Blog

  • Higher Education Inquirer Approaches Half Million Views

    Higher Education Inquirer Approaches Half Million Views


     

    Source link

  • The best and most rewarding study time possible

    The best and most rewarding study time possible

    About a decade ago now, there was a problem at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

    Across a collection of STEM courses, there was a significant “achievement” (attainment/awarding) gap between marginalised groups (all religious minorities and non-White students) and privileged students (caucasian, non-Hispanic participants who were either Christian or had no religion).

    Psychology prof Markus Brauer had an idea. He’d previously undertaken research on social norms messaging – communicating to people that most of their peers hold certain pro-social attitudes or tend to engage in certain pro-social behaviours.

    He knew that communications shape people’s perceptions of what is common and socially acceptable, which in turn influences their own attitudes and behaviours.

    So he thought he’d try some on new students.

    He started by trying out posters in waiting rooms and teaching spaces, and then tried showing two groups of students a video – one saw an off-the-shelf explanation of bias and micro-aggressions, and another where lots of voxpopped students described the day to day benefits of diversity.

    Long story short? The latter “social norms” video had a strong, significant, positive effect on inclusive climate scores for students from marginalised backgrounds.

    They reported that their peers behaved more inclusively and treated them with more respect, and the effect was stronger for marginalised students than for privileged students.

    Then he tried it again. One group got to see the social norms video in their first scheduled class, and those students also got an email from the university’s Deputy Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Inclusion in week 7 of the semester, which reported positive findings from the university’s most recent climate survey and encouraged students to continue working toward an inclusive social climate.

    The other group had a short “pro-diversity” statement added to the syllabus that was distributed in paper format during the first class. That pro-diversity statement briefly mentioned the university’s commitment to diversity and inclusive excellence. Students in this group did not receive an email.

    As well as a whole bunch of perception effects, by the end of the semester the marginalised students in the latter group had significantly lower grades than privileged students. But in the norms video group, the achievement gap was completely eliminated – through better social cohesion.

    What goes on tour

    I was thinking about that little tale on both days of our brief study tour to Stockholm last month, where 20 or so UK student leaders (and the staff that support them) criss-crossed the city to meet with multiple student groups and associations to discuss their work.

    Just below the surface, on the trips there’s an endless search for the secret sauce. What makes this work? Why is this successful?

    Across our encounters in Stockholm, one of the big themes was “culture”. Gerry Johnson and Kevan Scholes’ Cultural Web isn’t a bad place to start.

    • Stories and symbols were everywhere in Stockholm – Uppsala and Lund’s student nations tell a story of deep-rooted student self-governance, while patches on student boilersuits mark both affiliation and achievement.
    • Rituals and routines were on offer too. Valborg (Walpurgis Eve) celebrations in Sweden bring students together in citywide festivities, and the routine of structured student influence meetings – where student representatives actively participate in decision-making – ensures that engagement isn’t just performative but institutionalised.
    • Organisational structures help too. A student ombuds system that provides legal advice and advocacy, sends the signal that rights – mine and yours – are as important as responsibilities. Students’ role in housing cooperatives demonstrate how deeply embedded student influence is too – giving students a tangible stake in their own living conditions. And plenty of structures that include circa 2k students feels “just right” in terms of self-governing student communities.
    • Control systems and power structures define the boundaries of student influence and how authority is distributed. Visibly giving student groups the job of welcome and induction – not “res life” professionals, “student engagement” teams or “events managers” – seems to matter. Causing student groups to lead on careers work – with professional staff behind the scenes, rather than front and centre – matters too.

    In conversation, culture came up in multiple ways. One of the things that lots of the groups and their offshoots mentioned was that they played a role in introducing students to Swedish student culture – for international students, home students who were first in family, or just new students in general who needed to know how things worked.

    It came up in both an academic context and a social context. In the former, the focus was on independent study and the relative lack of contact hours in the Swedish system – in the latter, through traditions like “spex” (comedic part-improv theatrical performances created and performed by students), students wearing boiler suits with patches, or “Gasques”, where where students dress up, sing traditional songs, and enjoy multiple courses of food alongside speeches and entertainment.

    But it also came up as a kind of excuse. As well as cracking out the XE app to work out how much better off students in Sweden tend to be, when we got vague answers to our questions interrogating the high, almost jaw-dropping levels of engagement in extracurricular responsibilities, both them and us were often putting it down to “the culture”.

    “It’s fun”, “it’s what we do here”, “we want to help people” were much more likely to be the answers on offer than the things our end expected – CV boosting, academic credit or remuneration.

