Blog

  • EEOC and DOJ Issue Technical Assistance Documents on Unlawful DEI-Related Discrimination

    EEOC and DOJ Issue Technical Assistance Documents on Unlawful DEI-Related Discrimination

    by CUPA-HR | March 20, 2025

    On March 19, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) released two technical assistance documents intended to educate “the public about unlawful discrimination related to ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) in the workplace.” The two documents aim to inform the public about how civil rights rules and laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to employment policies, programs and practices, including those labeled or framed as “DEI.”

    Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on protected characteristics, including race, color, religion, sex or national origin. As the agencies note in both documents, DEI is a broad term that is not defined under statute. The technical assistance explains that DEI practices may be unlawful if they involve an employer or other covered entity taking an employment action motivated in whole or in part by an employee’s race, sex, or other protected characteristic. The agencies emphasize that Title VII’s protections apply equally to all racial, ethnic, and national origin groups, as well as both sexes, and that unlawful discrimination may exist no matter which employees are harmed.

    Technical Assistance Document #1: The EEOC describes what DEI-related discrimination looks like.

    The first document, “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work,” explains how DEI-related practices may manifest as discrimination under Title VII.

    • Title VII bars disparate treatment: Any employment action motivated in whole or in part by race, sex, or another protected characteristic that is taken in the context of the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment may be unlawful.*
    • Title VII prohibits limiting, segregating, and classifying: Any action taken that limits, segregates, or classifies employees based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics in a manner affecting their status or depriving them of employment opportunities may be unlawful. Examples of these practices include the establishment of workplace groups (employee resource groups or employee affinity groups) that limit membership to a protected group or groups, as well as the separation of employees into groups based on a protected characteristic when administering trainings or other privileges of employment. The document makes clear that the latter may still violate Title VII even if the separate groups receive the same training or programming content.
    • Title VII prohibits workplace harassment: Workplace harassment is illegal when it results in an adverse change to a term, condition, or privilege of employment, or it is so frequent or severe to reasonably be considered intimidating, hostile, or abusive. The document explains that DEI training may give rise to a hostile work environment claim and that harassment may occur when an employee is subject to unwelcome remarks or conduct based on protected characteristics.
    • Title VII prohibits employer retaliation: The agencies explain that reasonable opposition to a DEI training may constitute protected activity if the employee provides a fact-specific basis for their belief that the training violated Title VII, and that an employer may not retaliate if an employee participates in an EEOC investigation or files an EEOC charge.

    The document reaffirms that Title VII protects employees, potential and actual applicants, interns, and training program participants. It directs individuals who suspect to have experienced DEI-related discrimination to contact the EEOC “promptly” as claimants have 180 to 300 days to file a claim depending on whether a state or local agency enforces a law that prohibits employment discrimination on the same basis.

    Technical Assistance Document #2: The EEOC answers additional questions about DEI-related discrimination in the workplace.

    The second technical assistance document, titled “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination At Work,” expands upon the information provided in the technical assistance document discussed above and answers a number of additional questions on how Title VII intersects with DEI-related practices in the workplace.

    Notably, the document addresses questions surrounding employers’ DEI-related considerations of race, sex, and other protected characteristics when the protected characteristic wasn’t the “sole or deciding factor” for the employers’ action. The document states that “race or sex (or any other protected characteristic under Title VII) does not have to be the exclusive (sole) reason for an employment action or the ‘but-for’ (deciding) factor for the action” for there to be unlawful discrimination. Additionally, the agencies explain that workers only need to show “some injury” or “some harm” affecting their terms, conditions or privileges of employment to allege a colorable claim of discrimination under Title VII.

    The document also makes clear that an employer may not justify an employment action simply on the basis that they have a business necessity or interest in “diversity” as Title VII prohibits employers from using business necessity as a defense against intentional discrimination claims. Likewise, the agencies explain that “client or customer preference is not a defense to race or color discrimination” and that “basing employment decisions on the racial preferences of clients, customers, or coworkers constitutes intentional race discrimination.”

