Blog

  • What college presidents are thinking about in 2025

    What college presidents are thinking about in 2025

    College presidents showed tepid support for tenure with a little more than a third agreeing that the pros outweigh the cons, according to Inside Higher Ed’s 2025 Survey of College and University Presidents, conducted with Hanover Research and released in full today.

    That was just one of many findings across the annual survey, now in its 15th year.

    Presidents were optimistic in some areas, with most expressing confidence that their institutions will be financially stable over the next five to 10 years and positivity about the job itself. But campus leaders also expressed concerns about politicians trying to shape institutional strategies, which they see as an increasing risk, plus a seeming lack of improvement on undergraduate mental health, even as campuses make more investments in related services.

    Inside Higher Ed earlier this month released a portion of the survey findings that unpacked how presidents viewed the second Trump administration. The bulk of the survey’s political findings were covered in that initial release, with college presidents largely worried President Donald Trump will negatively affect higher education in this new term.

    This year’s survey included responses from 298 respondents across two- and four-year institutions, including public, private nonprofit and a small number of private for-profit colleges.

    More on the Survey

    Inside Higher Ed’s 2025 Survey of College and University Presidents was conducted with Hanover Research starting in December and running through Jan. 3. The survey included 298 presidents of two- and four-year institutions, public and private, for a margin of error of 5 percent. Download a copy of the free report here.

    On Wednesday, March 26, at 2 p.m. Eastern, Inside Higher Ed will present a webcast with campus leaders who will share their takes on the findings. Register for that discussion here.

    Faculty Tenure

    Tenure is often championed by professors and presidents alike for the protections it provides when it comes to issues of academic freedom. But just over a third of college presidents surveyed here—37 percent—indicated that the pros of tenure outweigh the cons.

    By institution type, presidents at public doctoral universities were most likely to support tenure, with 82 percent agreeing that the pros outweigh the cons.

    The overall finding came as a surprise to some observers, especially as politicians in some states are increasingly taking aim at tenure.

    Anne Harris, president of Grinnell College in Iowa, said she was surprised that presidential support was so low, adding that tenure plays an important role at liberal arts colleges, such as the one she leads.

    “For the small liberal arts college model, tenure is the continuity of mentorship, of advising, of those long-term relationships that we rely on … to see students through, to high graduation rates, to all those things,” she said. “From my perspective, the pros are very, very salient for what tenure does, not just for academic freedom and for the pursuit of research, but also for what it does for the continuity of advising and mentoring for students.”

    Michael Harris, a professor of higher education at Southern Methodist University (and no relation to the Grinnell College president), noted tenure can “be a thorn in the side of presidents and provosts” but that it can also serve as a buffer to political attacks on academic freedom.

    “It’s disappointing to me that presidents don’t have a better opinion of tenure, particularly in this current moment. I understand the challenges that tenure causes, and how it might limit the institution financially, or in decision-making—well-known areas where tenure can slow things down. But at this moment it’s just disappointing to me that there wasn’t more belief in tenure,” Harris said.

    Yet he believes that even the presidents who don’t like tenure will continue to protect it.

    “Presidents understand—even if tenure is a pain for them to deal with—the damage it would do to them in recruiting faculty [to lose tenure]. So there’s a self-interested argument on keeping tenure, even if they personally would like for the whole industry to get rid of it.”

    Campus Speech

    After pro-Palestinian student protests broke out on campuses nationwide over the bloodshed in the war between Israel and Hamas, many institutions changed their campus speech policies. Almost half of presidents surveyed—45 percent—noted that their institution updated its speech policies within the last 18 months, with public institution leaders most likely to say so.

    Additionally, almost a third of survey respondents (29 percent) indicated that their campus has an institutional neutrality policy, according to which college leaders should not comment on social or political matters that do not directly threaten the core mission. Such policies saw an uptick amid the fallout of the recent protests, which many congressional Republicans cast as antisemitic.

    Few respondents whose institution does not already have an institutional neutrality policy said it’s likely to adopt one.

    Despite recent student protests, presidents overwhelmingly blamed politicians for escalating tensions over campus speech concerns, versus other groups: Some 70 percent said politicians were primarily at fault, while just 18 percent blamed students.

    Presidents speaking on a panel about the survey findings at the American Council on Education’s annual meeting in Washington on Feb. 12 suggested campus speech concerns are overblown.