    “Excuse” is a bit unfair – partly because one of the things that’s happened off the back of previous study tours is that delegates have brought home project ideas or new structures and plonked them into their university, the resultant failures often put down to a difference in culture.

    Maybe that’s reasonable, maybe not. But we can change culture, surely?

    Depth and breadth

    Whatever’s going on, the depth and breadth of student engagement in activity outside of the formal scope of their course in Sweden is breathtaking.

    At Stockholm’s School of Economics, the student association’s VP for Education told us that of the circa 1800 students enrolled, about 96 per cent are SU members – and 700 of them are “active”. I think I thought he meant “pitching up to stuff semi-regularly”, but on the next slide he meant ”have a position of responsibility”.

    At the KTH Royal Institute of Technology, the volunteers we met from Datasektion – the “chapter” for students studying data science courses – had similar stats, nestled in a much bigger university. We met them in their “chapter room” – something that felt like it was theirs rather than a page from a furniture catalogue. As they presented their slides, I started surfing around their website to count the roles. I soon gave up. There’s even a whole committee for keeping the chapter room clean – it’s their home, after all.

    Chatting to the tiny crew of staff at Stockholm University’s SU was a humbling experience. Every time we thought we’d got a grip on their structures, another set unfurled – councils, forums, sports groups, societies, project groups and hundreds of university-level reps shouldn’t be sustainable in a university of 30,000 students – but it is.

    Even at Södertörn University just south of the city – a former Högskola (university college) that’s as close as Sweden gets to a post-92, the numbers are wild. There’s reps for departments, reps for subjects, reps for university boards and working groups, reps that run the careers fair, and reps for the SU’s work environment, archives, finance and administration, graphic design, sustainability, communication, project management and student influence and impact.

    There’s even 30 odd students that run the pub – without a “grown up” in sight.

    It was probably the Doctoral chapter back at KTH that really did it for me. I don’t think it’s unfair to suggest that extracurricular activity and student representation for PhD students in the UK is fairly thin on the ground – in Sweden, not only is there a vision for PGR student life beyond the research and the survival, there are formal time compensation arrangements that support it.

    Maybe that’s why there’s branches, projects, EDI initiatives, careers support, international student events, ombudspeople, awards nights, trips, handbooks, student support and highly sophisticated research and lobbying. Actually, maybe that’s why Swedish PhD students are salaried at a level approaching those that supervise them – while our “New Deal” says nothing on student life or representation, and frames stipends equivalent to the minimum wage as an achievement.

    There’s many a student leader that’s returned to the UK and decided that they need an elected officer for every faculty, or to create a PGR “officer” or whatever, only to find that the culture in said university or faculty gives that student nothing to work with and little to organise.

    One of our new Swedish friends described that as “painting a branch a different colour – the tree will still be brown when the tree grows and the branch falls off”, as she impressively explained the way that students were recruited first to help, then later to take charge, building their confidence and skills along the way.

    Causes and effects

    Back in the UK, the sector often talks of how students have changed – as if their desires, preferences, activities or attitudes are outside of the gift of educational institutions – something to be marketed to rather than inculcated with.

    But every student I’ve ever met wants to fit in – to know the rules of the games, to know how things work around here, to know how to fit in. Maybe how they’re inducted and supported – and who does that induction and support – matters.

    Maybe it’s about age – students enrol into higher education later in Sweden. Maybe it’s about pace – in the standard three years, only about 40 per cent of bachelor’s students complete – add on three years, and “drop out” is as low as in the UK.

    Maybe it’s about a wider culture of associative activity – the UK always has been useless at sustaining mutuals, and our participation rates in them are near the bottom of the European tables.

    Maybe it’s the legislation – law that has given students the formal right to influence their own education and a panoply of associated rights without the tiresome discourse of consumerism or “what do they know” since the 1970s.

    Maybe it’s about trust. You soon spot when you visit a country how much its people are trusted when you jump on a train – “it must be because it’s so cheap” is what we tend to think, but maybe that lack of barriers and inspectors is about something else.

    Less than 4 in 10 staff in Swedish Universities are non-academic, far less than in the UK. Maybe we do so much for students in the UK because they need the help. Maybe we’ve convinced ourselves – both in universities and SUs – that they can’t or won’t do it on their own – or that if they did, they’d mess it up, or at least mess the metrics or the marketing up.

    In that endless search for the secret sauce, the research doesn’t help. In theses like this, the most common reasons for student volunteering in Sweden are improving things/helping people, meeting new people/making friends, developing skills, and gaining work experience/developing their CV. Like they are everywhere.

