas Dream, los beneficiarios estaban obligados a comprometerse a solicitar la residencia permanente legal lo antes posible, lo que les daba la oportunidad de mantener puestos de trabajo relacionados con sus títulos. Sin la condición de residentes, es probable que sigan trabajando, pero en empleos peor remunerados y menos visibles.

    Relacionado: ¿Te interesa recibir más noticias sobre universidades? Suscríbete a nuestro boletín quincenal gratuito de educación superior.

    “Es una visión muy cortoplacista en lo que respecta al bienestar del estado de Texas”, afirmó Barbara Hines, antigua profesora de Derecho que ayudó a los legisladores a redactar la Ley Texas Dream.

    A principios de siglo, casi dos décadas después de que los niños indocumentados obtuvieran el derecho a asistir a la escuela pública en Estados Unidos, los estudiantes inmigrantes y sus defensores seguían frustrados porque la universidad seguía estando fuera de su alcance.

    Para el mayor general retirado de la Guardia Nacional del Ejército Rick Noriega, un demócrata que en ese momento formaba parte de la Legislatura de Texas, esa realidad le tocó de cerca cuando se enteró de que un joven trabajador de su distrito quería matricularse en el community college local para estudiar mecánica aeronáutica, pero no podía permitirse pagar la matrícula fuera del estado.

    Noriega llamó a la oficina del rector de la escuela, que pudo proporcionar fondos para que el estudiante se inscribiera. Pero esa experiencia le llevó a preguntarse: ¿cuántos niños más de su distrito se enfrentaban a las mismas barreras para acceder a la educación superior?

    Así que colaboró con un sociólogo para encuestar a los estudiantes de las escuelas secundarias locales sobre el problema, que resultó ser muy frecuente. Y el distrito de Noriega no era una excepción. En un estado que durante mucho tiempo ha tenido una de las mayores poblaciones de inmigrantes no autorizados del país, los políticos de todos los partidos conocían a electores, amigos o familiares afectados y querían ayudar. Una vez que Noriega decidió proponer la legislación, un republicano, Fred Hill, pidió ser coautor del proyecto de ley.

    Para los defensores de la Ley Texas Dream, el mejor argumento a favor de la matrícula estatal para los estudiantes indocumentados era de carácter económico. Después de que el estado ya hubiera invertido en estos estudiantes durante la educación pública K-12, tenía sentido seguir desarrollándolos para que, con el tiempo, pudieran ayudar a satisfacer las necesidades de mano de obra de Texas.

    “Habíamos gastado todo ese dinero en estos jóvenes, y ellos habían hecho todo lo que les pedimos —en muchos casos, eran superestrellas, los mejores de su promoción y cosas por el estilo— y luego se topaban con este obstáculo, que era la educación superior, cuyo costo era prohibitivo”, dijo Noriega.

    La legislación fue aprobada fácilmente por la Cámara de Representantes de Texas, que en ese momento estaba controlada por los demócratas, pero el Senado, liderado por los republicanos, se mostró menos complaciente.

    “Ni siquiera pude conseguir una audiencia. Me dijeron rotundamente: “No, esto no va a salir adelante””, afirmó Leticia Van de Putte, la entonces senadora estatal que patrocinó la legislación en su cámara.

    Las nubes cubren el cielo detrás de la torre de la Universidad de Texas en Austin. Credit: Sergio Flores for The Washington Post via Getty Images

    Para persuadir a sus colegas republicanos, añadió varias restricciones, entre ellas la de exigir a los estudiantes indocumentados que vivieran en Texas durante tres años antes de terminar la escuela secundaria o recibir un GED. (Se estimó que tres años era el tiempo medio que tardaría una familia en pagar suficientes impuestos estatales para compensar la diferencia entre la matrícula estatal y la matrícula fuera del estado). También incluyó la cláusula que obligaba a los estudiantes indocumentados que accedían a la matrícula estatal a firmar una declaración jurada en la que se comprometían a solicitar la tarjeta de residencia tan pronto como pudieran.

    Van de Putte también recurrió a los grupos empresariales de Texas para insistir en los argumentos económicos a favor del proyecto de ley. Y convenció a la comunidad empresarial para que pagara los autobuses que llevarían a pastores evangélicos conservadores latinos de Dallas, San Antonio, Houston y otras zonas del estado a Austin, para que pudieran llamar a las puertas en apoyo de la legislación y rezar con los senadores republicanos y su personal.

    Después de eso, la Ley Texas Dream fue aprobada por abrumadora mayoría en el Senado estatal en mayo de 2001, y el entonces gobernador Rick Perry, republicano, la promulgó como ley al mes siguiente.

    Relacionado: El College Board cancela programa de premios para estudiantes negros y latinos de alto rendimiento 

    Sin embargo, en 2007, incluso cuando los defensores de los derechos de los inmigrantes, los grupos religiosos y las asociaciones empresariales formaron una coalición para defender a los inmigrantes contra las políticas estatales perjudiciales, la legislatura de Texas comenzó a presentar una serie de propuestas generalmente contrarias a los inmigrantes. En 2010, las encuestas sugerían que los tejanos se oponían de manera abrumadora a que los estudiantes indocumentados pagaran las tasas de matrícula estatales.

    En 2012, un nuevo grupo de políticos de derecha fue elegido para ocupar cargos públicos, muchos de ellos opuestos filosóficamente a la ley y muy críticos al respecto. La defensa de la política por parte de Perry se volvió en su contra durante las primarias presidenciales republicanas de 2012, cuando su campaña fue objeto de críticas después de que, durante un debate, dijera a los oponentes de la igualdad en las matrículas: “No creo que tengan corazón”.

    Aún así, ninguno de los muchos proyectos de ley presentados a lo largo de los años para derogar la Ley Texas Dream tuvo éxito. E incluso el gobernador Greg Abbott, un republicano partidario de la línea dura en materia de inmigración, se mostró en ocasiones ambiguo sobre la política, y su portavoz afirmó en 2013 que Abbott creía que “el objetivo” de la matrícula estatal independientemente del estatus migratorio era “noble”.

    Los observadores legislativos afirman que algunos republicanos del estado siguen apoyando la política. “Es una cuestión bipartidista. Hay republicanos que apoyan la matrícula estatal”, afirmó Luis Figueroa, director de asuntos legislativos de la organización sin fines de lucro Every Texan, dedicada a la investigación y la defensa de políticas públicas. “Pero no pueden decirlo públicamente”.

