In 2020, I was asked to sign a pledge that felt more like an empty confession of guilt than a productive call to action—an admission that my university, and I, were complicit in white supremacy. Signing the pledge, backed by our Faculty Senate, meant acknowledging “the University of Cincinnati is an institution founded on white supremacist values in a country founded on the same … that we have benefitted and continue to benefit from white supremacy through the opportunities, advancements, inclusion, sense of self-worth, and freedom it has allowed us … that in our complicity [with white supremacy] we have likely contributed to emotional suffering in Black people, including UC faculty, staff, and students.” The roster of university employees who signed the pledge would be posted publicly.
I was told that my discontent was just a symptom of my white privilege and spent ample time exploring whether this was true. I put in the work, a popular phrase at the time, by reading How to Be an Antiracist and White Fragility. Maybe I had missed something and Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo would provide clarity.
The ideas I found were poorly constructed and dehumanizing. Ideology aside, signing a public loyalty pledge felt dystopian and counterproductive. I imagined myself as a first-year student of color who saw that my white faculty had signed a pledge admitting that the education system was designed for me to fail and that they had actively supported my failure. Why bother trying to succeed when university employees were willfully admitting to violating my civil rights?
Over the next couple of years, I chose to remain silent whenever these ideas resurfaced out of fear that speaking out could jeopardize my career. I was told that my silence was complicity, and indeed I had been complicit in letting these toxic ideas echo without so much as a whimper. As the 2020s stretched onward, though, I noticed the loudest and most extreme voices that sometimes dominated the conversation were largely ignored, and their demands were not met. Despite calls by a vocal few, there wasn’t much appetite on campus for the “antiracist discrimination” that Kendi called for or the white saviorism promoted by DiAngelo.
The university held firm in its moderate approach to diversity, equity and inclusion and mostly expanded resources for all students without restricting access by identity group. It is worth noting that most DEI initiatives and offices on campus offer noncontroversial services like tutoring, mental health counseling and accessibility services like sign language interpreters. But the public and politicians were forming their opinions of DEI based on the voices of those with the megaphones and lucrative book contracts.
Last year, I enrolled in a graduate program in urban educational leadership and dived into the very discussions I had avoided for so long. I read the foundational critical race theory literature, one of the predominant theories in the DEI realm. Although I found many ideas with which I disagreed, I also found a robust field that has much to offer in terms of the ways we think about educating our students, understanding the needs of diverse communities and working together to create better opportunities for everyone. Most importantly, when I actively pushed back on concepts that I found disagreeable, it resulted in great discussions with instructors and in developing more robust ideas. I discovered there is room for debate in the DEI space and my own silence had been self-imposed.
Many of my classmates are running the very DEI programs under threat by legislation and funding cuts. These programs provide educational resources to the underemployed and mentorship and financial resources to students who desperately need it, and they encourage student civic engagement—the very thing lauded by the Ohio Senate bill banning DEI offices and the use of DEI considerations in hiring, scholarships and trainings. (The bill, signed by the governor in March, goes into effect at the end of this month.)
Since 2020, I have been slowly forced to confront my own fundamental assumptions that might have once led me to support legislation like Ohio’s Senate Bill 1. Blockbuster voices like Kendi’s and DiAngelo’s are not reflective of the everyday practices within my institution, and the few moments that deterred me from speaking were just moments, likely caused by the same flavor of polarization that impacts the entire country. Polarization is not just a higher ed problem, but a national problem that has been simmering for more than a decade.
Current legislation targeting DEI upholds the most radical media-amplified voices as representative of the whole, even though these voices have been largely unsuccessful on many public campuses. Our university is not Columbia or Harvard, yet it seems as if legislators are attempting to punish our institution for the sins of its private counterparts. But when there are no loud moderate voices, how can we expect the public to see anything other than the extremes?
I find myself at a crossroads again. I could stay silent, as I did in 2020, but the silence of moderate voices has gotten us here, and silence will only result in negative outcomes for our students, faculty and staff. The time for silence is over—was over—long ago. The caricature of higher ed that you see in political rhetoric is not reflective of my university. We must be more vocal in challenging the narrative that our institutions are ideologically captured.
We still have much work to do in higher ed, and it’s not good enough to simply resist legislation without acknowledging the need for a renewed call for moderation. This moderation only comes when those with diverse viewpoints work together to ensure the success of all our students. This means reaffirming our commitment to understanding and addressing the unique needs of our student populations.
We must also come to terms with emerging research that shows some practices designed to challenge oppression on campus may promote its proliferation and thoroughly analyze the impact of our actions on student success. To quote U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
We need brave, diverse voices and productive disagreement, not legislation, to bolster higher education’s mission to pursue the truth for the sake of human flourishing.
Chris Cooper is unit head and professor in the Engineering and Applied Science Co-op Program at the University of Cincinnati.
There have been several points during this era of AI availability in education where I’ve been genuinely shocked that something that seems to me to be clearly out of bounds or incredibly rash is viewed by others as quite workable, or even desirable.
One of these is so-called AI peer review. Granted, academic research is not actually my thing, but I was under the impression that the goal of research and peer review is to deploy the reasoned judgment of subject matter experts in adjudicating whether or not a proposed new contribution is worthy of being heard and disseminated.
The key words there are “reasoned judgment,” something a large language model may be able to simulate but cannot actually do. I am aware the system of academic peer review has become strained to breaking for all kinds of reasons, but I cannot fathom how taking a system that’s predicated on reasoned judgment and outsourcing it to a simulation is acceptable, and yet I am aware some people believe this is a solution to the peer-review bottleneck.
Another no-go in my book that is being pursued with some measure of enthusiasm by others is outsourcing grading and response to student writing to generative AI. I do not know how to ask students to write something that is not going to be read, because I think even the most enthusiastic AI folks will admit that large language models do not read or communicate with intention the way humans do. It’s simply a betrayal of the student-instructor compact.
I had another moment of pause while reading a recent New York Times feature on OpenAI’s push onto college campuses, featuring the California State University system’s partnership, which will make ChatGPT available to its 460,000 students in pursuit of “the nation’s first and largest A.I.-empowered university system.”
I’ll tell you what gave me pause. For the last, what … 18 months … we’ve been receiving testimonies from many faculty across many disciplines declaring that ChatGPT (and its cousins) are essentially injecting poison into the classroom dynamics around learning, and here is one of the largest university systems in the country saying, “Let’s make sure every student gets a nice healthy dose of the stuff.”
I can testify firsthand from the talks and faculty development workshops I’ve been giving around preserving the experience of writing to communicate and learn that this worry is very real. While the people I’ve been interacting with are engaged and adaptable, and many of them are actively exploring how generative AI could aid their students in their learning, I have yet to meet the person who thinks they have it all figured out.
While I try not to be judgmental about these things, I can’t help but read what’s being described in that Times story and think, “That’s nuts.” This is why I’m thankful for reporting like what appears in the Times, because it gives me a chance to better understand the mindset of people who see the world so differently from me.
While there are several examples of faculty who make use of generative AI tools in their courses and one example of a student who uses ChatGPT as a study aid, the primary voice in the article is Leah Belsky, OpenAI’s vice president of education.
Formerly at Coursera, an early company that promised and failed to revolutionize education, Belsky has as her charge to create “AI native universities.” How you feel about these initiatives may depend on how you reflexively respond to that phrase. My response is some mix of “ugh” and “yikes.”