    International students, particularly those studying away from their home country, are more likely to volunteer as a way to make new social connections. Younger students tend to volunteer more frequently than older ones. And universities could encourage volunteering by increasing awareness, linking it to academic subjects, and offering rewards or networking opportunities​. We knew that already.

    But actually, maybe there’s something we didn’t know:

    Swedish students tend to volunteer because it is seen as normal rather than something extraordinary.

    And that takes us back to Wisconsin.

    Normal for Norfolk

    In this terrific podcast, Markus Brauer urges anyone in a university trying to “change the culture” to focus on the evidence. He says that traditional student culture change initiatives lack rigorous evaluation, rely on flawed assumptions, provoke resistance, and raise awareness without changing behaviour.

    He critiques approaches that focus on individual attitudes rather than systemic barriers, stressing that context and social norms – not just personal beliefs – shape behaviour. Negative, deficit-based framing alienates. And it’s positive, evidence-based, and systematic strategies – structural reforms, visible institutional commitments and peer modelling that really drive the change.

    Maybe that’s why each and every student leader we met had an engagement origin story that was about belonging.

    When I asked the International Officer at the Stockholm Student Law Association what would happen if a new student didn’t know how to approach an assignment, he was unequivocal – one of the “Fadder” students running the group social mentoring scheme would do the hard yards on the hidden curriculum.

    When I asked the Doctoral President at KTH how she first got involved, it was because someone had asked her to help out. The Education VP at the School of Economics? He went to an event, and figured it would be fun to help run it next time because he’d get to hang out with those that had run it for him. Now he runs a student-led study skills programme and gets alumni involved in helping students to succeed. Maybe it’s that. School plays sell out.

    Belonging has become quite important in HE in recent years. The human need to feel connected, valued, and part of something greater than ourselves has correlations with all sorts of things that are good. Belonging shapes students’ identities, impacts their well-being, enables them to take risks and overcome challenges with resilience.

    But since we’ve been putting out our research, something bad has been happening. Back in the UK, I keep coming across posters and social media graphics that say to students “you belong here”

    And that’s a problem, because something else we know is that when a student doesn’t feel like that and when there’s no scaffolding or investment to stimulate it, it can make students feel worse. Because the other thing we’ve noticed about how others in Europe do it is that it’s about doing things.

    Doing belonging

    The first aspect of that is that when students work together on something it allows us to value and hope for the success of others beyond their individual concerns. They want the project to succeed. We want the event to go well. They smile for the photos in a group.

    The second is that when they work in a group and they connect and contribute they’re suddenly not in competition, and so less likely to lose. When they’re proofing someone’s essay or planning a route for a treasure hunt, they’re not performing for their success – they’re performing for others.

    But the third is that they start to see themselves differently. Suddenly they’re not characterised by their characteristics, judged by their accent or ranked by their background. They start to transcend the labels and become the artist, the coach, the consultant or the cook.

    The folklore benefits of HE participation are well understood and hugely valuable to society. They’re about health, wellbeing, confidence, community mindedness and a respect for equality and diversity.

    In every country in the process of massifying, the debate about whether they’re imbued via the signalling of those that go (rather than those that don’t), or whether they’re imbued via the graduate attributes framework variously crowbarred into modules, or imbued simply via friendship or via the social mixing that seems so scarce in modern HE rages on.

    My guess is that it’s partly about having the time to do things – we make student life more and more efficient at our peril. It’s partly about giving things back to students that we’ve pretty much professionalised the belonging out of. It’s partly about scaffolding – finding structures that counterintuitively run against the centralisation rampant in the management of institutions and causing students to organise their communities in groups of the right size.

    Maybe it’s all of that, or some of it. Maybe some good social norming videos would help.

    But my best guess is not that higher education should show new students a manipulative video tricking them into the social proof that helping others is fun. It’s that seeing other students do things for them – and then asking them to get involved themselves – is both the only way to build belonging and community, and the only way to ensure that the benefits of participation extend beyond the transactional.

    When students witness peers actively shaping their environment, supporting each other, and making tangible contributions to their communities, they don’t just internalise the value of participation – they embody it. Creating the conditions where reciprocity feels natural, expected and rewarding is about making it natural, expected, and rewarding.

    The more HE massifies, the more the questions will come over the individual benefits to salary, the more the pressure will come on outcomes, and the more that some will see skills as something that’s cheaper to do outside of the sector than in it.