    “One incident goes viral, it gets all sorts of publicity,” Jon Alger, president of American University, said, while arguing that “99 percent of campus conversations” typically go well.

    Félix V. Matos Rodríguez, chancellor of the City University of New York, also speaking at ACE, said that social media often inflates speech issues with incomplete narratives for the sake of virality. He added that outside actors also weaponize such tensions to further their own political agendas.

    In a separate December survey of two- and four-year students by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab, nearly all respondents supported institutional efforts to promote civil dialogue, and 40 percent were at least somewhat concerned about the climate for civil dialogue and student free expression at their institution.

    Economic Confidence

    Presidents surveyed expressed strong financial confidence, despite difficult headwinds for the industry in recent years, which have seemingly been exacerbated by Trump’s recent executive actions threatening funding, prompting hiring freezes and more.

    Among respondents, 87 percent signaled that they expect their institution to be financially stable over the next five years, and 83 percent said the same over a 10-year timeline. But nearly half of presidents, 49 percent, believe their institution has too many academic programs and needs to close some. Some 19 percent responded that they had serious merger or acquisition talks recently, about the same as last year’s survey.

    This year, most of the presidents weighing mergers cited a desire to ensure their institution’s financial stability and sustainability, rather than risk of closure.

    Nine percent of all presidents said it’s somewhat or very likely that their institution will merge into or be acquired by another college within the next five years, with presidents of private nonprofit baccalaureate institutions especially likely to say so (21 percent).

    Presidents also saw risks beyond the business side. More than half—60 percent—believe politicians’ efforts to influence strategy are an increasing risk to their institution.

    However, some presidents at public institutions see that tension as inherent to the sector.

    “I think we’re a little bit naïve if we expect to be totally independent from the voices of our elected officials in helping to set the direction they think is important for the public investment that is being made in our institutions,” said Brad Mortensen, president of Weber State University in Utah.

    Presidents of public and private nonprofit institutions expressed similar levels of concern on this point.

    Being a President

    Most presidents like the job, even if they question how their time is spent. The overwhelming majority of respondents—89 percent—agreed, at least somewhat, that they enjoy being a college president.

    Additionally, 88 percent of respondents said that their own governing boards were supportive.

    However, more than half—56 percent—question whether the presidency can be capably handled by one person. Presidents also indicated they would prefer to focus on strategic planning, fundraising and community engagement but often find other pressing demands, such as dealing with personnel issues and managing institutional finances, eating into their time.

    A quarter of respondents said that the hardest part of the job was navigating financial constraints. Other areas of difficulty that emerged in the survey include too many responsibilities with too little time to do the job, enrollment challenges and external political pressures.

    Asked how long they expected to be in their job, a plurality (47 percent) answered five years.

    Harris, the SMU professor, is skeptical that most presidents will last that long. He said the finding that nearly half of presidents expected to be in their jobs over the next five years prompted him to “laugh out loud,” and he noted that data from ACE’s latest American College President Survey showed the tenure for college leaders has fallen to just over five years.

    “Either a whole bunch of first-year presidents filled out the survey and they’re going to stay another five years, or somebody is missing the boat on how long they’re actually going to serve,” he said. For reference, the plurality of survey respondents, 33 percent, have served as president of their current institution for five to 10 years. The rest were roughly split between less than three years, three to approaching five years and 10 or more years served.

    Last year saw numerous high-profile presidents abruptly resign, including from the nation’s wealthiest institutions—some of whom had only been in the job for a matter of months.

    Student Mental Health

    College presidents also expressed confidence about their institution’s approach to student mental health.

    The overwhelming majority reported that their institution has done a good or excellent job of promoting student health and wellness across multiple areas. On mental health, in particular, 81 percent said this. And 69 percent said that their institution has been effective in addressing the student mental health crisis, though only 37 percent felt the same was true of the sector as a whole.

    Despite the confidence in their institution’s efforts, only 44 percent of presidents somewhat or strongly agreed that undergraduate mental health is improving on their campus. Just 23 percent said the same of undergraduate mental health across higher education.

    Harris, the Grinnell College president, suggested that finding may not be cause for alarm but rather for deliberation. She noted that “more students accessing mental health resources, to me, is not necessarily a sign of a mental health crisis, it’s a sign of mental health self-advocacy.” Still, she said that colleges still need to develop a better understanding of student mental health issues.

