Blog

  • North Idaho College awaits its fate

    North Idaho College awaits its fate

    After years of scrutiny over governance issues that included violations of open meetings laws and other infractions, North Idaho College will soon learn whether it will keep or lose accreditation.

    The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities will convene Tuesday through Friday for its January meeting. Commissioners will determine whether NIC adequately resolved outstanding concerns driven by a former board majority that emphasized culture war issues at the rural Idaho college, tried to push out its president and hired personnel with political connections to board members.

    A decision on the college’s accreditation status will be delivered within 30 days of the meeting.

    College officials hope the commissioners see the progress they say NIC has made over the last year, resolving various governance issues raised by NWCCU as it sought to comply with accreditation standards after a flurry of warnings that culminated in a show-cause status in February 2023, meaning the college must “present evidence why its accreditation should not be withdrawn.” The sanction highlighted multiple governance issues driven by an exceptionally erratic board.

    Years of Conflict

    North Idaho’s clash with its accreditor came as a result of thorny governance issues marked by bitter clashes on its five-member elected Board of Trustees, with meetings that occasionally devolved into name-calling and appeared at times to be fueled by personal and ideological agendas.

    The high drama began at the small college in Coeur d’Alene in 2021 with allegations of abuse and aggressive behavior toward employees and others by then-chair Todd Banducci. The firing of former president Rick MacLennan without cause that same year prompted a successful lawsuit against the college, and the resignation of three board members (one amid residency questions) in 2022 prompted the state to temporarily appoint three new trustees who served out the remainder of their predecessors’ terms.

    While the reconstituted board managed to hire a new president in 2022, membership was reshuffled after elections that year. Two members who often voted together—Banducci and Greg McKenzie—were joined by Mike Waggoner, all of whom had ties to the Kootenai County Republican Central Committee, a group some considered far-right even for rural Idaho. With a new board majority in place, governance issues at NIC escalated rapidly in 2023.

    The new majority seated after Election Day in 2022 began by hiring Art Macomber as the college’s attorney in a surprise move that the board would later admit violated open meetings laws. The college’s prior attorney, Marc Lyons, had resigned after the election, writing that his services were “no longer desired” by the board majority. Macomber, who has since resigned, had political connections to the board majority.

    The board’s next act was to sideline President Nick Swayne, placing him on administrative leave in December after he cautioned trustees that they had violated open meetings and procurement law by abruptly picking Macomber without public notice or a bidding process. In Swayne’s place, the board hired an interim president while Macomber conducted a nebulous investigation into Swayne’s hiring by the prior board. (The interim president was given a contract that paid him more than $235,000 a year, $5,000 more than Swayne’s annual salary.) However, Swayne was reinstated in March 2023 after a successful legal challenge to the board’s attempted ouster.

    Amid the volatility, NWCCU issued a series of escalating warnings.

    The accreditor first contacted North Idaho leadership in April 2021 in response to complaints about alleged noncompliance with nondiscrimination, governing board and academic freedom standards. The accreditor then raised further concerns about governance standards in December 2021 related to MacLennan’s firing. (The Idaho State Board of Education also raised concerns about “the current trajectory” of NIC that same month.) In April 2022, NWCCU officially sanctioned NIC with a warning letter about noncompliance with governance and institutional integrity standards. In December of that year, after Swayne was temporarily sidelined, the accreditor threatened NIC with show-cause status. By February 2023, NWCCU followed through, slapping NIC with a show- cause sanction that was later extended in July of that year.

    In a May 2023 report, accreditors wrote that “NIC’s governing board’s actions over the past two years have created risks to institutional quality and integrity.” Among their concerns were “multiple lawsuits resulting from Board actions” and violations of open meetings laws; high leadership turnover, including having two presidents under contract; the hiring process for Macomber; and multiple votes of no confidence in the board by faculty and staff that trustees had not responded to.

    When NWCCU extended NIC’s show-cause status in July, it called on the board to address the no-confidence resolutions and “resolve current litigation, governance, and accreditation issues that have had a current and immediate impact” on college finances, among various other issues.

    Swayne, in an interview with Inside Higher Ed, noted that the issues fell on the governance side, which is also reflected in NWCCU’s findings. Academics at the college, he said, are strong.

    An Optimistic Outlook

    As the concerns about the loss of accreditation continued—often becoming a heated focal point in public comments at board meetings—NIC hired outside consultants, such as the Association of Community College Trustees to help develop board policies and interpersonal relationships.

    While that process seemed to help, Swayne doesn’t believe a lack of training was the issue.

    “I don’t want to discount the value of the consulting, but two years of consulting to try to teach board members, adults—well-educated adults—how to behave properly in a board meeting doesn’t make a lot of sense,” Swayne said. “So there was something else going on. I can’t tell you what that was—I don’t know.”

    The notion of something sinister underlying the actions of the former board majority has been a common theme at meetings in recent years, with speakers questioning the trustees’ motives. Local residents often demanded the board majority explain their motivations and offered theories of their own, sometimes tinged with conspiracy, including speculation that the three trustees aimed to shut the college down in order to free up prime real estate for development.