    If mass HE is to survive, its signature contribution in an ever-more divided world ought to be belonging, community and social cohesion. However hard it looks, that will mean weaning off engineering individual engagement from the top down – and starting to enable community engagement from the ground up.

    Source link

  • After Heated Oval Office Exchange, Trump Ends Pivotal Meeting With Zelensky Early (Time)

    After Heated Oval Office Exchange, Trump Ends Pivotal Meeting With Zelensky Early (Time)

    Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky wouldn’t concede the point. A tense Oval Office meeting Friday that was supposed to end in Ukraine agreeing to share mining resources with the U.S. devolved into a heated argument as President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance insisted Ukraine should express more gratitude for U.S. support and agree to a ceasefire with Russia, even without clear security guarantees from the U.S.
    “You don’t have the cards right now,” Trump told Zelensky, as the two interrupted each other during a forceful exchange in front of TV cameras.

    Source link

  • Arizona bill to cut off state funding over college DEI courses gains traction

    Arizona bill to cut off state funding over college DEI courses gains traction

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

     Dive Brief:

    • An Arizona bill that would cut all state funding for public colleges offering classroom instruction related to diversity, equity and inclusion cleared a key legislative hurdle Thursday. State Senate lawmakers advanced the bill in a preliminary vote, and a final Senate vote on the measure could come as soon as Monday.
    • If enacted, the legislation would prohibit faculty at the state’s public universities and community colleges from relating “contemporary American society” to a wide range of social and economic topics, including whiteness, antiracism, unconscious bias and gender-based equity.
    • It would also ban colleges from teaching that racially neutral or color-blind policies or institutions “perpetuate oppression, injustice, race-based privilege, including white supremacy and white privilege, or inequity.”

    Dive Insight:

    State Sen. David Farnsworth introduced the bill earlier this month, saying in a recent press release that he was motivated to do so after taking a class at a nearby community college.

    “The course provided by the local community college represents the very ideology that is dividing America, teaching students to view white American men through a lens of privilege and oppression,” he said. 

    Farnsworth further described education about gender fluidity as “indoctrination” and said his proposal puts “students’ academic futures over political agendas.”

    If the bill is enacted, faculty would not be allowed to “relate contemporary American society to”:

    • Critical theory.
    • Whiteness.
    • Systemic racism.
    • Institutional racism.
    • Antiracism.
    • Microaggressions.
    • Systemic bias.
    • Implicit bias.
    • Unconscious bias.
    • Intersectionality.
    • Gender identity.
    • Social justice.
    • Cultural competence.
    • Allyship.
    • Race-based reparations.
    • Race-based privilege.
    • Race-based diversity.
    • Gender-based diversity.
    • Race-based equity.
    • Gender-based equity.
    • Race-based inclusion.
    • Gender-based inclusion.

    The bill would allow colleges to teach about subjects related to racial hatred or race-based discrimination, like slavery and Japanese-American internment in World War II — but only if instructors do not include any of the above subjects.

    The proposal faces an uncertain fate, as control of Arizona’s executive and legislative branches is split between parties, with a Democratic governor but Republican control of the House and Senate. 

    Despite growing more conservative through the 2024 election, the Republican party doesn’t have a veto-proof supermajority. And Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, who has voiced support for and spearheaded DEI initiatives, is unlikely to sign the bill.

    Even so, the bill threatens large pools of funding for Arizona’s higher education institutions, especially its three public universities.

    Arizona’s public four-year institutions receive 74% of their funding from state support, according to a 2024 report from the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association. 

    For example, the University of Arizona’s main campus got almost $303 million in state general funds in fiscal 2024.

    Farnsworth’s bill comes as Arizona colleges are already facing two powerful headwinds — a $96.9 million reduction in overall state funding for fiscal year 2025 and a wave of federal DEI restrictions.

    Since taking office Jan. 20, President Donald Trump has signed executive orders attempting to eliminate DEI in higher education and elsewhere, though a court order recently blocked major portions of two of those orders. And the U.S. Department of Education recently issued guidance giving colleges until the end of February to cut all DEI or risk losing federal funding.

    The University of Arizona recently took down the webpage for its Office of Diversity and Inclusion. The flagship also removed references to “diversity” and “inclusion” from its land acknowledgement — a statement recognizing the Indigenous tribal land the campus sits on — though the original version remains available on at least one department webpage.

    Protesters on the University of Arizona’s main campus called on the institution’s leaders Thursday to continue its DEI initiatives.

    As of Thursday evening, almost 2,500 University of Arizona students, employees, affiliates and others signed a letter calling for the institution to reverse the changes it made to its web presence.

