Blog
-
The Dangerous Rise of Anti-Intellectualism (Professor Dave Explains)
Higher Education Inquirer : The Dangerous Rise of Anti-Intellectualism (Professor Dave Explains)
-
This LSU law professor’s job has become a legal drama
In a Jan. 14 lecture, Ken Levy, Holt B. Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at Louisiana State University, dropped f-bombs against then–president-elect Donald Trump and Louisiana governor Jeff Landry and told students who like Trump that they need his “political commentary.”
Some students found the apparent attempt at political humor funny, according to an audio recording of the class obtained by Inside Higher Ed from a student who supports Levy.
But at least one student in the administration of criminal justice class who subsequently complained, according to LSU, wasn’t amused—and neither were the university and the governor. An LSU spokesperson said the institution “took immediate action to remove Professor Levy from the classroom after complaints about the professor’s remarks.”
Levy got a lawyer and took immediate action himself, pulling LSU into court instead of waiting for the university to take further steps internally regarding his job.
In the month since that lecture, state district court judges have twice ruled that Levy should return to the classroom, only for a state appeals court to twice overrule that. The back-and-forth nature of the case has attracted attention in Louisiana and in law circles, including via headlines such as “The LSU Law School Professor Free Speech Hot Potato Saga Continues.”
Landry also continues to discuss the case. A Republican governor who’s repeatedly inserted himself in LSU affairs, Landry used social media in the fall to call on the university to punish one of Levy’s law school colleagues for alleged in-class comments about Trump-supporting students. Landry has now repeatedly posted about Levy, recently saying an alleged exam he gave was incendiary and suggesting that “maybe it’s time to abolish tenure.”
In and Out
In the lecture in question, Levy referenced Landry’s previous criticism of his LSU colleague Nick Bryner, adding that he “would love to become a national celebrity [student laughter drowns out a moment of the recording] based on what I said in this class, like, ‘Fuck the governor!’”
Levy also referenced Trump. “You probably heard I’m a big lefty, I’m a big Democrat, I was devastated by— I couldn’t believe that fucker won, and those of you who like him, I don’t give a shit, you’re already getting ready to say in your evaluations, ‘I don’t need his political commentary,’” Levy told students. “No, you need my political commentary, you above all others.”
A few days after that lecture, LSU notified Levy he was suspended from teaching pending an investigation into student complaints, according to a letter from the university provided by Levy’s attorney, Jill Craft.
On Jan. 28, Craft filed a request for a temporary restraining order against LSU to get Levy back in the classroom. The filing alleged that a student complained to the governor, not LSU, and calls were then made to LSU. A state district court judge granted the restraining order Jan. 30 without a hearing.
In the first reversal, a panel of appellate judges wrote Feb. 4 that the lower court shouldn’t have approved the return-to-teaching part of the temporary restraining order without a full evidentiary hearing. But after the lower court held a two-day hearing last week, a different group of appellate judges overruled Levy’s return to teaching again—without explaining why.
Local journalists who covered last week’s hearing reported that district court judge Tarvald Anthony Smith kicked an LSU deputy general counsel out of the courtroom because the lawyer told the law school dean, who was a scheduled and sequestered witness, about a student witness’s earlier testimony. The testimony was reportedly that the student had recorded a conversation with the dean.
Smith ruled Feb. 11 that LSU policy required the university to keep Levy in class during the investigation of his comments, WBRZ reported. But a Feb. 4 statement from university spokesman Todd Woodward to Inside Higher Ed suggested the investigation was already over: “Our investigation found that Professor Levy created a classroom environment that was demeaning to students who do not hold his political view, threatening in terms of their grades and profane.” The university didn’t make anyone available for an interview about the case.
Amid this legal back-and-forth, Landry continues to denounce Levy on social media. Last week, Landry posted on X an alleged exam from Levy that included potential sexual and other crimes committed by various fictitious individuals and asked students at the end to “discuss all potential crimes and defenses.” The narrative included a teen who put his penis into pumpkins on Halloween and was seen by trick-or-treating children, and a powerful Republican and suspected pedophile who invited the children inside to dance for him.
“Disgusting and inexcusable behavior from Ken Levy,” Landry wrote on X regarding what he claimed was Levy’s test. “Deranged behavior like this has no place in our classrooms! If tenure protects a professor from this type of conduct, then maybe it’s time to abolish tenure.” Asked about this document, Craft said she believes the assignment was part of the sex crimes portion of Levy’s criminal law exam years ago, but she did not confirm it.
After the latest appellate ruling in LSU’s favor, Landry wrote on X that “Levy should stay far, far away from any classroom in Louisiana!”
Craft said Levy has received death threats on X due to Landry’s comments there. “This seems to be a situation entirely of the governor’s making,” she said. “He has been active on social media, trying to accuse my client of all kinds of bad things. He’s a lawyer himself. He attacked the courts and the judge.”
Landry’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Craft also said Levy’s roughly 80 students remain with another 80 in another professor’s classroom.
“I’m not sure how he can handle office hours for 160 law students,” Craft said of that second professor. The university says it’s doubled the number of student tutors for the course.
No Longer the U.S.?
Craft said Levy was set to return to the classroom Feb. 13, but Louisiana’s First Circuit Court of Appeal issued its two-sentence order around 9:30 a.m. that appeared to stay the part of the lower court’s order that returned Levy to teaching.
LSU again kept Levy out of the classroom Tuesday, Craft said. But she said the rest of the lower court order remains in place, at least for now, and that prevents LSU from taking further employment action against Levy due to his expression.
“This is a critical issue, and I feel like we have got to, as a nation, understand that there has to be academic freedom, there has to be free speech in this country, and there have to be protections against governmental intrusions without due process,” she said. “We take all that away and we are no longer the United States of America.”
-
Florida ends in-state tuition for undocumented students
Florida state lawmakers have eliminated in-state tuition for undocumented students, reversing a decade-old law that once enjoyed bipartisan support.
