Mackintosh power station. A new centre of excellence will train Tasmania’s renewable energy workers of the future to build wind, solar, and hydro power infrastructure. Picture: Hydro Tasmania
A new $27m Clean Energy Centre of Excellence will be established in Burnie, where students will be trained to help expedite the nation’s transition to net zero emissions.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
The two new leaders of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) were announced on Tuesday.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Melbourne University Campus in Carlton.
Picture: NCA NewsWire / David Geraghty
The University of Melbourne has topped the list of Australia’s most prestigious higher education facilities globally.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
When I first arrived in Dundee, I anticipated an academic journey that would challenge my perspectives and expand my knowledge.
What I didn’t foresee was how profoundly it would transform my understanding of identity and belonging, compelling me to reexamine my sense of self and my place in broader societal structures.
Having moved from India to pursue a Master of Education (MEd) in the UK, this journey not only offered a world-renowned education but also a deeply personal exploration. I encountered labels—both explicit and implicit—that reshaped how I viewed myself and how others perceived me.
A year after graduating, with distinction, this reflection examines the unintended consequences of such labels, navigating an evolving sense of identity and belonging, and how higher education institutions could approach identity.
In India, my identity felt clear and unchallenged. Growing up in a community where cultural and national homogeneity was the norm, I seldom encountered the complexities of navigating diverse cultural spaces.
As a proud citizen, I had always viewed myself through a singular lens—an educator, a parent, and a lifelong learner.
Yet, upon arriving in the UK, I gradually found myself assigned new labels: “South Asian,” “brown,” “BAME,” or “non-native English speaker.”
These descriptors, while often used to acknowledge diversity, and well-intentioned, created a sense of “otherness” I had never felt before.
They carried with them an uneasy sense of stereotyping relating to cultural norms, economic motivations, or professional capabilities, overshadowing my individuality and the intentionality behind my journey. Or so it seemed to me.
This was shaped by my specific circumstances. I hadn’t come to the UK fleeing hardship or seeking greener pastures. After over two decades of a successful career, my journey was a deliberate choice to grow and challenge myself within a global academic system.
Nevertheless, I found myself viewed through a lens that reduced my presence to that of a “brown immigrant” – a categorization laden with assumptions I neither recognized nor accepted as my own.
Becker’s (1963) labelling theory, as detailed in his seminal work Outsiders, highlights how societal labels can shape individuals’ self-perceptions and interactions. For instance, being termed a “non-native English speaker” undermined my confidence, despite my strong command of the language. I became acutely self-conscious of my speech and writing, scrutinizing every phrase and mannerism.
Similarly, whilst being classified – for diversity reporting purposes – as “BAME”—a term that homogenized diverse ethnicities—diminished my unique identity as Indian. Condensing the diversity of a vast continent like Asia, and beyond, into a single category overlooked its rich individuality and distinct experiences.
At 48 years of age, with significant professional and personal capital, this phase felt like a rebirth, requiring me to relearn how to approach daily interactions, meet people, and manage emotions in an unfamiliar environment.
As a parent, I grappled with the tension between fiercely guarding my child in this new space and allowing her to grow freely as her own person. These dilemmas became an integral part of my journey, shaping my reflections on belonging. However, through these challenges, I discovered that cultural exchange offered a path to understanding identity and belonging.
One of the most enriching aspects of my time in the UK was finding harmony between embracing new cultures and retaining my distinct and individual, Indian identity. While cultural disconnections were inevitable, moments of connection highlighted opportunity and potential.
Simple acts, like sharing Ayurvedic home remedies with colleagues or discovering the vegetarian version of haggis and tatties—a Scottish dish that reminded me of flavours from Indian cuisine – sparked conversations, and mutual appreciation and understanding. Such experiences underscored the universality of care and the connections that form through everyday activities or practices.
Collaborative projects were equally transformative. A group initiative to design an innovative education program with a focus on MOOCs brought together diverse perspectives shaped by educational systems in Uganda, Ghana, Sri Lanka, India, and the United States. Engaging authentically with these cultures helped me realize that my identity wasn’t being erased—it was evolving.
This drew me to the conclusion that labels no longer seemed like barriers but also served as bridges. Interacting with domestic students further revealed our shared passions for equitable education and learner well-being, reinforcing the commonality of human experiences and aspirations.
Such moments emphasized that despite our differences, shared humanity forms the foundation of genuine connection and collaboration.