    Other Findings

    Artificial intelligence is another category that prompted mixed feelings.

    About half of respondents—51 percent—believe their institution is responding adeptly and appropriately to the rise of AI, but only 29 percent said the same was true across the sector.

    About the same share over all (52 percent) said their institution had established a campuswide AI task force or strategy.

    Survey respondents noted that the most common uses for AI for their institutions included virtual chat assistants and chat bots, research and data analysis, predictive analytics to identify student performance and trends, learning management systems, and use in admissions processes.

    A third of presidents (32 percent) said their institution has set specific climate-related or environmental sustainability goals. Institutions in the Northeast and West appeared to lead here and on other sustainability-related questions, by region.

    The survey period ended Jan. 3, ahead of Trump taking office for a second term and ahead of his administration issuing a Dear Colleague letter attempting to dramatically widen the scope of the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against affirmative action in admissions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.

    At the time of the survey, nearly all presidents (88 percent) said their institution had been able to maintain or increase previous levels of student diversity since that Supreme Court decision. Looking only at presidents whose institutions previously practiced affirmative action (n=22), closer to half said they’d been able to maintain or increase previous levels of diversity.

    Separately, 10 percent of all presidents said their institution had curtailed diversity, equity and inclusion efforts beyond admissions since the decision, with presidents in the South and Midwest likeliest to say this, by region.

    Groups such as ACE have cautioned against anticipatory compliance to the Education Department’s Dear Colleague letter, which does not have the force and effect of law. Other legal experts note that the letter is not subject to the current preliminary injunction against parts of two White House executive orders that also seek to limit diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

    Source link

  • An argument against teaching demos (opinion)

    An argument against teaching demos (opinion)

    I have always found the teaching demo portion of a faculty job candidate’s visit to be the least useful component of assessing that individual’s fit for the position. Think about it—for teaching-focused institutions, teaching demos are held in high regard and are often a mandatory component of candidate job-talk visits. The prevalent belief appears to be that without seeing an individual in action in front of a live classroom, one cannot assess their teaching ability.

    To me, it seems rather like expecting an interviewing physician to come into an ongoing surgery and take over the operation for half an hour before retreating and handing the patient back to the original surgeon. This seems hardly fair to the visiting physician or the beleaguered patient.

    A teaching demo often involves the job candidate having to go teach a portion of a lecture in an already existing and functioning course. Right off the bat, the entire premise of the teaching demo is unnatural and flawed. Neither the demo giver nor the demo receivers benefit, and the observers (i.e., the hapless search committee members), who are the ones most invested in the demo, gain nothing of value, either. Yes, maybe you can determine in 20 minutes how a candidate speaks in front of an audience, but that factoid can be gathered from a research or job talk presentation as well. In that job talk presentation, perhaps the candidate can also talk about his or her teaching philosophy. That to me seems more valuable and more useful information to gather.

    One big issue for me about the teaching demo is that the students in attendance know it’s a demonstration and are probably not too fussed about paying too much attention, knowing that whatever the demonstration covers, the contents are unlikely to make it into the exams or quizzes given by their regular instructor. So it would not be surprising if they base their evaluations entirely on random criteria, such as one’s sense of sartorial style.

    Essentially, the demo serves as a distraction for students—a way to let their minds wander from their regular programming. I would argue that this sort of demoing is disruptive for student learning and regular instructor teaching. We are taking away valuable time that students would have gotten their regular teaching in order to subject them to a teaching demo, which they know doesn’t matter in the long run.

    And of course, this sort of demo interrupts the teaching plans of the regular instructor. Now that instructor has to hang around for the length of the time of the demo letting their attention wander, just like the students. And then the instructor has to go back to their regular class, out of which half an hour or longer has already been squandered.

    Furthermore, whatever evaluations are garnered from the teaching demo are not exactly trustworthy. There is evidence that course evaluations (conducted after an entire semester) are biased against women and minority professors. And mind you, that’s after an entire semester—how on Earth can one expect a 25- to 35-minute demo evaluation to be unbiased? They most assuredly are not unbiased and are probably reflective of similar biases against minority and women candidates. I’ve been on and chaired several search committees, and have seen some really random comments listed on the demo evaluations. Needless to say, those comments were not germane to the actual situation, in that they provided no useful evidence about the candidate’s teaching ability.

