Blog

  • Building inclusive research cultures– How can we rise above EDI cynicism?

    Building inclusive research cultures– How can we rise above EDI cynicism?

    • Dr Elizabeth Morrow is Research Consultant, Senior Research Fellow Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, & Public Contributor to the Shared Commitment to Public Involvement on behalf of National Institute for Health and Care Research.
    • Professor Tushna Vandrevala is Professor of Health Psychology, Kingston University.
    • Professor Fiona Ross CBE is Professor Emerita Health and Social Care Kingston University, Deputy Chair Westminster University Court of Governors & Trustee Great Ormond Street Hospital Charity.

    Commitment and Motivation for Inclusive Research

    The commitment to inclusivity in UK research cultures and practices will endure despite political shifts abroad and continue to thrive. Rooted in ethical and moral imperatives, inclusivity is fundamentally the right approach. Moreover, extensive evidence from sources such as The Lancet, UNESCO and WHO highlights the far-reaching benefits of inclusive research practices across sectors like healthcare and global development. These findings demonstrate that inclusivity not only enhances research quality but also fosters more equitable outcomes.

    We define ‘inclusive research’ as the intentional engagement of diverse voices, communities, perspectives, and experiences throughout the research process. This encompasses not only who conducts the research but also how it is governed, funded, and integrated into broader systems, such as policy and practice.

    Beyond higher education, corporate leaders have increasingly embraced inclusivity. Research by McKinsey & Company shows that companies in the top quartile for gender diversity are 25% more likely to outperform their peers in profitability, while those leading in ethnic diversity are 36% more likely to do so. This clear link between inclusivity, innovation, and financial success reinforces the value of diverse teams in driving competitive advantage. Similarly, Egon Zehnder’s Global Board Diversity Tracker highlights how diverse leadership enhances corporate governance and decision-making, leading to superior financial performance and fostering innovation.

    Inclusion in research is a global priority as research systems worldwide have taken a ‘participative turn’ to address uncertainty and seek solutions to complex challenges such as Sustainable Development Goals. From climate change to the ethical and societal implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI), inclusive research is a track that ensures that diverse perspectives shape solutions that are effective, fair and socially responsible.

    Take the example of AI and gender bias – evidence shows that women are frequently not included in technology research and are underrepresented in data sets. This creates algorithms that are biased and can have negative consequences of sensitivity, authenticity, or uptake of AI-enabled interventions by women. Similar biases in AI have been found for other groups who are often overlooked because of their age, gender, sexuality, disability, or ethnicity, for example.

    Accelerating Inclusion in UK Research

    A recent horizon scan of concepts related to the UK research inclusion landscape indicates domains in which inclusive research is being developed and implemented, illustrated by Figure 1.

    Inclusion is being accelerated by the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2029, with a stronger focus on assessing People, Culture, and Environment (PCE). REF 2029 emphasises the integration of EDI considerations across research institutions, with a focus on creating equitable and supportive cultures for researchers, participants and communities. The indicators and measures of inclusion that will be developed and used are important because they can encourage diversity of perspectives, knowledge, skills and worldviews into research processes and institutions, thereby increasing relevance and improved outcomes. All units of assessment and panels involved in the REF process will have guidance from the People and Diversity Advisory Panel and the Research Diversity Advisory Panel. This means that inclusion will develop in both the culture of research institutions and the practices that shape research assessment.

    The National Institute for Health Research, which is the largest funder of health and social care research, has pioneered inclusion for over 30 years and prioritises inclusion in its operating principles (see NIHR Research Inclusion Strategy 2022-2027). NIHR’s new requirements for Research Inclusion (RI) will be a powerful lever to address inequalities in health and care. NIHR now requires all its domestic commissioned research to address RI at the proposal stage, actively involve appropriate publics, learn from them and use this learning to inform impact strategies and practices.

    Given the learning across various domains, we ask: How can the broader UK system share knowledge and learn from the setbacks and successes in inclusion, rather than continually reinventing the wheel? By creating space in the system between research funders and institutions to share best practices, such as the Research Culture Enablers Network, we can accelerate progress and contribute to scaling up inclusive research across professional groups and disciplines. There are numerous examples of inclusive innovation, engaged research, and inclusive impact across disciplines and fields that could be shared to accelerate inclusion.

    Developing Shared Language and Inclusive Approaches

    Approaches to building inclusive cultures in research often come with passion and commitment from opinion leaders and change agents. As often happens when levering change, a technical language evolves that can become complex and, therefore, inaccessible to others. For example, acronyms like RI can apply to research inclusion, research integrity and responsible innovation. Furthermore, community-driven research, public and community engagement, and Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) have become synonymous with inclusive research, and such participation is an important driver of inclusion.

    The language and practices associated with inclusive research vary by discipline to reflect different contexts and goals. This can confuse rather than clarify and form barriers that possibly get in the way of trust and more effective inclusion strategies and practices. We ask: How can we establish shared understanding, methods of participation, accountability pathways and mechanisms that will promote inclusion in the different and dynamic contexts of UK research?