Higher education institutions play a crucial role in shaping how identity and belonging are experienced. As an International Postgraduate student, I found value in lectures exploring diverse educational philosophies from thinkers like Confucius, Paulo Freire, bell hooks, Ivan Illich, and Sugata Mitra, alongside predominantly Western curricula.
These discussions offered a balanced perspective and inclusive learning environment, aligning with culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2010) and ensuring students saw their identities reflected in education. Similarly, initiatives like the University of Edinburgh’s Global Citizenship Initiative and Kingston University’s Inclusive Curriculum Project provide platforms for students to share their unique experiences.
Labels like “South Asian”, “BAME”, or “Global South” can serve as useful starting points for addressing systemic inequities but risk oversimplifying diverse experiences and perpetuating stereotypes. Institutions should creatively rethink these categorizations to highlight individuality.
Platforms like self-identification surveys, narrative-sharing workshops, intercultural initiatives, peer-support groups, and reflective writing can foster mutual understanding, empathy, and respect. Staff training in dialogic engagement and curricular reforms can further nurture inclusivity.
Tinto’s Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (1993) underscores how academic and social integration are pivotal in fostering a sense of belonging, which thrives when institutions celebrate individuality and embrace diversity as a strength.
For me, this journey has been one of rediscovery. As I walked across the stage at my graduation ceremony, surrounded by peers from around the world, I felt an overwhelming sense of belonging.
I realized my journey was not just about academic achievement; it was about embracing a deeper, more inclusive understanding of identity. Engaging authentically with new cultures doesn’t mean losing oneself—even under a label—but rather gaining dimensions to one’s sense of self.
My reflections are a reminder for myself, and perhaps the broader global society that shared experiences cultivate a true community where individuals feel recognised and valued. Identity evolves, but the need for acceptance and respect as a person remains constant.
Higher education must create spaces where individuality is honoured, differences are embraced, and restrictive labels are thoughtfully reevaluated. By doing so, institutions can harness the richness of diversity—not only to enrich learning experiences but also to dismantle stereotypes and foster a deeper sense of unity within our global community.
For many students and faculty, it’s an exhausting time to be on campus. The long–polarized climate has been supercharged by everything from the flurry of executive orders to lingering tensions over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to proposed cuts to government spending on higher ed. All while administrators come under intense pressure from groups on all sides to issue public statements, invest or divest, and cancel speakers — as federal and state government actors stoke the flames.
Some have argued universities have a duty to cast aside neutrality and, for example, declare certain politicians fascists. But this kind of political grandstanding undermines the central purpose of the university: the pursuit of truth, a process that requires debate and discussion. This process can’t happen when a university’s leaders put a proverbial thumb on the scale. Instead, it’s in the most fraught times that university leaders most need to draw a line in the sand against censorship and intimidation.
While the current climate feels unprecedented, history tells a different story. In the late 1960s, America was on fire — literally and figuratively. Protests erupted, generational divides widened, and a divisive president presided over a deeply unpopular war in Vietnam that claimed tens of thousands of lives. Amidst the chaos, the president of the University of Chicago convened a faculty committee to determine how the institution should respond to burning political and social upheaval.
Their answer was simple yet compelling: the university, as an institution, must remain neutral.
Enshrined in the committee’s Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action (commonly called the Kalven Report, after its lead author, First Amendment scholar Harry Kalven, Jr.), the report warned that universities “cannot take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness. There is no mechanism by which it can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives.”
In other words, the mere act of taking an official position on an issue stifles dissent — and, again, undermines the primary reason for the university’s existence.
Critics have argued that neutrality is impossible because everything is political, from school calendars to core curricula. By that logic, even declining to make political statements is a political act. But this merely serves as a rhetorical trap designed to justify disposing of neutrality altogether.
America already has plenty of division and distrust. Institutional neutrality is a critical tool for fostering academia’s only peaceful path through the storm: honest debate.
The Kalven Report’s authors made clear that the university must take a position when its mission is at stake. For example, they must defend academic freedom when governments attempt to silence professors. But that’s entirely different from taking a stand on which side was “right” in Vietnam, or is “right” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There may be close cases in which people will disagree on where that line should be drawn. But denying that intelligent distinctions can be made is like arguing that one cannot differentiate red from blue because they are both on a visual spectrum that lacks clear demarcations.