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for updates related to Title VII enforcement from the EEOC.

    *The terms and conditions of employment include: hiring; firing; promotion; demotion; compensation; fringe benefits; exclusion from training; exclusion from mentoring or sponsorship programs; exclusion from fellowships; selection for interviews (including placement on candidate slates).



    Source link

  • A Legacy That Will Not Be Erased

    A Legacy That Will Not Be Erased

    Dr. Mary Dana HintonMarch 12th would have been my mother’s 99th birthday. It surprises me every day that she’s not here to celebrate it. For her entire life, she was a vibrant testament to the value and the necessity of education for women.

    My mother believed in the promise that with an education, you could not only help yourself but also have an obligation to help those around you. She believed that all that stood between a woman and anything she wanted to achieve in this world was an education.

    As someone who was forbidden from getting an education, it became her life’s work to learn as much as she could on her own and to remind others – especially women – of the great privilege of an education.

    When I think of those lessons from my mother, I invariably think of her knees. My mother worked as a domestic for much of her life. For my entire childhood, I remember she would come home with her knees swollen to the size of grapefruits. Throughout her life, for her work and for her family, she cleaned floors on her hands and knees because that’s how you did that job with excellence. To my mother, your value was not determined by what job you did, but by the quality with which you completed the job.

    She expected the same level of excellence from me in school and would expect the same from me in my work today.  

    When I’m wearied by the work of being a college president, when I’m exhausted by the demands of this moment, when I’m tired of trying to think of another way to move our mission forward, I think of my mother’s knees. Those knees made sure I could get an education. Those knees that for 94 years held up a woman who had a complicated relationship with the United States given that as much of her life was spent in a segregated Jim Crow society as not. But those knees never dampened her belief in the promise of education, which was also a belief in the promise of democracy.

    As such, my mother would be irate that, among those on a long list, the word “women” is one that federal agencies are now discouraged from using or being asked to eliminate from official language. That, with the reduction of support for education, would have felt like a violation to her. An erasure of our shared humanity. She might have said that these choices are beyond puzzling, and the irony would not have been lost on her that this request arrived during this annual month designated to celebrate women’s history. 

    As I celebrate my mother, I also want to take a moment and honor what is a result of her legacy. Her deep and abiding belief in education has now become my deep and abiding belief in education, and I am so very proud of what my institution is able to offer women, not only on behalf of my institution and myself but on behalf of the work and commitment of my mother.

    While we mark this year’s celebration of Women’s History Month in America, I want to honor my mother, Susie Ann Hinton, and all the women who believe in and deserve an excellent education. They and their legacies will not be erased.

    Dr. Mary Dana Hinton is president of Hollins University, chair of the Council of Independent Colleges of Virginia and chair of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities.

    Source link

  • FIRE and civil liberties groups challenge ‘unconstitutional retaliation’ against Mahmoud Khalil

    FIRE and civil liberties groups challenge ‘unconstitutional retaliation’ against Mahmoud Khalil

    FIRE along with the National Coalition Against Censorship, The Rutherford Institute, PEN America, and First Amendment Lawyers Association today filed a “friend of the court” brief arguing that the jailing of Mahmoud Khalil violates the First Amendment. What follows is the brief’s summary of argument.

    America’s founding principle, core to who and what we are as a Nation, is that liberty comes not from the benevolent hand of a king, but is an inherent right of every man, woman, and child. That includes “the opportunity for free political discussion” as “a basic tenet of our constitutional democracy.” (Cox v. Louisiana). And “a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” (Terminiello v. City of Chicago). For these reasons, along with all citizens, “freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.” (Bridges v. Wixon).