Previously, undocumented students in Florida could apply for waivers to pay in-state tuition rates, if they went to high school in the state for at least three consecutive years and enrolled in college within two years of graduating.
Under the new policy, included in a sweeping immigration bill signed by Governor Ron DeSantis last week, only “citizens of the United States” or those “lawfully present in the United States” qualify. Students receiving the waivers need to be “reevaluated for eligibility” by July 1.
“I don’t think you should be admitted to college in Florida if you’re here illegally,” DeSantis said in a press conference Friday, “but to give in-state tuition was just a slap in the face to taxpayers.”
Florida was one of 25 states that offered in-state tuition to undocumented students at public colleges and universities, according to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal, a data hub run by the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration. These reduced tuition prices came as a relief to undocumented students, who can’t access federal financial aid like their peers and often lack work authorization unless they’re part of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. (Of the approximately 400,000 undocumented students enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities, most don’t hold DACA status.)
Policymakers in other states are considering taking similar steps to curb in-state tuition for these students as they embrace President Donald Trump’s national push against undocumented immigration. Since the presidential election in November, state lawmakers in Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas have introduced legislation to remove in-state tuition for undocumented students. As the issue becomes a political lightning rod, politicians in other states are doubling down on financial supports for these students, introducing bills that would expand in-state tuition eligibility, including in Indiana, New Mexico, Oregon and Pennsylvania.
Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance, said advocates “should be prepared and ready” to come out against similar legislation elsewhere in the country.
A Game of ‘Political Football’
In-state tuition for undocumented students has become a “political football” in Florida, said Jared Nordlund, Florida state director at UnidosUS, a Latino civil rights organization. But that wasn’t always the case.
Republican lieutenant governor Jeanette Nuñez—who resigned last week to become interim president of Florida International University—originally advocated for extending in-state tuition to undocumented students, and former Republican governor Rick Scott, now Florida’s senior U.S. senator, signed the bill into law. Nuñez has since pulled back her support for the policy, posting on X in January that the law had “run its course” and needed to be repealed.
The political winds have shifted on what was once a fairly bipartisan issue, Nordlund said. “Ten years ago, the Republican Party wasn’t the party of Trump.”
Ira Mehlman, media director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an organization that promotes more restrictive immigration policies, applauded Republican state lawmakers for “not rewarding people who are in the country illegally.”
“The more you reward people for breaking the laws, even if it’s through their kids, the more likely people are to disobey the laws,” Mehlman said. And “you are filling seats that might otherwise have gone to kids who are equally deserving and whose parents have not violated any laws.”
Now undocumented students are left to pay out-of-state tuition prices, a significant cost difference. During the 2023–24 academic year, average tuition and fees at Florida colleges and universities for out-of-state students was more than triple the cost state residents paid, according to the Florida Policy Institute, an organization that promotes economic mobility in Florida. The state’s in-state tuition waivers benefited an estimated 6,500 undocumented students that year.
The Ripple Effects
An undocumented student at University of Central Florida, who requested anonymity, told Inside Higher Ed that she couldn’t have pursued a bachelor’s degree as a full-time student without in-state tuition. She would’ve gone for an associate degree instead, taking one or two classes at a time, to keep costs down.
Without in-state tuition, “who knows if I’d be graduating right now,” she said.
The student, who was brought to Florida from Mexico at age 4, is graduating this spring, before the policy change takes effect. But she worries about her peers who won’t have the same resources she did. She previously helped and encouraged other undocumented students to apply for the in-state tuition waiver because of how much it helped her.
“I gave them that hope,” she said, “and now it’s being snatched away from them.”
The student argued she and other undocumented students would use their degrees to contribute to the local labor market, a point they’ve made to state lawmakers in the past; her long-term goal is to open a marketing agency and work with small business owners in the state.
“We studied here our whole life, and our goal is to get our degree and be able to contribute to the economy,” she said.
Diego Sánchez, director of policy and strategy at the Presidents’ Alliance, said he scrambled to pay for college in Florida before in-state tuition became available to undocumented students like him.
In 2008, he enrolled at St. Thomas University, a private institution, and joined as many activities as he could that came with university scholarships—student government, choir and cross country, even though he wasn’t a singer or a runner. He couldn’t have afforded college otherwise, which is why he and other activists advocated for in-state tuition for Florida’s undocumented population. He’s “very disappointed” to see that win reversed.
“It’s about scoring political points,” Sánchez said. “And unfortunately, these students who grew up in Florida, went to our public schools, are going to suffer the consequences … The state has already invested in them, and they’re working their way up to contribute to the community, [to] pay taxes.”
Undocumented students and their supporters argue Florida is going to lose out on these students as future skilled workers at a time when the state is challenged by workforce shortages and an aging population.
Feldblum said these students tend to be “tremendously determined” and will likely attend college in other states, taking their talents with them. She also expects some will stop out of higher ed altogether because they can’t afford it or because they don’t know about other resources available to them, like privately funded scholarships.
“When there are obstacles put in front of students, when students are told, ‘You’re not welcome here’ in different ways, that’s really discouraging,” she said. “That’s disincentivizing,” when Florida has a “need for talent, the need for workforce development.”
What’s Next
The fight for in-state tuition in Florida isn’t over, some advocates say.
“Hopefully we can eventually undo the repeal [of in-state tuition] when the time is right,” Nordlund said. For now, he’s focused on educating state lawmakers and the public about the economic benefits of the repealed policy.
Sánchez plans to lobby state lawmakers to at least let undocumented students already in college finish their degrees at in-state tuition prices, a proposed amendment to the law that previously failed. He hopes colleges and universities push state lawmakers on the issue as well.
He continues to worry, however, that these kinds of attacks on students’ in-state tuition “could spread to other parts of the country.”
Mehlman would like to see other states, and even Congress, look to Florida’s example and work to end in-state tuition for noncitizens nationwide.
“Florida and Texas have sort of been leaders in this area,” he said, “and they certainly can show the way for other states that might be considering this as well.”