    Swayne suggested there was a “hangover from COVID” at play given that opposition to masks and vaccines was a “main issue” for the majority bloc of trustees until the coronavirus pandemic waned. Emboldened trustees, he suspects, were in search of another cause after that fight ended. And some, like Banducci, had alleged the existence of a liberal “deep state” at the community college, particularly among faculty.

    After some employees voiced support for the Black Lives Matter movement, Banducci claimed on a podcast that “those agendas are being woven into the curriculum. And, you know, who controls the kids, who controls their minds, who controls the college student, you know, controls the voter of the future and controls the populace.” Banducci also allegedly berated MacLennan’s wife for being a Hillary Clinton support, according to a former trustee who called for Banducci to step down in 2021.

    But with increasing accreditor scrutiny, there appeared to be a softening of the board, starting with Waggoner, who often sided with Banducci and McKenzie but later emerged as a swing vote.

    Swayne said he noticed the change around May 2024. And once Waggoner’s voting patterns shifted, Banducci and McKenzie fell in behind him. Meetings, which had often stretched on for hours due to heated public comment periods and legal wrangling, became shorter, more cordial and nonconfrontational.

    Last fall, Banducci and Waggoner decided not to run for re-election and McKenzie lost his bid for another term, putting an end to the board majority that was behind many of the decisions that prompted scrutiny from accreditors as three new trustees were seated. (McKenzie and Banducci did not respond to requests for comment from Inside Higher Ed. Waggoner could not be reached.)

    Swayne said there were “seven months of relatively normalized meetings with the old board.” And now, with a reconfigured board, he believes NIC’s governance issues have been resolved.

    If NIC does lose accreditation over governance issues, it would be an anomaly. Typically, accreditation is stripped due to severe financial or academic issues, which NWCCU has not found. Governance concerns are typically met with warnings, which NWCCU issued in multiple cases before taking further action.

    NWCCU president Sonny Ramaswamy wrote by email that it would be “inappropriate to speak about any decisions the Board of Commissioners will make [on] North Idaho College, before they have acted” and noted that the process will follow an established accreditation actions policy.

    While Swayne declined to predict the outcome, he believes the college has made significant progress on accreditation concerns and “started meeting the standards back in May of 2024.” He’s hopeful that a room full of more than two dozen commissioners will see it the same way.

    Source link

  • AAUP opposes “anticipatory obedience” to Trump, GOP

    AAUP opposes “anticipatory obedience” to Trump, GOP

    The American Association of University Professors released a statement Thursday urging universities not to engage in “anticipatory obedience,” which it defined as “acting to comply in advance of any pressure to do so.”

    “As Donald Trump assumes the presidency for a second time, the outlook for higher education is dire,” begins the statement, which the AAUP said its elected national council approved this month.

    “The Trump administration and many Republican-led state governments appear poised to accelerate attacks on academic freedom, shared governance and higher education as a public good,” the statement says. “They will attack the curricular authority of the faculty on a number of fronts … It is the higher education community’s responsibility not to surrender to such attacks—and not to surrender in anticipation of them. Instead, we must vigorously and loudly oppose them.”

    The White House did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment. Before JD Vance was elected vice president, AAUP president Todd Wolfson called him a “fascist.”

    In the fall, media reported that the University of North Texas removed words such as “race” from course titles, despite Texas’s anti–diversity, equity and inclusion law specifically exempting “course instruction.” The AAUP statement says that was part of a trend.

    “Under no circumstances should an institution go further than the law demands,” the AAUP wrote. “Yet, the examples above depict an eagerness to obey on the part of administrative officers, portending a bleak future.”

    The association recommended that faculty act by reviewing “handbooks and contracts to strengthen and reinforce faculty rights” in employment decisions and curricular changes. It also suggested reforming “policies to strengthen faculty oversight in areas currently being used to exercise excessive and undue discipline against faculty, staff and students,” including policies on Title IX, Title VI, acceptable use of institutional resources, outside speakers and campus protests.

    Source link

  • Trump announces 10 new Education Department appointees

    Trump announces 10 new Education Department appointees

    The Trump administration named 10 new Education Department appointees Thursday, four of whom have previously worked with the America First Policy Institute, a pro-Trump think tank formed in 2021 as the president ended his first term in office. 

    Education secretary nominee Linda McMahon was a co-founder of AFPI and served as the group’s president and CEO until she was selected to head the department.

    Thursday’s announcement offers more insight into who will help carry out Trump’s education agenda. Until McMahon and Deputy Secretary–designate Penny Schwinn are confirmed by the Senate, a veteran agency official, Denise Carter, will serve as acting secretary.  

    The newest cohort of appointees includes:

    • Rachel Oglesby, a former AFPI chief state action officer, as chief of staff.
    • Jonathan Pidluzny, AFPI’s former director of higher education reform, as deputy chief of staff for policy and programs.
    • Virginia “Chase” Forrester, former AFPI chief events officer, as deputy chief of staff for operations.
    • Craig Trainor, a former congressional senior special counsel and AFPI senior litigation counsel, as deputy assistant secretary for policy in the Office for Civil Rights. (During his time at AFPI, Trainor worked under Pam Bondi, whom Trump has nominated as his attorney general.)
    • Steve Warzoha as White House liaison.
    • Tom Wheeler as principal deputy general counsel.
    • Madi Biedermann as deputy assistant secretary for the Office of Communications and Outreach.
    • Candice Jackson, who served in the first Trump administration, as deputy general counsel.
    • Joshua Kleinfeld as deputy general counsel.
    • Hannah Ruth Earl as director of the Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.    