One of the drier paragraphs in the entire article struck me as the most important thing we should be considering about these initiatives:
“OpenAI’s push to A.I.-ify college education amounts to a national experiment on millions of students. The use of these chatbots in schools is so new that their potential long-term educational benefits, and possible side effects, are not yet established.”
A national experiment on millions of students. I don’t know—to me, that sounds risky or reckless or heedless. I can’t quite decide which is the best descriptor.
Belsky says OpenAI is starting to look into these issues. At a conference late last year she remarked, “The challenge is, how do you actually identify what are the use cases for A.I. in the university that are most impactful? And then how do you replicate those best practices across the ecosystem?”
Good questions. Thank goodness we’re simultaneously experimenting on millions of students. This is a very good way to generate reliable data.
A large language model would have a hard time detecting the sarcasm in that previous sentence, but I hope it’s clear to my human readers.
For the privilege of making its 460,000 students available to OpenAI, the Cal State system is paying $17 million over 18 months. In the grand scheme of university budgets this does not sound like much, but for a perpetually strapped system like Cal State, every dollar counts. Martha Lincoln, an anthropology professor at San Francisco State reacting to the announcement, told a SiliconValley.com reporter, “This is so deeply distressing. It’s absolutely shocking. For a while we didn’t even have regular paper in our copier: It was all three-hole punch. We don’t have enough counselors on our campus. When students have mental health concerns, they’re waitlisted for weeks if not months.”
All this is happening against a backdrop of AI companies that have overtly declared their goal is to subsume the vast majority of economic activity to their technology. Economic activity means jobs, labor, and here is a system that is supposed to empower people heading into the workforce hastening their own obviation by partnering with the company that aims to subsume those jobs to their technology.
Personally, I think Altman is well over his skis with AI hype, but he isn’t shy about his intentions
Ohio State apparently looked at Cal State and said, “Hold my beer,” declaring that starting in the fall, using AI in class will be a requirement. Ravi V. Bellamkonda, executive vice president and provost, announced, “Through AI Fluency, Ohio State students will be ‘bilingual’—fluent in both their major field of study and the application of AI in that area.”
There are two important questions that go betting in this statement:
Is working with AI in a field of study equivalent to learning a new language? And,
If it is like a new language, what does fluency look like?
We don’t have answers to either of these questions. We don’t even know if they’re the right questions to ask because we don’t know if treating AI competency through the lens of fluency even makes sense!
Normally, I find the relatively slow pace of change in how higher ed institutions shift orientations frustrating, but in this case, it is the sudden lurch by some schools toward an AI-inevitable future that is baffling. It appears to be a by-product of swallowing AI hype whole. This is Ohio State president Ted Carter: “Artificial intelligence is transforming the way we live, work, teach and learn. In the not-so-distant future, every job, in every industry, is going to be impacted in some way by AI.”
Where is the evidence of this? For sure, we’ve seen signs of some impacts, particularly around entry-level jobs, but we also may be looking at a scenario where AI is, in the words of Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor (co-authors of AI Snake Oil) “normal technology,” where the diffusion of AI through industry and society is going to follow a similar timeline to other powerful general purpose technologies like electricity and the internet.
I am a strong believer that we must be AI-aware while carefully and purposefully experimenting with this technology, keeping student learning at the center of the equation. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence rooted in both present and past experience suggests that if (or when) generative AI has a demonstrative positive effect on student learning, this positive effect will be apparent and unambiguous. If (or when) this happens, access to the benefit will not be scarce and institutions can adjust accordingly.
This leap into a future that does not yet exist and that we have only a limited idea of what it might be like is beyond shortsighted and has the potential to unnecessarily harm students while also delaying the ultimate adjustments that will be necessary for higher ed institutions to survive.
Partnering with or funneling customers to companies that aim to obviate your existence and exploit your work to develop their applications while paying them for the privilege—I know I said I was trying to not be too judgmental—but, honestly, that’s nuts.
Colleges and universities continue to compete for attention across countless platforms; this scattershot approach often comes at the expense of cohesion. But simply adding more content—made easy within the decentralized environment of many campuses—isn’t a solution to deeper strategic and directional challenges. In the famous words of Merry Baskin, “Like a shark, brands must move forward or die.” For colleges and universities, that forward motion begins with centering courageous, strategic creativity as a core operating principle and with higher education marketing leaders creating a system to ensure all are moving in the correct direction.
I have argued that creativity continues to drive commercial value, however, investing in the intangible up front can be difficult when budgets remain static. So, our focus isn’t on only proving that creativity adds value but also showing how investing in it up front can maximize the value it creates. We need a framework for higher ed marketing leaders to establish a system for defining and embedding a culture of creativity across teams. This will help teams create more effective work and collaborate with agencies in support of institutional goals.
Modeled loosely on WARC’s creative effectiveness ladder, this three-phase framework should help marketing leaders not only spark creativity but also systematize it as a shared method. First, start by defining what creativity means within our unique institutional contexts instead of a loose collection of ideas. Then, develop the systems, roles and language that bring that definition to life. Finally, diffuse those practices across teams and departments to embed creativity into the fabric of institutional strategy.
The conventional view of a successful career in academia is a linear pathway from academic study to post-doctoral work to, finally, academic employment. However, this traditional perspective fails to acknowledge the complexity and conditional nature of entering academia.
Higher education has transformed rapidly into a multi-faceted environment, underpinned by teaching, research, industry experience, scholarly activity, and wider responsibilities – and early-career academics (ECAs) are critical to that academic ecosystem.
The challenges ECAs face can be extensive: foremost among them the planning and delivering of teaching content, added to the pressure of research, publications and preparing funding applications, as well as engaging in broader activities in pursuit of career development. When coupled with the potential uncertainty surrounding contract renewal, these factors can create an environment where stress and anxiety are pervasive.
Accessing the necessary resources, activities and support is crucial to developing a thriving career. Helping to achieve a balance between focusing on teaching, research outputs, personal wellbeing and building a strong professional network is fundamental.
Balancing the multiplicity of roles may make this initial transition difficult for ECAs. While research output and funding success of ECAs are often closely scrutinised, there is a critical aspect of their role that tends to be overlooked and under-appreciated – their teaching responsibilities.
Priority mismatch
For many ECAs, the challenge lies in being assigned increasing teaching hours, often including subjects or modules that are far removed from their research or industry expertise. This can be frustrating, diverting time from research, which is typically their primary focus.
The demands of teaching should not be underestimated. Developing module and session content, grading and providing student support all take up significant time. Combined with the need to prepare, it’s easy to see how there can be little room for research or personal development. The problem is compounded by the increased administrative burden associated with teaching, which in many universities has been on the rise in recent years.
Moreover, teaching quality is often seen as “secondary” to research output when it comes to academic progression. This can lead to a mismatch in priorities, where ECAs are forced to choose between excelling at teaching or focusing on research to meet the expectations of the next stage of their careers.
ECAs can be provided with research supervisors, but there can be limited opportunity to access support to discuss pedagogical methods of teaching and learning and preparation of sessions. Even when opportunities exist for ECAs to engage in collaborative networks, peer support and mentoring, engagement can be restricted by work environment such as lack of time, high workloads and isolation
Bridging the gap
Many ECAs receive research support, yet less focus is placed on teaching fundamentals and long-term professional development. Often, ECAs may achieve their postgraduate teaching certificate after having started teaching – and the operational guidance and pedagogical skills can often get overlooked.