    “We view your actions as preemptive and harmful over-compliance,” the letter reads, referencing the university’s response to the Education Department’s guidance and Trump’s executive orders. “Faculty, staff, and students should not have to fear political retaliation for upholding academic freedom, engaging in free speech, or advocating for their rights.”

    Source link

  • As compliance deadline looms, colleges must resist censorship — and the feds must provide more clarity

    As compliance deadline looms, colleges must resist censorship — and the feds must provide more clarity

    Last week, FIRE wrote about how colleges should interpret President Trump’s recent executive orders, Attorney General Pam Bondi’s anti-discrimination memo, and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights newest “Dear Colleague” letter. 

    At the same time, we asked OCR to give colleges additional guidance so they have a better idea of what type of speech or conduct might run afoul of its “Dear Colleague” letter. OCR has not yet done so, and with the compliance deadline set for tomorrow, we fear institutions will over-correct and engage in campus censorship.

    In fact, we’ve already seen evidence of exactly that. 

    Grand View University in Iowa, for instance, reportedly cancelled its planned International Women’s Day activities, allegedly to comply with federal DEI directives. This, even though Bondi’s Feb. 6 memo exempts “educational, cultural, or historical observances — such as Black History Month, International Holocaust Remembrance Day, or similar events — that celebrate diversity, recognize historical contributions, and promote awareness without engaging in exclusion or discrimination.” 

    This type of overcompliance — in this case, cancelling activities or events that are expressly exempted from enforcement — unnecessarily degrades the extracurricular educational environment at higher education institutions and harms the student learning experience. 

    As we said last week: OCR is bound by the First Amendment and cannot order or compel colleges and universities to violate it. If there is a conflict between federal guidance and the First Amendment, the First Amendment prevails. Whether institutions are overcomplying out of fear of losing federal funding, or in an attempt to prove a point about the directive’s vague language, colleges and universities like Grand View must not preemptively shut down speech.

    OCR’s new Title VI letter: FIRE’s analysis and recommendations

    News

    The Department of Education should provide more clarity about its ‘Dear Colleague Letter’ to ensure protected speech isn’t censored on campus.


    Read More

    This isn’t the first time institutions have overread government directives to justify censorship. In 2021, for example, Idaho passed the “No Public Funds for Abortion Act.” In implementing the bill, the University of Idaho demanded that faculty not “promote or advocate in favor of abortion” or discuss “abortion or contraception” in classroom conversations unless they remained “neutral.” FIRE wrote to the university explaining that such a reading was flatly at odds with the First Amendment. In a thorough memorandum, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador agreed, explaining that the “plain text of the Act does not prohibit public university employees from engaging in speech relating to academic teaching and scholarship that could be viewed as supporting abortion,” thus ending that censorship policy at the University of Idaho. 

    In that same vein, OCR cannot force schools to violate the First Amendment, a point we’ve hammered since the Obama-era OCR’s “Dear Colleague” letters forced institutions to adopt harassment policies that did exactly that. 

    OCR must be clear about the type of conduct that runs afoul of its new directives so that institutions are on notice about what’s permissible and what is prohibited. The office has yet to address vagueness in the “Dear Colleague” letter about “institutional programming” that might violate Title VI. That silence is creating a lot of confusion and preemptive censorship, especially when paired with President Trump’s Jan. 21 executive order declaring that government contractors — which includes many institutions of higher education — cannot “operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.”

    FIRE again urges institutions to hold the line on defending the free speech and academic freedom rights of their students and faculty. And we again ask OCR and the federal government to respect those same rights by immediately clarifying that their directives don’t require colleges and universities to violate those well-established rights. 

    Last week, a federal court enjoined two executive orders — including the Jan. 21 executive order — that prohibit, among other things, “promoting DEI” in violation of federal anti-discrimination law. The district court held the orders violate the First and Fifth Amendments because they discriminate on the basis of viewpoint and content, and are unconstitutionally vague. 

    While the government will likely appeal and we won’t know the final resolution for some time, the court’s analysis properly identified the orders’ ambiguity as a damning constitutional flaw. What, precisely, constitutes “promoting DEI” in ways that violate anti-discrimination laws? Can colleges host or sponsor speakers on DEI-related topics? Can institutions advertise DEI-related coursework or promote academic research? Restrictions on these activities would violate the First Amendment, but government attorneys were unable to clarify the meaning of the order when asked by the judge. Precision matters, especially when it comes to restrictions on expression. Vague pronouncements that sweep in protected debate, discussion, and programming raise constitutional and practical problems. 