    Source link

  • Four ways to help students return from a leave of absence

    Four ways to help students return from a leave of absence

    Some students may need to take a leave of absence for their mental health before returning to an institution. Here’s how the institution can help.

    Brothers91/E+/Getty Images

    In the past few years, more students have shared the toll their mental health can take on their academic pursuits. Recent surveys of students who left higher education prior to completing a credential or degree reveal that mental health challenges or stress are primary reasons why they discontinue their education.

    Some learners opt to take a pause, withdrawing from the university for a semester or longer to prioritize their health and wellness.

    To promote student completion and success, institutions can consider formal procedures and initiatives targeted toward easing the transition of re-enrollment after a voluntary mental health leave of absence.

    The background: Colleges have historically offered students the opportunity to temporarily unenroll to address health conditions, but only more recently has that definition expanded to include students’ mental health.

    At some institutions, students who withdrew found it difficult to return. Other institutions prioritized risk mitigation versus student success and pushed learners to withdraw rather than providing solutions.

    “Such policies and practices actually discourage students—not just the student with a mental health condition, but all others—from seeking help,” according to a 2021 report from Boston University and the Ruderman Family Foundation.

    A recent survey from the Princeton Review found 43 percent of colleges and universities now have an official support program in place for students returning from mental health leave of absence.

    However, there is little consistency in policies and practices regarding medical or psychiatric leaves of absence, according to the BU report: “Students are often left to confusing, conflicting information and sometimes, discriminatory policies and practices that make a return to higher education difficult.”

    State policymakers have worked to expand the conditions included in leave-of-absence policies at institutions to recognize mental health difficulties.

    In May 2024, Maryland passed legislation that expanded formal health withdrawal policies at public institutions to include mental health. The legislation also requires institutions to provide partial refunds for students who withdraw for physical or mental health reasons in the middle of the term.

    A 2022 bill introduced to the New York State Legislature would require university systems to review enrollment and re-enrollment policies for students who take extended mental health leaves.

    Students Taking Action

    Active Minds, a youth-led mental health advocacy group, developed a guide for students who are advocating for improved leave-of-absence policies at their institution.

    How to help: Some of the ways institutions assist learners are through:

    • Outlining the return process. The University of Southern California offers a step-by-step outline of the different offices a student must contact to re-enroll. Stanford University also created a Returning to Stanford booklet to answer frequently asked questions.
    • Consolidating resources. Many learners are unaware of the full scope of resources available at the institution. A centralized website, such as this one at Cornell University, can help students during their transition back to campus.
    • Providing coaching services for returners. Institutions, themselves or in partnership with outside organizations, can deliver intentional coaching for skill development and resource coordination to re-enroll learners.
    • Connecting students with peers. Supportive communities can help reconnect students to the institution and affirm their commitments to healthy habits, like engaging in social activities or demonstrating good study behaviors. Georgetown University offers a special support group, Back on the Hilltop, for learners who are returning from a leave of absence or who have recently transferred.

    Do you know of a wellness intervention that might help others encourage student success? Tell us about it.

    Source link

  • Have we been looking at free speech all wrong?

    Have we been looking at free speech all wrong?

    This blog was written by Rose Stephenson, Director of Policy and Advocacy at HEPI.

    Free speech is back in the news. Implementing the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was paused shortly after the general election to allow time for the Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Philipson, to consider whether the law should be repealed.

    Many expected that to be the case and were perhaps surprised to hear that the Government will implement the ‘Free Speech Act’ after all – with only two measures being considered for repeal – the duties placed on Student Unions and the statutory tort (the proposed legal route for individuals who suffer a loss due to a breach of their free speech). Bridget Philipson announced in the House of Commons that she proposes ‘keeping a complaints scheme in place with the OfS’. This scheme will consider complaints from staff, external speakers and university members, but not students (who can seek external review of a complaint with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education – the OIA). There are a couple of nerdy regulatory points to note here:

    1. There is still the possibility of the following scenario: A student raises a complaint of harassment from a member of staff. The institution concludes that the staff member did harass the student, and the staff member receives a written warning. The student believes that the outcome of the case was inappropriate and (following an unsuccessful appeal) takes the complaint to the OIA, who upholds the complaint and instructs the institution to compensate the student financially. The staff member feels that their free speech has been impinged by this process and raises a complaint with the OfS, who considers the complaint justified and instructs the institution to compensate the staff member financially. Therefore, we end up with a perverse scenario where two external bodies reach contradictory conclusions about the same event.
    • The OfS will not have a duty to assess every complaint it receives; rather, it will have the power to consider complaints. Bridget Philipson’s speech specifically mentioned the OfS not having to assess poorly put-together or nonsensical complaints. However, a robust, published decision-making framework will need to outline which cases the OfS will consider and which it will not, lest it be perceived that this loophole could be influenced by political persuasion.

    Policy wonks and those who must implement this legislation in institutions wait with bated breath….

    The quite extraordinary amount of time this legislation took to pass, plus the stopping and starting of its implementation, gave me time to ponder its practical implementation. I wonder if the focus of the free speech debate has missed the mark.