Neutrality does not mean that universities will play no part in grappling with social and political questions. The Kalven Report affirms that “[t]he university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic,” and notes that universities play a vital role “in fostering the development of social and political values in a society.” This is a long-term role “defined by the distinctive mission of the university and defined too by the distinctive characteristics of the university as a community.” But rather than acting as an advocacy organization, the university is a community of learned advocates with the freedom to agree or disagree with one another. Administrators must intentionally avoid becoming the former so they can function as the latter.
The Kalven Report recognized taking sides in the day’s debates would kneecap the university’s ability to serve as a forum for the pursuit of truth among individual scholars. “There is no mechanism by which it can reach a collective position,” the committee explained, “without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives.”
Most faculty understand this. Two-thirds of faculty members agree that colleges and universities should remain neutral on political and social issues, according to FIRE’s 2024 Faculty Survey Report. The issue of neutrality is especially salient for adjunct instructors, who lack the tenure protections of their full-time peers. As FIRE notes in its Scholars Under Fire report of attempts to sanction professors for speaking their minds, adjuncts — who account for 70 percent of all faculty — are particularly prone to speech-related terminations. An astounding 54 percent of attempts to sanction adjuncts result in termination, compared to 21 percent for all scholars. The most vulnerable faculty have the most to lose when universities take sides.
FIRE has taken a proactive stance on institutional neutrality, discouraging universities from taking up ill-advised “collective positions” on divisive issues. The University of North Carolina System, Vanderbilt, Harvard, Yale, and Dartmouth — and, of course, the University of Chicago — have all adopted official positions on institutional neutrality, and we’re leading the fight to get more colleges on board.
Institutional neutrality is key, but it is not the be-all and end-all. It’s an important slice of a well-diversified portfolio of pro-free speech policies — but just one slice. Universities must also refrain from punishing students and faculty for dissenting views amid sky-high tensions and changing political winds. Sometimes this is an uphill battle against political and social pressure. It’s vital nevertheless.
America already has plenty of division and distrust. Institutional neutrality is a critical tool for fostering academia’s only peaceful path through the storm: honest debate. All sides must have a fair chance to speak and be heard. If universities cannot deliver an environment that cultivates such discussion, they risk becoming just another partisan casualty in the culture war.
Free speech in Europe is under debate at the moment, and for good reason. For anyone who is concerned about the preservation of free expression on a global scale, the restrictions on speech — including online speech — in countries like the United Kingdom and Germany in recent years have been alarming.
I’ve long written about international threats to free expression at FIRE — including in our newsletter, the Free Speech Dispatch — to help Americans better understand the broader state of speech, and how our First Amendment fits into the global stage. The current spotlight on speech restrictions abroad should once again remind us of the value of protecting our rights here at home.
A CBS 60 Minutes segment that aired over the weekend is particularly disturbing, both because of the extent to which Germany polices speech and the casual disregard the prosecutors interviewed showed toward freedom of expression.
One of the prosecutors, when asked how targets respond to raids — sometimes conducted pre-dawn — of their homes and electronics, said that they are surprised to discover that they have committed a crime. “You have free speech as well, ” Dr. Matthäus Fink said, “but it also has its limits.”
Indeed it does, online and off. Just look at how German police and prosecutors have responded to speech that has the potential to offend in recent years.
A 64-year-old man is facing charges not just for alleged antisemitic posts, but also for calling a German politician a “professional idiot.” An American writer living in Germany may be sentenced to years in prison for satirically using a swastika to criticize the country’s COVID policies. Berlin police literally cut off the power to a pro-Palestinian conference because of “the potential for hate speech.” Then they shut down a pro-Palestinian protest because they couldn’t be sure if Irish protesters were saying something hateful in a foreign language — better censored than sorry. And what of the arrests of people who share, even unknowingly, a fake quote, because “the accused bears the risk of spreading a false quote without checking it”? Or of the man whose home was raided at dawn for tweeting at a local politician, “You are such a penis”?
And it’s not only Germany that targets insults of politicians. Just yesterday, news broke that a musician from the band Placebo has been charged with defamation for “contempt of the institutions” after calling Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni a “piece of shit, fascist, racist” during a 2023 music festival.
Free speech is under threat in Europe, whether it’s online speech, blasphemy, or public protests.