    Mientras tanto, a medida que el tema se volvía más controvertido políticamente en Texas, la Texas Dream Act acabó amplificando un debate más amplio que finalmente condujo a la creación del DACA, el programa de la era Obama que ha dado a algunos inmigrantes indocumentados acceso a protecciones contra la deportación y permisos de trabajo.

    Relacionado: Las amenazas de deportación de Trump pesan sobre los grupos que ofrecen ayuda con la FAFSA 

    Incluso antes del DACA, muchos inmigrantes trabajaban, y los que siguen sin papeles a menudo siguen haciéndolo, ya sea como contratistas independientes para empleadores que hacen la vista gorda ante su estatus migratorio o creando sus propios negocios. Un estudio de mayo de 2020 reveló que los residentes no autorizados constituyen el 8,2 % de la población activa del estado y que, por cada dólar gastado en servicios públicos para ellos, el estado de Texas recuperaba 1,21 dólares en ingresos.

    Pero sin el permiso legal inmediato para trabajar, los graduados universitarios indocumentados que se habían beneficiado de la Ley Dream de Texas se vieron limitados a pesar de sus títulos. A medida que la lucha por la equidad en las matrículas se extendía a otros estados, también lo hacía la lucha por una solución legal que apoyara a los estudiantes beneficiados.

    Cuando estos jóvenes, cariñosamente apodados “soñadores o dreamers”, pasaron a primer plano para defenderse más públicamente, su difícil situación despertó simpatía. En 2017, el mismo año en que Trump comenzó su primer mandato, las encuestas dieron un giro y mostraron que la mayoría de los tejanos apoyaba las matrículas estatales para los estudiantes indocumentados. Más recientemente, las investigaciones han indicado una y otra vez que los estadounidenses apoyan una vía para que los residentes indocumentados traídos a Estados Unidos cuando eran niños obtengan la residencia legal.

    Pero los argumentos en contra de la matrícula estatal, independientemente del estatus migratorio, también ganaron popularidad: los críticos sostenían que la política es injusta para los ciudadanos estadounidenses de otros estados que tienen que pagar tasas más altas, o que los estudiantes indocumentados están ocupando plazas en escuelas competitivas que podrían ser ocupadas por estadounidenses.

    El Departamento de Justicia se apoyó en una retórica similar en la demanda que acabó con la igualdad en las matrículas en Texas, alegando que la ley estatal queda invalidada por la legislación federal de 1996 que prohíbe a los inmigrantes indocumentados acceder a la matrícula estatal basada en la residencia. Ese argumento se ha convertido en un modelo, ya que la administración Trump ha presentado demandas para desmantelar las políticas de matrícula estatal de otros estados para los residentes indocumentados.

    En Kentucky, el fiscal general del estado, el republicano Russell Coleman, ha seguido los pasos de Texas y ha recomendado que el consejo estatal que supervisa la educación superior retire su normativa que permite el acceso a la matrícula estatal en lugar de luchar por defenderla en los tribunales.

    Al mismo tiempo, la administración Trump ha encontrado otras formas de recortar las oportunidades de educación superior para los estudiantes indocumentados, revocando una política que les había ayudado a participar en programas de formación profesional, técnica y para adultos, e investigando a las universidades por ofrecerles becas.

    Relacionado: Universidades recurren estudiantes hispanos para compensar disminución en la matrícula

    En Texas, el repentino cambio de política con respecto a las matrículas estatales está causando caos. Las dos universidades más grandes del estado, Texas A&M y la Universidad de Texas, están utilizando diferentes directrices para decidir qué estudiantes deben pagar las tasas fuera del estado.

    “Creo que las universidades son las que se encuentran en esta situación realmente difícil”, dijo Figueroa. “No son expertos en inmigración. Han recibido muy poca orientación sobre cómo interpretar el decreto de consentimiento”.

    En medio de tanta confusión, Figueroa predijo que es probable que surjan futuras demandas. Los estudiantes y organizaciones afectados ya han presentado mociones ante los tribunales para defender tardíamente la Ley Texas Dream contra el Departamento de Justicia.

    Mientras tanto, los jóvenes estudiantes se enfrentan a decisiones difíciles. Una estudiante, que pidió permanecer en el anonimato debido a su condición de inmigrante indocumentada, estaba leyendo las noticias en su teléfono antes de acostarse cuando vio un titular sobre el resultado del caso judicial del Departamento de Justicia.

    “Me eché a llorar porque, como alguien que ha luchado por salir adelante en sus estudios, ahora que estoy en la educación superior, ha sido una bendición”, dijo. “Así que lo primero que pensé fue: “¿Qué voy a hacer ahora? ¿Hacia dónde va mi futuro? ¿Los planes que tenía para mí tendrán que detenerse por completo?””.

    La joven, que vive en San Antonio desde que tenía 9 meses, se había matriculado en seis cursos para el otoño en la Universidad Texas A&M-San Antonio y no estaba segura de si abandonarlos. Sería su último semestre antes de obtener sus títulos en psicología y sociología, pero no podía imaginar pagar la matrícula fuera del estado.

    “Estoy en el limbo”, dijo, como “muchos estudiantes en este momento”.

    Comunícate con la editora Caroline Preston al 212-870-8965 o [email protected]

    Esta historia sobre los estudiantes indocumentados fue producida por The Hechinger Report, una organización de noticias independiente y sin fines de lucro que se centra en la desigualdad y la innovación en la educación. Suscríbase al boletín informativo del Hechinger.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Inclusivity should be about more than individual needs

    Inclusivity should be about more than individual needs

    Assessment lies at the core of higher education. It helps focus students’ learning and helps them evidence, to themselves and to others, the progress they have made in their learning and growth.

    Setting, supporting and marking assessed student work takes up a substantial proportion of academic colleagues’ effort and time.

    Approaches to assessment and outcomes of assessment experiences underpin the narratives crafted by many higher education providers to showcase how they secure meaningful educational gains for their students.

    It’s not just what you know

    Educational gains go well beyond academic assessment, yet assessment is central to student experiences and should not be limited to academic knowledge gains. Indeed, a nuanced and insightful independent report commissioned by the Office for Students in March 2024 on how educational gains were defined and articulated in TEF 2023 submissions notes that providers rated gold for student outcomes

    “make reference to enhancing student assessment practices as a vehicle for embedding identified educational gains into the curriculum, explaining that their range of assessments is designed to assess beyond subject knowledge.”

    Assessments that require evidence of learning beyond subject knowledge are a particularly pertinent point to ponder, because these assessments are more likely to underpin the kind of inclusive higher education experiences that providers hope to create for their students, with inclusion understood in broad rather than narrow terms.