    With over 20 years of experience in the fields of inclusion and equity, like other researchers, we have found that interdisciplinary collaboration, participatory methods, co-production, and co-design offer valuable insights by listening to and engaging with publics and communities on their own terms and territory. An inclusive approach has deepened our understanding and provided new perspectives on framing, methodological development, and the critical interpretation of research.

    Final reflection

    Key questions to overcome EDI cynicism are: How can we deepen our understanding and integration of intersectionality, inclusive methods, open research, cultural competency, power dynamics, and equity considerations throughout research processes, institutions, and systems? There is always more to learn and this can be facilitated by inclusive research cultures.

    Figure 1. Inclusive Research Dimensions

    Source link

  • Will Trump’s “anti-wokeism” change DEI in Australian universities?

    Will Trump’s “anti-wokeism” change DEI in Australian universities?

    United States President Donald Trump’s first six weeks of his second term has been defined by 76 executive orders, the disestablishment of the national education department and establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

    One of the most controversial executive orders, which is a written directive signed by a president that orders immediate governmental action, was titled “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing,” signed on President Trump’s first day back in office on January 20, 2025.

    He directed all federal DEI staff be placed on paid leave and, eventually, laid off. He has also signed another Executive Order, titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.”

    DEI stands for diversity, equity and inclusion, and refers to programs and committees that help people from underrepresented backgrounds (women, Indigenous, Black, for instance) get into, and stay in, jobs or courses those people wouldn’t traditionally participate in. It is largely similar to the strategy of the Australian Universities Accord.

    President Trump has also cut funding to schools and universities that do not cancel DEI programs. He labelled the programs “radical,” “wasteful” and said they demonstrate “immense public waste and shameful discrimination.”

    The full effects of these Executive Orders and DEI changes are yet to be seen because decisions regarding DEI will ultimately be made by the court.

    However, private companies in the US have walked away from internal DEI programs, including Meta (which has worked closely with Trump as of late), Google (which provides some services to the US government), Pepsi, Disney and multiple prominent banks.

    There has been no significant walk away from DEI in Australian private companies, and many universities continue to discuss how to bolster and “future-proof” internal DEI programs.

    Australia’s ambassador to the US from 2020 to 2023, Arthur Sinodinos, told the Universities Australia Solutions Summit last week that institutions are best off making decisions “based off their objectives,” but should enact genuine change, not just tick diversity boxes.

    Arthur Sinodinos said DEI should be about achieving true diversity rather than ticking boxes. Picture: Sam Ruttyn

    “My view on DEI is that [universities should] start from a posture that they want to make the best use of all the talent and resources available to them,” he said.

    “If you’re also interested in trying to expand the reach of higher education to groups that might otherwise be disadvantaged, you have to find ways to do that, but in a way that also addresses the genuine issue.

    “I think access to higher education is still important for a country like Australia, which has to make – given its population – the best use of the resources it’s got.

    “The argument that you can just leave it to the market, the meritocracy will still be there [is wrong]. Frankly, in the market, some people start with a head start with with inbuilt advantages.”

    President Trump’s former White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who was also on the panel at the UA summit, said he thinks DEI programs in the US have gone “too far to one side.”

    Former Trump White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said he thinks DEI has gone “too far” in the US. Picture: UA

    “One of the reasons you’re seeing the pushback against it in my country is that it went too far to one side. I don’t know where it is in this country, but at some point it may go too far, and the pushback will come.”

    He also explained why this Trump term is already more action-packed than his first was at this time: the President expected to win in November, 2024, but not in 2016.

    “Not only did [Trump] expect to win, [his team has] been working for four years on what they would do when they won,” he said.

    “What are we gonna do the first day? The first week, the first month, the first 100 days? Which is why we’re seeing all these executive orders. It’s actually four years worth of planning coming forward.”

    Mr Mulvaney said he thinks DEI could survive if its reasoning for existing is communicated in a tailored way.

    He said Trump’s administration is receptive to initiatives that improve efficiency, productivity and merit.

    “You could have a program that is good on on the climate, [for example,] but that’s not your selling pitch. That doesn’t register with the person you’re talking to,” he explained.

    Related stories: “Unis are not Centrelink offices”: Coalition’s pitch to university leaders | Q&A: Bill Shorten talks VC pay cuts and politics in HE | Report card: Accord recommendations 12 months on

    “You have to learn how to speak the language of the person you’re talking to. Don’t change what you’re doing, perhaps just simply change how you explain it.”

    UA chief executive Luke Sheehy was asked after his National Press Club address last Wednesday whether he thinks an “anti-woke” sentiment will affect how universities function.