    Also, these sorts of teaching demos are especially rough on candidates who have social anxiety or are introverted. Teaching involves building rapport with your students—20 minutes is hardly enough time to do that. It is entirely possible for a candidate to be unfairly assessed based on a tiny sliver of time. A great teacher could have a bad teaching demo, and a poor teacher could have a great teaching demo—how accurate is it to judge someone’s teaching abilities based on a short lecture? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to actually take the time to pore over the candidate’s teaching evaluations instead? Yes, they are prone to error, but it stands to reason they are not as prone to error as a teaching demo. Preferring a teaching demo over a more complete semester-long evaluation is akin to judging a movie from its trailer. A trailer can be great, but the movie may still be terrible. Ditto with teaching demos.

    Alternatives to Teaching Demos

    I propose some alternatives to teaching demos. The first is to include a small teaching portion in the job talk itself. Give the candidate the leeway to talk about his or her teaching philosophy and perhaps about their approach to pedagogy. That, when combined with actual semester teaching evaluations, would be far more useful than a 20- or 30-minute demo. Anyone can fake being nice and approachable for 20 or 30 minutes—doing that over the course of a semester is a lot more difficult. Even faculty members who are perceived as rude and unapproachable by their usual students can pass themselves off as wonderful and approachable for a 20-minute window. How they behave throughout the semester is far more useful and predictive information.

    Another alternative to a live teaching demo could be to make it asynchronous. Have the candidate record a video lecture of themselves, and then have faculty and students watch the video to rate the candidate on their teaching performance. After all, the goal is to see how the candidate presents and teaches—why not take away the anxiety component of the live demo and instead make it a lot more equitable? Sure, recording a video could be anxiety-provoking in its own right, but it can’t be more anxiety-provoking than a live demo in front of a crowd, can it?

    The third alternative to live teaching demos is to open up the candidate’s research presentation to students as well. Far too often, the research presentations are only attended by department faculty members (some of whom have to be reluctantly corralled from their offices by the search committee chair). Opening these presentations up to students would serve a dual purpose, both bolstering the audience numbers and giving the students attending a good idea of how the candidate communicates. This does much the same job that the teaching demo does, but more effectively and efficiently.

    Conclusion

    To conclude, I am suggesting that we do away with the teaching demos in faculty job candidates’ visits. It is high time that we eliminate useless rituals that we follow just because of tradition. Let’s send teaching demos the way of the dodo.

    Source link

  • The holy grail of credit transfer?

    The holy grail of credit transfer?

    • Helena Vine, Lead Policy Officer for England at the Quality Assurance Agency, considers what we might learn from American researchers Lauren Schudde and Huriya Jabbar’s recent study of ‘Discredited: Power, Privilege and Community College Transfer’.

    When it comes to the more intractable issues in higher education policy, we’re often tempted to look wistfully overseas to supposedly sunlit uplands where the knotty issue has, at least on the surface, been resolved.

    This has never been truer than in the case of credit transfer – the process by which a provider recognises the credit a student has successfully accrued at another institution, exempting them from modules or even whole years of learning that they have already undertaken elsewhere. If I had a pound for every person who’s suggested I look at how the USA does it, I might be able to fund a neat solution here in the UK.

    I understand the appeal – the community college system and the transferable nature of credit are much more embedded within the United States than in the UK, even if each state takes a slightly different approach. It’s tempting to see such a system as the ‘holy grail’ of credit transfer models, where students can accumulate and transfer credit between institutions – and where the path of attending a community college before moving onto an institution offering four-year degrees is well-trodden.

    Finding a way forward feels particularly pertinent right now. The potential for a coherent and consistent sector-wide approach to credit transfer has been highlighted by growing government aspirations across all four nations of the UK to promote lifelong learning, widening participation and regional economic development. This is why we at QAA published guidance on credit recognition and research into credit transfer practices across the UK last year and why we’re currently working with colleagues across the sector to produce an in-depth study of those practices.

    We’ve naturally looked to the US ‘holy grail’ model to inform our thinking about how credit transfer might work under the Lifelong Learning Entitlement in England – and more broadly across the rest of the UK. But rather than discovering an abundance of convenient solutions that we could apply here in the UK, we were struck by the number of challenges and barriers that our systems share. It turns out that the US perhaps doesn’t have it entirely figured out after all.