    The link between inclusion and assessment has been problematised by scholars of higher education. A narrow view of inclusive assessment focuses on individual adjustments in response to specific student needs. Higher education providers, however, would benefit from developing a broad definition of inclusive assessment if they are intent on meaningfully defining educational gains. Such a definition will need to move beyond implementing individual adjustments on a case by case basis, to consider intersecting and diverse student backgrounds that may impact how a student engages with their learning.

    Well-defined

    A good definition should also be mindful of (but not constrained by) needs and priorities articulated by external bodies and employers. It should be based on a thorough understanding of how to create equitable student assessment experiences in interdisciplinary settings (being able to operate flexibly across disciplines is key to solving societal challenges). It should appreciate that bringing co and extra-curricular experiences into summative assessment does not dilute a course or programme academic core.

    It should be aligned to a view of assessment for and as learning. It should value impact that goes beyond individual student achievement and is experienced more broadly in the assessment context. Importantly, it should embrace the potential of generative artificial intelligence to enhance student learning while preserving the integrity of assessment decisions and the need for students to make responsible use of generative tools during and beyond their studies.

    All higher education providers are likely to be able to find at least some examples of good, broadly defined inclusive practice in their contexts – these may just need to be spotlighted for others to consider and engage with. To help with this task, providers should be exploring

    • · Who is included in conversations about what is assessed, when and how?
    • · How fully are experiences outside a more narrowly defined academic curriculum core included in summative evaluative judgements about student achievement of intended and desired outcomes?
    • · To what extent does the range of assessments within a course or programme include opportunities for students to have their most significant strengths developed and recognised?

    Providers should develop their own narratives and frameworks of educational gains to create full inclusion in and through assessment. As they carefully implement these (implementation is key), they may also consider not just the gains that can be evidenced but also whether they could attract, welcome and evidence gains for a broader range of students than might have been included in the providers’ initial plans.

    And suppose energy to rethink assessment reaches a low point. In that case, it will be useful to remember that insufficient attention to inclusion, broadly defined, when assessing learning and measuring gains can (inadvertently) create further disadvantage for individuals, as it preserves the system that created the disadvantage in the first place.

    Source link

  • University of Florida Hires Interim President

    University of Florida Hires Interim President

    After months of uncertainty over who will lead the University of Florida, the Board of Trustees tapped Donald Landry as interim president in a unanimous vote at a meeting Monday morning.

    Landry, chair emeritus of the Department of Medicine at Columbia University, will replace outgoing interim president Kent Fuchs, whose contract ends on Sept. 1. The appointment comes after the Florida Board of Governors rejected Santa Ono as UF’s next leader in June over his past support of diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, despite the university’s trustees approving the hire.

    Landry, who is currently president of the American Academy of Sciences and Letters, will officially step into the job on Sept. 1, pending successful contract negotiations. Details of Landry’s contract have not been released, but Ono was set to make about $3 million annually.

    The interim hire will still need to be approved by the state’s Board of Governors.

    UF’s New Leader

    In a public hourlong interview during Monday’s board meeting, Landry promised that UF would be “neutral” under his leadership. However, he added a caveat.

    “A neutral university, paradoxically, in this nation at the moment would be a conservative university. Not espousing conservative values, certainly not indoctrinating in conservatism,” Landry said. “We’d be neutral. We wouldn’t choose sides.”

    Landry also criticized Columbia faculty and administrators for failing to respond to concerns about antisemitism amid pro-Palestinian student protests last year. Last month the university reached a settlement with the federal government that included sweeping reforms to academic programs, speech and disciplinary policies, as well as a $221 million payout.

    “I saw things at Columbia that suggested an alignment between some faculty and students that I think encouraged the students to do things that were more reckless,” Landry told UF’s board.

    At another point, when asked about DEI, he said when it “first emerged it was a bit vague what it actually meant” but “by the time it crystallized it was clear [DEI] had gone too far.” Landry added that he was thankful the “government has intervened and returned us to a rational meritocracy.”

    Landry also cast himself as someone who resisted DEI at Columbia when it was “being implemented widely at every level, from the very top down to the smallest unit,” adding that “the Department of Medicine never wavered in its commitment to excellence” in his time there. Landry vowed to uphold state laws barring spending on DEI at Florida’s public institutions.

    A physician by training, Landry has degrees from Lafayette College, Harvard University and Columbia’s College of Physicians and Surgeons. In 2008, President George W. Bush awarded Landry the Presidential Citizens Medal for his work on stem cell research, which used embryos that did not survive in vitro fertilization. Bush lauded Landry as a man of science and faith, crediting his approach to stem cell research. Landry was also on the President’s Council on Bioethics during the Bush administration.

    Landry has also brought his scientific training to bear on other political debates. In early 2024, he filed a brief in a Supreme Court case in support of former Florida attorney general Ashley Moody and Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, who were sued by a technology trade group over laws passed in both states seeking to limit content moderation on social media platforms. Landry expressed concerns about censoring alternative perspectives, arguing that “the danger of censoring scientific dissent is painfully apparent from the conduct of social media platforms during the COVID-19 crisis,” which “reinforced prevailing opinion and allied government policy by suppressing dissent on a host of scientific questions.”

    SCOTUS ultimately remanded the case to the lower courts.

    Landry has also praised Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health and an epidemiologist who was skeptical of the dangers of COVID-19 and prevention measures such as stay-at-home orders. Last year Landry said that Bhattacharya refused “to compromise his scientific findings,” thus risking “his own personal and professional self-interest, repeatedly, without hesitation, to take a stand for the public’s right to unrestricted scientific discussion and debate.”

    ‘A Great Selection’

    UF Board of Trustees chair Mori Hosseini emphasized Landry’s scientific background in a news release announcing the hire, stating the new interim president “has shown exceptional leadership in academia and beyond, building programs with innovation, energy and integrity.”

    Chris Rufo, the conservative anti-DEI activist who helped tank Ono’s chances at the UF presidency through an online campaign highlighting his past statements, praised the hire.

    “Dr. Landry is a principled leader who will reverse ideological capture and restore truth-seeking within the institution. Kudos to the UF board of trustees on a great selection,” Rufo wrote on social media.

    Alan Levine, a member of the Florida Board of Governors who voted against hiring Ono, also praised the selection in a post on X, calling Landry “an excellent choice” for the UF interim presidency.

    Landry is expected to serve as interim president while UF begins a national search for its next leader. The university has been without a permanent president since former Republican senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska abruptly resigned from the job shortly before a spending scandal emerged.