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio, however, is attempting to deport a permanent resident, Mahmoud Khalil, not because the government claims he committed a crime or other deportable offense, but for the seemingly sole reason that his expression stirred the Trump administration to anger. The Secretary claims he can deport Mr. Khalil under a Cold War–era statute giving the secretary of state the power to deport anyone he “personally determines” is contrary to America’s “foreign policy interest.” And he argues this power extends even to deporting permanent residents for protected speech. It does not.

    The First Amendment’s protection for free speech trumps a federal statute. (United States v. Robel). Accepting Secretary Rubio’s position would irreparably damage free expression in the United States, particularly on college campuses. Foreign students would (with good reason) fear criticizing the American government during classroom debates, in term papers, and on social media, lest they risk deportation. That result is utterly incompatible with the longstanding recognition that “[t]he essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident,” and that “students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding.” (Sweezy v. New Hampshire).

    Secretary Rubio claims (as do all censors) that this time is different, that the supposed repulsiveness of Mr. Khalil’s pro-Palestine (and, as Secretary Rubio alleges, pro-Hamas) views cannot be tolerated. But “if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive.” (Texas v. Johnson) (holding the First Amendment protects burning the American flag in protest); see also (Snyder v. Phelps) (holding the First Amendment protects displaying “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” posters outside a military funeral).

    Allowing the Secretary of State to deport any non-citizen whose views, in his subjective judgment, are against America’s foreign policy interests places free expression in mortal peril. China’s Constitution, for example, provides that “when exercising their freedoms and rights, citizens . . . shall not undermine the interests of the state.” As China’s experience shows, allowing the government to step in as censor when it believes speech threatens the government’s interests is a loophole with infinite diameter. It has no place in America’s tradition of individual liberty.

    The only court to address the deportation provision Secretary Rubio relies upon to deport Mr. Khalil reached a similar conclusion, holding the law unconstitutional. As that court explained, “If the Constitution was adopted to protect individuals against anything, it was the abuses made possible through just this type of unbounded executive authority.” (Massieu v. Reno).

    The “First Amendment does not speak equivocally. It prohibits any law ‘abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’ It must be taken as a command of the broadest scope that explicit language, read in the context of a liberty-loving society, will allow.” (Bridges v. California) (invalidating criminal convictions, including of a non-citizen, based on protected speech). Our “liberty-loving society” does not permit deportation as a punishment solely based on expression the government disfavors. The Court should grant Mr. Khalil’s motion.

    Source link

  • FIRE and coalition partners file brief rebuking the U.S. government for attempting to deport Mahmoud Khalil for his protected speech

    FIRE and coalition partners file brief rebuking the U.S. government for attempting to deport Mahmoud Khalil for his protected speech

    WASHINGTON, March 20, 2025 — The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a brief Thursday with a clear message: Jailing people for their political expression betrays America’s commitment to free speech.

    FIRE’s brief — joined by a coalition of civil liberties groups — explains the First Amendment violations stemming from the Trump administration’s unconstitutional detention of and attempts to deport Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, for his expression. After 12 days in detention, the government still has not charged Khalil with a crime. 

    The “friend of the court” brief from FIRE, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the Rutherford Institute, PEN America, and the First Amendment Lawyers Association argues the Trump administration’s attempt to deport Khalil constitutes textbook viewpoint discrimination and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

    “Khalil’s arrest, which President Donald Trump heralded as the ‘first of many to come,’ is an affront to the First Amendment and the cherished American principle that the government may not punish people based on their opinions,” said Conor Fitzpatrick, FIRE supervising senior attorney.

    In its attempt to deport Khalil, the government has thus far focused solely on Khalil’s protected speech rather than charging him with criminal behavior. An administration official told The Free Press that the “allegation here is not that he was breaking the law,” and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Khalil faces deportation because he was “siding with terrorists” and “distributed pro-Hamas propaganda flyers with the logo of Hamas.”

    The Supreme Court held in 1945 that non-citizens are entitled to full First Amendment protections. And those protections cover unpopular expression, especially when that expression is political speech. The Supreme Court held in its landmark Texas v. Johnson decision that “if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive.”