In case you thought arrests over insults were a fluke, the prosecutors featured by 60 Minutes are here to assure you: That’s the intention, not a byproduct. When interviewer Sharyn Alfonsi asked, “Is it a crime to insult somebody in public?,” all three confirmed it was, with Fink suggesting punishment for online insult could be even more severe “because in internet, it stays there.” Reposts, too, can be criminal.
Fink went on to defend prosecutorial action against the man who called a politician a “penis,” suggesting this and similar crass language has “nothing to do with … political discussions or a contribution to a discussion.” The notion that prosecutors should use the power of the state to shape the civility of political discourse should alarm anyone concerned about the state of expression in Germany and online.
Last week, Vice President JD Vance gave a much-discussed speech about “shared values” at the Munich Security Conference. In it, Vance took European leadership to task over censorship of conservative and religious speech, particularly in the UK. “Free speech, I fear, is in retreat,” Vance said.
The speech prompted pushback from European officials who objected to Vance’s diagnosis. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds, for example, said in response to Vance’s discussion of religious speech, “let’s be clear, we don’t have blasphemy laws in the UK.”
That isn’t so clear at all.
In just the past few months alone, the UK managed to have multiple blasphemy controversies. (Not to mention the UK’s many other recent free speech woes covered in FIRE’s Free Speech Dispatch, which are too numerous to discuss in full here.)
In November, the Advertising Standards Authority banned comedian Fern Brady from using an advertisement for her stand-up tour that depicted Brady as the Virgin Mary because it could cause “serious offence” to Christians. Then Member of Parliament Tahir Ali called on Prime Minister Keir Starmer to create “measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions” — also known as a blasphemy law.
And early this month, Greater Manchester Police arrested a man “on suspicion of a racially aggravated public order offence” for publicly burning a Quran. An assistant chief constable said police “made a swift arrest at the time and recognise the right people have for freedom of expression, but when this crosses into intimidation to cause harm or distress we will always look to take action when it is reported to us.”
Harm? Distress? These concepts are vast enough to fit the entirety of Big Ben. It is, as writer Kenan Malik puts it, “a form of blasphemy restriction but in secular garb.”
Labour Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner is also establishing a council to create an official government definition of Islamophobia. Depending on the council’s ultimate definition, and whether and how it is used by government agencies to respond to Islamophobia, it could implicate UK citizens’ ability to speak freely about important religious issues. (As FIRE has written repeatedly in the context of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism in the U.S., codification of these definitions into official policy can risk punishment or chilling of protected speech about political and religious matters.)
Outside of the UK, Europe’s restrictions on blasphemy are growing — and show no signs of stopping. Indeed, the Manchester man arrested for burning a Quran did so in response to the Jan. 29 assassination in Sweden of Iraqi refugee Salwan Momika, known for his well-publicized and controversial public Quran burnings. Just after Momika’s killing, a Swedish court found Salwan Najem, another Iraqi refugee who burned Qurans with Momika, guilty of incitement against an ethnic group. Momika faced similar charges, which were only dropped upon his death.
The United Nations Human Rights Council encourages these kinds of prosecutions, passing a 2023 resolution advising countries to “address, prevent and prosecute acts and advocacy of religious hatred.” Denmark did so, enacting a law criminalizing desecration of holy texts later that year.
Free speech is under threat in Europe, whether it’s online speech, blasphemy, or public protests. But it simply isn’t possible to square Vance’s criticism of European censorship with the recent actions of the administration in which he serves.
In his speech, Vance said “there is a new sheriff in town” and “under Donald Trump’s leadership, we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer them in the public square.” Vance also objected to “shutting down media.”
Has Vance checked in on what the sheriff is doing?
The president is directly targeting people for their speech, which frustrates the United States’ ability to credibly — and rightfully — advocate for free speech on the world stage. Take, for example, the White House’s decision last week to indefinitely bar the Associated Press from spaces including the Oval Office and Air Force One over its failure to adopt the government-preferred term “Gulf of America.” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that the White House was punishing what it deems misinformation, saying that “if we feel that there are lies being pushed by outlets in this room, we are going to hold those lies accountable.” In his speech, Vance criticized the Biden administration for “threaten[ing] and bull[ying]” private companies into censoring “so-called misinformation.”
Vance, however, is aware of the AP decision — and supports it. In response to journalist Mehdi Hasan’s post asking Vance if he’d seen the ban, he wrote yesterday afternoon: “Yes dummy. I think there’s a difference between not giving a reporter a seat in the WH press briefing room and jailing people for dissenting views. The latter is a threat to free speech, the former is not. Hope that helps!”