    Source link

  • Cornell University plans to restructure later this year amid federal funding declines

    Cornell University plans to restructure later this year amid federal funding declines

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Cornell University leaders expect to begin restructuring the institution’s operations and workforce in phases beginning late this year and continuing into 2026.
    • In a community update Friday, senior leaders echoed a June message warning of job cuts. “Reducing costs will mean reconsidering how we handle all of our processes, from procurement to technology, and rethinking, in fundamental ways, how we allocate our resources,” they said Friday. “It will also, inevitably, mean reducing our workforce.”
    • The officials cited inflation, historical staff growth, contractions in federal funding, “significant legal and regulatory expenses,” and “an uncertain and unprecedented federal landscape.”

    Dive Insight:

    In June, the same group of Cornell leaders — President Michael Kotlikoff, Provost Kavita Bala, Chief Financial Officer Chris Cowen and Provost for Medical Affairs Robert Harrington told the university community that disruption in the higher education world would “require financial austerity.”

    “The spring semester was unlike anything ever seen in higher education, with hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research contracts at Cornell terminated or frozen, and serious threats to future research funding, federal financial aid, medical reimbursement, and research cost recovery, along with an anticipated tax on our endowment income, and rapidly escalating legal expenses,” they wrote at the time. 

    The June message also brought news of a hiring freeze. On Friday, the leaders said hiring restrictions would continue “indefinitely” with “rare exceptions” determined by campus committees. 

    Cornell was among the 60 institutions that the Trump administration warned in March could face potential sanctions over allegations related to antisemitism. 

    In April, the administration reportedly froze $1 billion in federal research funding for the university. Administrators said then that they hadn’t received official word from the government about the frozen funds but were hit with dozens of stop-work orders on grant projects. This summer, Bloomberg reported that Cornell was nearing a deal with the Trump administration to restore grant funding that could involve a $100 million payment. 

    Even before the Trump administration’s actions, Cornell faced budget pressure from rising expenses. For fiscal 2024, the Ivy League institution posted a $175.5 million operating deficit, compared to $23 million surplus the year before. 

    Cornell’s senior leaders said that to save costs, the university is looking to consolidate operations where it can, seeking “new efficiencies and reducing duplication of work.” And while part of the university’s tradition, its decentralized structure is also a source of significant administrative inefficiencies, they added.

    “Part of our task is identifying opportunities to scale and regularize our academic support systems across units with unique characteristics and needs without compromising our institutional excellence,” they said. 

    That means centralizing operations that are duplicated across colleges and units, which will ultimately lead to a smaller workforce, leaders said. They didn’t note whether those losses would be primarily through layoffs, buyouts, attrition or other means. 

    Cornell didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. 

    The leaders said they expect to complete an analysis and planning process around the university’s operations this fall. 

    “These changes will be difficult for our community but are vital for our future,” they added, describing the steps they are taking as “necessary to ensure that Cornell pursues its academic mission sustainably for generations to come.”

    Source link

  • GMU President Refuses to Apologize, Rejects OCR Findings

    GMU President Refuses to Apologize, Rejects OCR Findings

    Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    George Mason University president Gregory Washington has rejected demands by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights that he apologize for alleged discriminatory hiring practices, questioning the findings of an OCR investigation that accused him of implementing “unlawful DEI policies.”

    In a letter to GMU’s board Monday, Washington’s attorney, Douglas F. Gansler, alleged that OCR cut its fact-finding efforts short and only interviewed two university deans before reaching the conclusions the Department of Education published Friday. Gansler wrote that “OCR’s letter contains gross mischaracterizations of statements made by Dr. Washington and outright omissions” related to the university’s DEI practices.

    Gansler also accused OCR of selectively interpreting various remarks by Washington, the first Black president in GMU’s history.

    “To be clear, per OCR’s own findings, no job applicant has been discriminated against by GMU, nor has OCR attempted to name someone who has been discriminated against by GMU in any context. Therefore, it is a legal fiction for OCR to even assert or claim that there has been a Title VI or Title IX violation here,” Gansler wrote in a 10-page letter.

    ED has demanded changes at GMU and a personal apology from Washington.

    “In 2020, University President Gregory Washington called for expunging the so-called ‘racist vestiges’ from GMU’s campus,” Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor said in a statement released by the Department of Education last week. “Without a hint of self awareness, President Washington then waged a university-wide campaign to implement unlawful DEI policies that intentionally discriminate on the basis of race. You can’t make this up.”

    In his letter to the board, Gansler emphasized that under Washington’s leadership, GMU has complied with executive orders that cracked down on DEI programs and practices, pointing to recent changes such as the dissolution of GMU’s DEI office and restricting the use of diversity statements in hiring.

    “If the Board entertains OCR’s demand that Dr. Washington personally apologize for promoting unlawful discriminatory practices in hiring, promotion, and tenure processes, it will undermine GMU’s record of compliance. An apology will amount to an admission that the university did something unlawful, opening GMU and the Board up to legal liability for conduct that did not occur under the Board’s watch,” Gansler wrote. He added that admitting to such violations could bring about punitive action from other federal agencies, such as the Department of Justice.

    Washington’s rejection of an apology and dispute over the claims made by OCR comes shortly after speculation that GMU’s Board of Visitors—which includes numerous conservative political figures and activists appointed by Republican Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin—would fire him. Instead, the board gave Washington a raise after a lengthy closed-door meeting earlier this month that brought dozens of protesters out to show their support for the besieged president.

    Asked for a statement, GMU officials referred Inside Higher Ed to Gansler.

    ED did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    Source link

  • Judge strikes down Minnesota dual enrollment program’s ban on faith statements

    Judge strikes down Minnesota dual enrollment program’s ban on faith statements

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

     Dive Brief:

    • A federal judge on Friday struck down a Minnesota law prohibiting colleges that require high school students to sign statements of faith from participating in a state dual enrollment program.
    • The University of Northwestern and Crown College, two conservative Christian institutions in Minnesota, sued the state in 2023 over the law which rendered them ineligible to participate in the Postsecondary Enrollment Options program. Both colleges require on-campus students to sign religious conduct agreements.
    • Siding with the colleges, U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel ruled that Minnesota’s law infringed on their constitutional rights by making them choose between participating in the PSEO program and practicing their religion.

    Dive Insight:

    Since 1985, Minnesota’s PSEO program has allowed local high school students to earn college credit for nonsectarian coursework at participating colleges. The program is free for eligible students and reimburses colleges with fixed payments per credit hour.

    But a 2023 law, passed by the state’s Democrat-controlled Legislature, prohibited colleges from participating in the program if they require faith statements or make admission decisions based on “race, creed, ethnicity, disability, gender, or sexual orientation or religious beliefs or affiliations.”