-
Higher ed must resist authoritarian rule. It’s the mission.
Together, we should be clear on what President Donald Trump is trying to do to higher education.
Destroy it. Whatever public rationales he or his administration release, the intent of his actions is clear, so if we’re going to discuss responses to those actions, we must remember, always, that Donald Trump is trying to destroy higher education.
Michelle Goldberg at The New York Times gets it; the rest of us should, too.
This goal is not new. In 2021 in a speech at the National Conservatism Conference, future vice president JD Vance declared, “We have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country.” Vance (and Trump) are open admirers of Hungarian authoritarian leader Viktor Orbán, who has subjugated the once-free higher education institutions of his country to his own needs.
This is the Trump/Vance playbook. The unannounced, unilateral (now paused thanks to court intervention) cuts to NIH grants, and the Dear Colleague letter that goes well beyond, and even actively distorts current law to threaten institutions with punishment for failing to obey, are just the latest attacks in a war that has been going on for quite some time, and not just at the federal level, but in the states as well, as exemplified by Ron DeSantis’s wanton destruction of Florida’s New College.
Sadly, as callous, counterproductive and wasteful of taxpayer money as it was, DeSantis taking a wrecking ball to New College in order to install his cronies while recruiting enough athletes for three baseball teams—despite New College not being in an athletic conference—was within the power of the state’s chief executive.
What Trump is doing to higher education institutions is not. It should be unthinkable for institutions to obey diktats that are not only unlawful, but in direct conflict with the purported mission of the institution.
If any institutional leaders are thinking that if they do just enough compliance with Trump’s demands, he will stop the war, they are kidding themselves.
How is the rush to declare institutional neutrality to not just words but actions, as enacted by Vanderbilt chancellor Daniel Diermeier last year, working out? Surely they are feeling secure knowing that they got ahead of the abuse.
What’s that? That isn’t happening? Turns out Vanderbilt has had to pause graduate student admissions because of concerns about funding. I guess surrendering in advance wasn’t the way to go.
I used Vanderbilt only because it was a recent, handy example, not the only one. The silence from major, well-resourced higher education institutions is truly deafening.
Writing at her personal website, Jackie Gharapour Wernz, an education and civil rights attorney, calls the Dear Colleague letter “regulation by intimidation,” which is exactly right. Bending the knee at this moment only demonstrates the effectiveness of intimidation.
Wernz walks through a number of ways the advisories in the letter go well beyond well-established law, while also making an additional important point: Trump is busy gutting the very agencies that would be able to do the investigation and enforcement of institutions they believe are in violation of legal regulations. This reality, plus the various procedural steps involved in these investigations, suggests that it may be far more advantageous to dig in and run out the clock of this initial flurry, particularly when existing law is clearly on your side.
But this doesn’t seem to be the strategy for most institutions. They are going to hope this goes away. Trying to make yourself a smaller target doesn’t mean the people intent on destroying you are going to stop attacking.
Interestingly, the group of higher ed leaders who are … uh … leading belong to the Education for All coalition, primarily consisting of community college administrators. Under the “freedom’s just another world for nothing left to lose” theory, this should not be surprising. Giving in to the Trump administration’s demands to give up on providing educational opportunities to diverse cohorts of students with different desires and needs would be to abandon their work entirely. Their defiance is both principled and practical.
To me, this suggests that the more prestigious institutions that are cowering in the face of the intimidation perhaps do not see their mission in terms of providing access to all. In a lot of ways, the present situation is primarily revealing that which we already knew—that the interests in diversity, equity and inclusion in elite spaces were a virtue-signaling scrim over the much less savory reality of wealth and exclusion.
Look, I’m getting worked up here. The truth is, I don’t wish any harm on any higher education institution, but the institutions with the most resources, most power and most influence must step up.
The present threat goes well beyond an attack on the institutional coffers. These attacks on higher education are part of a much broader push toward authoritarianism as a federal executive (and his minions) direct the actions of formerly free institutions and people.
The good news is that should institutions stand up for themselves, I think they will find many people standing up with them, including, most importantly, the students. Unfortunately, the longer institutions hesitate to stand for the values they claim to hold, the more distrust they’re sowing with the very constituencies who could save them, who do not want to destroy them, but the opposite, who want to see them thrive.
The stakes are almost impossibly high. Shouldn’t we act like it?
-
Higher ed unions rally against Trump’s cuts, layoffs
At more than a dozen events across the country Wednesday, workers and faculty at colleges and universities gathered to speak out against what they see as an attack on federal research funding, lifesaving medical research and education.
In Washington, D.C., hundreds rallied in the front of the Department of Health and Human Services, while in Philadelphia, hundreds gathered at the office of Senator Dave McCormick, a Pennsylvania Republican. Other protests were planned at colleges in Seattle and St. Louis, among others.
The rallies were part of a national day of action organized by a coalition of unions representing higher ed workers, students and their allies. The coalition includes the American Association of University Professors, the American Federation of Teachers, Higher Ed Labor United and United Auto Workers, among others.
Hundreds in Philly braved the freezing temps to rally for our healthcare, research, and jobs! ❄️💪Workers & students from CCP, Drexel, UPenn, Rutgers, Temple, Jefferson, Arcadia, Rowan, Moore—alongside elected leaders & union presidents—made it clear: We won’t back down. #LaborForHigherEd
— Higher Education Labor United (HELU) (@higheredlabor.bsky.social) February 19, 2025 at 2:33 PM
In recent weeks, the Trump administration has proposed capping reimbursements for indirect research costs, laid off hundreds of federal employees and cracked down on diversity, equity and inclusion. Most recently, the Education Department gave colleges and K-12 schools until Feb. 28 to end all race-conscious student programming, resources and financial aid. Higher education advocates have called that directive “dystopian” and “very much outside of the law.”
Colleges and universities sued to block the rate cut for indirect costs, warning it would mean billions in financial losses and an end to some research. Some colleges have already frozen hiring in response, even though the cut is temporarily on hold.