    The best way forward for colleges is obvious, even if it might not be easy: Irrespective of the federal DEI directives, ditch speech-restrictive, orthodoxy-enforcing DEI bureaucracies and stand up for free expression and academic debate — in every political season. 

    As Len Gutkin, editor at The Chronicle of Higher Education, recently wrote: “Colleges should draw a sharp distinction between, on the one hand, DEI used in hiring, promotion, and training, and, on the other, curricular and disciplinary offerings.”  

    That’s the right balance. FIRE again urges institutions to hold the line on defending the free speech and academic freedom rights of their students and faculty. And we again ask OCR and the federal government to respect those same rights by immediately clarifying that their directives don’t require colleges and universities to violate those well-established rights. 

    Source link

  • Support the Mission of the University of Oregon (United Academics of the University of Oregon)

    Support the Mission of the University of Oregon (United Academics of the University of Oregon)

    Tuition has increased faster than
    inflation. State funding has increased faster than inflation.
    Administrator salaries have increased faster than inflation. Yet, the
    administration is demanding that the teachers, librarians, and
    researchers who drive the university’s educational mission take real
    wage cuts. 

    While everyone acknowledges the
    financial challenges facing higher education, the UO is receiving more
    money per student than ever before. If this money isn’t going toward
    student education and knowledge creation, where is it going?

    The Facts:

    Quality Education Requires Investment in Faculty

    The value of a University of Oregon degree depends on the quality of
    its professors, instructors, researchers, and librarians. When faculty
    wages erode due to artificial austerity, neglect, or slow attrition, it
    affects not only the quality of education and research, but also the
    long-term value of a UO degree for students and alumni alike.

    • UO faculty salaries rank near the bottom among our peer institutions in the American Association of Universities (AAU).
    • United Academics has proposed fair wage increases that would merely adjust salaries for inflation and restore them to pre-pandemic budget levels.
    • Despite pandemic-related learning loss, the administration is spending less on education per student (adjusted for inflation) than before COVID-19.
    • The administration has prioritized administrative growth over academic excellence, while faculty have taken on increased workloads since the pandemic.

    Faculty Sacrificed to Protect UO—Now It’s Time for Fair Wages

    During the pandemic, faculty agreed to potential pay reductions to
    help UO weather an uncertain financial future. We made sacrifices to
    ensure the university could continue to serve students. Now, as we
    bargain our first post-pandemic contract, the administration refuses to
    offer wage increases that:

    • Cover inflation
    • Acknowledge additional faculty labor since the pandemic
    • Recognize our unwavering commitment to UO’s educational mission

    Our Vision for UO: Excellence in Teaching & Research

    The University of Oregon’s mission is clear:

    “The University of Oregon is a comprehensive public research
    university committed to exceptional teaching, discovery, and service. We
    work at a human scale to generate big ideas. As a community of
    scholars, we help individuals question critically, think logically,
    reason effectively, communicate clearly, act creatively, and live
    ethically.”

    Our vision for the University of Oregon is one where the educational
    and research mission are at the fore; an institution of higher learning
    where we attract and maintain the best researchers and instructors and
    provide a world class education for the citizens of Oregon and beyond.
    Yes, this will take a shift in economic priorities, but only back to
    those before the pandemic. Our demands are neither extravagant nor
    frivolous. Our demand is that the fiduciaries of the University of
    Oregon perform their primary fiduciary duty: support the mission of the
    University of Oregon.

    Why This Matters Now

    We are currently in state-mandated mediation, a final step before a
    potential faculty strike. Striking is a last resort—faculty do not want
    to disrupt student learning. However, the administration’s arguments for
    austerity do not align with the university’s financial situation or
    acknowledge the increased faculty labor and inflated economic reality
    since the pandemic. If the administration does not relent, we may have
    no choice but to strike.

    We Need Your Support

    A strong show of support from the UO community—students, parents,
    alumni, donors, legislators and citizens of Oregon and beyond—can help
    pressure the administration to do the right thing. 

    Sign our Community Support Letter

    Source link

  • University of Findlay calls off merger with Bluffton University

    University of Findlay calls off merger with Bluffton University

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The University of Findlay won’t move forward with its planned merger with Bluffton University after a Wednesday vote by Findlay’s board. 
    • Findlay is terminating its memorandum of understanding with Bluffton, signed last March, according to a news release. The university cited time and expenses required to complete the merger, as well as the costs of keeping their respective NCAA teams at different divisions. 
    • “For us, due diligence in this case has demonstrated that partnering in key ways is a better solution,” Findlay President Katherine Fell said in a statement.