    Thousands of column inches have been dedicated to discussing free speech in university, including my own previous blog series:

    Much of the discussion has focussed on individual speakers being invited to campus to speak on particularly polarising topics. This may be an important part of promoting free speech, but if it doesn’t change anyone’s mind, is it just someone shouting into the void? Creating an in-person version of Twitter is unlikely to effectively promote free speech if only those who already agree with the speaker attend and those who feel offended by the topic or the speaker stay away. By almost solely focusing on this approach, we risk missing a significant opportunity.

    I’ve reflected on the circumstances that have led me to change my mind or opinion – or just to be genuinely interested in someone’s different belief or values system. It was not someone yelling polarising opinions but a considered conversation with someone who thinks differently from me. I have the genuine privilege of working with colleagues from across the political spectrum and engaging in debate and discussion, often publicly, on a daily basis. My ideas and beliefs are constantly challenged and given a chance to develop.

    One of the first lectures of my PGCE explained that ‘unlearning’ is much harder than learning. Therefore, if your pupils already believe that they know something, it is much more difficult to change their perception than to paint information on a blank canvas.

    If we truly want to promote free speech, we have to teach the skills of unlearning: curiosity, open mindedness, resilience and tolerance. This isn’t to say that all students should change their minds or perceptions. This might happen, but what we also need to develop is the curiosity to understand why someone thinks or believes differently from us. What led them to this belief? Why is it important to them? And, in turn, why do we hold the belief that we do? What led us to that viewpoint and why is it important to us?

    I appreciate that this becomes more complex when students’ own identities may be intertwined with these topics. While the right to speak freely is crucial, the choice to disengage from a topic that causes deep distress should also be respected. However, there are myriad interesting and challenging topics we can explore to learn from one another. One memorable experience from my time at the University of Bath was when a student explained to me that she found it patronising and incorrect for UK universities to teach that democracy was always the right way to organise society, especially when she observed greater poverty and inequality in the UK than in her home country. This didn’t alter my view on the importance of democratic rights or that it is the best way to organise society – but I’m so grateful that my ingrained belief and perception were challenged in this way and that I had the opportunity to consider an entire societal structure through the perspective of someone from a different background to my own.

    This conversation occurred by chance. As universities strive to promote free speech amidst the new registration requirements, how can we encourage the sharing of diverse, and at times challenging, opinions? Additionally, how can we teach the skills not only to debate our own views but also to listen to the opinions of others? Stimulating debate is, of course, the foundation of university teaching and research, and many institutions create spaces for this to occur daily. However, with ongoing criticism that universities are stifling debate and the new regulations coming into effect, providers will need to formalise and promote these opportunities. (Please write a blog for us if you would like to highlight your best practice in this area!)

    In the age of disinformation, where critical thinking is increasingly important, how can we expect students to critically analyse information shared by others if they cannot first critically analyse their own thoughts?

    Source link

  • Direct and Indirect Assessment Measures of Student Learning in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

    Direct and Indirect Assessment Measures of Student Learning in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Students are at the centre of a political uprising in Serbia. Again

    Students are at the centre of a political uprising in Serbia. Again

    Today, after three long months of protests, demonstrators in Serbia have called a general strike – and the government has threatened to retaliate.

    Activists are challenging the authority of a populist, nationalist government following months of demonstrations that have brought, at times, over 100,000 people onto the streets.

    But for me what’s significant about the growing movement – that some think could yet topple the government – is that it has been almost entirely led by students:

    The students in the blockade call on the citizens of Serbia for a total suspension of all activities on Friday, January 24… We don’t go to work, we don’t go to lectures, we don’t do our daily duties. Let’s take freedom into our own hands!

    It is a story partly about authoritarianism and tactics, and about how power reacts to protest. But it’s also a story about student movements – both official and decentralised – and how they can both lead, and be co-opted, by others.

    Back in November, a concrete roof at the railway station in Serbia’s second largest city Novi Sad collapsed, killing 15 people.

    The city is home to the University of Novi Sad – with over 50,000 students and 5,000 staff – and in the wake of the tragedy, a student activist group began to organise protests both in Novi Sad and the capital Belgrade – leaving red handprints at the entrances of government buildings to demand the arrest of officials. Government corruption was their claim.

    The group leading much of the activism has been Students Against Authoritarian Rule (STAV) – formed last January from within the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Novi Sad, and responsible last summer for a two-week blockade of the Rectorate building over what they saw as undemocratic practices in student representation.

    It’s a fix

    STAV’s dissatisfaction had its origins in a law passed in Serbia back in 2021, when the National Assembly passed a new Law on Student Organizing as part of a broader set of educational reforms designed to enhance student participation and accountability.

    When a small group of us visited the country last year, it all looked pretty positive – it formalises the roles of student parliaments at both faculty and university level, grants them participation in university decision making over issues like teaching, curricula, and regulations, gives them a formal role in advocating for academic and social rights, sets them up to promote extracurricular activities, and establishes them as drivers of national and international collaboration.

    It also sets out detailed rules on elections – eligibility criteria, timelines, and protocols to ensure a fair electoral process. But that’s partly where the trouble started.