“If politics decides what I can and cannot study, I’m afraid I will fail the very people who need this research and inspire me to do it,” said Lindsay Guare, a doctoral student at the University of Pennsylvania, in a news release about the Philadelphia event. “In an ideal world, I would be fighting to expand support for my science instead of fighting to keep it afloat … The work done in Philadelphia’s institutions doesn’t just lead the world in innovation—it saves lives.”
-
Lawsuit slaps heart of academic freedom (opinion)
A lawsuit filed in July against the Columbia University chapter of the American Association of University Professors, along with 20 other organizations and individuals, alleged that our public statements in support of antiwar and pro-Palestinian student protests last spring harmed other students by contributing to the campus shutdown that followed. Unraveling the cynical logic of this claim is for the courts. But what is clear from this lawsuit is that the purpose of such recourse to legal theater is not to ameliorate harm. It is to silence public and academic speech.
This effort is part and parcel of a broader attack on higher education, one characterized by legislative attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion; instruction; and tenure; and an epidemic of jawboning by public officials meddling into curricula, campus programming and even the careers of individual faculty members. Following a series of executive orders from President Donald Trump, colleges and universities across the country now find themselves in the crosshairs.
The tactic used against us is what is known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). These suits are brought principally not to win in court but to harass and intimidate individuals or groups into curtailing speech. By entangling defendants in costly and invasive litigation—or even just threatening to do so—plaintiffs can frighten those with whom they disagree into silence. In the context of higher education, this comes at an incalculable cost.
On its own, this lawsuit certainly threatens the speech of Columbia-AAUP. But in the current climate, it also opens a front in the widespread attack on universities as sanctuaries of critical inquiry and reasoned debate. In their mere filing, lawsuits like this one aim especially to chill dissenting speech, including speech that takes place at the intersection of the classroom and the public square. Such legal instruments are a dangerous cudgel that could be used to threaten broad swaths of political and academic speech on American campuses.
Our chapter has precisely sought to combat this hostile environment in the speech over which we are being sued. In multiple public statements made during the height of the campus protests last spring, we condemned partisan congressional meddling in Columbia’s affairs, arguing that this “undermine[s] the traditions of shared governance and academic freedom.” We called for a vote of no confidence in university leadership, who we believe “failed utterly to defend faculty and students” and “colluded in political interference.” And we affirmed the Columbia Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ subsequent vote of no confidence in our then-president for her “failure to resist politically motivated attacks on higher education,” whereby she endangered students and undermined our rights as faculty.
In challenging our statements in support of faculty and students, this particular SLAPP targets both our constitutionally protected public speech and our academic freedom. We are fortunate enough to be represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and civil rights firm Wang Hecker LLP, who have filed a motion to dismiss on our behalf that utilizes New York State’s anti-SLAPP law, one of the 35 state-level anti-SLAPP laws on the books across the United States. But the outcome of a SLAPP shouldn’t depend on your counsel, or the state in which you live. Unfortunately, for many faculty and students faced with a SLAPP, the only available option may well be to self-censor.
Interests committed to the mainstream political consensus have found pro-Palestinian political advocacy on American campuses to be unacceptable. To silence dissent, they have shown themselves willing to use every instrument at their disposal in a manner that recalls the red scares of the early and mid-20th century, when character assassination and blacklists were employed in industry and civil society, including academia. This SLAPP revives such measures, as do the theatrical congressional grillings of college presidents, including our own, and the wave of censorship that has swept over higher education during the course of the past year. In this context, attacks on public speech are also attacks on academic freedom.
Academic freedom depends essentially upon a social contract that remains under perpetual debate both inside and outside the academy. SLAPPs like this one aim at the very heart of that contract, which accords to academics relative autonomy to explore difficult and often uncomfortable truths on the assumption that those truths will ultimately benefit society. Although the classroom, the laboratory and the library are classic sites for the practice and protection of this freedom, the truths pursued there translate to worlds outside the campus gates. Bullying faculty and students into self-censorship in the public square, SLAPPs seek to further silence and constrain the pursuit of uncomfortable truths in the classroom.
Scholarly knowledge consists of truth claims, not dicta. Whether exercised in the classroom or in the public square, academic freedom is therefore the freedom to make and to contest such claims. This goes for all sides in a debate, including the debates still quietly raging on our campuses. However, a stark reality disclosed by SLAPPs is that political force is now poised to govern the contest over truth in place of enlightened reason and democratic deliberation.
If such high-minded concepts as truth claims, enlightened reason and democratic debate seem too lofty for the dirty realism of the day, it is important to remember that these still lie at the core of any academic freedom worthy of the name. Academic freedom is not a narrowly academic matter; it is a matter of determining whether something is or is not true. SLAPPs are designed to decide such questions in advance, in favor of those who can afford the attorneys, or on whose behalf politically motivated law firms work. It is time for us to exercise our freedoms and responsibilities as academics, in defense of our right and that of our students to speak.
-
Using school land to fight climate change
HOUSTON — When Jefferson Early Learning Center first opened on the corner of a busy intersection in the city’s west side in 2022, school officials started receiving calls from irritated residents.
It wasn’t the increase in traffic or the noise from loud preschoolers that was the source of the callers’ ire.
It was the wild, unkempt landscaping.
Residents wanted to know, “‘Why aren’t you cutting the lawn?’ ‘Why aren’t you keeping the grounds?’” recalled Hilda Rodriguez, the assistant superintendent of support services for the Alief Independent School District, home to Jefferson and nearly 50 other schools west of Houston.
Although Jefferson’s neighbors didn’t know it, the tall grass surrounding the early learning center was part of a larger strategy to mitigate climate-related issues in a county where a major flood occurs nearly every two years and the number of days at or above 95 degrees has increased significantly over the past 25 years.
In addition to choosing durable, impact-resistant materials to help the school building withstand natural disasters, Jefferson’s designers focused on the surrounding land. They chose to restore much of the ground’s nearly 20 acres to native prairie lands and wetlands, creating a habitat for more than 200 plant and animal species.