That’s rationalizing censorship.
He’s right that banning a journalist from press events isn’t the same as imprisoning them. Obviously some punishments are worse than others, but any punishment based on a journalist’s viewpoint is a free speech violation. As my colleague Aaron Terr explained last week, explicitly barring a news outlet on the basis of viewpoint — and its failure to adopt the state’s preferred terminology — is a serious threat to free speech, one Americans should oppose regardless of who is in the Oval Office.
Vance also said in Munich, “Speaking up and expressing opinions isn’t election interference.” He’s right. There is perhaps no one who needs to hear that message more than President Donald Trump, who praised Vance’s speech but is nevertheless suing Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer for her polling in the 2024 election — calling it “election interference.” (FIRE represents Selzer.)
A polling miss isn’t ‘consumer fraud’ or ‘election interference’ — it’s just a prediction and is protected by the First Amendment.
Another member of the Trump administration, Elon Musk, separately called this weekend for journalists at 60 Minutes to receive “a long prison sentence” for “deliberate deception to interfere with the last election,” referring to the journalists’ editing of an interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, not the segment on Germany’s online speech policing. Instead, hours later, he shared a clip of that segment with the caption, “Thank the Lord that America has freedom of speech!”
Elected officials should press their colleagues around the world to stand by the values of free expression. Vance’s articulation of those rights is necessary. But being effective requires credibility. That’s why FIRE believes our commitment to nonpartisanship, and our dedication to defending the right to speak regardless of preference or popularity, is our most important value.
If we undermine these freedoms at home, it’s harder to advocate them abroad to an already skeptical body politic.
The University of California Student Association’s request to block Department of Government Efficiency staffers from accessing student data at the Department of Education was denied Monday by a federal district judge.
The lawsuit, filed earlier this month, accused the department of illegally sharing confidential student data, arguing it violated the 1974 Privacy Act and confidentiality provisions of the Internal Revenue Code by giving DOGE access to records that contain tax information.
But Judge Randolph D. Moss of the District Court for the District of Columbia said there wasn’t an immediate threat, citing testimony from Adam Ramada, a DOGE staffer, who said that he and his team were only assisting the department with auditing for waste, fraud and abuse and that DOGE staffers understood the need to comply with data privacy laws.
“None of those initiatives should involve disclosure of any sensitive, personal information about any UCSA members,” Moss, an Obama appointee, wrote in his ruling. “The future injuries that UCSA’s members fear are, therefore, far from likely, let alone certain and great.”
Other higher education groups have raised concerns about DOGE’s access to education data, as the department’s databases house students’ personal information, including dates of birth, contact information and Social Security numbers. Some student advocates worry the data could be illegally shared with other agencies and used for immigration enforcement. Moss, however, called those harms “entirely conjectural,” saying Ramada had attested that the data was not being used in such ways.
Although the temporary restraining order was denied, the overall lawsuit will continue to work its way through the courts, and other legal challenges are emerging, The Washington Post reported.
A coalition of labor unions, including the American Federation of Teachers, is also suing to block DOGE’s access to the sensitive data. This latest lawsuit argues that agencies—including Education, Labor and Personnel Management—are improperly disclosing the records of millions of Americans in violation of the Privacy Act.
by Oudai Tazan
HE and inequality
The debate over whether higher education (HE) serves as a vehicle for social mobility that nurtures meritocracy or as a mechanism for social reproduction that reinforces and exacerbates inequalities in society has persisted for some time. The first perspective regards HE as a meritocratic, achievement-based system of stratification that selects and allocates individuals to societal roles based solely on their merit (in line with Émile Durkheim’s theories). Conversely, the second viewpoint sees education as a means that perpetuates social stratification and the cultural hegemony of the elite (reflecting Bourdieu’s perspective). This phenomenon occurs because students’ socio-economic backgrounds significantly influence their access to, decisions regarding, and success within HE.
To mitigate the impact of socioeconomic background on individuals’ educational opportunities, a movement of research and activism spans from South America to Africa and the Far East, advocating for free HE. To investigate this claim, I examined the situation in Syria, which has consistently asserted that it possesses a meritocratic HE system aimed at fostering societal equality through the provision of free public HE for all since the 1970s. I analysed the Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) database for 15 academic years, from 2001 to 2015. This dataset encompassed information on student access and graduation rates, categorised by type of education (public, private, higher institutes, and technical institutes), education level (undergraduate and postgraduate), gender (male and female), city, faculty, and specialisations. This analysis revealed various forms of inequality, specifically class-based inequalities, city-based inequalities, and gender-based inequalities.