    Last October the Center for Science and Innovation for Development (SCiDEV) – a Tirana-based think tank that works to contribute to democratisation in Albania, the Western Balkans and the European Union – published a comparative analysis of of student perceptions and engagement in student governments in Albania, North Macedonia and Serbia.

    It compiled growing concern about the involvement of political parties in the student electoral process in Serbia, a perception of a lack of transparency in election procedures, a belief amongst some students that the electoral process is manipulated or unfair, and a lack of independent mechanisms to monitor election processes and prevent misconduct.

    That’s partly because of perceptions that both locally and nationally within SKONUS (Serbia’s NUS), the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) appears to have played a key role. Milan Savić, who was elected as SKONUS President in 2016 and 2018, was elected to the National Assembly of Serbia as a member of SNS – and activists argue that since then, its leadership has repeatedly aligned itself with government policies rather than defending the student interest.

    Current President Margareta Smiljanić has also been linked to the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) through her involvement with something called the Centre for Education and Youth Development in Belgrade (CEROB) – whose headquarters, critics claim, were used to distribute payments for work in the SNS call centre.

    If that sounds fairly tenuous, it’s because it is. It may be that Smiljanić and her predecessors have links to the government – but she’s also one of a long line of “official” student representatives in pretty much every country that get accused of “siding” with university managements or government when engaging in meetings discussing issues like timetabling and food subsidies (two key planks of her manifesto) rather than trying to analyse a broader system and reject a wider administration.

    Either way, if the SCiDEV report provided a backdrop of evidence, the Novi Sad tragedy provided an event to rally over for STAV – the collapsed canopy a symbol of the corruption they saw as endemic in the Serbian political system.

    Wastewater and tear gas

    A week after the tragedy, protests in the two cities had started to grow – flares, red paint and wastewater were thrown onto the City Hall building in Novi Sad, and police responded with tear gas – while a smaller group of angrier protesters wearing masks attempted to enter the building and hand over their demands that those responsible for the canopy collapse face justice.

    That night, President Aleksandar Vučić came out to address the public – saying the police were “showing restraint” while issuing a warning that “horrific, violent” protests were underway:

    People of Serbia please do not think violence is allowed… All those taking part in the incidents will be punished.

    Miran Pogačar, a former philosophy from the Faculty of Philosophy and a prominent activist involved in citizens’ movement “Bravo”, was featured across national news:

    One glass window can be mended but we cannot bring back 14 lives. People are angry. Serbia won’t stand for this.

    At this stage it looked like the government was going to be able to keep the public on its side – highlighting a violent “former/non student” core as somehow manipulating more mainstream student protesters has long been a tactic of governments facing student unrest – a key feature, for example, of the Millbank student protests over tuition fees in London in 2010.

    But days later, the mood changed. CCTV footage of the collapse started to go viral – showing the huge canopy on the outer wall of Novi Sad station building collapsing onto young people below on benches. The government, having attempted initially to draw a line under events by promising a full investigation, was on the back foot.

    And the student activists of STAV – partly conscious of the role that peaceful student activism played across Central and Eastern Europe in bringing down communism – managed to get its more violent elements under control to secure public sympathy, while the banners painted by students started to become more direct – the most common being red paint on cardboard saying “corruption kills”.

    Students leading change

    There are good reasons for students to, for want of a better phrase, feel the hand of history on their shoulders.

    In the 1960s, Belgrade’s new “Student City” had become a central hub for student solidarity and the sharing of experiences and opinions, associations and clubs between students from both across the country and the world. In June 1968, protesting an accommodation shortage, the lack of voice in university structures and President Tito’s reforms (that had led to high unemployment and forced graduates to leave the country and find work elsewhere), students gathered at Block 1 of Studentski Grad to stage the first mass protest in Yugoslavia after World War II.

    Police beat the students and banned all public gatherings, but students then went into a seven-day strike – staging debates and speeches on social justice, and handing out copies of their banned magazines. Tito’s only option was to give in to some of the students’ demands – famously saying that “students are right” during a televised speech. But in the following years, he dealt with the leaders of the protests by sacking them from university and Communist party posts.

    Students were also central to the protests against Slobodan Milošević and the broader Yugoslav Communist Party in the late 1980s – ones that began as educational and economic grievances became infused with demands for political liberalisation, academic freedom and democracy. The economic crisis in Yugoslavia had fueled discontent, and it was students at the University of Belgrade that had started to form dissident groups to oppose censorship, restrictions on academic freedoms, and worsening living conditions.

    Inspired by other anti-communist movements in Eastern Europe, Serbian students began organizing campus forums in 1988, demanding democratic reforms – and by March 1989, the revocation of Kosovo’s autonomy by Milošević’s regime became a turning point, sparking protests against authoritarianism and the use of force. By May, students shifted focus to broader democratic demands, including free elections and minority rights, with their activism peaking during events like the famous Gazimestan rally and widespread “general strikes” across cities.

    Nevertheless, it took another decade for the regime to fall.

    The Student Union of Serbia (SUS) got going in 1992 at the Belgrade Faculty of Law, aiming to promote transparency, democratic elections, and enthusiasm within student organisations. Throughout the 1990s, SUS played a key role in student protests against the autocratic regime, notably during the 1996/97 demonstrations advocating for the recognition of local election results and university autonomy.