A sign at the front of Jefferson Early Learning Center teaches children about the surrounding land, which was designed to withstand floods and heat. Credit: Jackie Mader/The Hechinger Report That sort of habitat is especially beneficial in an area vulnerable to climate change events such as the torrential rains that regularly hit the city, said Melissa Turnbaugh, senior principal at PBK Architects, which designed Jefferson. “By putting in native prairies and grasses, we can now actually absorb three to four times as much water as if we had manicured grass,” she said.
Experts who study early learning and climate science say there is growing demand for solutions like these to address challenges related to climate change, such as floods, fires and hotter temperatures. Angie Garling, a senior vice president at the Low Income Investment Fund, which runs initiatives to help build and improve early learning facilities, said that when her organization solicited applications from child care programs needing facilities improvements, the vast majority had to do with climate.
“They were asking for things like HVAC systems, misting systems, air filtration systems, shade structures, turf … because they couldn’t maintain their lawn anymore because the cost of water was too high,” said Garling. Due to the extreme level of climate-related need, LIIF recently partnered with other organizations to launch a program to help fund renovations for child care providers in Harris County, where Houston is located.
Alief officials have already noticed benefits from the unconventional use of the school land. During the school year, students can walk on trails that weave through the prairie, learning about insects, plants and flowers. The native plants can withstand Houston’s infamous summers, when the average temperature sits above 90 degrees. That saves work, time and money for Alief’s maintenance team, which rarely needs to mow or water the land at Jefferson.
Over the next few years, Turnbaugh, the architect, hopes the presence of the prairies and grassland — rather than concrete or other surfaces that are known to reflect heat — will pay long-term dividends in “an overall heat-challenged area.”
“I think we’re going to see that we’re actually cooling the neighborhood,” she said. “I think there’s not only good carbon capture, but we’re actually being good neighbors.”
Over time, Jefferson’s neighbors have seemed to realize that, said Alief’s Rodriguez. The calls, for the most part, have stopped. “Once they understood, it became very clear to them that this was purposeful.”
Contact staff writer Jackie Mader at (212) 678-3562 or [email protected].
This story about climate change solutions was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.
-
Student mental health difficulties are on the rise, and so are inequalities
As current discussions around higher education understandably focus on the challenges (especially around funding) that the sector faces, the experience of the nearly three million students attending our universities and colleges can often be overlooked.
Current students generally benefit from and enjoy their time in higher education, but the national conversation too often ignores the challenges students face and the inequalities that many students experience.
One area that deserves greater attention is student mental health.
Correlation
In a report published today, we find that the proportion of students reporting mental health difficulties has reached 18 per cent, tripling in just seven years. This implies that around 300,000 of the UK’s undergraduate student population is affected by mental health difficulties, a number that has been rising over recent years.
And the rise in reported mental health difficulties is greater for some student groups than others. Notably, twice as many women as men report mental health difficulties, while rates for LGBTQ+ students are particularly high, rising to nearly one in three for lesbian (30 per cent) and bisexual (29 per cent) students. Higher still are the rates for trans students (around 40 per cent report mental health difficulties) and nonbinary students (over half report mental health difficulties). While sample sizes make it harder to compare trends over time for these groups, the rates of mental health difficulties are shocking, and require action from higher education providers.
There is an association between socio-economic status and mental health difficulties. Mental health difficulties are directly correlated with higher participation rates: for every POLAR region of higher education participation, the lower the rate of higher education participation, the higher the proportion of people reporting mental health difficulties. Similarly, state educated pupils are more likely to report difficulties than privately educated pupils, indicating a need for greater support for children’s mental health services too.
Better reporting
There are some possible explanations for the sharp rise in student mental health difficulties. First, it is important to note that these figures reflect respondents’ self-reported mental health. Compared to a decade ago, there is less social stigma around disclosing and discussing mental health difficulties, and this may mean that previous reporting underestimated the numbers facing difficulties. There has also been a wider rise in mental health difficulties among all younger people, sometimes linked to the cost of living, concerns about the climate crisis or negative experiences on social media and smartphones. Our findings do not allow us to conclude which (if any) of these explanations is driving the rise in mental health difficulties, but given the rate of increase over the last seven years, it is unlikely to be caused by one explanation alone.
There is one positive finding in the study, namely that over the course of their studies, LGBTQ+ students experience a relative increase in wellbeing. It is important to note that these students still have higher rates of mental health difficulties compared to their peers, but it’s also worth reflecting on the beneficial role that attending higher education can bring. Particularly for younger LGBTQ+ students, higher education may allow them to navigate and affirm their identity in a new way, and find like-minded friends and peers for the first time. Indeed, there may be learning for other organisations and institutions, particularly employers, in thinking about how they enable wellbeing among their recent and future graduate employees.
Public health
What, then, can be done to better address student mental health? One important change would be to adopt a “public health” approach to student mental health, and mental health generally. Higher education providers could also ensure that they effectively signpost students to both wellbeing support services and to clinical health services where required. Significantly, given that some students are more likely to experience mental health difficulties than others, providers also need to ensure these services reach everyone, and may need to tailor their services to do so.
A key recommendation regards students leaving their courses. In the survey, mental health difficulties was by far the most common reason cited for why students were considering dropping out of their course, mentioned almost five times more than the second most common reason (financial difficulties). Providers therefore need to ensure that their retention efforts address mental health while also measuring how wellbeing and mental health support impacts on the likelihood that students complete their courses.
Providers need to ensure that they are effectively evaluating their wellbeing and mental health services. It is positive that mental health is now seen as an important area for university services, and that social stigma has declined. Tight financial circumstances are increasing pressure on universities, and we all recognise the challenges of meeting every student need. At the same time, foregrounding the interests of students and ensuring their success in higher education requires a more extensive, effect focus on student mental health, not least given the extent of mental health difficulties, and how inequalities both produce and amplify these difficulties, before, during and after students leave higher education.