Although ECA mentorship programmes do now exist within institutions, and more accessible support is available in professional networks, few universities offer formal mentoring schemes, which would pair ECAs with more senior academics to provide guidance in navigating the complexities of academic careers, specifically on teaching and learning.
Despite the best possible local institutional support, ECAs will often stress the hidden struggles to develop independently, stating that it is difficult to determine what is supposed to be done and how – or what they are “expected to know.” This results in ECAs finding themselves struggling to build necessary skills to assist them with future teaching commitments.
How we put a resource together
A formal mentoring scheme at Hartpury University led us to develop a series of infographics as a visual communication tool to assist the development and delivery of pedagogical concepts to assist teaching delivery (in the subject area of anatomy). One example can be seen here on the National Teaching Repository, with links to others below.
This was underpinned by discussing with ECAs their needs and resources to support their own teaching journey. These resources have grown organically as an operational user-friendly guide.
This “anatomy series” appears to have resonated with both mentors and ECAs – according to the downloads we’ve seen from the repository at key points in the academic annual cycle.
Through a small study (n=7), we collated an illustrative selection of narratives from ECAs and mentors on their thoughts. Both ECAs and mentors reported using the majority of the infographics “somewhat” or “to a great extent,” providing positive feedback in the following areas:
clear, evidence-based material that is easy to digest and ready to use as a quick reference guide
bite-sized content for quick reference during content creation or planning
“user-friendly” approach with concise actionable guidance
visually appealing resources that enhance clarity and learning retention.
In addition, mentors highlighted:
effective scaffolding and signposting for module and assessment design
succinct prompts as a helpful reminder of the fundamental principles to focus on with ECAs
accessible, shareable resource featuring clear examples for ECAs.
Ideas for future topics provided by respondents included technology and innovation, student support and success, and lecturer wellbeing.
For a thriving academic career
A rewarding academic career needs the right support and balance to transfer knowledge, inspire a generation, and pursue research.
ECAs face complex challenges – but universities can help by improving mentorship programmes, building supportive networks, and offering guidance, as well as creating user-friendly resources that assist the practicalities of teaching.
Early-career academics are central to the academic ecosystem, yet their struggles can be overlooked, particularly within the teaching and learning environment. By establishing a more sustainable and supportive environment, we can ensure that they are able to thrive within the multiplicity of roles they are asked to take on, and contribute to the academic community for years to come.
Secretary Rubio directed officials to intervene in the final stage of the Fulbright selection process.
John McDonnell/Getty Images
All 12 members of the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board have resigned over what they say is political interference in the selection process for recipients of the prestigious international grant, according to sources familiar with the program and a letter announcing their resignation Wednesday morning.
The FFSB normally has final say in the selection process, after initial application reviews by the Institute for International Education and host countries’ Fulbright commissions. This year was different. Inside Higher Ed broke the story last month that Secretary of State Marco Rubio directed State Department officials to intervene in the final stages of the selection process, adding a new step to cull proposals they felt did not comply with President Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders.
In their letter, posted to Substack on Wednesday, the former board members wrote that the State Department’s “unprecedented” intervention in the selection process was illegal and unethical and compromised national diplomatic and research interests.
“Under Democratic and Republican administrations alike, the Board has followed the law, operating with independence pursuant to its statutory mandate,” they wrote. “The current administration has usurped the authority of the Board and denied Fulbright awards to a substantial number of individuals who were selected.”
Sources familiar with the program, who spoke with Inside Higher Ed on background to avoid retaliation, said that State Department officials—led by Darren Beattie, under secretary for diplomacy and public affairs—ultimately rejected more than 20 percent of the FFSB’s selected finalists in a last-minute intervention. Of the approximately 900 approved applicants for the U.S. Visiting Scholars program, for example, Beattie vetoed roughly 200.
Many of the proposals that were cut focused on the effects of climate change or gender disparities; others seemed to have been denied based on their inclusion of words that triggered an anti-DEI keyword search that State Department officials used to conduct their final review, according to sources inside the selection process who shared details with Inside Higher Ed in May.
A person familiar with the program said the board members were stonewalled by high-level State Department officials throughout the process. When they learned that many of their selected finalists hadn’t received their acceptance letters by late May—more than a month later than anticipated—they wrote multiple letters to department officials asking for an explanation. None came; in fact, the person familiar with the program said the members only learned about the new step in the selection process from rumored communications between foreign Fulbright commissions and outside media reports.
Eventually, the person familiar with the FFSB said, the board members felt they had no choice but to resign.
The source also said that 1,200 applications from foreign faculty and researchers to the Fulbright Foreign Scholars program—all of which were reviewed and accepted by the FFSB—were still “sitting on Beattie’s desk,” and that he seemed poised to feed them through the same content filters he used on Americans’ applications.
A senior State Department official confirmed the board members’ resignations in an email to Inside Higher Ed, calling the move “nothing but a political stunt.” The spokesperson also said that the statute in the “Fulbright Hayes Act [sic]” does not give the FFSB “exclusive and final say” in the selection process, as the members argue.
“The 12 members of the Fulbright Board were partisan political appointees of the Biden Administration,” the official wrote. “It’s ridiculous to believe that these members would continue to have final say over the application process, especially when it comes to determining academic suitability and alignment with President Trump’s Executive Orders.”
The FFSB is a politically appointed board; the members who just resigned were indeed all appointed by President Biden. They include some big names in Democratic Party politics, such as Jen O’Malley Dillon, former White House deputy chief of staff and chair of the Harris-Walz campaign; Mala Adiga, Biden’s former deputy assistant; and Louisa Terrell, former White House director of legislative affairs. Others are business leaders and philanthropists.
Their resignations now open up all 12 seats, which are usually term-limited, to Trump appointees. One person familiar with the Fulbright program said the board members had factored this into their decision to resign. But after being shut out from the end of the selection process, the board members felt they had to leave.
“To continue to serve after the Administration has consistently ignored the Board’s request that they follow the law would risk legitimizing actions we believe are unlawful and damage the integrity of this storied program and America’s credibility abroad,” the members wrote in their letter.
President Trump’s proposed fiscal year 2026 budget eliminates nearly all Fulbright funding and would gut the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, which houses the scholarship. The person familiar with the program said they believe the Trump administration is narrowing the funnel for Fulbright recipients and upending the selection process in order to undermine the program without eliminating it entirely, which only Congress can do.
If the administration continues unwinding the program, they said, they worry that the recently selected cohort will be left stranded without funding or resources once the new budget takes effect.
Clare Rigney is a rising second-year student at American University Washington College of Law and a FIRE summer intern.
After a news story last week that the University of Michigan was paying private investigators to spy on pro-Palestinian student protesters, the school quickly ended its contracts with the surveillance firm.
In case anyone is unaware, the year is 2025. Not 1984.
Now the university says this Orwellian practice has ended, but the chill on student speech will likely remain for some time.
On June 6, The Guardianreported on the story, citing multiple videos and student accounts of investigators cursing at students and threatening them. Between June 2023 and September 2024, U-M reportedly paid about $800,000 to the Detroit-based security company City Shield to carry out this surveillance instead of using the funds to increase the size of the campus police force.