    Dive Insight:

    Bluffton had no control over Findlay’s decision not to proceed with their joint merger application with their accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission, according to Cheryl Hacker, chair of Bluffton’s board of trustees.

    The private Christian universities, both in Ohio, announced their planned merger in March 2024. At the time, both boards unanimously approved the plan. 

    “From a vantage point in the future, we will look back at this moment in the history of higher education as one that required new approaches and bold actions,” Findlay’s Fell said then. “I believe this merger will prove to be both.” 

    Findlay is by far the larger institution, with 5,057 students in fall 2023, compared to Bluffton’s 678. 

    It’s the financially stronger one as well, with $238.2 million in assets and $84.7 million in total revenue in fiscal 2023, well over double what Bluffton reported on both counts. Although both institutions posted operating deficits in fiscal 2023, Bluffton’s was larger even though it brought in less revenue. 

    Their original plan called for Findlay to maintain both of their campuses post-merger. They would also maintain their athletic teams under their current NCAA divisions — Division II for Findlay, Division III for Bluffton. This was a “key” element of the merger, Findlay said Thursday. 

    “However, regulations necessitate separate processes for athletic financial aid distribution and prohibit the sharing of resources and sports facilities, resulting in fewer synergies in those areas than originally anticipated,” the university said.

    Following Findlay’s decision to terminate the merger process, Bluffton’s Hacker said that the university “continues to be financially stable, strategically independent, and well-prepared for the future,” and that the termination would not detract from its mission.  

    Bluffton also noted that it will “continue to explore strategic partnerships that support the long-term goals of the institution and the students it serves.”

    Officials at both universities also maintained that the due diligence and preparation process was valuable and educational, even though it wouldn’t result in a merger. 

    According to Fell, the process “resulted in an invaluable reflective process for both campuses through the examination of strengths, areas for growth, and capacity to innovate and change within the evolving landscape of higher education.”

    The expense and complexity of merging higher education institutions are among the key challenges in making a combination work, experts say.

    Source link

  • States are stepping up to protect and deliver for borrowers. (Student Borrower Protection Center)

    States are stepping up to protect and deliver for borrowers. (Student Borrower Protection Center)

    Attacks at the federal level on working families make state and local work like this all the more necessary. States can and must step up to create more protections for borrowers!

    Keep calm and TAKE ACTION, 

    Amy Czulada

    Outreach & Advocacy Manager

    Student Borrower Protection Center

    Source link

  • Indiana First Lady to Raise Money for Dolly Parton’s Library Program – The 74

    Indiana First Lady to Raise Money for Dolly Parton’s Library Program – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    After slashing a popular reading program from the budget, Gov. Mike Braun said Friday he asked First Lady Maureen Braun to spearhead an initiative to keep Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library in Indiana.

    “She has agreed and she will work with philanthropic partners and in consultation with state leadership to identify funding opportunities for the book distribution program,” the governor said in a news release.

    The program gifts free, high quality, age-appropriate books to children from birth to age five on a monthly basis, regardless of family income.

    Former Gov. Eric Holcomb included a statewide expansion of the program in his 2023 legislative agenda. The General Assembly earmarked $6 million for the program in the state’s last biennial budget — $2 million in the first year and $4 million in the second — to ensure that all Hoosier kids qualify to receive free books.

    But when Gov. Braun prepared his budget proposal in January he discontinued the funding as part of an overall effort to rein in state spending.

    “I am honored to lead this work to help ensure our youngest Hoosiers have as much exposure as possible to books and learning,” said First Lady Maureen Braun. “Indiana has many strong community partners and I am confident we will collaborate on a solution that grows children’s love of reading.”

    Jeff Conyers, president of The Dollywood Foundation, said he appreciates Braun’s commitment to early childhood literacy.

    “The Imagination Library brings the joy of reading to over 125,000 Hoosier children each month in all 92 counties across the state, and we are encouraged by Governor and First Lady Braun’s support to ensure its future in Indiana. We look forward to working with the Governor and First Lady, state leaders, and Local Program Partners to keep books in the hands of Indiana’s youngest learners and strengthen this foundation for a lifetime of success,” he said.

    Indiana Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Indiana Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Niki Kelly for questions: [email protected].