    Credit transfer systems appear difficult for students to navigate in both the UK and the US. Research in the US exposed conflicting sources of information, guidance documentation that is difficult for students to digest, and protocols which place the onus firmly on students to show they have the requisite learning.

    These findings may feel all too familiar to those who’ve been engaged in credit transfer processes in the UK, which our own research found could also prove extraordinarily opaque.

    In their study of the credit transfer practice across Texas – Discredited: Power, Privilege and Community College Transfer (Harvard, 2024)– Lauren Schudde and Huriya Jabbar refer to this issue as the ‘hidden curriculum of transfer’. They argue that the series of hoops students must jump through almost feel designed to make them ‘demonstrate that they are worthy’. The students most ably navigating the system could do so because they took no information at face value and instead triangulated it across various sources to identify what was accurate. Such an approach indicates a significant amount of effort is therefore required to do something supposedly so essential to the smooth operation of a tertiary education system.

    Despite there being much clearer routes between community colleges and four-year degree providers in the United States than those we have between further education colleges and universities in the UK, Schudde and Jabbar’s research identifies an underlying assumption in some institutions that community colleges are of lower quality and their students are not necessarily academically prepared for transfer to higher levels of study.

    Academic faculty and administrators at those four-year institutions sought instead to preserve their institutions’ prestige and reputation for selectivity. In doing so, they fostered unwelcoming and unreceptive transfer processes and cultures, inevitably contributing to poorer outcomes for the students involved. Indeed, Discredited cites one administrator at a selective institution who questioned whether the students who failed to navigate its own complex system were the right candidates for such a prestigious place of study.

    And in the traditionally hierarchical education system we have known in the UK – and particularly in England – it’s not impossible to imagine that there have been similar pockets of resistance that have impeded credit transfer and student mobility here too.

    Delving further into the body of research on credit transfer in the US, we find that attempts to streamline and standardise these processes have often encountered concerns around the impact on institutional autonomy. While state-wide, policy-level initiatives are much more common in the US than in the UK, measures as simple as the introduction of a common system for course numbering have been met with resistance. Similar concerns abound across the UK, where efforts to acknowledge some consistency across provision raise fears of a slippery slope towards external interference in admission policies.

    Ultimately, Schudde and Jabbar argue that efforts to improve support for students (and for community colleges) in navigating these transfer processes are insufficient within a system not designed to ease their paths and where the players with the most power are sometimes the ones most resistant to a reformed system.

    Their argument rings true in the UK. On an individual level, providers are open and willing to engage with students with prior learning and support them in finding a route into the institution that recognises their potential and sets them up for success. Many are also willing to acknowledge that their practice in this area could be enhanced. But if the conversation continues to happen solely at an individual level, we risk a system which remains disjointed, opaque and disheartening to engage with. In doing so, we will fall far short of our ambitions for lifelong learning, a skills revolution and a more flexible imagination of higher education.

    Sector reference points, such as the UK Quality Code and the Credit Framework for England coordinated by QAA, have a strong track record of facilitating appropriate consistency across a diverse sector. They recognise the common ground the sector shares while enabling providers to adapt it to their own context. The same approach could be taken with further guidance around credit transfer. Every provider’s credit transfer policy may include slightly different requirements and limits, but a sector-led agreement coordinated by QAA on what information goes in those policies and how they’re communicated to applicants would go a long way towards easing the burden on learners and providers, who know they need to do more in this space but aren’t sure where to start.

    Learning that the US is far from perfect in this area could easily disincentivise action. Instead, I think it demonstrates that it’s not simply a waiting game for slow cultural and system change to emerge. Instead, it shows that, without proactively tackling the entrenched barriers in the system, the challenges continue to linger no matter how smooth and shiny it looks on the surface.

    Source link

  • Beyond Syllabus Week: Creative Strategies to Engage Students from Day One – Faculty Focus

    Beyond Syllabus Week: Creative Strategies to Engage Students from Day One – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Students making changes on transport

    Students making changes on transport

    Before being elected as a sabbatical officer, I was a commuter student at my university for 5 years.

    Over that time, the price of the single student ticket increased gradually from £1 to £1.70. It doesn’t sound like a lot but it soon adds up.