Several of the targeted students were members of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality, the local chapter of the Students for Justice in Palestine, causing critics to accuse the school of targeting pro-Palestinian speech.
One student, Josiah Walker, said he counted 30 people following him at different times on and off-campus. (As a precaution, he started parking his car off-campus.) On one occasion, Walker believed a man at a campus protest was following him. The man seemed to have a speech impairment, so Walker felt bad about that assumption. However, he later saw the same man speaking in a completely normal manner. When Walker confronted him, the man pretended Walker was trying to rob him.
The whole incident was caught on camera.
On the recording, Walker said, “The degree to which all these entities are willing to go to target me is amazing. Guys, this doesn’t make sense. What are you doing? Leave me alone.”
To serve their proper function, universities must facilitate an open and collaborative learning environment as a marketplace of ideas. U-M ostensibly knows this, saying it values “an environment where all can participate, are invited to contribute, and have a sense of belonging.”
Surveillance and intimidation do not cultivate such an environment. U-M’s surveillance will make students want to look over their shoulders before seeking to use their right to free speech.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Healy v. James requires universities to uphold their students’ First Amendment rights. This extends even to students whose speech the university deems offensive or “antithetical” to the school’s goals.
In Healy, the Court emphasized the danger of an institution targeting a group of students as particularly dangerous based on their viewpoint, noting, “the precedents of this Court leave no room for the view that, because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large.”
Indeed, an important function of college is to allow students to broaden their horizons and meet different kinds of people. And freedom of association allows them to seek out individuals whose beliefs align with theirs so that they can work toward a common goal.
Unfortunately, universities have used these chilling tactics against student political protestors for years.
Amid protests demanding sick pay for frontline workers, the University of Miami in 2020 used facial recognition technology to identify protestors. The university then hauled these students into meetings where they were forced to review Miami’s events policies.
“The take-home message that we got was basically, We’re watching you,” Esteban Wood, one of the student protesters, later said.
When colleges and universities surveil students, they chill speech and promote distrust between student activists and the police meant to protect them.
In 2018, Campus Safety Magazine revealed that the University of Virginia had contracted with a private service called Social Sentinel. This service used an algorithm to monitor students’ social media posts and, if it deemed it necessary, report them to the police.
That same year, FIRE reported on a similar situation at the University of North Carolina. During protests over a confederate statue, a UNC campus police officer masqueraded as an approachable civilian named “Victor” in order to gain information from protesters and track their movements. Later, when students confronted “Victor” in a police uniform, he revealed himself as Officer Hector Bridges, explaining he had pretended to be sympathetic to their cause as a part of his “work.”
“I”m representing the university right now,” Bridges admitted on video.
The UNC Police Department later released a statement saying the university had a practice of sending “plain clothes” officers to patrol the statue to purportedly “maintain student and public safety.”
Chilling student speech in the name of undisclosed and unspecified safety is nothing new. But if it is serious about change, it couldn’t hurt for U-M to start with reviewing its own policies. According to its Division of Public Safety and Security, its role is to foster “a safe and secure environment” where students learn to “challenge the present.” Furthermore, U-M’s Standard Practice Guide section on freedom of speech states that when any non-university security forces are needed, they should know and follow these policies.
While it’s possible to imagine a circumstance where student surveillance might be necessary, colleges should keep in mind that courts have generally disfavored such efforts. For example, in White v. Davis, the Supreme Court of California rebuked the Los Angeles Police Department’s unconstitutional surveillance of UCLA students:
The censorship of totalitarian regimes that so often condemns developments in art, science and politics is but a step removed from the inchoate surveillance of free discussion in the university; such intrusion stifles creativity and to a large degree shackles democracy.
When colleges and universities surveil students, they chill speech and promote distrust between student activists and the police meant to protect them. That can be dangerous for both the students and the officers. Police investigations will be more difficult if the student body does not trust them enough to cooperate when needed. Students may be less likely to contact the police for legitimate violations.
Colleges and universities should empower their students to boldly state their beliefs. That’s simply not possible if they are also hiring outside agencies to spy on them. While we are glad the University of Michigan ended the practice, this case should serve as a reminder that such heavy-handed surveillance tactics have no place at American universities.
Good call. A well-run open house can be one of the most powerful tools in your enrollment and engagement strategy. Whether you’re welcoming new elementary parents, high school prospects, or college hopefuls, this is your chance to make an unforgettable first impression. An open house in school is important because it helps build a sense of community, foster parent involvement, and drive enrollment.
But a memorable open house doesn’t happen by accident. It requires careful planning, creative ideas, and attention to detail. From initial promotions to day-of execution and follow-up, every step counts.
So, how do you make it count?
Let’s walk through ten practical (and proven) tips to take your school’s open house from good… to exceptional.
Struggling to stand out in a crowded market?
Boost enrollment with tailored open house strategies!
1. Start Planning Early And Promote Like a Pro
Here’s the truth: If no one shows up, nothing else matters.
That’s why promotion is the first step, and it’s a big one. First, get clear on your goals. Are you looking to boost applications? Showcase new facilities? Strengthen relationships with current families? Your goals will shape everything from the schedule to who you invite.
How do you prepare for an open house at school? Start by setting clear goals and selecting a date that works for your audience. Plan the schedule, secure staff and student volunteers, and prepare promotional materials. Promote the event across multiple channels (website, email, social media), tidy up the campus, and organize signage, welcome tables, and printed resources to ensure a smooth, welcoming experience.
Example: Queen’s University (Canada) demonstrated advanced planning by creating a dedicated “Fall Preview” Open House webpage months ahead. The page provided key details (date, schedule, location) and prominently featured a call-to-action for prospective students to register, ensuring maximum visibility and early sign-ups.
Then, plan your outreach. Don’t wait until the last minute. Get your date on the calendar months in advance, and begin promoting it strategically across various online channels:
A dedicated landing page on your school’s website (with RSVP).
A short email series to build awareness and excitement.
Countdown posts, teaser videos, and stories on social media.
Text reminders or personal phone calls to those most likely to attend.
Example: Bishop’s University (Canada) boosted promotion by publishing a blog post prior to their Open House that walked readers through what to expect at the event. This preview-style post generated excitement and informed prospective students and parents about the Open House experience in detail.
Still want more attendees? Consider offering a virtual option. Whether it’s a livestream, a digital campus tour, or a short webinar, giving families more than one way to experience your school expands your reach.
2. Make Arrival Smooth and the Welcome Unforgettable
Let’s face it, no one enjoys showing up somewhere and feeling lost.
That’s why the moment guests arrive at your open house, the experience should feel seamless and friendly.
Start with signage. Make sure every guest knows exactly where to park and where to go. Have greeters ready: staff, student leaders, or enthusiastic parent volunteers. A welcome table with a map, a friendly smile, and a short overview of what’s ahead can work wonders.
Example: University of Oxford (UK): For its 2023 undergraduate Open Days, Oxford enlisted staff volunteers as greeters and guides. These volunteers welcomed visitors, helped with directions around campus, and served as friendly points of contact at entrances and info tables, ensuring guests felt comfortable and never lost.