-
The government’s in a pickle over fees and funding
We’re increasingly relying on Wales to get intel on where the Westminster government’s thinking is on higher education finance.
As DK notes elsewhere on the site, Vikki Howells, Minister for Further and Higher Education in the Welsh Government, has announced an additional £18.5m in capital funding for estate maintenance and digital projects to reduce costs, improve sustainability, and enhance the student experience.
But the other thing that happened was disclosed in the papers outlining the 2024–25 supplementary budget process. That contains a change in the student loan resource budget from £277m in October to £428m now. That feels like a big thing, and it’s worth unpacking why.
Imagine for a minute that you own a pub, and you let students run up a tab. Then imagine that you expect them to gradually pay you back over decades – “pay us back when you can afford it mate”, or an “income contingent” loan.
If you were trying to work out how well off you are now by thinking of how much that group of students will pay you back, you’d have to guess how much money they’ll have and when, and how much of that they’ll give you at a given point.
But you’d need to guess how much that future money will be worth.
The thing about student loans – and how they’re treated in the national accounts (including the “devolved” national accounts of the nations) – is that that’s broadly how it’s done.
Before 2020, the government accounted for student loans in a way that understated their real cost. Every loan was recorded in the national accounts as if it would be fully repaid, plus interest.
But a significant portion of loans would always be written off, but this wasn’t properly accounted for. This made the government’s books look better – despite knowing that many students would never repay in full. That “fiscal illusion” allowed George Osborne to spare higher education from austerity while your local council was cutting bin collections.
Then ONS forced the government to acknowledge that much of the money lent to students wouldn’t be repaid. The removal of the “fiscal illusion” means that now, every loan is split into two parts – the part expected to be repaid, which is counted as an asset, and the part likely to be written off, which is counted as spending immediately.
That sounds sensible – it makes the true cost of student loans more transparent in government accounts. But then, things got complicated – because that calculation has to be constantly revised.
A scenario
Imagine a student owes you £10,000 in 30 years. How much is that worth to you today? If you expect high investment returns elsewhere, future money is worth less today because you could invest it and earn more. Conversely, if expected returns are low, future money retains more value in today’s terms.
So if you expect high investment returns elsewhere, you might say: “That £10,000 in 30 years is worth only £3,000 to me today.” If you expect low investment returns, you might say: “That’s still worth £7,000 to me today.”
And so for the government, the “discount rate” is how they decide how much future student loan repayments are worth in today’s money.
The higher the discount rate, the less future repayments are worth today and the more expensive student loans appear in the accounts. The lower the discount rate, the more valuable future repayments seem, and the cheaper student loans look on paper.
Every so often, His Majesty’s Treasury (HMT) revises the discount rate – and a wander down the rabbit hole reveals that it’s gone up again – which means the government is now valuing future student loan repayments less in today’s terms. Hence the change in Wales.
Why? Because the government’s own borrowing costs have risen.
Lend us a fiver mate
The government raises money by selling bonds (gilts), and the interest rates on those bonds (gilt yields) have gone up. Money is loaned to the government but those loaning it expect higher returns.
Because the government is borrowing more money, lending to it is riskier. Inflation is higher, so investors want more interest to protect the value of their money. And there’s more economic uncertainty, so investors demand higher returns to compensate for potential risks.
Then, as other investment options become more attractive, the government needs to offer better rates to compete for investors’ money. All of that combined makes investors ask for higher interest rates when lending to the government.
So the government now pays more to borrow money. Then when it lends it out, like those lending to the government, it expects higher returns to match its increased costs. That makes the government value future student loan repayments less in today’s money. It’s like saying, “If I’m paying more to borrow, I need to earn more when I lend.”
As a result, the government sees student loans as less valuable now, even though students will still repay the same amount in the future – and so when that discount rate changes, it suddenly makes loans look more expensive in government accounts.
So what?
In theory, if the interest rate on student loans goes up, expected total repayments grow faster. It should make the loan book appear more valuable today – because the government would record a lower upfront cost for issuing the loans.
Then if it wanted to reduce the reported cost of student loans, you’d think they would increase interest rates, which lowers the “cost” of issuing loans in the accounts. Graduates would pay more, but in the government accounts, loans would look cheaper to taxpayers.
But in 2023, Rishi Sunak’s reforms actually lowered interest rates for new students – from RPI+3% to RPI. This means future repayments won’t grow as quickly, so the value of the loan book shrank. Why did he do that with no obvious political benefit?
The weird thing is that lowering interest rates on student loans can actually make them look less expensive for the government in the short term, even though the actual long-run costs have increased.
That’s because the government only records the part of loans that won’t be repaid as a cost upfront, while treating the rest as an asset. Because lower interest rates mean students are expected to repay less overall, the unpaid portion of loans (write-off) shrinks – so the immediate cost to the government looks smaller.
But because the government borrows money to fund these loans, and its own borrowing costs are rising, a big financial hit comes later when it earns less from student loan interest while still paying more to finance the system.
And when the Treasury gets round to noticing that second part, it adjusts the discount rate – and then the hit appears in the accounts. Cheers, Rishi.
As IFS says, all of the above means that the official statistics are likely constantly understating the true cost of the student loans system to the taxpayer:
The ONS [government accounts] measure focuses only on the share of loans that is not repaid in full and thus misses the spread between government borrowing costs and student loan interest rates, which is now expected to be negative.
And that all then ends up having implications for future reform.
What next?
The Russell Group’s spending review submission doesn’t touch on any of this. Nor does Guild HE’s. Universities UK’s submission is silent on it too.
But Rachel Reeves has set a spending envelope. Her new Public Sector Net Financial Liabilities (PSNFL) measure is a broader measure of government debt that includes both traditional borrowing (like gilts) and other financial commitments, including student loans.
It differs from the old Public Sector Net Debt (PSND) because PSND only counts traditional government borrowing, whereas PSNFL includes all financial assets and liabilities – including the value of student loans.