    Back home, Living Marxism – the in-house magazine of the Revolutionary Communist Party that went on to morph into libertarian website/group Spiked! (famous now for its Free Speech rankings of universities and its War on Woke) – argued that Western media outlets and international organisations exaggerated Serbian atrocities while downplaying crimes committed by others such as Bosnian Muslims or Croats.

    In 1997, it had published an article claiming that ITN’s footage of emaciated Bosnian Muslim detainees at the Trnopolje camp was misleading – alleging that the camp was not a concentration camp but rather a refugee centre, and that the imagery was manipulated to evoke Holocaust comparisons. It provoked outrage from human rights groups and journalists – and today Spiked! remains resolutely anti-EU  and oddly pro-populism.

    Back in Serbia, student-led Otpor! continued its tactics of nonviolent resistance, creative protests, and grassroots organising to help unify opposition groups, inspire mass demonstrations, and sustain momentum for democratic reforms. By the turn of the millennium, things were coming to a head – Milošević refused to concede defeat in the September 2000 presidential elections, and protests erupted again on October 5, as hundreds of thousands of Serbians from across the country marched to Belgrade demanding his resignation.

    Then, as now, students were accused of being puppets of the West – not least because the slogan Gotov je! had been distributed via 2.5 million stickers and 5,000 spray cans channeled by the U.S. Department of State.

    Student protesters stormed government buildings, including the Federal Parliament, and symbolically burned election ballots believed to be fraudulent. Faced with overwhelming public opposition and a breakdown of loyalty within the police and military, Milošević resigned on October 7, 2000, marking the end of his regime and paving the way for democratic reforms in Serbia.

    Few believe that communism could have fallen in the way it did either in Serbia or across Europe more generally in that period without students – every country in the region has its own set of stories about how students inspired wider movements. The question now, in Georgia, maybe soon in Romania and more generally across the region, is whether students will play a key role again in bringing down populists often accused of being in bed with Russia.

    Legitimate representatives

    By December 5th 2024, unrest was building in Belgrade. A group of students at a protest symbolically turned their backs on the Minister of Construction, Goran Vesić during a public appearance in the capital. Hours later he’d resigned, but they’d secured the support of the Bar Association of Serbia, which announced a one-day strike citing “systematic and long-term interference by the executive branch in the work of the judiciary”, and problems with the separation of powers in a democratic society.

    Dejan Bagarić, a PhD student from the Faculty of Philosophy and one of the perceived ringleaders of STAV, was jailed for up to 30 days on charges of “reckless theft” and “assault on an official” after taking and returning a phone from a journalist filming a protest incident involving his girlfriend. And Branko Rodić, another student from Novi Sad, was reportedly assaulted by two people believed to be members of the National Assembly’s security, who knocked him to the ground and hit him in the face.

    Six days later, students gathered in front of the headquarters of RTS, Serbia’s public television station – protesting over coverage of President Aleksandar Vučić’s claims that the demonstrators were “funded by Western countries seeking to destabilize Serbia”.

    The crisis growing, Vučić then pulled an age-old tactic beloved by governments and university managements over the years – he ostentatiously held a meeting with the SKONUS President Margareta Smiljanić and other “representatives of the legitimately elected students” at which he announced a housing scheme offering young people to purchase €75,000 flats with a deposit of €1000.

    SKONUS had been formed in the slipstream of the fall of Milošević in 2005 – established to inject some resource into student representation and “officially” represent students at accredited universities in Serbia, with its origins tied to the country’s new Law on Higher Education. Initially, it played a key role in higher education reforms like Bologna and promoting student mobility, and in 2014 worked alongside SUS when the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) came to power and cut the number of exam periods from six to five and cut the funding for students’ fifth year of studies.

    But since then, student activist groups have grown suspicious of SKONUS and its leadership’s role in “negotiating” with government and avoiding “non-student” issues. Hence when Margareta Smiljanić responded to Vučić’s deal in December, she both welcomed the announcement, and played up her concern for students’ education:

    The reason we organized this meeting is because we were elected not to hold political positions, but to hold student positions, to answer the students who ask us questions every day about what will happen to the further teaching process and who will ensure the quality of education for the year 2024/2025. We requested from the Government of the Republic of Serbia and the Ministry of Education that we be admitted to the meeting and I would like to thank them for accepting us in record time today.

    She went on to say that no-one had given her an answer on reimbursement of tuition fees, compensation and exam registration, and whether university buildings would re-open at all in the new year:

    These are all questions that are troubling students, and I believe parents as well. We believe that it is of crucial interest for deans, rectors, and the academic community to answer because 230,000 academics are tormented by these questions. We demand urgent answers.

    Whether you believe that Smiljanić was a government stooge that was part of a propaganda effort to brand the activists as extreme and anti-education, or a student leader doing her best to focus on student issues, is fairly moot – either way, Vucic took to the airwaves to build on the divide and rule tactic:

    So, all the [protest] demands have been fulfilled, and we expect those who made the demands to say their demands have been fulfilled and to return to classes. But [if not] it will [then] be clear to the entire public in Serbia … and to all the citizens of Serbia that there were never any demands, but that it was [pure] politics.”

    STAV was having none of that – branding Smiljanić a sell-out and claiming that some of its activists had started to be called in for one-to-one meetings with university managers about their academic “progress”, who had themselves been threatened with the sack if they failed to get students back into classrooms.