    The University of Northwestern requires students and employees to sign a pledge to abstain from “same sex romantic intimacy.” And Crown’s student conduct policy does not allow involvement or promotion of “any sexual behavior outside the marriage of one man and one woman.”

    Both institutions, joined by three parents of high school students, sued the state the same day Democratic Gov. Tim Walz signed the legislation into law.

    The Minnesota Department of Education filed counterclaims, arguing that Crown and the University of Northwestern’s admissions policies for the PSEO program are unconstitutional.

    Early on in the case, Brasel blocked the state from enforcing the new law, allowing the colleges to continue enrolling PSEO students and earning state funds from the program while the case proceeded. Between the 2017-18 and 2022-23 academic year, the University of Northwestern received over $33.2 million from the program, and Crown received roughly $5.8 million.

    In her Friday ruling, Brasel sided with the colleges.

    “If the Schools’ eligibility to participate in PSEO is conditioned on not using faith statements as an admissions requirement, their free exercise in maintaining a campus community of like‐minded believers is burdened,” said Brasel, a Trump appointee. Families also lose their right to free exercise of religion if they can’t use the public benefit at “a school of their choice of like‐minded believers,” she said.

    The judge further wrote that if the state elects to fund private education, officials cannot disqualify private schools solely because they’re religious.

    Brasel also dismissed the state’s counterclaims Friday.

    The Minnesota Department of Education did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

    The leaders of Crown and the University of Northwestern — Andrew Denton and Corbin Hoornbeek, respectively — celebrated the verdict Saturday.

    “This legislation has given us yet another opportunity to affirm our mission; we remain committed to equipping our students to grow intellectually and spiritually to serve effectively in their professions and give God-honoring leadership in the home, church, community, and world,” Hoornbeek said in a statement.

    The same day, Denton thanked the legislators who originally opposed the ban and said Crown was grateful for the law’s reversal.

    “The court made clear that Minnesota cannot single out high school students who want to attend a faith-centered institution,” he said. 

    Source link

  • What Multiple Intelligences Can Teach Us About Enrollment Marketing

    What Multiple Intelligences Can Teach Us About Enrollment Marketing

    Each student has a different way of perceiving, processing, and connecting with information.

    If you have ever wondered why one student peppers you with questions during a campus tour while another spends the visit sketching buildings, possibly giving your founder’s statue a comically large nose, you may have met what psychologist Howard Gardner calls multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983, 1999).

    Gardner proposed that intelligence is not a single metric but a collection of capabilities: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. Each shapes how a student processes the world and how they connect during the college search. If you have ever tried to woo a future engineer with poetic descriptions of ivy-covered halls, you know: some want facts, others want a vibe, and a few want to hear about your beekeeping club.

    From theory to practice

    In K–12 education, Gardner’s theory inspired teachers to differentiate instruction to meet students where they are. Teachers understand that linguistic learners thrive in storytelling and debate. Kinesthetic learners act out history. Visual-spatial thinkers create models and posters.

    Preferences also carry into decision-making. A student with strong interpersonal intelligence may thrive in group discussion, while an intrapersonal learner prefers reflection (Shearer, 2018).

    A colleague once hosted two prospective students on the same tour. One chatted nonstop with ambassadors about clubs. The other hung back, took notes, and later emailed questions about academics. Both left a positive impression, but they connected in entirely different ways. There is no one-size-fits-all approach.

    From classroom to campus tour

    This theory has clear enrollment applications (statistics are from the 2025 E-Expectations Report from RNL, Halda, and Modern Campus).

    • Bodily-kinesthetic learners may need to walk your campus to “get” it physically. Eighty percent of students visit in person, and 88% find visits helpful.
    • Visual-spatial learners may prefer your virtual tour; 77% use it, and 84% find it helpful.
    • Musical learners might connect emotionally through audio, pacing, or sound design in videos.
    • Interpersonal learners thrive in authentic conversations, one-on-one chats, and social media DMs. Twenty-seven percent follow colleges on social as an early outreach step; 37% do so for student life content.
    • Intrapersonal learners might prefer ROI tools, microsites, or downloadable guides.
    • Logical-mathematical learners value dashboards, calculators, and evidence-based outcomes. Financial aid calculators are used by 81% and rated helpful by 85%.

    When the fit feels off

    Each intelligence has a “no-thanks” zone:

    • Kinesthetic learners disengage from dense PDFs.
    • Visual-spatial thinkers lose interest in text-heavy pages.
    • Musical learners notice when tone and pacing are off.
    • Interpersonal learners tire of one-way communication.
    • Intrapersonal learners feel drained by busy group events.
    • Logical-mathematical thinkers want facts, not fluff.
    • Linguistic learners need narrative and nuance.
    • Naturalistic learners respond to sustainability stories, not generic city skylines.

    E-Expectations data confirm this. Sixty-three percent of students use Instagram, but only 53% see college content there, missing visual, musical, and interpersonal opportunities. Nearly half (45%) use AI chatbots, and 27% fill out inquiry forms afterward, showing these tools’ value for personalization (RNL et al., 2025).

    AI as a multiple intelligences tool

    AI chatbots can adapt content type, video, infographic, or ROI data, to match a student’s preference. After engaging with an AI assistant, 24% of students said they were more likely to apply, and 29% emailed admissions (RNL et al., 2025).

    This is not about tech for tech’s sake. It is about designing digital interactions that honor different learning and connecting methods.

    Matching intelligences to enrollment touchpoints

    Each intelligence represents a unique way of perceiving, processing, and connecting with information. Your emails, tours, and inquiry forms can spark curiosity or shut it down, depending on how well they align.

    Ask yourself:

    • Are you offering an “entry point” for every kind of learner?
    • Where are your blind spots?
    • What simple tweaks could widen the invitation?

    This is not about building eight separate funnels. It is about creating a flexible ecosystem where every student can find something that feels made for them.

    Multiple intelligences and enrollment touchpoints

    Intelligence Type How They Process and Connect Enrollment Strategies That Click Common Turnoffs
    Linguistic Love stories, strong narratives, nuanced language Student blogs, alum success stories, narrative-driven videos, compelling email subject lines Dry fact sheets with no story
    Logical-Mathematical Seek patterns, data, and ROI Cost calculators, outcome dashboards, program comparison tools Emotion-heavy marketing without evidence
    Visual-Spatial Think in images, layouts Virtual tours, interactive maps, infographics, campus photo galleries Text-heavy pages without visuals
    Musical Respond to rhythm, tone, sound Videos with thoughtful sound design, podcasts, and student performances Flat, monotone content
    Bodily-Kinesthetic Learn by doing, moving Campus tours, hands-on events, and fairs Long static presentations or PDFs
    Interpersonal Thrive in connection with others One-on-one ambassador chats, live Q&A, small group sessions, social DMs One-way mass communication with no response path
    Intrapersonal Reflective, self-directed Self-paced microsites, outcome quizzes, downloadable guides Crowded events, high-pressure group calls
    Naturalistic Connect through nature and real-world context. Sustainability initiatives, green campus tours, and community-based learning stories Generic marketing is disconnected from the environment.