Class-based inequalities
Although every citizen in Syria who finishes school can access free public HE, many students from high socio-economic backgrounds choose private HE to obtain better education or to pursue specific courses unavailable in the free public tracks. An analysis of the data reveals that the graduation rate in private institutions is almost double that of public institutions. One of the reasons behind this discrepancy in graduation rates between free public HE and private HE is the lack of funding for free public HE. Public university students suffer from a high student-teacher ratio (in some cases, 140 students per teacher) and poor infrastructure compared to the low student-teacher ratio (around 20 students per teacher) and better infrastructure in private universities. Furthermore, inadequate funding for free public universities has led qualified lecturers to prefer teaching at private institutions. This has widened the inequality between public and private HE institutions, as students with the financial capacity to access private HE learn from the most qualified teachers in Syria and receive the best knowledge available.
City-based inequalities
Although Syria has 14 cities, during the analysis period (2008–2013), it had only 5 free public universities located in 5 different cities. These universities have small branches or centres in all Syrian cities, offering limited course options. This design of the HE system has neglected some cities in Syria, leaving them without a proper educational framework. Having only one large university in select cities advantages students who reside in those areas, as they do not endure the added financial and mental pressures that students from other cities face to access education, such as paying for accommodation, living away from home, and travelling to see their families. Consequently, many students from cities without a university may encounter additional barriers to accessing HE, negatively affecting their academic, professional, and personal opportunities and choices. This could explain why cities like Damascus, Homs, and Latakia (where universities are located) are consistently overrepresented in HE, while students from Hama, al-Hasakeh, and al-Rakka (which lack universities) are consistently underrepresented.
In addition to the inequality of access to HE, city-based inequalities also encompass disparities in accessing the various specialisations and faculties offered by HE. This is further exacerbated by the sector’s design as not all faculties or specialisations are available at every university or branch. For instance, undergraduate media studies are solely taught in Damascus. Although Damascus constitutes only 8.75% of the Syrian population, students from Damascus account for 23.9% of the total number of media students. This representation is nearly three times their percentage of the overall population. This significant overrepresentation of students in certain courses occurs at the expense of those from other cities who are unable to access these courses and faculties because they are not available in their localities. This trend of unequal access to specialisations applies to numerous disciplines (eg Pharmacy, Dentistry, Medicine, Arts, IT, Mechanical Engineering, and Architecture). In each of these specialisations, students in the cities where the courses are taught have a distinct advantage over students from other cities in terms of access.
Gender-based inequalities
Officials in the Syrian HE sector have consistently celebrated the progress they have made, asserting that free HE has eliminated gender-based inequality by achieving near parity in enrolment rates. Although noticeable progress has indeed occurred, this claim does not hold up under scrutiny as it obscures other gender inequalities affecting certain groups within the population.
An analysis of the database reveals that, while there is no overarching gender gap in the sector, apart from in undergraduate public universities, disparities exist across all other educational tracks. Moreover, the higher the level of education (Master’s, PhD, etc), the more pronounced the gap becomes. The analysis further indicates that gender-based inequalities extend beyond females’ access to specific tracks and impact female academic representation within the sector. A 14-year average shows that female teachers constitute less than 25% of the total teaching staff in the sector. However, in lower-paid and less prestigious roles, such as technical and administrative positions, females occupy more jobs than their male counterparts (57%).
Conclusion
Simply offering free HE does not address the broader socio-economic inequalities that limit people’s opportunities in HE. Assuming that free HE will foster equality in society presumes that everyone has an equal capacity to access education. This paper demonstrates that HE, if not paired with an inclusive sectoral design, increased funding, and a comprehensive strategy to alleviate socioeconomic inequalities, will persist as a site of social reproduction that creates and exacerbates disparities within societies, even if provided at no cost.
Dr Oudai Tozan recently finished his PhD at the University of Cambridge, researching the potential role of exiled Syrian academics and researchers in rebuilding the higher education sector of Syria. This blog is based on an article published in Policy Reviews in Higher Education: Tozan, O. (2024) ‘Peeling the multiple layers of inequalities in free higher education policies’ (online 12 July 2024).
by CUPA-HR | February 18, 2025
On February 14, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) published a “Dear Colleague” letter “to clarify and reaffirm the nondiscrimination obligations of schools … that receive federal financial assistance” from the department. The letter specifically states that “Federal law … prohibits covered entities from using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life” (emphasis added).