So increasing the value of student loans – tuition or maintenance – would classify these loans as financial assets under PSNFL. But the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) says that practices like that might hide underlying fiscal risks, because loans are recorded as assets regardless of the probability of repayment. If a big(ger) portion of these loans is not repaid that would hit the public finances.
Providing bigger (tuition or maintenance) grants instead of loans would result in immediate government expenditure, increasing the deficit in the short term. That could conflict with the government’s fiscal mandate to achieve a balanced or surplus current budget by 2029–30. Grants don’t add to future liabilities, but they do directly impact day-to-day spending, making it harder to adhere to Reeves’ fiscal rules.
Government investment in university infrastructure – like funding for new buildings and research facilities – is capital expenditure, typically financed through borrowing. Under current fiscal rules, the government has to ensure that Public Sector Net Financial Liabilities (PSNFL) fall as a share of the economy by 2029–30. Investments like that might be crucial for long-term growth, but increased borrowing adds to public debt. So to stay within fiscal limits, the government has to manage the spending to prevent an unsustainable rise in its future financial liabilities.
Politically, it may also want to consider relieving the pressure on young/new graduates – by raising the repayment threshold, or introducing stepped repayments. But then to pay for any or all of the above, it would need to introduce steeper interest rate bands so that higher earners pay more, have a higher repayment rate for higher earners, or look again at early repayment penalties to maintain long-term repayment contributions. And they would all bring political costs.
The iceberg and the tip
And that’s the irony. When the last government gave a (graduate) tax cut to higher earners by cutting interest to RPI, the idea was that they would pay no more, no less than the “real” cost of their HE – and that was paid for by lower earners paying more back, rather than having profit from higher earners subsidising lower earners.
But once the cost of borrowing the money to loan to students starts to exceed inflation, the government loses money on every loan. That’s why from a government point of view, aligning student loan interest rates with the government’s long-term borrowing costs would make more sense.
Having interest rates that are significantly lower than the government’s borrowing costs results in an expensive subsidy spent on the rich – it benefits higher earners who would repay their loans even with higher interest rates. Low-earning graduates, who are less likely to repay their loans in full, get no benefit.
So the rich either pay upfront through the great boomer wealth transfer, or go into the loan scheme and pay less than the loan costs. While everyone, and everything, else suffers.
Just like the student housing problem, financing things through borrowing is fine when the costs of borrowing are low, and crucially lower than inflation. But once that becomes your default way of financing something, it’s like an iceberg – at the tip you have the tuition fee, below that there’s the value of maintenance, below that is the terms you offer for paying you the money back that you lend out, but what ends up driving everything deeper down is the cost of borrowing it to lend out in the first place.
Put another way, and to return to the pub, what I didn’t say at the start was that you as the landlord of the Dickinson Arms used to be able to borrow money at low rates to buy stock, pay staff, and maintain the premises. You offered loans or credit to regulars who weren’t able to pay immediately, figuring that the low cost of borrowing made it a sustainable business model. You offered affordable pints and generous credit terms, confident that the costs of borrowing were lower than the rate of inflation.
But the cost of borrowing is up. Each barrel of beer bought on credit now costs you more to finance than it did before. You continue offering low-interest loans to your punters, but the true cost of financing is being hidden beneath the surface, gradually growing into a larger financial burden. And at some stage, the pub becomes insolvent. That’s the real problem the government faces now over HE reform – one that spending review submissions from sector bodies really did need to address.
-
What’s next in equality of opportunity evaluation?
In the Evaluation Collective – a cross-sector group of like-minded evaluation advocates – we have reason to celebrate two related interventions.
One is the confirmation of a TASO and HEAT helmed evaluation library – the other John Blake’s recent Office for Students (OfS) blog What’s next in equality of opportunity regulation.
We cheer his continued focus on evaluation and collaboration (both topics close to our collective heart). In particular, we raised imaginary (in some cases…) glasses to John Blake’s observation that:
Ours is a sector founded on knowledge creation, curation, and communication, and all the skills of enquiry, synthesis and evidence-informed practice that drive the disciplines English HE providers research and teach, should also be turned to the vital priorities of expanding the numbers of students able to enter HE, and ensuring they have the best chance to succeed once they are admitted.
That’s a hard YES from us.
Indeed, there’s little in our Evaluation Manifesto (April 2022) that isn’t thinking along the same lines. Our final manifesto point addresses almost exactly this:
The Evaluation Collective believe that higher education institutions should be learning organisations which promote thinking cultures and enact iterative and meaningful change. An expansive understanding of evaluation such as ours creates a space where this learning culture can flourish. There is a need to move the sector beyond simply seeking and receiving reported impact.
We recognise that OfS has to maintain a balance between evaluation for accountability (they are our sector regulator after all) and evaluation for enhancement and learning.
Evaluation in the latter mode often requires different thinking, methodologies and approaches. Given the concerning reversal of progress in HE access indicated by recent data this focus on learning and enhancement of our practice seems even more crucial.
This brings us to two further collective thoughts.
An intervention intervention
John Blake’s blog references comments made by the Evaluation Collective’s Chair Liz Austen at the Unlocking the Future of Fair Access event. Liz’s point, which draws on a soon to be published book chapter, is that, from some perspectives, the term intervention automatically implies an evaluation approach that is positivistic and scientific – usually associated with Type 3 causal methodologies such as randomised control trials.
This kind of language can be uncomfortable for those of us evaluating in different modes (and even spark the occasional paradigm war). Liz argued that much of the activity we undertake to address student success outcomes, such as developing inclusive learning, teaching, curriculum and assessment approaches is often more relational, dynamic, iterative and collaborative, as we engage with students, other stakeholders and draws on previous work and thinking from other disciplinary area.
This is quite different to what we might think of as a clinical intervention, which often involves tight scientific control of external contextual factors, closed systems and clearly defined dosage.
We suggest, therefore, that we might need a new language and conceptual approach to how we talk and think about evaluation and what it can achieve for HE providers and the students we support.