Don’t stop there. Decorate with banners, student art, or a slideshow of school activities. Create a warm and exciting vibe the moment families step inside. You’re not just showing them the campus, you’re showing them the community they could be a part of.
Example: UC Santa Cruz (USA): At its “Banana Slug Day” admitted-students open house in 2025, UC Santa Cruz set up check-in tables at key parking areas and deployed student guides (the “S.L.U.G.” ambassadors) throughout campus. Visitors were greeted at these welcome points and guided by the student ambassadors, making navigation easy and the arrival experience warm and organized.
3. Spotlight the People Who Make Your School Special
The facilities are nice. Programs are great. But what really wins hearts?
Your people.
That’s why teachers, support staff, coaches, and counselors need to be front and center during the open house. Make sure they’re not just present but prepared. Equip them with key talking points and FAQs so they feel confident answering questions and reinforcing your school’s values.
What should teachers do for open house? Teachers should prepare a welcoming classroom with student work on display, provide a brief overview of their curriculum, and have handouts with contact information and expectations. During the event, they should greet families warmly, answer general questions, and encourage follow-up meetings for individual concerns.
Example: During Nevada State’s Open House, faculty participation was a centerpiece. The event agenda included “Meet with Faculty” sessions where professors from various departments (Education, Liberal Arts & Sciences, Nursing, etc.) were on hand to chat and answer questions. This gave visitors a chance to connect face-to-face with the educators and get a feel for the academic community.
Encourage classroom displays that show what day-to-day learning looks like. And while teachers should be warm and approachable, remind them this isn’t the time for parent-teacher conferences. Keep it general, upbeat, and informative.
Want to go the extra mile? Kick off the event with a welcome from your school leader, followed by a quick intro to the key staff attendees. Let families know who’s who, and who they can talk to about specific interests like arts, athletics, or academics.
Example: Bucknell’s Fall Open House actively involved faculty and staff in mingling with prospects. Visitors could tour facilities and meet professors and current students to ask questions about programs and campus life, rather than only hearing formal presentations. This personal professor-student engagement at Open House helped put a human face on the university’s academics.
Your current students and parents are your school’s best spokespeople. Hearing about the school’s strengths from an administrator or teacher is valuable, but hearing it from a peer can be even more persuasive. In marketing terms, it’s social proof, and it carries a lot of weight. In fact, one study found that 93% of people trust recommendations from friends and family, while only 38% trust advertising.
Applying this to an open house, a prospective student is likely to trust the words of a current student, and parents will trust the perspectives of other parents, more than any brochure or formal presentation.
That’s why student ambassadors and parent advocates are some of your most valuable open house lead generation assets.
Hand-pick current students who represent the best of your school; friendly, positive, and articulate. Let them lead tours, greet visitors, or share their experience during a short panel. Their enthusiasm is contagious. As one education marketing expert put it, hearing directly from current students and parents can be one of the most powerful ways to engage prospective families.
Example: University of Central Lancashire (UK) : At UCLan’s Open Days, current students act as official ambassadors (identifiable in special red attire). These student ambassadors welcome visitors at entrances, give campus directions, and share honest insights about student life and their courses. Attendees are encouraged to approach them with any questions, making the experience peer-guided and relatable.
Similarly, invite a few involved parents to chat with prospective families. Their personal stories, why they chose the school, how their child has grown, carry a weight that even the best marketing can’t match.
You’re not just saying, “We’re great.” You’re showing it.
5. Make the Event Fun, Interactive, and Memorable
Let’s be honest: No one wants to sit through a two-hour lecture.
So here’s your mission: Turn your open house into an experience.
How do you make an open house at school fun? Incorporate interactive elements like hands-on activities, themed scavenger hunts, live demonstrations, or student performances. Offer refreshments, set up a photo booth, and keep presentations short and engaging. The goal is to create an energetic, memorable experience that showcases school spirit.
Instead of a long presentation, create a rotating itinerary. Let families move through classrooms, labs, and activity spaces at their own pace. Throw in a scavenger hunt or “passport” that gets stamped at each stop. Offer a prize at the end for completing the journey.
Example: New Mexico State (USA): The College of ACES Open House 2025 at NMSU was designed as a family-friendly, interactive event. Visitors could roam through animal exhibits, science labs and museums with hands-on demonstrations and learning games at each stop. From petting zoo stations to chemistry experiments, attendees of all ages were invited to actively engage, making the Open House both educational and fun.
What else works? Hands-on demos. Let students try a science experiment, play with robots, sample the art room, or participate in a music warm-up. The more your visitors can do, not just see, the more they’ll remember.
Don’t forget the snacks. Coffee, cookies, or treats from the culinary class add comfort and create natural mingling moments. Bonus points if they’re decorated with school colors or logos.
And yes, music, performances, or even a visit from your mascot can energize the space and give families that “wow” moment.
Example: UC Santa Cruz (USA): The Banana Slug Day Open House combined campus exploration with fun activities. Prospective students and families joined student-led tours, watched student performances, visited a resource fair, and even sat in on mock mini-lectures by faculty. These interactive elements (plus chances to snag some UC Santa Cruz swag at the bookstore) turned the day into an immersive campus experience rather than a passive info session.
You’ve got a lot to say, but that doesn’t mean you should say it all at once.
Keep any formal presentations concise and dynamic. Ten to fifteen minutes max is ideal. Focus on the core message: What makes your school stand out? What are the values driving your mission?
Break up speeches with visuals; videos, photos, and student voices make everything more relatable. If you can, include a current student or alum to co-present. Their stories add authenticity and emotion.
Whatever you do, rehearse in advance. A confident, polished delivery makes all the difference.
Example: Bucknell keeps Open House presentations brief and purposeful. Its Fall Open House schedule is broken into short sessions: for example, a 15-minute welcome and admissions overview followed by a 15-minute “Why Liberal Arts?” talk. Instead of long lectures, Bucknell offers multiple bite-sized talks and student panels, which keep visitors engaged and allow them to sample various topics without fatigue.
Before the event, ask registrants about their interests: academics, sports, arts, etc. Use this intel to tailor their visit. Match them with the right teacher, program head, or club coordinator. Let them know you were expecting them.
Even on the fly, personalization is powerful. Train ambassadors and staff to ask questions and respond accordingly: “You’re interested in robotics? You’ve got to meet Mr. Jackson. Let me introduce you.”
Name tags, interest-specific packets, or a simple, “Hi Sarah, we’re so glad you’re here,” can go a long way in helping families feel seen.
And yes, be mindful of accessibility needs, language support, and dietary restrictions. Every thoughtful detail adds up.
Example: University of Cincinnati (USA): Cincinnati’s Open House model allows each guest to “build your own day.” Attendees register for the specific academic sessions and special topics that interest them most. For example, a student could choose two different college info sessions (say, Engineering and Business) and several niche interest workshops. The itinerary is flexible – with options like honors program talks, campus tours, residence hall tours, etc. – so each visitor crafts a personalized schedule aligned with their goals.
Before families leave, hand them something to take home, whether that’s a branded folder with your materials, a printed photo from a photo booth, or even just a small keepsake like a sticker or magnet.
More importantly, give them the info they need to take the next step. Include your admissions contact, an FAQ sheet, key dates, and a personalized thank-you letter from the principal.
A friendly goodbye, a handshake, and a “We hope to see you again soon” can seal the deal emotionally. People remember how you made them feel. Make it good.