    6-7 seconds

    Things continued to escalate. On December 10 a man drove his car into a group of participants, injuring four musicians who’d joined the protests from the Belgrade Philharmonic Orchestra.

    By December 13, farmers in central Serbia had joined the protests by blocking a motorway with tractors, expressing solidarity with the students and amplifying calls for governmental accountability – and two days later visibly frustrated Prime Minister Miloš Vučević responded to question with “you can’t bring down a country because of 15 people who died, nor 155, nor 1,555”, and was forced to apologise.

    By December 22, the crowd of protesters had swelled again – with over 100,000 gathering in Slavija Square in Belgrade where students had been joined by numerous civil society groups. On Christmas Eve Vučić then also mis-stepped in an interview – claiming that if he wanted to, he could deploy special forces to disperse student protesters “in 6-7 seconds”.

    Demonstrators delivered 1,000 letters to the office of Public Prosecutor Zagorka Dolovac, urging her to fulfill her duties and address the protesters’ demands – and stories were swirling that agents from the Security Intelligence Agency (BIA) had made visits to the workplaces and homes of some of the student organisers’ family members.

    And by now, protests had spread to other Serbian student cities too. In Užice, over 2,000 gathered in front of the city hall to express their support for the movement – and authorities attempts’ to kill that off by turning off street lights were met with portable generators.

    Vučić then publicly accused eight Croatian students – led by twin brothers Lazar and Luka Stojakovic from the Faculty of Organisational Science at Belgrade University – identified by pro-government daily newspaper Vecernje Novosti as protest leaders paid by Croatia’s secret service. Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenković dismissed Vučić’s claims as “laughable.” But Lazar and Luka were emboldened:

    Corruption entered every single layer of our society and it is the main cause of roof collapse and killing of 15 people.

    On New Year’s Eve into New Year’s Day 2025, tens of thousands were on the streets, chanting “There is no new year – you still owe us for the old one” – and two weeks later Margareta Smiljanić popped up again on TV, arguing that the the “destruction of the higher education system” was underway, that the protest participants were “not student representatives”, and calling on universities to launch surveys to get a “clear picture” of what the majority of students want:

    We have generations of students who enrolled in studies during the coronavirus. That generation lost two years of normal classes. During the coronavirus, they had make-up and online classes, and now they have classes interrupted again. So we have generations who will graduate with a much lower quality of knowledge… I think that the radicalization of any protests is not good and that through dialogue we can achieve greater goals.

    But Biljana Đorđević – co-president of the Green-Left Front, and an assistant professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences in Belgrade, responded with another allegation often thrown at student representatives – that she’s been studying for a full decade and has been a student official for eight years:

    She was hired… as the President of a student organization that the regime of Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić hires to impersonate students when necessary.

    Since then numbers have grown again – last Friday, during another massive protest in front of the Radio Television of Serbia (RTS) building in Belgrade, tens of thousands of students and academics observed a 15-minute silence to honour the victims of the Novi Sad tragedy, and protesters chanted slogans advocating for a general strike.

    This regime stands no chance

    You can pretty much flip a coin at this point on whether the movement will grow and bring down the government, or whether concerns of students about what is starting to look like a write-off of the academic year altogether will somehow see Vučić and his government survive.

    And as was the case in 1989 throughout the former Yugoslavia, it pretty much rests on whether the wider public’s sympathy with “the students” grows or wanes. There are reports of people donating food, businesses providing supplies, taxi drivers offering free fares, and farmers pledging to protect protesters with tractors – but some sense too that parts of the public are tiring of the disruption as it spreads. Who they blame will matter.

    Ljubica Oparnica, a professor at the Faculty of Education at the University of Novi Sad, thinks that STAV and “unofficial” student movement will win out:

    I am truly fascinated by the way students are working together. Their solidarity is a fortress that cannot be breached. If we all share the same vision — and here it is clear that we all want a new system, a new and different era — this regime stands no chance.

    And while the country’s four biggest teaching unions struck a deal with the Serbian government on pay increases earlier this month, plenty of schools and teachers have refused to start the new term – with Vucevic now threatening to send in inspectors and sack teachers in schools that take part and go on strike today.

    “I am not threatening anyone,” said Vucevic to RTS this week. “I am merely urging everyone not to play with children and the education system”. Dusan Kokot of the Independent Union of Education Workers of Serbia said that education can’t thrive in a society “plagued by systemic corruption”:

    Education cannot flourish while decision-makers are plagiarists, forgers, usurpers and manipulators.

    In one final – and some say desperate move – Vucevic this week offered a non-binding “advisory referendum” on the government, while opposition leaders demanded a transitional government to ensure fair elections.

    Much now rests on the success or otherwise of today’s general strike. Some still think that a mixture of propaganda, counter-protests and public concern about the grinding to a halt of education in general will see the protests peter out – but Ljubica Oparnica is less sure:

    They won’t give up easily because they enjoy immense privileges. That’s why change seems impossible. But I believe this government will collapse suddenly, like the fallen canopy [at Novi Sad train station]. We’ll all be surprised. I think they’ve reached the end of their strength.