    Luke Sheehy’s membership body discussed the impact of “Trump 2.0” at last week’s conference. Picture: UA

    “Obviously there’s a major disruption that’s happened in America with Trump 2.0 … One of the things we’ve learned is, once articulated in a certain way, positive sentiment skyrockets for universities,” he responded.

    “If you offer a simple proposition: we have 4,000 fewer teachers than we need today ,and universities are the only way to get those skilled workers into the workforce to support young people; we need 132,000 more nurses, etc.

    “Then remove yourself from what happens on the front pages of newspapers and what occupies political pundits, and think about what the real Australian people need and want from the university sector.

    “My hope is that the more we talk about the important role of universities and our core mission in education and research, the more Australians, irrespective of whether or not they went to university or not, they see the value for us as part of our future.”

    The university sector’s declining “social license” has been a major topic of discussion of late for university leaders.

    There is a growing sentiment that universities, and the knowledge economy, needs to “show” society why they’re worth the funding and enrolments.

    “We always have more work to do. In an era where there is declining trust in institutions, I think it’s really important that universities invest in themselves in terms of how they engage with their communities,” Mr Sheehy continued.

    Source link

  • How universities can fix health workforce shortages

    How universities can fix health workforce shortages

    A panel of experts discuss the health workforce crisis at the UA Solutions Summit 2025. Picture: UA

    Three Australian healthcare experts last week told universities how to solve the biggest challenges and possible solutions to a number of issues.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Supporting commuter students with the right information

    Supporting commuter students with the right information

    Commuter student support takes different forms, from student lounges to travel bursaries.

    However, when it comes to something as simple as the information that universities provide to prospective students and current students, it remains stubbornly focused on traditional, residential students.

    As a result, commuters make untenable choices at the applicant stage, find student life difficult to navigate and feel a profound lack of belonging, throughout their student experience.

    Getting it right at the start is as important as throughout.

    What information is out there

    In our research, which we are currently preparing for publication, we talked to commuter students and uncovered the practical impacts of a lack of information. Students suggested that their choice of institution, choice of course and the choice either to commute or relocate may have been different, if they had known about the personal, financial and educational impacts of commuting.

    They didn’t just talk about travel information – bus routes, train times, car parking – which is still important and largely missing from university webpages and prospectuses. They focused more on their need for information to help them to navigate life as a student who commutes.

    Commuter students told us that this absence of information suggested to them that universities don’t see commuters, leading them to feel that they don’t belong and they don’t matter.

    The hidden curriculum

    Our findings suggest that commuters need information in two areas, “rules of the game” and “sense of belonging.”

    These are the terms developed by Dr Katharine Hubbard and colleagues to describe the two domains of the “hidden curriculum” that universities must make explicit, if non-traditional students are to succeed at university.

    Our research sought to address this hidden curriculum for commuter students by developing best practice guidance for information that universities should provide to support commuters in their choices, transition and day-to-day university experience.

    We randomly selected 30 universities from the 147 institutions currently registered in the UK. We entered their website and searched “commuter students.”

    We downloaded and assessed the content and utility of the first four search results and then used Google search to find “university name commuter students” and followed the same method.

    We found that the hidden curriculum for commuters is very real. Very few institutions have information for commuter students. Very few have information available to students pre-application, to enable an informed decision and very few have information specifically to support commuters.

    Those that do, tend to focus on commuters in the negative, discouraging travel to university, in a sustainability context and framing commuting as a challenge and encouraging relocation to halls of residence.

    Getting it right

    But there are universities that are getting it right. Our research identified some best practices.

    Some institutions provide information about being a commuter at every stage of the student lifecycle and for every student touchpoint. Ideally, including a commuter student equivalent for all information, advice and guidance that is provided.

    This is especially important whenever students are making a choice – of institution, course, module, accommodation – and whenever you are providing a service – extra-curricular activities, support and other resources. Not only will this enable informed choice, it will increase the visibility of commuters, which will enhance their sense of belonging.

    It’s also important to be clear about learning and teaching, to enable commuter students to make informed decisions about how possible it is to succeed as a commuter. For example, is attendance mandatory for all taught sessions? How many days a week will students be timetabled to attend and when will they know? Do students have to be able to physically access the library? Do you provide on-commute learning options?

    Institutions should also ensure that information for commuters is easy to find and take a joined-up approach. We found that the best information for students was content like blogs written by commuters chronicling a day in their life, presenting “life hacks” or linking students to a commuter community. These were available via student societies, or the students’ union, which often aren’t linked to from the institution’s webpages.

    Information should be “student first.” For example, ensure that travel information is available to support commuters to access their learning, rather than information about sustainability, or to discourage driving. Most of the travel information that we reviewed was abrasive in its tone, highlighting the inaccessibility of campus to car drivers and focusing on promoting modes that commuters shouldn’t use – this is noble, but it isn’t useful and it adds to the feeling that commuters are not welcome.

    Another example is, rather than linking to your Access and Participation Plan as evidence that you consider the needs of commuters, interpret this and talk directly to them.