Example: Temple College (USA): This community college makes sure guests leave with smiles (and photos). At its Open House, Temple College set up a fun photo booth with their mascot, “TC Leopard.” Students and families could snap pictures with the mascot – a keepsake to post on social media – and even win prizes. This lighthearted closing activity gave attendees a lasting memory and positive vibe to associate with the school.
Send a thank-you email the next day. Personalize it if you can. Include links to the application page, upcoming deadlines, and photos from the event. Invite further questions and make it easy to get in touch.
If a family asks about something specific, say, learning support or scholarship details, make sure someone follows up with a personalized message.
Want to keep the momentum going? Enroll attendees in a short email series spotlighting your programs, alumni, or events. Nurturing that relationship can turn a visitor into an applicant.
Example: Morton College (USA): After the Open House, Morton College immediately followed up with attendees and the broader community on social media. They posted a thank-you message to everyone who came, reinforcing that visitors are always welcome on campus. Importantly, the message included a next-step call-to-action, a reminder that registration was open for upcoming semesters, nudging interested students to take the next practical step toward enrollment.
10. Debrief, Reflect, and Get Ready to Do It Even Better Next Time
One last tip, and it’s a game changer.
After the event, take time to evaluate. Meet with your team and ask: What worked? What didn’t? What feedback did families share?
Review your numbers: RSVPs, attendance, applications started. Be sure to look for patterns. Did most families come from a certain neighborhood? Were particular sessions packed while others lagged?
Use this insight to adjust your strategy for next time. Update your checklists. Refine your flow. Keep evolving.
Oh, and don’t forget to celebrate your wins. Share event highlights in a post or newsletter. Thank your team. Show appreciation.
Final Thoughts
An open house is more than just an event, it’s an invitation.It’s your chance to say, “Here’s who we are. Here’s why we care. Here’s how your family fits in.”
When you plan with intention, create moments of connection, and follow through with heart, your open house becomes more than a tour. It becomes a story families want to be part of.
So get planning, and get ready to make your next open house your best one yet.
Would you like to receive tailored open house school ideas for your institution?
Contact Higher Education Marketing for more information.
Struggling to stand out in a crowded market?
Boost enrollment with tailored open house strategies!
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: How do you prepare for an open house at school?
Answer: Start by setting clear goals and selecting a date that works for your audience. Plan the schedule, secure staff and student volunteers, and prepare promotional materials. Promote the event across multiple channels (website, email, social media), tidy up the campus, and organize signage, welcome tables, and printed resources to ensure a smooth, welcoming experience.
Question: What should teachers do for open house?
Answer: Teachers should prepare a welcoming classroom with student work on display, provide a brief overview of their curriculum, and have handouts with contact information and expectations. During the event, they should greet families warmly, answer general questions, and encourage follow-up meetings for individual concerns.
Question: How do you make an open house at school fun?
Answer: Incorporate interactive elements like hands-on activities, themed scavenger hunts, live demonstrations, or student performances. Offer refreshments, set up a photo booth, and keep presentations short and engaging. The goal is to create an energetic, memorable experience that showcases school spirit.
[Editor’s note: The first installment of Corruption, Fraud and Scandal at Los Angeles Community College District is here.]
“HR has been weaponized against our faculty for speaking out and complaining about
discrimination.” This was a public comment made by Los Angeles Community College District
Academic Senate President Angela Echeverri at the March 2025 Meeting of the LACCD Board
of Trustees.
Echeverri’s remarks were not isolated either and were echoed by Deborah Harrington (California
Community Colleges’ Success Network Executive Director), “Our HR leadership is not living up
to the standards that we deserve. Our members remain quite frustrated.” More reporting can be
read in Pierce College student newspaper ‘The RoundUp’ and LACCD Youtube Live-Streamed
meetings.
These accusations come three years after longtime administrator Annie G. Reed (Annie Goldman
Reed) left her position as Omsbudsman/Associate Dean of Students at Los Angeles Valley
College was promoted to Interim Dean of Employee and Labor Relations collecting an annual
salary of $284,935.00 in pay and benefits in 2022 according to Transparent California last year of
reporting.
A survey of public records including news articles, lawsuits, accreditation complaints, and emails
to show that Annie G. Reed has a long history of this sort of behavior across multiple LACCD
campuses – going back to the 2000s.
In an October 27, 2010 article ‘Grade Grievances Give Students Voice’ by Lucas Thompson in
‘The Los Angeles Valley Star’ Annie G. Reed is quoted as cautioning students against using their
rights to challenge unfair grades stating, “It’s worthwhile if a student really thinks they have the
proof to forward with the process . . . It’s their right to, [but] we don’t encourage frivolous
[cases], because that’s a waste of college resources.”
The article further quoted disgraced ex-College President Sue Carleo who left the institution in
2013, with the College finances in the red and on Warning Status with the Accreditation
Commission of Junior and Community Colleges. Carleo warned that students should simply
view mis-grading as “Human Error.” (https://archive.org/details/cavgchm_002210/mode/2up?
q=Annie+Reed+LAVC)
When the ACJCC placed Los Angeles Valley College on Accreditation Warning it cited multiple
standards violations and specifically;
College Recommendation 5:
To fully meet the Standards, the college should ensure that records of complaints are
routinely maintained as required by the Policy on Student and Public Complaints Against
Institutions
(Standards II.B.2, II.B.2.c, II.B.3.a, II.B.4)
This came after Annie G. Reed failed to have student records or complaints available for
inspection to the visiting Accreditation Team.
Three years later Reed was again in hot water when a student filed an Accreditation Complaint in
June 2016, specifically documenting multiple faculty members in the Los Angeles Valley
College Media Arts Department engaging in fraud and deceptive practices – supported by sixty
pages of documentation.
The complaint further stated that Reed refused to facilitate student complaints as was her role
and threatened action for ‘disrupting the peace of the campus’ by making complaints. This was
followed by a second accreditation complaint by another student regarding the same issues and a
student Facebook Group discussing issues.
Reed’s response was to suspend the first student running a smear campaign that he was potential
active shooter citing the complaints he brought, suspend a thirty-year old single mother in the
Facebook Group for Academic dishonesty after she forgot to have a college transcript from when
she was eighteen-years old sent to LAVC, and then threatened the second student who brought an
Accreditation Complaint for vandalizing school property.
[Below: Text exchange between LACCD students alleging that administrator Annie Reed created a smear campaign against them.]
Student 1 was suspended for a year (though not expelled by the Board of Trustees after
investigation) a semester short of graduating. Student 1 would have earned six associate degrees
and eight occupational certificates. Student 2, was ordered to pay a substantial amount of
financial aid back to the college as “restitution.” Several months later, she was subjected to a
reversal of hours by LAVC Grant Director Dan Watanabe in the Media Arts Department, for a
campus job she worked and ordered to pay back several thousand dollars. Student 3 ended up
going to Los Angeles City College to take final classes needed to graduate and was nearly
refused graduation by Department Chair Eric Swelstad.