    (Table adapted from Gardner 1983, 1999; RNL et al, 2025.)

    Final thought

    You do not need a degree in educational psychology to use multiple intelligences in enrollment strategy. You need to remember that students are cognitively and emotionally diverse (Gardner, 1983, 1999).

    The smartest move? Offer multiple ways to connect and then let students choose.

    Talk with our marketing and recruitment experts

    RNL works with colleges and universities across the country to ensure their marketing and recruitment efforts are optimized and aligned with how student search for colleges.  Reach out today for a complimentary consultation to discuss:

    • Student search strategies
    • Omnichannel communication campaigns
    • Personalization and engagement at scale

    Request now

    References

    Source link

  • FIRE statement on President Trump’s executive order to outlaw flag burning

    FIRE statement on President Trump’s executive order to outlaw flag burning

    On Aug. 25, President Donald Trump issued an executive order cracking down on flag burning, which is protected expressive activity under the First Amendment. During the signing, Trump remarked, “If you burn a flag, you get one year in jail.” The following statement can be attributed to FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere.


    President Trump may believe he has the power to revise the First Amendment with the stroke of a pen, but he doesn’t.

    Flag burning as a form of political protest is protected by the First Amendment. That’s nothing new. While people can be prosecuted for burning anything in a place they aren’t allowed to set fires, the government can’t prosecute protected expressive activity — even if many Americans, including the president, find it “uniquely offensive and provocative.”

    You don’t have to like flag burning. You can condemn it, debate it, or hoist your own flag even higher. The beauty of free speech is that you get to express your opinions, even if others don’t like what you have to say. 

    Your burning questions on flag burning

    The right to burn the American flag sparks heated debate, but the First Amendment protects flag burning in most cases.


    Read More

    Source link

  • Chinese officials force censorship of Thai gallery’s art exhibit about authoritarianism (proving the exhibit’s point)

    Chinese officials force censorship of Thai gallery’s art exhibit about authoritarianism (proving the exhibit’s point)

    Last year, FIRE launched the Free Speech Dispatch, a regular series covering new and continuing censorship trends and challenges around the world. Our goal is to help readers better understand the global context of free expression. Want to make sure you don’t miss an update? Sign up for our newsletter

    Exhibit on authoritarianism censored by authoritarians

    These days, repressive regimes are not content with just censoring their critics within their own borders. They also think they have the authority to determine what the rest of the world can see, hear, and say, which is how we wind up with news like the latest out of Thailand. 

    In late July, staff from China’s embassy visited the Bangkok Arts and Cultural Centre, along with local city officials to demand the censorship of the exhibition “Constellation of Complicity: Visualising the Global Machinery of Authoritarian Solidarity.” The gallery granted their demands and “removed pieces included Tibetan and Uyghur flags and postcards featuring Chinese President Xi Jinping, as well as a postcard depicting links between China and Israel.” Words including “Hong Kong,” “Tibet,” and “Uyghur” were redacted. But even this was not enough for the Chinese embassy, whose staff returned to seek further redactions and “reminded the gallery to comply with the One China policy.” 

    In a statement, China’s foreign ministry said Thailand’s quick action to pressure the gallery to censor “shows that the promotion of the fallacies of ‘Tibetan independence,’ ‘East Turkestan Islamic Movement,’ and ‘Hong Kong independence’ has no market internationally and is unpopular.” What it actually shows, though, is that the Chinese government often throws its weight around on the global scale — and gets its way. Authoritarians in the Academy, my new book out this month, documents precisely how China has attempted to enforce this kind of censorship in global higher education.

    The co-curators of the show, a married couple, have since fled Thailand, citing fears of retaliation by Thai authorities. They plan to seek asylum in the UK. 

    Palestine Action, internet speech, and the disastrous Online Safety Act rollout 

    As I explained in the last Dispatch, UK police are enacting a widespread crackdown on protests surrounding Palestine Action, a group banned under anti-terrorism legislation for damaging military planes in a protest. They’re not just arresting the group’s activists, but also any and all members of the public who express “support” for the group. That even includes a man who held up a sign of a political cartoon — one legally printed and available for sale in a Private Eye edition — that criticized the ban on Palestine Action, as well as an 80-year-old woman who was held for 27 hours for attending a protest.

    Pro-Palestinian activists protest outside the Royal Courts of Justice as a judge hears a challenge to the proscription of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act. (Pete Speller / Shutterstock.com)

    These arrests were just drops in the bucket. Police arrested 532 protesters over one weekend this month, with all but 10 being arrested for words or signs “supporting” the banned group. “We have significant resources deployed to this operation,” Metropolitan Police posted on X. “It will take time but we will arrest anyone expressing support for Palestine Action.” Northern Ireland police also warned protesters that they could face prosecution.

    That’s not even the only troubling free speech scandal from UK police these past weeks. 

    Carmen Lau, a Hong Kong activist now living in the UK and still a target of censorship from the Chinese government, says Thames Valley police asked her to sign an agreement that she would “cease any activity that is likely to put you at risk” and “avoid attending” protests to limit the likelihood of overseas repression. Then a magistrate court overturned a gag order placed on a firefighter, suggesting that police officers were attempting to enforce a “police state.” Police raided the home of Robert Moss, a firefighter who won a wrongful termination challenge in 2023, over Facebook comments he’d posted about Staffordshire’s fire department, and then told him he must not only stay silent about leadership of the fire department, but was also not permitted to even discuss the investigation itself. 

    Meanwhile, overzealous police are far from the only problems facing internet speech in the UK. Looming even larger is the Online Safety Act, now in effect and wreaking havoc on the UK’s internet users and the companies and platforms they engage with online. A useful collection from Reason’s Elizabeth Nolan Brown shows how requirements that sites verify age for material “harmful to children” created some absurd fallout. Age-gated content has included an X post with the famous painting Saturn Devouring His Son, news about Ukraine and Gaza, and a thread about material being restricted under the act. 