    Finally, most of the information that we reviewed highlighted the problematic nature of commuting – but it can be a positive choice. Information provided by students, for students, was especially effective in promoting the benefits of commuting, supporting students to navigate life as a commuter, from a practical and emotional perspective.

    Providing commuters with more honest information about the multiple costs and benefits of being a commuter student, at every stage of the student lifecycle, alongside practical support to help them to overcome these, will support students to succeed. It demonstrates, through information alone, that students are welcome and that they belong.

     

    This blog is part of our series on commuter students, click here to read more.

    Source link

  • Advice from Indigenous students to Indigenous students

    Advice from Indigenous students to Indigenous students

    Navigating student life, especially when entering university or tertiary education for the first time, is no easy feat.

    Students are often dealing with newfound independence, more travel, gruelling schedules, and a shift in priorities, all while trying to develop new skills and knowledge.

    Finding support and motivation during this time is essential, but it means different things to different people.

    In my role as chief executive of Aurora Education Foundation, I work with a number of Indigenous scholars who are studying at some of the world’s most prestigious universities.

    Recently, I asked three of them to share what had helped them get to where they are now and what advice they had for other students just starting their educational journey.

    Lean on your loved ones

    Warumungu woman Mady Wills is currently completing a Master of Science in Developmental Psychology and Psychopathology at King’s College London, with a Roberta Sykes Scholarship.

    Mady said the support she received from her loved ones was invaluable along her journey, but almost equally, the doubt she received from others around her motivated her to achieve her best.

    “Reflecting on my educational journey so far, I have a huge amount of gratitude for the support I have received along the way. It hasn’t always been easy, and I have faced moments of doubt – both my own and from others – that challenged my commitment to my dreams,” she said.

    “But sometimes when people doubt you, question you, or make you second guess your dreams, it can actually be the most powerful motivator.

    The journey (whatever this looks like, be it career, high school, TAFE or Uni) is not meant to be a smooth one, and it’s important to remember that encouragement doesn’t always come in the form of praise. Sometimes, scepticism fuels resilience.

    “For me, each challenge, doubt or difficult moment strengthened my determination to work harder, to prove my capabilities, and to demonstrate what is possible. All I would say to anyone even considering taking this step – submitting that scholarship application or researching that course abroad – do it.”

    Build stamina

    For Wardandi Noongar woman Danielle Kampers, developing stamina was key to her success. Danielle is studying a Master of Science in Oceanography at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, with a Roberta Sykes Scholarship.

    Danielle said one piece of advice about cultivating stamina and resilience changed her outlook on her education journey and set her up with the tools she needed to succeed.

    “When I started my science degree it filled me with enthusiasm to address significant challenges in marine environments and explore the wonders of scientific inquiry,” she said.

    “One piece of advice that stayed with me was the importance of ‘stamina’ – it’s crucial for a fulfilling and productive career in science. Cultivate resilience, manage stress effectively, stay flexible, maintain a positive outlook even during tough times and the rest will work out for itself.

    “Additionally, don’t hesitate to ask for help when needed, support and kindness are passed along and often come back around when you need it most.”

    Focus on what you can control

    Warumungu man Ethan Taylor, who is currently studying at the University of Oxford to complete a Doctor of Philosophy in Politics, with a Roberta Sykes Scholarship, said that while hurdles are bound to happen on any journey, remaining focused on your goal was most important.

    “I would encourage other aspiring Indigenous scholars to stay driven and focus on what’s in their control. If something doesn’t work out, that’s okay – keep moving,” he said.

    “Hard work will never guarantee you success in academic or scholarly pursuit, but it will certainly put you in the best position to be successful.

    “If you’re a humanities or social science student like me, keep focussing on the fundamentals of scholarship in this area: reading and writing. Keep reading widely in your field and keep eliciting feedback in your writing.

    “Keep thinking and developing your ideas, even in the face of apparent rejection or failure. At the end of the day, by mastering these fundamentals and learning how to articulate yourself better, you’ll end up becoming someone who can’t be ignored or overlooked.”

    Leila Smith is the founder and chief executive of the Aurora Education Foundation.

    Source link

  • CSUDH announces alternate funding sources for Work-Study

    CSUDH announces alternate funding sources for Work-Study

    On Feb. 25, California State University, Dominguez Hills, communicated to campus employers that the university had utilized nearly all of its Federal Work-Study (FWS) funds for the current school year. The notice was amplified by this article, which incorrectly stated that the campus was terminating student employees.

    CSUDH is fully committed to ensuring our FWS students receive the amount they expected to be awarded. Administrators have identified alternate funding sources to compensate these students, including university scholarship and grant funds for those who qualify, as well as discretionary funding where needed.

    This will be a complex task, due to the different situations each student employee and department are in. For now, the university is asking that departments postpone any employment-related decisions for affected student workers until financial aid staff provide further details.