These actions also happened right before and after LAVC Media Arts Faculty Eric Swelstad,
Chad Sustin, Adrian Castillo, Dan Watanabe, and LAVC President Erika Endrijonas lobbied the
LACCD Board of Trustees to approve construction of a new Media Arts Building that was later
reported by The Los Angeles Times to be a massive racketeering scheme – Aug 4, 2022, Teresa
Watanabe, ‘Corruption and fraud beset long-delayed L.A. Valley college theater project, lawsuit
alleges.’ (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-08-04/corruption-alleged-in-long
delayed-la-valley-college-theater-project)
These actions mirrored the treatment of a student who sued LAVC’s Media Arts Department in
2009, alleging the same type of fraud and misconduct by nearly all the same Department Faculty.
Enrique Caraveo vs Los Angeles Valley College, Eric Swelstad, Joseph D’Accurso, Arantxia
Rodriguez, Dennis J. Reed among others. Filing Date: 05/18/2009 (https://unicourt.com/case/ca
la2-enrique-caraveo-vs-los-angeles-valley-college-et-al-621337)
In that case, Caraveo stated:
46. When plaintiff complained about the above referenced matters, Swelstad and other Valley
College officials retaliated against plaintiff by refusing to grant him a Certificate and creating a
hostile learning environment for him in class.
47. On or around June 2007 plaintiff satisfied the requirements to get a Cinema Arts Production
Certificate (“Certificate”) at Valley College.
54. On or about October 2008, Swelstad denied plaintiff the certificate via a letter even though
plaintiff has fulfilled the requirements to get the Certificate.
55. On or about October 13, 2008, plaintiff notified Delahoussaye and Reed that plaintiff had
fulfilled all requirements for the Certificate and that they should take care of the matter as soon
as possible. On or about October 13, 2008, Yasmin Delahoussaye and Dennis Reed denied
request.”
Dennis Reed, was at the time the Dean over the Media Arts Department and the husband of
Annie G. Reed. Dennis Reed was later profiled in LAist Magazine on April 27, 2016 article ‘Jerk
Driver Who Ran Cyclists Off Glendale Road Charged With Assault, Lying To Police’ (https://
laist.com/news/justice-delivered-almost)
More to the point – Dennis Reed also oversaw a grant program at Los Angeles Valley College
Media Arts Department known as IDEAS – Institute for Developing Entertainment Arts and
Studies at LAVC. The Grant was run by Dan Watanabe. (https://archive.org/details/
cavgchm_002241/mode/2up?q=Annie+Reed+LAVC)
Watanabe was also named in the Accreditation Complaint for Wage Theft, Improper use of funds
and fraud in the successor grant ICT Doing What Matters, due to the college receiving Grant
Money but immediately eliminating the curriculum the grant application said they would provide
and like Caraveo’s complaint not providing in class training or labs. The complaints to
Accreditation and the LACCD Personnel Commission by students also questioned the legitimacy
of a number of professional experts, including Robert Reber – who was listed as both a ‘student
worker’ and ‘professional expert’ in 2008. Student 1 further provided evidence to both that Dan
Watanabe had asked him to falsify his resume claiming fictitious jobs and cited an employee in
the LAVC Payroll office as being behind it (that employee immediately denied it and Student 1
refused).
Dennis Reed had also spent years lobbying for the approval of the VACC building –
unsuccessfully.
In short, Annie G. Reed’s retaliation and cover-up in 2016, may have been to help realize her
husband’s failed building project as well as preemptively shutdown any investigations or audits
that might trigger further scrutiny regarding how the IDEAS Grant was administered under his
time as area Dean.
Reed’s behavior of covering up abusive behavior towards members of the LACCD Community
was also not limited to retaliation against students.
In 2017, then LACCD Board President Andra Hoffman accused former Board President Scott
Svonkin of abusive behavior and demanded sanctions. According to an article in the Los Angeles
Daily News, ‘LA Community College board postpones sanction hearing vote against former
4
president’ August 28, 2017, Annie G. Reed again inserted herself into the matter to cover-up for
Svonkin.
“The allegations do not strike me as related to governing and seem best suited for mediation,”
said Annie Reed, a district employee for 22 years and a representative of Teamsters Local 911. “I
don’t ever recall a time, or a place, where he has treated his colleagues poorly.”
Others disagreed, including two former women board members who did not speak at the
downtown meeting.
They said Hoffman’s critics — who they said weren’t present during the abuse — had a tendency
to blame the victim, while ignoring Svonkin’s allegedly brusque treatment of employees.”
(https://www.dailynews.com/2017/07/13/la-community-college-board-postpones-sanction
hearing-vote-against-former-president/)
Her behavior is further documented in a series of lawsuits against the LACCD District.
Filed October 03, 2024 Dr. Christiana Baskaran (Plaintiff), Linda Silva; Dr. Ruth Dela Cruz,
Dr. Adriana Portugal, vs LACCD (including defendant Annie Reed). (https://trellis.law/doc/
219882998/complaint-filed-by-dr-christiana-baskaran-plaintiff-linda-silva-plaintiff-dr-ruth-dela
cruz-plaintiff-et-al-as-to-los-angeles-community-college-district-defendant-board-trustees-los
angeles-community-college-district-defendant-los-angeles-c)
“[other defendants] Annie Reed to discriminate against female faculty and staff, refused to
investigate immediately or to take preventative action. Then Defendants and EMPLOYER
DEFENDANTS retaliated against PLAINTIFFS and others to try and prevent them from
complaining to authorities. When PLAINTIFFS opposed these illegal practices, they continued
to retaliate against them.”
24. As set forth herein, ALL Defendants were officers, agents. Defendants and directly or
indirectly used or attempt to use their official authority or influence for the purpose of
intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding, or attempting to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or
command PLAINTIFF and others for the purpose of interfering with the right of that person to
disclose to an official agent matters within the scope of this article. EMPLOYER
DEFENDANTS aided and abetted MARY GALLAGHER, ARMANDO RIVERA-FIGUEROA,
ANN HAMILTON, JAMES LANCASTER, JOCELYN SIMPSON, JIM LANCASTER, ANNIE
REED and Victoria Friedman District Complaince Officer, Genie-Sarceda-Magruder Interim
Director Office for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, Rick Von Kolen to violate this statute.
28. . . .Dr Hamilton admitted to other illegal activity such as planting drugs on employees to
destroy their reputation and get them fired. Dr Silva filed a grievance against Dean Hamilton to
try and get her to stop the illegal activity, the union did nothing.
32. Ms. Silva complained to Human Resources filed a title IX complaint, made a report to the
police and was retaliated against.
Filed October 19, 2023 Sara Adams, An Individual VS California Institute of Technology,
California Corporation. (https://trellis.law/case/23stcv25556/sara-adams-an-individual-vs
california-institute-technology-california-corporation)
“21. On April 7, 2023, Mr. Wu continued to report the pay disparity to Annie Reed, Upon
information and belief, Annie Reed is Caltech’s Employee and Organizational Development
Consultant (Human Resources Department).
22. Annie Reed spoke about the report of pay disparity to Ofelia Velazquez-Perez, Caltech’s
Senior Director, Total Rewards and Director of Employee and Organizational Development
(Employee Relations).”