The department warns that “institutions that fail to comply with federal civil rights law may, consistent with applicable law, face potential loss of federal funding,” and cites the government’s authority to do so under “Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and other relevant authorities.”
The letter reiterates institutions’ existing legal requirements under federal antidiscrimination laws and is intended to provide clarity to institutions of their nondiscrimination obligations. However, in addition to pointing to existing federal antidiscrimination laws, OCR expands upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA) — which banned the use of race-conscious admissions practices at institutions of higher education — to apply more broadly to programs and practices at institutions. Specifically, OCR states that the court’s decision and applicable federal law prohibits covered entities “from using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.”
OCR provides a few examples of practices that would be illegal under federal antidiscrimination law. One example, which was prohibited in the text of the SFFA decision, is using “students’ personal essays, writing samples, participation in extracurriculars, or other cues” as a means to determine a student’s race to grant preferences to that individual. Additionally, the letter states that using proxies like the one just described is illegal on the systematic level, stating that it is unlawful for institutions to eliminate standardized testing to “achieve a desired racial balance or to increase racial diversity.” In both examples, OCR appears focused on the motive for the action rather than the action itself. Thus, an institution can choose to use or not use standardized tests or focus on certain criteria in applications as long it is not doing so for an impermissible reason.
The letter also says that other programs violate antidiscrimination laws in less direct ways. Specifically, the letter states that “DEI programs … frequently preference certain racial groups and teach students that certain racial groups bear unique moral burdens that others do not” and that “such programs stigmatize students who belong to particular racial groups based on crude racial stereotypes.” They assert that these programs ultimately deny students the ability to fully participate in “the life of a school.”
The letter states that the Department of Education will begin to assess institutional compliance with antidiscrimination law and regulations no later than 14 days after of the date of publication of the letter. In the letter, OCR advises schools to:
As noted above, the letter specifies using race in hiring, promotion and compensation decisions is prohibited under federal law, though the Department of Education does not provide examples of hiring and compensation practices that could be violations of such laws. While the primary federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment are Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and similar equal employment opportunity laws enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Title VI can apply to employment decisions. It is unclear how the department intends to enforce this letter with respect to hiring, promotion and compensation practices and whether the Department of Labor or the EEOC will provide further guidance. CUPA-HR intends to seek clarification from the Education Department and the other agencies.
CUPA-HR is assessing the impact that this enforcement letter will have on institutions and will keep members apprised of further developments related to the Trump administration’s DEI orders.
The UK’s 450-year-old Harrow boarding school has unveiled plans for its first international school in the Middle East, opening a campus on Saadiyat Island, Abu Dhabi.
“The opening of Harrow International School in the UAE is a testament to the strong educational ties between the UK and the UAE and our shared aspiration for academic excellence,” said Edward Hobart, British Ambassador to the UAE.
The flagship school will be operated by UAE education provider, Taaleem, which last year acquired the rights to operate Harrow’s international schools across the Gulf Cooperation Council countries.
The launch of Harrow’s first international school in the region marks Taaleem’s strategic expansion into the “super-premium” education sector, said the organisation’s chairman Khalid Al Tayer.
Boarding at Harrow’s UK school costs upwards of £20,000 per term, though tuition fees have not been released for the new Abu Dhabi location.
The opening of Harrow International School in the UAE is a testament to the strong educational ties between the UK and the UAE
Edward Hobart, British Ambassador
One of the region’s largest K-12 providers with over 30 schools across the UAE, Taaleem will independently own and operate the running of the school.
The Abu Dhabi location will initially cater to students from early years to year six, with gradual expansion through the higher years and a total capacity of 1,800 students.
“Class sizes will be optimised to ensure personalised attention, with a focus on academic rigour and holistic development,” the school group stated.
It is expected to soon announce an additional Harrow school in Dubai, subject to government approval.
Harrow school said that the “landmark agreement” would bring Harrow’s “rich heritage and values-driven education to the UAE capital”.
“Rooted in tradition yet designed for the future, Harrow Abu Dhabi will offer an exceptional learning environment that nurtures character, leadership, and a global outlook,” it added.