    Going forward, CSUDH is implementing new internal controls over FWS hiring and tracking to address anticipated high demand for FWS. We will also be hosting FWS trainings to support employers and timekeepers who will be hiring and managing FWS.

    CSUDH deeply appreciates the patience and collaboration of our campus community while we work to resolve this matter quickly and equitably for all impacted students.

    Sincerely,

    Lilly McKibbin
    Media Relations Specialist
    California State University, Dominguez Hills

    Source link

  • The case against impartial university teaching

    The case against impartial university teaching

    “I don’t share my political or religious perspectives at work; I never have”, asserted my experienced professorial colleague over an informal coffee. “A bit of shame, but kind of admirable, right?”, I thought.

    I recalled a politics lecturer during my time as an undergraduate, who, like seemingly most of that generation of academics (1990s-00s), believed in impartiality and explicitly stated his liberal neutrality when presenting challenging topics: may the best arguments win. The problem was that through reading his online bio and finding his works in the library, one could very quickly discern his political and philosophical leanings!

    When I began teaching philosophy at the same university a few years later, I too attempted to feign neutrality; neither sharing my political nor religious leanings, nor ethnic or cultural heritage. It wasn’t the done thing. Autobiography and self-disclosure had no place in the philosophy seminar room.

    I’ve since thawed. I’m now leaning far more towards disclosure than when I started teaching. I long held neutral impartiality as the gold standard of instruction, whereby challenging – and perhaps controversial – topics were discussed, but the educator held the space for students to explore perspectives, without sharing their own. This, while often the received wisdom, and certainly well-intentioned, is, I now reflect, limited.

    For an academic to be teaching on a module, especially if they’ve created it, means they’re very likely to be published in that field of inquiry. Engaged students will find such materials, understand their lecturer’s perspectives, and recognise when they’re playing devil’s advocate in sessions. Furthermore, given that we teach face to face, and not in confession booths, the visibility of us as lecturers often speaks volumes; students will make an array of assumptions. For example, if in a session led by the university’s chaplain, it’s safe for students to assume that they’re a member of the Church of England.

    Kelly’s heuristic quartet

    There is a case to be argued for “committed impartiality” as per Social Scientist Thomas Kelly’s (1986) heuristic quartet:

    • Exclusive neutrality: The educator takes a neutral position and eschews any potentially controversial issues; i.e. appropriate in a school context, but too reductive for HE.
    • Exclusive partiality: The educator takes a biased position; i.e. traditionally a big no no. Think here of educators who use their classes to enact their activism.
    • Neutral impartiality: The educator is impartial and neutral, encouraging students to explore controversial issues; i.e. the gold standard of HE instruction based on received wisdom.
    • Committed impartiality: The educator takes a biased position while also being impartial; i.e. seen with scepticism by those who practise neutral impartiality. This is a potentially slippery slope into exclusive partiality.

    While referring principally to the teaching of “controversial” topics in school education, I think the quartet can be helpfully adapted to fit the context of contemporary HE teaching in the social sciences and humanities. Kelly claimed that owing to its contradictory position, “committed impartiality” is the most defensible course of action for educators to engage in teaching controversial issues. This is because it requires the educator to put their cards on the table and encourage debate without claiming an unbiased standpoint.

    Wading

    When discussing loaded issues such as race, sexuality and religious perspectives, perhaps this is where the received wisdom about steadfastly refusing to disclose shines through and avoids the – especially contemporary – quagmire of a shallow form of identity politics and virtue signalling that can sometimes turn into a form of oppression Olympics? The “disclosure dilemma” is, of course, ultimately a personal, context bound one.

    In the context of schools, the issue of disclosure is much more vexed, given that teachers are effectively agents of the state who have a moral duty to avoid prosletysing given the power dynamic of the classroom (I recall the example during COvid-19 of a teacher in Nottinghamshire getting national attention for encouraging students to write letters of frustration to the then PM).

    While school curricula are obviously created by groups of individuals with political agendas, in HE we too have areas of expertise, interest, and passion. In an increasingly regulatory framework, the dissemination of our darlings is bound by legislation such as the Equality Act (2010), and The Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act (2023). Furthermore, to adhere to these acts within a localised context, my employer has a university dignity policy, mission statements, and, within my department, enacts the Chatham House Rule. We also provide trigger warnings to create inclusive learning environments.

    Tightrope

    This discussion has implications for those in the social sciences, especially those who deal, like I do, with explicitly political content (I recognise that the personal is also the political). Of course, navigating the tightrope between committed impartiality and exclusive partiality is tricky. The received wisdom is valuable insofar as it helps the educator to avoid this balancing act. But when the educator has a specialism that speaks to a political issue of the day, it is arguably upon them to do so. For example, in March 2023 I was teaching a session for final year UG students on migration in the context of international education when the Gary Lineker “issue” kicked off. I had a well-informed perspective on that issue, and it linked neatly to the scheduled taught content that day. It’s fair to say that I teetered on that tightrope between committed impartiality and exclusive partiality!