The other area Liz picked up concerned the burden of evaluation not only on HE providers, but also the students who are necessarily deeply integrated in our evaluation work with varying degrees of agency – from subjects from whom data is extracted at one end through to co-creators and partners in the evaluation process at the other.
We rely on students to dedicate sufficient time and effort in our evaluation activities. To reduce this burden and ensure we’re making effective use of student input, we need better coordination of regulatory asks for evaluation, not least to help manage the evaluative burden on students/student voices – a key point also made by students Molly Pemberton and Jordan Byrne at the event.
As it is, HE providers are currently required to develop and invest in evaluation across multiple regulatory asks (TEF, APP, B3, Quality Code etc). While this space is not becoming too crowded (the more the merrier), it will take some strategic oversight to manage what is delivered and evaluated, why and by whom and look for efficiencies. We would welcome more sector work to join up this thinking.
Positing repositories
We also toasted John Blake’s continued emphasis on the crucial role of evaluation in continuous improvement.
We must understand whether metrics moving is a response to our activity; without a clear explanation as to why things are getting better, we cannot scale or replicate that impact; if a well-theorised intervention does not deliver, good evaluation can support others to re-direct their efforts.
In support of this, the new evidence repository to house the sector’s evaluation outcomes has been confirmed, with the aim of supporting our evolving practice and improve outcomes for students. This is another toast-worthy proposal. We believe that this resource is much needed.
Indeed, Sheffield Hallam University started its own (publicly accessible) one a few years ago. Alan Donnelly has written an illuminating blog for the Evaluation Collective reflecting on the implementation, benefits and challenges of the approach.
The decision to commission TASO and HEAT to develop this new Higher Education Evidence Library (HEEL), does however, beg a lot of questions about how material is selected for inclusion, who makes the selection and the criteria they use. Here are a few things we hope those organisations are considering.
The first issue is that it is not clear whether this repository is merely primarily designed to address a regulatory requirement for HE providers to publish their evaluation findings or a resource developed to respond to the sector’s knowledge needs. This comes down to clarity of purpose and a clear-eyed view of where the sector needs to develop.
It also comes down to the kinds of resources that will be considered for inclusion. We are also concerned by the prospect of a rigid and limited selection process and believe that useful and productive knowledge is contained in a wide range of publications. We would welcome, for example, a curation approach that recognised the value of non-academic publications.
The contribution of grey literature and less formal publications, for example, is often overlooked. Valuable learning is also contained in evaluation and research conducted in other countries, and indeed, in different academic domains within the social and health sciences.
The potential for translating interventions across different institutional and sector contexts also depends on sharing contextual and implementation information about the target activities and programmes.
As colleagues from the Russell Group Widening Participation Evaluation Forum recently argued on these very pages, the value of sharing evaluation outcomes increases the more we move away from reporting technical and statistical outcomes to include broader reflections and meta-evaluation considerations, the more we collectively learn as a sector the more opportunities we will see for critical friendships and collaborations.
While institutions are committing substantial time and resources to APP implementation, we must resist overly narrowing the remit of our activities and our approach in general. Learning from failed or even poor programmes and activities (and evaluation projects!) can be invaluable in driving progress.
Ray Pawson speaks powerfully of the way in which “nuggets” of valuable learning and knowledge can be found even when panning less promising or unsuccessful evaluation evidence. Perhaps, a pragmatic approach to knowledge generation could trump methodological criteria in the interests of sector progress?
Utopian repositories
Hot on the HEELs of the TASO/HEAT evaluation library collaboration announcement we have put together a wish list for what we would like to see in such a resource. We believe that a well-considered, open and dynamic evaluation and evidence repository could have a significant impact on our collective progress towards closing stubborn equality of opportunity risk gaps.
Submission to this kind of repository could also be helpful for the professionalisation of HE-based evaluation and good for organisational and sector recognition and career progression.
A good model for this kind of approach is the National Teaching Repository (self-upload, no gatekeeper – their tag line “Disseminating accessible ideas that work”). This approach includes a way of tracking the impact and reach of submissions by allocating them a DOI.
This is an issue that Alan and the Sheffield Hallam Team have also cracked, with submissions appearing in scholarly indexes.
We are also mindful of the increasingly grim economic contexts in which most HE staff are currently working. If it does its job well, a repository could help mitigate some of the current constraints and pressures on institutions. Where we continue to work in silos there is a continued risk of wasting resources, by reinventing the same intervention and evaluation wheels in isolation across a multitude of different HE providers.
With more openness and transparency, and sharing work in progress, as well as in completion, we increase the possibility of building on each other’s work, and, hopefully, finding opportunities for collaboration and sharing the workload, in other words efficiency gains.
Moreover, this moves us closer to solving the replication and generalisability challenges, evaluators working together across different institutions can test programmes and activities across a wider set of contexts, resulting in more flexible and generalisable outcomes.
Sliding doors?
There are two further challenges, which are only nominally addressed in John Blake’s blog, but which we feel could have significant influence on the sector impact of the repository of our dreams.
First, effective knowledge management is essential – how will time-pressed practitioners find and apply relevant evidence to their contexts? The repository needs to go beyond storing evaluations to include support to help users to find what they need, when they need it, and include recommendations for implications for practice.
Second, drawing on the development of Implementation Science in fields like medicine and public health could help maximize the repository’s impact on practice. We suggest early consultation with both sector stakeholders and experts from other fields who have successfully tackled these knowledge-to-practice challenges.
At this point in thinking, before concrete development and implementation have taken place, we have the potential for a multitude of possible future repositories and approaches to sector evaluation. We welcome TASO and HEAT’s offer to consult with the sector over the spring as they develop their HEEL and hope to engage in a broad and wide-ranging discussion of how we can collectively design an evaluation and evidence repository that is not just about collecting together artefacts, but which could play an active role in driving impactful practice. And then we can start talking about how the repository can be evaluated.
John Blake will be talking all things evaluation with members of the Evaluation Collective on the 11th March. Sign up to the EC membership for more details: https://evaluationcollective.wordpress.com/