    Source link

  • We need strategic technical leaders

    We need strategic technical leaders

    As a society we’re seeing rapid changes, especially in technology, that impact how we live, work and learn. Higher education institutions have needed to reevaluate their priorities and adapt to this new environment. Strong, diverse and skilled leadership to drive change is more important than ever – and strategic technical leaders can play a key role.

    These relative new positions in the sector bridge the gap between organisational goals and technical capabilities. They champion their teams, drive innovation and collaboration.

    Technicians are critical to teaching, research and innovation and there is an increasing demand for strategic technical leaders in universities to strengthen and develop this vital workforce, helping institutions to thrive in this ever-changing landscape.

    Filling the technical leadership gap

    Historically there has been a leadership gap for technicians in higher education institutions, with their roles often being capped at lower levels, meaning a lack of representation in strategic decision-making.

    In recent years this trend has been reversed, with several institutions appointing strategic technical leaders. At first glance, HESA data indicates that 45 per cent of UK HEIs have a strategic technical leader in position, which – while not ideal – at least illustrates a promising improvement.

    But given this figure is based on those institutions that opt-in to submit data to HESA for their non-academic staff, the number of senior strategic technical leaders is potentially far lower than the statistics suggest. Conversely, the HESA statistics also do not account for strategic technical leaders who are operating at lower levels in institutions.

    Variation across remits and institutions

    Data from existing strategic technical leaders (published in the report Strategic technical leadership: advocacy, empowerment and transformation) revealed variations in these roles between institutions, particularly around responsibilities, remit and seniority.

    As relatively new roles in the HE landscape, they are still evolving. Institutions establishing these roles have often defined the scope with limited reference points, resulting in positions being shaped around individuals or tailored to specific priorities. While some inconsistencies are to be expected, greater consistency in defining the remit and responsibilities of these roles would be beneficial.

    There’s an opportunity to guide the integration of strategic technical leaders into leadership structures. This would not only support their effective implementation but also ensure continuity, which is critical for their long-term impact and sustainability.

    Defining the role

    Previously undefined, our report proposed the following definition of a strategic technical leader:

    An empowered decision-maker who aligns the technical workforce with the institution’s long-term goals by anticipating future needs, advocating for technicians, and shaping policies that impact both technical staff and the broader organisation. They play a pivotal role in strategic planning, particularly in areas such as workforce sustainability, skills development, and investment in technical resources, while ensuring technicians have access to meaningful development opportunities.

    Acknowledging that the definition and roles of strategic technical leaders are still evolving, their benefits are already clear, bringing significant advantages to their institutions, technical staff, and the wider higher education sector.

    Strategic technical leaders are vital for aligning technical operations with university strategy, offering significant benefits to institutions, technical staff, and the wider higher education sector. Their holistic view of technicians’ roles across teaching and research ensures consistency in opportunities, operations, and experiences. By fostering the development and application of technical skills, they drive efficiency across the institution.

    Working as changemakers

    Input into the university’s overall strategy ensures sound investments in equipment and facilities while reducing inefficiencies and duplications of equipment, resulting in cost-savings. Where responsibility for the technical portfolio of activities is integrated into the executive level of the institution, our report indicated wide-reaching benefits internally and externally.

    Strategic technical leaders who are embedded within the higher level of the institutional decision making act as important changemakers for the technical community, advocating for representation in decision-making.

    Improving the visibility of technicians is vital for improving the long-standing lack of recognition and visibility technicians have endured. The results can be far-reaching with evidence suggesting improved results in two often challenging areas associated with technical careers – recruitment and retention.

    Embracing and influencing change

    The focus of the strategic technical leader’s role extends beyond the boundaries of their own organisation – they also have an important externally-facing role. The strategic leaders we spoke to highlighted the importance of their external networks, for developing opportunities for collaboration and sharing of best practice to benefit their home institutions.

    Beyond this, strategic technical leaders are well placed to engage with bodies that advocate for technicians such as the UK Institute for Technical Skills and Strategy and the Technician Commitment.

    Their influence reaches other important networks such as policymakers, professional bodies and sector stakeholders where they can influence sector change, an approach that was recommended in the TALENT Commission report.

    To work at their optimal, universities need innovative and collaborative leadership that represents the entire workforce. It is time that technicians and the vital work that they do is represented in university leadership. Investment in these roles not only supports the development of an institution’s technical teaching, research and operational efficiency but safeguards future excellence.

    Source link

  • Podcast: Funding, attendance, student hardship

    Podcast: Funding, attendance, student hardship

    This week on the podcast Minister of State for Skills Jacqui Smith helped launch a pamphlet on whether universities are “worth it” – and was notably cold on extra money. But does she mean outlay or eventual return to the Treasury?

    Plus there’s changes afoot in Scotland, UKVI is cracking down on attendance for international students and students are still feeling the pinch financially – is a return to maintenance grants a lost possibility?

    With Ben Vulliamy, Executive Director at the Association of Heads of University Administration, Dani Payne, Senior Researcher at the Social Market Foundation, Michael Salmon, News Editor at Wonkhe and presented by Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor at Wonkhe.

    Read more

    Jacqui Smith rules out (much) more money while her department assesses the impacts

    The Scottish government wants its own post-study work offer

    A new funding body landscape emerges in Scotland

    UKVI is tightening the rules on international student attendance

    Higher education should lift students out of poverty – not trap them within it

    Source link