    The challenge is not about self-censorship in the service of an apparently noble ideal of neutral impartiality, but enacting personal commitment and setting the groundwork for civic debate. Deciding to disclose may have the intended learning outcome of rapport building, modelling particular behaviours or perspectives, humanising oneself, normalising situations, or problematising a set of affairs; it’s about practising the messy craft of educating, and being open to self-transformation.

    Risk aversion

    I’m sure others could make equally compelling cases for different positions within, and outside of, Kelly’s heuristic quartet. I think a primary driver behind neutrality is, rather than a noble but impossible quest for untainted discourse, perhaps one of nervousness; nervousness of being seen as doctrinaire or unduly influencing students’ perspectives?

    Overall, the disclosing instructor must consider their visibility in terms of gender, age, physical presence, professional titles etc. that starkly reinforce a power imbalance between student and academic, aka judge, jury and executioner in terms of grades and longer-term prospects. Where the stakes are high boldness of speech, disclosing personal leanings in a learning environment are worth the risk.

    Source link

  • Govs. DeSantis, Hochul threaten academic freedom with political interference

    Govs. DeSantis, Hochul threaten academic freedom with political interference

    It’s no secret that politicians are getting more involved in higher education. And while some level of involvement with how colleges and universities operate is appropriate given the amount of taxpayer money spent on campuses, nobody should be surprised to learn that greater political involvement can pose academic freedom risks.

    Last Monday, for example, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced the creation of Florida’s own Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE), named after the Trump Administration’s Elon Musk-led initiative to cut federal spending. The Florida task force is to conduct “a deep dive into all facets of college and university operations and spending and make recommendations to the Board of Governors and State Board of Education to eliminate any wasteful spending.”

    There are viewpoint-based decisions that governors and legislatures have to make about colleges as part of the political and appropriations process. But the more granular those decisions, the more they threaten to substitute academic judgment with political judgment.

    During his live announcement, DeSantis expanded on what he called “the DOGE-ing of our state university system,” saying it would include “examining courses, programming, and staff” with an aim towards helping students gain “meaningful employment.” But the governor also, troublingly, made clear that he’s continuing to take aim at a particular set of viewpoints:

    [S]ome of the ideological studies stuff, we just want to prune that and get that out, and we want to make sure that these universities are really serving the classical mission of what a university should be. And that’s not to impose ideology.

    Politicians have long complained about taxpayer money spent on what they see as frivolous academic pursuits — the proverbial degree in “underwater basket weaving” — but what DeSantis posits goes further. This task force won’t simply be focused on (say) eliminating majors that offer no real job prospects. Rather, it will seek out courses involving “ideological studies stuff,” presumably by reviewing course descriptions or syllabi, that in the task force’s view is not worth teaching. 

    That’s not just an invitation to viewpoint discrimination — it’s an explicit mandate.

    It’s not hard to see how this could threaten academic freedom by pressuring faculty members to substitute state-level politics for their academic judgment. 

    For example, let’s say the University of Florida’s Chinese Studies department decides that, to understand contemporary China, students need to take a class on Marxist-Leninist political thought. It’s easy to see how this could be relevant given that China is a Communist country. It’s also easy to see how an outside agency like Florida DOGE might view this as an effort to propagandize students into Marxism.

    What’s the likely result?

    • Most obviously, the department might decide to avoid conflict with the government by eliminating the class altogether despite believing it was needed, therefore impoverishing students’ education.
    • Even if it did decide to require the class, the department is likely to pressure its instructor not to include things that look pro-Marxist, regardless of whether the professor thinks it would be the best material for the course. That poorly serves students and limits a professor’s ability to engage in the intellectual pursuit of teaching, to boot.
    • Finally, even if the department were to offer the class without compromising on content, its instructor will most certainly feel “in the crosshairs,” restricted from following his or her academic conscience lest he or she get the class eliminated through an incautious word.

    Colleges should not be immune from investigations into waste and abuse. And there are viewpoint-based decisions that governors and legislatures have to make about colleges as part of the political and appropriations process. But the more granular those decisions, the more they threaten to substitute academic judgment with political judgment. It remains to be seen whether this is how Florida DOGE will actually operate, but the governor’s remarks create plenty of cause for concern.

    Lest there be any doubt that governors of any party are capable of interfering in isolated academic decisions if given the opportunity, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (no friend of DeSantis) last Tuesday ordered the immediate removal of a CUNY-Hunter College job posting for a professor of Palestinian Studies. Hochul also ordered “a thorough review of the position to ensure that antisemitic theories are not promoted in the classroom.”

    The job listing certainly listed plenty of controversial topics, calling for a “historically grounded scholar who takes a critical lens to issues pertaining to Palestine including but not limited to: settler colonialism, genocide, human rights, apartheid, migration, climate and infrastructure devastation, health, race, gender, and sexuality.” Yet the very next sentence stated, “We are open to diverse theoretical and methodological approaches.”