    The Wikimedia Foundation’s challenge to certain regulations of the law failed this month, meaning many of its concerns about the act’s threats to the privacy of Wikipedia’s anonymous editors remain. But now, the message board site 4chan is pushing back, refusing to pay a fine already doled out for its noncompliance with the law. “American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an email,” the site’s lawyers wrote in a statement.

    And to the UK citizens who understandably are uncomfortable with the burdensome and privacy-threatening process of age-verification just to use the internet, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology Peter Kyle warns: Don’t look for a workaround. Bizarrely, Kyle claimed adults verifying their age “keeps a child safe,” as if an adult’s VPN use somehow poses a risk to some child, somewhere. 

    Two women sentenced to a decade for printing anti-Hugo Chávez shirts 

    In what certainly looks like a case of entrapment, two Venezuelan women who run a T-shirt printing business were recently sentenced to 10 years in prison on charges of incitement to hatred, treason, and terrorism. They had accepted an order to print shirts featuring a photo of a protester destroying a statue of late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. The women were initially wary of taking the order — apparently, for good reason — but eventually accepted it from the insistent customer. While delivering the order, they were arrested by police, who also confiscated their equipment and inventory. 

    It’s not just in Venezuela. More censorship of political speech, protest, and journalism globally:

    • Ugandan authorities disappeared a student for weeks, and when public outcry finally forced them to explain his whereabouts, he “resurfaced” at a police station and was charged with “offensive communication” for intent “to ridicule, demean and incite hostility against the president” on TikTok.
    • Moroccan feminist activist Ibtissam Lachgar was arrested this month for posting a photo of herself wearing a shirt with the message, “Allah is Lesbian.” A public prosecutor cited her “offensive expressions towards God” and post “containing an offense to the Islamic religion.”
    • An Argentine legislator is being prosecuted for social media posts comparing Israel to the Nazi regime and calling it a “genocide state.” In 2020, Argentina adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. (FIRE has repeatedly expressed concerns about codification of the IHRA definition and the likelihood it will censor or chill protected political speech.)
    • Belarusian authorities arrested dozens of activists and critics who took part in anti-government protests outside Belarus, in countries including the U.S. and UK.
    • Russian journalist Olga Komleva was sentenced to 12 years on “extremism” charges for her ties to the late Alexei Navalny and for spreading alleged fake news about the Ukraine invasion.
    • Cities across Canada have withdrawn permits for performances by Sean Feucht, a right-wing Christian singer and vocal supporter of President Trump, with one Montreal church facing a $2,500 fine for going forward with his concert. Montreal mayor Valérie Plante said, “This show runs counter to the values of inclusion, solidarity, and respect that are championed in Montreal. Freedom of expression is one of our fundamental values, but hateful and discriminatory speech is not acceptable in Montreal.”
    • Indonesian authorities are warning about the country’s regulations on flag desecration and respect for state symbols in response to a trend of citizens posting the Jolly Roger flag from the manga One Piece as a form of protest.
    • Six journalists, including four with Al Jazeera, were killed by an Israeli airstrike. The Israeli military accused one of the journalists, Anas al-Sharif, of being a Hamas cell leader, but the Committee to Protect Journalists says it “has made no claims that any of the other journalists were terrorists.”
    • A 34-year-old Thai security guard, originally sentenced to 15 years, will spend seven years in prison for Computer Crimes Act and lese-majeste violations for insulting the monarchy on social media.
    • statement from the U.S. and a number of European nations accused Iranian intelligence authorities of widespread plots “to kill, kidnap, and harass people in Europe and North America in clear violation of our sovereignty.”
    • Chinese officials in eastern Zhejiang province issued warnings to performers about material on gender relations in response to a comedian’s viral set about her abusive husband. “Criticism is obviously fine, but it should be … constructive rather than revolve around gender opposition for the sake of being funny,” the warning read.

    Book banning abroad

    Arundhati Roy waliking on village the road at Dwaraka, Kerala, Indi

    Arundhati Roy walking on village the road at Dwaraka, Kerala, India (Paulose NK / Shutterstock.com)

    Under the criminal code of 2023, Indian authorities in Kashmir banned over two dozen books, including those by novelist Arundhati Roy and historian Sumantra Bose. The books allegedly promote “false narratives” and “secessionism.” Selling or even just owning these books can result in prison time.

    This ban follows raids by Russian authorities of bookshops carrying titles from a list of 48 banned books, often those with LGBT themes. 

    Tech and the law

    • In enforcing its under-16 ban for social media, Australia reversed course and now will include YouTube in the group of platforms subject to the country’s age-gate ban.
    • French prosecutors are investigating Elon Musk’s X to see if the platform’s algorithm or data extraction policies violated the country’s laws.
    • Indian media outlets are disappearing past reporting amid “growing pressure from the Indian government to limit reporting critical of its policies.” One journalist told Index on Censorship that “404 journalism” is “becoming a new genre of journalism in India — stories that once were, but are now memory.”
    • A new law in Kyrgyzstan bans online porn to “protect moral and ethical values” in the country and “requires internet providers to block websites based on decisions by the ministry of culture”
    • Starting this autumn, Meta will no longer allow political or social issue ads on its apps within the EU, citing “significant operational challenges and legal uncertainties” from the forthcoming Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising rules.
    • Qatar approved an amendment to a cybercrime law that criminalizes publishing or circulating images or videos of people in public places without their consent, raising an outcry from press freedom advocates. Offenders can face up to one year in prison and/or a fine of up to 100,000 Qatari riyals (about $27,500).

    More suppression in and outside Hong Kong, as Jimmy Lai’s trial nears its end

    Readers of the Free Speech Dispatch are likely aware of how grim the situation for free expression in Hong Kong has become in the past few years, and there are no improvements in sight. It even reaches globally. Late last month, officials issued arrest warrants for overseas activists, including those based in the U.S., for alleged national security law violations.

    In recent weeks within the city, eight of Hong Kong’s public universities signed an agreement announcing their intent to comply with Xi Jinping’s and mainland China’s governance, another conspicuous sign of academic freedom’s decline in the city. The Hong Kong International Film Festival cut a Taiwanese film from its schedule for failing to receive a “certificate of approval” from the city’s film censors. Then a teenager was arrested by national security police for writing “seditious” words in a public toilet. Police said the messages “provoked hatred, contempt or disaffection against” Hong Kong’s government.

    And the trial of Jimmy Lai, the 77-year-old media tycoon and founder of dissenting newspaper Apple Daily, is now reaching its conclusion. Lai, who is in poor health, has pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and conspiracy to publish seditious material in Apple Daily.