    It had a huge impact on my studies. I reduced the number of days I spent on campus as I often did not have the funds to afford it. Eventually, I had to find a part-time job to cover the costs which were easily in their hundreds for each year.

    In 2021, following a campaign from youth activists, the “Zoom pass” was introduced in Sheffield, a travel pass often advertised to students that offers discounted tickets and fares to 18–21-year-olds. Sadly, I was already too old.

    I watched the service get drastically reduced, the timetable became more inconsistent and the prices of student tickets got increasingly more expensive. And on top of all this – the bus would never even arrive on time.

    Commuter students are entitled to the same learning opportunities and experiences that university offers.

    Commuter students make up a large proportion of our student population at Sheffield Hallam. In fact, we make up over 55 per cent. Add to the mix that 57 per cent of our students are also mature and more students are working than ever and you’re left with a huge cohort of students who are struggling to afford to attend teaching on campus and who are too busy and tired to engage in campaigning.

    The university has made steps to adapt to the needs of our diverse student body – a move towards more online or hybrid teaching, a condensed timetable with longer hours over fewer days. But students are still struggling. The solution must be to make transport cheaper.

    Time to campaign

    In the last academic year, Hallam Students’ Union launched its third iteration of the cost of living survey and its results were damning.

    We created a set of recommendations that would enable us to develop student support and lobby for positive change, at a local and national level, to help ease the burden on our students.

    For our “Cheaper Transport Campaign,” we committed to lobbying the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA), those responsible for economic development, transport and regeneration of South Yorkshire, for cheaper transport for students.

    We want:

    1. The Combined Authority to make the “Zoom pass” available to all students across South Yorkshire, regardless of age, on buses and trams
    2. A reduction in fares overall

    In the meantime, we promoted our campaign on our social media platforms, asking students to share their commuter experiences, with the help of a small cash incentive – the winner having the next few months of their travel expenses paid for.

    Eventually, with thanks to our Vice Chancellor, we were finally able to set up a meeting with our officer team and the South Yorkshire Mayor, Oliver Coppard in October. We discussed all the good stuff: the importance of affordable transport for Hallam students, the student testimonies we had collected, as well as the requests laid out in our campaign.

    Since our meeting, the Mayor has opened a public consultation on taking back control of South Yorkshire’s buses through franchising. Bus franchising will give SYMCA powers to decide what routes buses take, when and where they operate, the quality and reliability of the service, as well as the price of fares.

    With decentralised decision-making, things can happen faster – local people better understand local issues and can find local solutions.

    Ten foot testimony

    We began brainstorming how to engage commuter students, including students that use public transport to travel to placements, with the public consultation. But public consultations are boring and commuter students are time poor.

    We needed to mobilise, build student support and solidarity to get people to engage with public policy decision-makers and sign the consultation. How do you get students to be active citizens in the local transport agenda?

    I enlisted my good friend and fellow artist, Johnsey, to help us facilitate an outreach event to garner some energy, excitement or at least some interest around bus franchising.

    The ten foot testimony, we would call it. We secured a huge piece of paper on the floor, in the entrance of our main university building, inviting students to write their public transport experiences.Two student officers stood on a long piece of paper with feedback from commuter students on

    It was really simple, and I was worried students simply wouldn’t care. Fortunately, passers-by wanted to contribute (staff included) and the ten foot testimony became twenty feet in no time at all.

    While the testimony itself is no good to the Mayor, we had the opportunity to speak to so many students, encouraging them to sign the consultation.

    We successfully managed to engage students in the conversation, had a fun time doing it, and now have a lovely, long and bright piece of documentation to show for it.

    Many students feel disenfranchised when it comes to decision making in their towns and cities. We firmly believe that they should have an active say in how decisions are made and how it impacts them.

    Next stop, success

    The public consultation closed a few weeks ago, and it might be a while before we hear the official result and the following decisions made on bus franchising.

    Recently, one of our largest bus providers in Sheffield, First Buses, announced that they would be keeping the price of the student single fare at £1.50, following the bus fare cap rising. Not only that, but they extended the eligibility of the student ticket for all of South Yorkshire, not just Sheffield. We are hopeful that Stagecoach will follow suit.