Filed March 08, 2021, Mitra Hoshiar, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Los Angeles Community
College District, (https://trellis.law/case/21stcv08950/mitra-hoshiar-vs-los-angeles-community
college-district-an-unknown-entity)
“28. On December 3, 2015, PLAINTIFF then filed a discrimination complaint against Sheri
Berger (“Berger”), VP of Academic Affairs, and Fernando Oleas (“Oleas”), Pierce Union
President. During PLAINTIFF meeting with Dean Barbara Anderson (“Anderson”) at
Anderson’s office on June 10, 2015, Berger and Oleas stopped by and started making remarks of
PLAINTIFF’s accent for reading the graduates’ names on the ceremony with a non-American
accent.
29. Thereafter, On December 11, 2015, in meeting with Dean Annie Reed in conjunction with the
non-collegiality investigation Walsh, Union Grievance Rep and Oleas stopped by at
PLAINTIFF’s office in order to prevent PLAINTIFF from Union Representation. They made
PLAINTIFF to Barbara Anderson, whom was PLANTIFF’s chosen union rep and request for
Anderson to not join the meeting because Walsh and Oleas had to choose who could be the union
representation in the meeting.
30. Based on what had transpired on December 11, 2015, on December 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a
Whistleblower/Retaliation Complaint at the District’s Complaint at the District’s Compliance
Office against Walsh, Oleas, and McKeever (department and union delegate), and other members
of her department. No action was taken by the Compliance Office.
Annie G. Reed’s, current interim Dean of Labor and Employee Relations, has been involved in
covering up wrongdoing in the Los Angeles Community College District for decades. Her targets
have involved employees, students, faculty, and even a trustee. And so far has never been held
accountable.
Multiple stories were published on newswire IndyBay, the news outlet branch of the San
Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center between 2023 and 2024. They were then
scrubbed (along with other stories) over the weekend of May 18, 2025.
Recently, newly appointed Chancellor, Dr. Alberto J. Roman has been alerted to Ms. Reed’s
disturbing history – it remains to be seen whether he will take corrective action, or continue to
6
keep around the same problematic individuals that resulted in his predecessor’s resignation after
a vote of no-confidence by the LACCD Academic Senate.
So. This is the last blog of the academic year. Service resumes Tuesday, 2 September.
It’s been a long year. I’m pretty tired. How about you?
This was the year it all kind of came crashing down: not just here in Canda, but everywhere else too. It’s too long to go through and my more faithful readers already know the story. It’s not just in Canada. In France, Australia, and the UK, we saw institutions having similar problems: all these fantastic higher education institutions we’ve collectively built and, quite simply, nobody wants to pay for it. Not through public funds, not through private fees. Nobody wants to pay for it.
And then there’s American higher education would probably be going through something similar this year, only a greater catastrophe arrived first. I’ll pass over this in silence.
Here in Canada, the sector is increasingly friendless. Parents and students seem less convinced that universities in particular represent good value. And governments are simply indifferent, not because they dislike universities necessarily, but because they dislike or distrust the knowledge economy universities are built to serve.
Unfortunately, I think it is going to get worse. Not a single government in Canada released a budget this year which took into account the effects of US tariffs. The result? Allegedly healthy federal and provincial balance sheets are going to get pounded this year and next (and the especially unhealthy ones — BC and Quebec in particular — are going to be especially ugly). Deficits as far as they eye can see. As the saying goes, no one is coming to save us.
I have no doubt that community colleges will find ways to get through this, because they have so far through this crisis mostly shown themselves to have the ability to do what it takes to right the ship. They might not look too good after another round or two of cuts, and it’s not impossible that a few rural colleges might disappear or shrink radically because what they get from governments and domestic tuition fees just isn’t enough to properly serve their communities, but on the whole, I think they will be ok.
Universities, on the other hand. Well, that’s a different story.
About a year ago, I said that the biggest change universities were going to have to undergo in this new financial age was shifting from a belief that every problem had a revenue-side solution to one in which every problem has a cost-side solution. Institutions can no longer solve their short-term problems by just recruiting another hundred international students. They actually have to change the way they do business. They have to change processes. They have to think about production functions and work processes in a way they haven’t before. And they have to do it while trying to pivot to new missions that give them more traction with government and the public.
I am here to say that I don’t think it’s going so well.
The message that “there is no one coming to save us” has, thankfully, penetrated fairly deeply in universities. Maybe not quite everywhere (hello, VIU!), but in most places. But what I am not sure has penetrated quite so deeply is the corollary that actual change is necessary. My (admittedly limited) vantage point on the sector is that:
I still see universities spending inordinate amounts of time trying to come up with new revenue-based solutions. It’s a habit they have a hard time kicking.
Universities are deeply resistant to doing more than the bare minimum of restructuring to meet immediate financial needs. The idea that deep structural change might be necessary remains pretty much anathema. This bare minimum approach means that when the next round of government cuts come – due to recession, or national re-armament or whatever – they are just going to have to cut again, and again, and again. There is very little sign of anyone trying to get ahead of the curve to make both big cuts and big investments in new areas that will help them survive the turmoil.
I still hear, distressingly often, senior people in universities utter the worst seven words in all of higher education: “we just gotta tell our story better”. Universities are reluctant to face the possibility that governments and the mass public don’t love them the way they are and that they may need to actually, you know, change.
We need to stop acting like the research university of today – which in Canada is really only a creature of the 1970s or perhaps 1960s — is eternal. Universities can die, and have done so rather frequently across history. Universities are the product of particular configurations of social and economic forces. And now, at the moment when the western world is basically re-considering the entire post-WWII order, the idea that universities are going to be uniquely immune to change is bananas. Past performance — which I think has been pretty good — is not a guarantee of future safety.
I am not saying here that universities shouldn’t fight for their own corner: they should! Often more vigorously than they currently do (see my piece on Bill 33, or on how they need to gear up for a fight with Bay Street over whether temporary residents will be international students or TFWs). But they can’t do it by digging in on the status quo.
And so, I will end the academic year by repeating something I said a few months ago. To survive this coming period, universities are going to need:
Ambition. Don’t waste time doing small things.
Experimentation. The worst possible thing right now is an addiction to “the way we’ve always done things”
Dissemination. No one institution got us into the mess. No one institution is going to get out of it alone, either. Institutions need to commit to sharing the results of their experimentation.
I know every university in Canada can, if it chooses, commit to those three things. I have faith. And I believe that if they do, our university sector will come out as strong or stronger than any system in the world.
But any institution that chooses not to commit to them…well, I think they are going to have some issues in the next three years. Serious ones.
It’s up to us. Rest up this summer. Re-charge. We’re all going to need it in ‘25–’26.
Could Florida Atlantic University become the home of Donald Trump’s presidential library?
The public university is under consideration and is willing to hand over free land to entice Trump to establish his presidential library there, The Wall Street Journal reported last week. Located in Boca Raton, FAU is about a half hour drive from Trump’s private golf club Mar-a-Lago.
The Wall Street Journal noted that proximity is part of the appeal of choosing FAU. Additionally, the university is reportedly willing to offer a 100-year land lease at no cost, though the deal isn’t done yet.
FAU is currently led by Adam Hasner, a former Republican state lawmaker.
Trump is known for spending significant time at Mar-a-Lago, which seems to have convinced local legislators that the Sunshine State is the likely destination for his presidential library. Earlier this year Florida lawmakers passed a bill that limits local control over the planning and construction of presidential libraries, deferring such powers to the state. The bill’s sponsor, a Republican state senator, argued that Florida should “roll out the welcome mat” for Trump’s library and offer “maximum flexibility.”