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Georgetown University Honors Xavier University of Louisiana’s Centennial and Black Catholic Studies Legacy

    Georgetown University Honors Xavier University of Louisiana’s Centennial and Black Catholic Studies Legacy

    Georgetown UniversityAs Xavier University of Louisiana enters its centennial year, the nation’s oldest Catholic institution—Georgetown University—celebrated the institution’s 100-year legacy and the 45th anniversary of its Institute for Black Catholic Studies (IBCS).

    Last Thursday’s event, titled “Reflecting on the Significance of the Institute for Black Catholic Studies and the Journey Toward Reconciliation,” included a discussion among leaders from Xavier’s IBCS, the Descendants Truth & Reconciliation Foundation, and Georgetown University. It also showcased an exhibition co-created by the Georgetown University Library, highlighting the impact of the IBCS—a graduate program dedicated to fostering Black Catholic theology, ministry, and leadership.

    Founded in 1925 by Saint Katharine Drexel and the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament, Xavier University of Louisiana remains the only historically Black Catholic university in the United States. The Georgetown event not only honored Xavier’s continued contributions but also reflected on the role of Black Catholic scholarship in shaping faith and social justice initiatives.

    Dr. Kathleen Dorsey Bellow, director of IBCS, acknowledged the deep collaboration between Xavier and Georgetown.

    Reflecting on her journey, Bellow shared how she initially hesitated to attend the IBCS in 1989 but was transformed by the experience.

    “I immediately appreciated that I was on holy ground,” said Bellow. “After my very first class, I knew I would complete the program and try to come back every summer after that. I needed to be refreshed, challenged, and affirmed in my mission as a Black Catholic woman in church and society,” she said. She said that the Institute was created to form strong Catholics who can express and explain their faith in ways that resonate with their communities.

    IBCS offers two tracks: a graduate theology program for future church leaders and a continuing education track for lay people seeking deeper faith formation. The program takes a well-rounded approach by including challenging coursework, combined with cultural experiences, prayer, and opportunities to build strong communities.

    “We study together, we pray together, we have African dance and drumming in the evenings,” Bellow said. “We are Black and Catholic Sunday through Saturday, and our mission is to share the gift of Blackness in the life of the Church.”

    The legacy of resistance, persistence, and transcendence was also central to the event’s discussion, a theme introduced by Father Joseph Brown, S.J., a leading scholar and former head of IBCS.

    Monique Trusclair Maddox, CEO of the Descendants Truth & Reconciliation Foundation discussed her family’s history of enslavement by the Jesuit order and the impact of learning about Georgetown University’s role in the sale of enslaved persons to save the institution.

    In 1838, Georgetown University, facing financial hardship, approved the sale of 272 enslaved men, women, and children to plantations in Louisiana to secure its financial future. The sale brought in about $115,000, which would be worth millions today, and helped pay off the university’s debts. The decision not only tore apart families but also reinforced the systemic exploitation of Black people for institutional survival.

    For years, the story remained buried until 2004, when Patricia Bayonne-Johnson uncovered it while tracing her family history. Since then, researchers along with the Jesuits, have worked to trace the lineage of those enslaved by the Society of Jesus and the Catholic Church. Their efforts have identified over 10,000 descendants, a number that continues to grow.

    Trusclair Maddox detailed her spiritual journey, including prayers for peace and understanding, and the establishment of the Descendants Truth and Reconciliation Foundation. The foundation, supported by JP Morgan Chase, has issued over $166,000 in scholarships and launched programs for home modifications and racial healing. Maddox emphasized the need for systemic change and called for broader awareness and participation in restorative justice efforts.

    “We knew that reconciliation required more than an acknowledgment, but demanded action,” Trusclair Maddox said.  “Restorative justice isn’t just about the past, it’s about what we do today to shape a more just future,” she added, and called on institutions and individuals to engage in meaningful change toward racial healing.

    As part of an effort to support the Descendants Truth & Reconciliation Foundation, Maddox highlighted a series of grassroots initiatives to raise awareness through media and marketing. He also announced the Jesuit order’s commitment of $100 million over the first five years to fund the foundation’s operations.

    “Now that we have operational dollars and we’re starting to give our grants to not just descendants, but also into transformation programs and truth-telling, we’re going to continue to build our programs,” Trusclair Maddox said.

    Dr. Joseph Ferrara, senior vice president and chief of staff at Georgetown University, said that he is excited about the school’s continued partnership with Xavier University.

    “We’re grateful for this opportunity to celebrate alongside Xavier and to recognize their importance to Catholic higher education,” Ferrara said. “We have an opportunity to reflect on the legacy at Xavier and the process toward reconciliation. Georgetown is very happy to be a part of the process, and that’s a journey we’re still on.”

     

     

    Source link