    By making commuter students visible, we were able to gather their voice and campaign for more affordable and accessible travel. Whilst we’re not there yet, we’ve engaged students as active citizens in transport policy and displayed the benefits of devolution in practice.

    When it comes to decision making on transport, universities and their student unions can play a huge part in lobbying for an improved commuter student experience. It’s easy for their voices to go amiss in policy making when they are time poor, busy, not on campus or simply don’t think anything will happen fast but the sector can play a role in empowering students to have a more accessible, affordable and sustainable commuter student experience. It’s not just limited to the classroom, it’s also about getting there.

     

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



    Source link

  • EXCLUSIVE: Ombudsman on what universities can do better now to support students

    EXCLUSIVE: Ombudsman on what universities can do better now to support students

    UTS chancellor Catherine Livingstone told universities they need to rely less on public funding. Picture: UA



    By: Erin Morley

    in Funding, Policy & Reform, Politics, Top Stories


    February 26, 2025

    The National Student Ombudsman (NSO) First Assistant Ombudsman Sarah Bendall has revealed details of the 220-or-so student complaints she has received in the first three weeks of operation.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Mary O’Kane to lead ATEC from July, UA chief’s pitch to press

    Mary O’Kane to lead ATEC from July, UA chief’s pitch to press

    Professor O’Kane will lead ATEC from July. Picture: Cath Piltz



    By: Erin Morley

    in Policy & Reform, Politics, Top Stories


    February 26, 2025

    The chair of the Australian Universities Accord is to lead the yet-to-be-established Australian Tertiary Education Commission, Education Minister Jason Clare revealed on Wednesday night.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • 2024 Shaping Australia award winners announced

    2024 Shaping Australia award winners announced

    The Future Builder award winners. Picture: UA



    By: Erin Morley

    in Features, Top Stories, Workforce


    February 26, 2025

    Researchers who developed coffee ground-infused concrete, a rust disease cure for wheat crops and an intellectual-disability friendly playground took home a Universities Australia Shaping Australia award on Tuesday night.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • VICTORY: Mississippi town votes to drop lawsuit that had forced newspaper to take down editorial

    VICTORY: Mississippi town votes to drop lawsuit that had forced newspaper to take down editorial

    CLARKSDALE, Miss., Feb. 25, 2025 — After receiving widespread condemnation for obtaining a temporary restraining order that forced Mississippi’s Clarksdale Press Register to take down an editorial critical of the city, Clarksdale’s Board of Mayor and Commissioners voted Monday to drop the lawsuit.

    Last week, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression first called national attention to the plight of the Press Register after the city sued the small-town Coahoma County newspaper to force it to take down an editorial criticizing local officials. On Friday, FIRE agreed to defend the Press Register, its editor, and parent company in court to have the unconstitutional restraining order lifted.

    “The implications of this case go beyond one Mississippi town censoring its paper of record,” said FIRE attorney David Rubin. “If the government can get a court order silencing mere questions about its decisions, the First Amendment rights of all Americans are in jeopardy.”

    By Monday, Clarksdale’s Board had convened, voted not to continue with the lawsuit, and filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court. That means the city’s suit is over and with it the restraining order preventing the Press Register from publishing its editorial.  

    “While we are relieved the city has voted to drop its vindictive lawsuit, it doesn’t unring this bell,” Rubin said. “The Press Register is exploring its options to ensure that the city refrains from blatantly unconstitutional censorship in the future.” 

    The controversy began when the city of Clarksdale held an impromptu meeting on Feb. 4 to discuss sending a resolution asking the state legislature to let it levy a 2% tax on products like tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana. By state law, cities must notify the media when they hold such irregular “special-called meetings,” but the Press Register did not receive any notice. 

    In response, the Press Register blasted the city in an editorial titled “Secrecy, Deception Erode Public Trust,” and questioned their motive for freezing out the press. “Have commissioners or the mayor gotten kick-back from the community?” the editorial asked. “Until Tuesday we had not heard of any. Maybe they just want a few nights in Jackson to lobby for this idea – at public expense.”

    “For over a hundred years, the Press Register has served the people of Clarksdale by speaking the truth and printing the facts,” said Wyatt Emmerich, president of Emmerich Newspapers. “We didn’t earn the community’s trust by backing down to politicians, and we didn’t plan on starting now.”