    In a troubling incident in an already disturbing case, a judge overseeing the case cited speech suppression in the U.S. to justify the prosecution of Lai. “People who were freely expressing their views on Palestine, they were arrested in England… [and] in the US,” Judge Esther Toh said in court last week. “It’s easy to say ‘la-di-da, it’s not illegal,’ but it’s not an absolute. Each country’s government has a different limit on freedom of expression.”

    It should be a warning sign to Americans when our government’s actions are cited abroad in favor of, not against, censorship.

    Source link

  • How Artificial Intelligence Is Reshaping College Planning

    How Artificial Intelligence Is Reshaping College Planning

    What does the latest research tell us about students using AI for college planning?

    If you have spent time with today’s high school students, you know their college search journey looks nothing like it did ten, or even five, years ago. A glossy brochure or a well-timed postcard still has a place. However, the first “hello” increasingly comes through a digital assistant, a TikTok video, or a quick artificial intelligence–powered search.

    Let us not pretend artificial intelligence (AI) is everyone’s new best friend. Some students are eager, some are eye-rolling, and plenty are stuck in the “maybe” camp. That mix of excitement and hesitation is real, and it deserves as much attention as hype.

    The data is clear: nearly half of students (45 percent) have already used a digital AI assistant on a college website, with usage peaking among 9th- and 10th-graders (RNL, Halda, & Modern Campus, 2025). At the same time, a full third of students nationwide have turned to tools like ChatGPT to explore colleges, scholarships, and even essay help (RNL & Teen Voice, 2025).

    This trend is playing out nationwide, with major news outlets reporting that AI chatbots are becoming a common part of the college application process, assisting students with everything from brainstorming essays to navigating deadlines (Singer, 2023).

    For many students, AI is not futuristic; it is already woven into how they imagine, explore, and narrow their choices. Recent reporting confirms that AI-driven college search platforms are helping more students, especially those without access to personalized guidance, find the right fit and expand their options beyond what they might have considered on their own (Greenberg, 2025).

    Beyond RNL: What other research shows

    The RNL findings fit a much bigger story about how AI changes education. Around the world, researchers are watching students test, tinker, and sometimes wrestle with what these tools mean for learning and planning.

    One line of research looks at predictive modeling. Recent studies have shown that AI-driven platforms can analyze student data, grades, extracurricular activities, and demographics to predict which students are likely to pursue college and which might need extra support (Eid, Mansouri, & Miled, 2024). By flagging students at risk of falling off the college pathway, these predictive systems allow counselors to intervene earlier, potentially changing a student’s trajectory.

    Another cluster of studies zeroes in on personalized guidance. Tools built around a student’s interests and goals can recommend classes, extracurriculars, and colleges that “fit” better than a generic list. This is especially important in schools where one counselor may juggle hundreds of students (Majjate et al., 2023).

    Meanwhile, students are already using AI, sometimes in ways that make their teachers nervous. A Swedish study added some nuance: the most confident students use AI the most, while those who are already unsure of their skills tend to hold back (Klarin, 2024). That raises real equity questions about who benefits.

    And not all students are fans. Some research highlights concerns about privacy, over-reliance, and losing the chance to build their problem-solving muscles. It is a reminder that skepticism is not resistance for resistance’s sake but a way of protecting what matters to them.

    On the institutional side, surveys suggest that many colleges are preparing to use AI in admissions, whether for transcript analysis or essay review. Recent coverage underscores that admissions offices are increasingly turning to AI tools to streamline application review, identify best-fit students, and even personalize outreach (Barnard, 2024).

    If all of this feels like a promise and a warning label, it is because it is. AI can democratize access to information, but it can also amplify bias. Students know that. And they want us to take their concerns seriously.

    Empower your leadership and staff to harness the power of AI.

    Don’t get left behind in the AI transformation for higher education. See how RNL’s AI Education Services can help your leaders and staff unlock the full potential of AI on your campus.

    Learn more

    Meet the pioneers, aspirers, resistors, and fence-sitters

    As revealed by our research in The AI Divide in College Planning (RNL & Teen Voice, 2025), not all students approach artificial intelligence the same way. Four personas stand out:

    • Pioneers are already deep in the mix, using artificial intelligence for research, essays, and scholarship searches. Many say it has opened doors to colleges they might not have even considered otherwise.
    • Aspirers are curious but want proof. They like the idea of scholarship searches or cost planning, but need easy, free tools and success stories before they commit.
    • Resistors lean on counselors and family. They are worried about accuracy and privacy, but might come around if an advisor they trust introduces the tool.
    • Fence-Sitters are classic “wait and see” students. A third might trust artificial intelligence to guide them through the application process, but the majority are still unsure.

    The takeaway? There is no single “artificial intelligence student.” Institutions need flexible strategies that welcome the eager, reassure the cautious, and do not alienate the skeptics.

    What happens after the chatbot says, “Hello“?

    One of the most striking findings from the E-Expectations study is that students rarely stop at the chatbot (RNL, Halda, & Modern Campus, 2025). After engaging with an AI assistant, they move. Twenty-nine percent email admissions directly, 28% click deeper into the website, 27% fill out an inquiry form, and almost a quarter apply.

    In other words, that little chat bubble is not just answering frequently asked questions. It is a launchpad.

    Personalization meets privacy

    Here is another twist. While most students (61%) want personalization, they want it on their terms. Nearly half prefer to filter and customize their content, while only 16% want the college to decide automatically (RNL, Halda, & Modern Campus, 2025).

    That is the sweet spot for artificial intelligence: not deciding for students but giving them the levers to design their journey.

    What this means for your enrollment teams

    • AI is not just a front-end feature but a funnel mover. Treat chatbot engagement like an inquiry. Have a system ready to respond quickly when a student shifts from chatting to acting.
    • Remember the personas. Pioneers want depth, Aspirers want reassurance, Resistors want trusted guides, and Fence-Sitters want time. Design communications that honor those differences instead of pushing one script for all.
    • Personalization is not about guessing. It is about giving students control. Build tools that let them filter, sort, search, and resist the temptation to over-curate their journey.
    • AI is a natural fit for cost and scholarship exploration. If you want to hook Aspirers, put AI into your net price calculators or scholarship finders.
    • Virtual tours and event registration bots should not feel like gimmicks. When done well, they can bridge the gap between interest and visit, giving students confidence before setting foot on campus.

    Download the complete reports from RNL and our partners to see what students are telling us directly:

    Report: The AI Divide in College Planning, image of two female college students sitting on steps and looking at a laptop
    The AI Divide in College Planning
    References

    Source link