    Critics are unlikely to believe that the job was really open to scholars with diverse approaches to whether, say, Israel is an “apartheid” state. Maybe it was, maybe not. But one can’t make that determination simply based on the language of the listing, and there is no reason to believe that the governor of New York is (or should be expected to be) the best-qualified person to make that call.

    Faculty members are supposed to be hired because they are subject-matter experts who have the ability and knowledge in the field to make informed academic judgments. Readers may recall that Winston Churchill famously opined that democracy is “the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried.” That’s just as true when it comes to academic faculty making academic decisions — like it or not, there are no better alternatives. Even if one believes a particular group of public college faculty is, itself, making decisions that harm higher education, as DeSantis and Hochul both seem to believe, there’s one thing we can know for sure: transferring that job to politicians will only make it worse.

    Source link

  • Statement on President Trump’s Truth Social post threatening funding cuts for ‘illegal protests’

    Statement on President Trump’s Truth Social post threatening funding cuts for ‘illegal protests’

    President Trump posted a message on Truth Social this morning that put social media and college campuses on high alert. He wrote:

    Colleges can and should respond to unlawful conduct, but the president does not have unilateral authority to revoke federal funds, even for colleges that allow “illegal” protests. 

    If a college runs afoul of anti-discrimination laws like Title VI or Title IX, the government may ultimately deny the institution federal funding by taking it to federal court, or via notice to Congress and an administrative hearing. It is not simply a discretionary decision that the president can make.  

    President Trump also lacks the authority to expel individual students, who are entitled to due process on public college campuses and, almost universally, on private campuses as well.

    Today’s message will cast an impermissible chill on student protests about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Paired with President Trump’s 2019 executive order adopting an unconstitutional definition of anti-Semitism, and his January order threatening to deport international students for engaging in protected expression, students will rationally fear punishment for wholly protected political speech.

    As FIRE knows too well from our work defending student and faculty rights under the Obama and Biden administrations, threatening schools with the loss of federal funding will result in a crackdown on lawful speech. Schools will censor first and ask questions later. 

    Even the most controversial political speech is protected by the First Amendment. As the  Supreme Court reminds us, in America, we don’t use the law to punish those with whom we disagree. Instead, “[a]s a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.” 

    Misconduct or criminality — like true threats, vandalism, or discriminatory harassment, properly defined — is not protected by the First Amendment. In fact, discouraging and punishing such behavior is often vital to ensuring that others are able to peacefully make their voices heard. 

    However, students who engage in misconduct must still receive due process — whether through a campus or criminal tribunal. This requires fair, consistent application of existing law or policy, in a manner that respects students’ rights.

    President Trump needs to stand by his past promise to be a champion for free expression. That means doing so for all views — including those his administration dislikes.

     

    Source link

  • Edward Peck’s performance at the Education Committee

    Edward Peck’s performance at the Education Committee

    There’s something wonderfully postmodern about Edward Peck’s committee hearing ahead of his likely appointment as the next chair of the Office for Students.

    While the first chair of the regulator, Michael Barber, arrived with a fully documented quasi-academic theory of delivery – and while the second, James Wharton, brought a certain kind of political cunning – Edward Peck has a fully fledged multi-disciplinary research-informed theory of leadership as performance.

    How should we understand leadership as performance?

    The idea of performativity – broadly speaking that the descriptive language we use in a given situation has a direct impact on the situation itself – has informed a conceptualisation of leadership as a performance that interrelates both with the wider ideas of what it is to be a leader and the narrower immediate context as a particular leadership “act”. This shifts the focus on leadership from a kind of all-powerful “strongman” (with the consequent cod-psychological popular literature on essential attributes of successful leaders available at an airport near you) to something more subtle around relationships, language, and behavior across multiple settings as shaping experiences of leadership.

    Leaders – in other words – are sensemakers, both in terms of explaining (and thus shaping) reality for those around them, and in collaboratively situating activities carried out by an organisation within this negotiated reality. Sometimes these acts can be almost ritualistic (“is” performance) like in representing the university at a graduation ceremony where roles and norms are predetermined.

    At other points these are more spontaneous (“as” performance) a narrative (a pre-existing conceptualisation of an experience or situation) enacted to an audience in response to an everyday stimulus – something like a discussion of university finances during a spontaneous conversation with a member of staff on campus).

    Not an actual theatre

    This isn’t a literal assertion that leadership is theatre – that it is a kind of scripted reality that lacks authenticity – but the idea that the actions of leaders reiterate (and thus endorse) organisational norms and organisational cultures. So when Peck repeatedly qualified his responses to the education committee with reference to what the OfS had learned in eight years of regulatory activity, and in his need to understand the way in which the legal framework in which regulation takes place has been interpreted he is situating himself as a part of an ongoing story rather than attempting to begin telling a new one.