    Rather than taking their licks, the Clarksdale Board of Commissioners made a shocking move by voting to sue the Press Register, its editor and publisher Floyd Ingram, and its parent company Emmerich Newspapers for “libel.” Last Tuesday, Judge Martin granted ex parte – that is, without hearing from the Press Register – the city’s motion for a temporary restraining order to force it to take down the editorial.

    By silencing the Press Register before they could even challenge Clarksdale’s claims, Judge Martin’s ruling represented a clear example of a “prior restraint,” a serious First Amendment violation. Before the government can force the removal of any speech, the First Amendment rightly demands a determination whether it fits into one of the limited categories of unprotected speech or otherwise withstands judicial scrutiny. Otherwise, the government has carte blanche to silence speech in the days, months, or even years it takes to get a final ruling that the speech was actually protected.

    Judge Martin’s decision was even more surprising given that Clarksdale’s lawsuit had several obvious and fatal flaws. Most glaringly, the government itself cannot sue citizens for libel. As the Supreme Court reaffirmed in the landmark 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan, “no court of last resort in this country has ever held, or even suggested, that prosecutions for libel on government have any place in the American system of jurisprudence.”

    But even if the Clarksdale commissioners had sued in their personal capacities, Sullivan also established that public officials have to prove not just that a newspaper made an error, but that it did so with “actual malice,” defined as “knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false.” Clarksdale’s lawsuit didn’t even attempt to prove the Press Register editorial met that standard.

    Finally, libel requires a false statement of fact. But the Press Register’s broadside against city officials was an opinion piece that expressed the opinion that there could be unsavory reasons for the city’s lack of candor. The only unique statement of fact expressed in the editorial — that Clarksdale failed to meet the legal obligation to inform the media of its meeting — was confirmed by the city itself in its legal filings.

    “If asking whether a politician might be corrupt was libel, virtually every American would be bankrupt,” said FIRE attorney Josh Bleisch. “For good reason, courts have long held that political speech about government officials deserves the widest latitude and the strongest protection under the First Amendment. That’s true from the White House all the way down to your local councilman.”

    Like many clumsy censorship attempts, Clarksdale’s lawsuit against the Press Register backfired spectacularly by outraging the public and making the editorial go viral. After FIRE’s advocacy, the small Mississippi town’s lawsuit received coverage from the New York Times, The Washington Post, Fox News, and CNN, and condemnation from national organizations like Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Committee to Protect Journalists. Other Mississippi newspapers have stepped up and published the editorial in their own pages to ensure its preservation.

    “If the board had grumbled and gone about their day, this whole brouhaha wouldn’t have traveled far outside our town,” said Emmerich. “But when they tried to censor us, the eyes of the nation were on Clarksdale and millions heard about our editorial. Let this be a lesson: if you try to silence one voice in America, a hundred more will take up the call.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • AI Jumpstart Webinar | Collegis Education

    AI Jumpstart Webinar | Collegis Education

    AI is the latest buzzword in higher ed, but without a clear strategy and solid data, institutions risk overinvesting in additional products, platforms, and applications they can’t fully support or operationalize. Instead, take a step back and ask, “What’s the impact I want to achieve, and how can AI fit or support my broader goals?”

    AI Jumpstart Kit
    How to Build Toward IMPACT with AI in Higher Ed
    Date: March 13, 2025
    Time: 2:00 pm (Eastern) / 1:00 pm (Central)

    In this webinar, AI Jumpstart Kit: How to Build Toward IMPACT with AI in Higher Ed, Collegis Education’s AVP of Analytics & Technology Solutions, Dan Antonson, and Senior Director of Strategy and Innovation, Wes Catlett-Miller, will guide attendees through an interactive discussion about how to approach key use cases with AI in higher education. We’ll whiteboard out what an AI-enabled institution can look like, how it all works, and live demo actual AI initiatives Collegis has deployed for its partners.

    No clunky PowerPoint slides. Just a clear path for approaching AI enablement.

    What you’ll walk away with

    • A thorough understanding of how AI fits into the broader ecosystem (add-ons vs. platform)
    • A model for making decisions on when to build and when to buy
    • A clear understanding of the role tech and data play in AI enablement

    Who should attend:

    • Presidents + Provosts
    • CFOs + COOs + CMOs
    • Enrollment + Marketing leaders

    Source link