    This is likely to be important to those who might think a return to a HEFCE-like situation in which leaders were former vice chancellors and things were, apparently, nicer (they weren’t nicer, but this is the story some like to tell) – Peck is entering the stage in the middle of the play and is clearly looking to be an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary chair.

    What he does seem to want to do, in narrative terms, is to use more of the language that institutional leaders themselves use within regulation. In Peck’s performativity theory – these linguistic shifts are important in that they themselves have an impact on the collective understanding of what is going on.

    Usually about six

    The best example of this was, inevitably, about university finances. To Peck there are “usually about six” things that universities do to balance income with expenditure in times of financial constriction – he didn’t name the six, but the impression he was looking to give is that these are well-known and familiar interventions among those who run universities. With this frame, he was able to put the onus on universities rather than regulators to act (“a lot of institutions are still on this journey”), allowing him the appeal to accepted wisdom in being clear that it was not for the Office for Students to bail out universities, and to go further to suggest that if there was a credible route to sustainable business it would be visible to banks (and, I guess, other lenders) and it should not be for the government to create a “moral hazard” by stepping in.

    Committee member Manuela Perteghella pushed him on what he had specifically learned from what Nottingham Trent University had done to stave off financial problems (NTU ran a £9.5m surplus last year, but saw around a 10 per cent reduction in student numbers this year). The first example he reached for can again be traced back to the way he has written about leadership in the past – he made much of the need to “be clear with colleagues” about the problems that the university was facing and do so regularly and openly (there is a quarterly town hall meeting).

    As a leader you do have the chance to control the narrative – and this shapes the way problems are understood. Peck noted the problems that other providers had faced in submitting unrealistic income or recruitment projections to the Office for Students – grand (if broad) plans that made any subsequent need for economy harder to sell internally. He was able to sell a 10 per cent reduction in staff numbers at NTU on the basis of needing less staff to teach less students (based on historical precedent) – and being clear about recruitment problems early allowed him to say that all these job losses would be voluntary.

    The historical precedent – an appeal to a quantifiable and shared memory within the organisation – also made it easier to make the case for a lower staff headcount maintaining the quality of education. If, after all, we could teach this number of students at an acceptable level a few years back with this number of staff, why can’t it be done in 2025?

    Independence day

    One of the stories that has become accepted fact about the Office for Students is that it is too close to the government – reverse regulatory capture, if you like. The Behan report (and to a lesser extent the House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee report) undermined this assumption a little – there are examples of places where OfS pushed back against the department, although the very nature of the beast means that such independence is rarely visible in public.

    As chair Peck would clearly need to work with government on the underpinning policy framework – hinting at a “new” policy under development for release in the summer, most likely the much-heralded “HE reform” package – but emphasised that “operational” decisions would be independent, and that his network of contacts across the sector would help OfS build better relationships with institutions.

    Again, this isn’t new – or even particularly notable – but it’s another pointer to his explanatory mode of leadership. It suggests that the problem is one of communication, and he even suggests his own ability to communicate as the solution. Virtuoso performance as leadership. When we get to the actual structural changes there’s a sense that OfS has been on the right track recently – revamped student panels, more student surveys. The only novelty is a promised re-engagement with NUS.

    Curtain call

    There’s a lot of stuff that would remain in a Peck-led OfS: he’s keen on B3 as driving value for money, keen to get stuck in on regulating modular provision, feel like we are in the right place on freedom of speech given recent changes, pleased with TEF and access and participation plan (though he asked a fascinating question around what happens to those who register with UCAS – he is interim chair there, currently – but are not placed by the end of the cycle).

    For much of this, regulation is a matter of establishing codes of practice and ensuring that the actions of universities are within these bounds – Peck’s government work on student mental health should have provided the clue there. The codes themselves set the stage, the universities act within those boundaries. You could argue this as legalism, but it makes more sense as freedom within set parameters, something which universities (and indeed academics) will find comfortingly familiar.

    In their 2009 book, “Performing Leadership” Peck and Helen Dickinson (now a professor at the University of New South Wales) cite one compelling example (an unpublished conference paper by Druckett from 2007) of the way the performance of a particular style of management has an impact on lived experience of university staff.

    the case study… illustrates that the assertion, arguably the over-assertion, of the hierarchical and individualist ways of organising by senior management is generating negative feedback from the academics in the organisation. The consequences of not allowing the isolate and enclave approaches to contribute adequately to the organisational settlement may be having, or have in future, significant detrimental consequences for the university.

    The classic postmodernist understanding of the organisation, in contrast, is one of multiple narratives within a common framework. If you feel that OfS has been too deterministic – too rules based rather than risk based – within the first eight years, the way in which Peck (and whoever he chooses as a senior executive team) allows other voices to fill the stage will be fascinating to watch.

    Source link