    The administration is relying on a rarely used Cold War-era statute that empowers the secretary of state to deport a lawfully present non-citizen if the secretary determines their “presence or activities” has a “potentially serious” effect on America’s foreign policy. The administration claims that authority extends even to deporting green card holders for protected speech.

    FIRE disagrees. The statute is unconstitutionally vague and gives the secretary of state unfettered discretion to deport lawful permanent residents without giving them notice of what conduct triggers expulsion. Not only does the First Amendment trump a Cold War-era statute, but the sweeping authority the administration claims it confers “places free expression in mortal peril,” as FIRE’s brief argues.

    The brief also explains that the contours of the United States’ foreign policy are ever-changing and provide no meaningful guidance as to what opinions lawful permanent residents may or may not voice. If lawfully present non-citizens can be deported simply for endangering American “foreign policy,” the only sure way to avoid deportation is to self-censor and not voice any opinions. 

    “No one in the United States of America should fear a midnight knock on their door because they voiced an opinion the government doesn’t like,” Fitzpatrick said. “Accepting Secretary Rubio’s position would irreparably damage free expression in the United States.”

    FIRE’s brief analogized the administration’s approach to Article 51 of the Chinese Constitution, which warns that exercising “freedom” must not conflict with the “interests” of the government. “Allowing the government to step in as a censor when it believes free speech threatens the government’s interests is a loophole with an infinite diameter,” Fitzpatrick said. “It has no place in America’s tradition of individual liberty.”

    If Khalil’s deportation proceeds, the chilling effect will be profound for other international students who are presently studying at American universities. 

    “Other foreign college students will have good reason to fear criticizing the American government during classroom debates, in term papers, and on social media,” FIRE attorney Colin McDonell said. “Holding students engaged in basic political expression to different standards based on their citizenship status is poisonous to free speech on campus.”

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

    CONTACT:
    Karl de Vries, Director of Media Relations, FIRE: 215.717.3473 x335; [email protected]

    Source link

  • Can fiction help us get to the truth about climate change?

    Can fiction help us get to the truth about climate change?

    Truth in fiction

    That’s where fiction can come in. But most climate fiction presents gloomy scenarios: think the waterless world of Arrakis in Frank Herbert’s “Dune” series or our earth after a virus wiped out most of human life in Margaret Atwood’s “Oryx and Crake” trilogy.

    In contrast, Baden’s story showed more positive solutions. Her own research found that 98% of her readers changed their attitudes. A month after reading the story 60% of readers actually adopted a green alternative.

    She’s set to release “Murder in the Climate Assembly“, a fictional story about the ramifications of a murder that takes place in a citizens’ assembly on climate.

    Some media organizations are now including climate change awareness initiatives that use fictional examples into their marketing campaigns.

    Baden worked with BAFTA, the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, to create social media content that provided solutions with a tinge of humour. For example, they contrasted the carbon footprint of two popular characters from books and movies: James Bond who drives a gas guzzling sports car and has a walk-in wardrobe versus Jack Reacher who traveled by bus and shopped second-hand.

    Making environmentalism fun

    Pilot testing showed interesting results: “If we just presented the negative one like James Bond, some people laughed and thought it was funny, but a few people thought they were being a bit preached at and switched off,” Baden said. “Whereas when you kind of had both together with a bit of humor, that seemed to hit the right spot.”

    Pike agreed: “Comedy too allows us to let our guard down. When we open our mouth to laugh, our mind is open to learn.”

    When Pike was in Chile working on the PhD that led to her book she found that she loved the animated series “The Simpsons“. In 2008, one of the three TV channels played Simpsons episodes endlessly, she said. Simpsons creator Matt Groening intended his show to make people aware of environmental challenges and complications in ways that start conversations, she said.

    Context makes a difference too. “I read ecoactivist discourse in South America and it seemed so darn white and privileged,” Pike said. “If you read “Burning Rage of a Dying Planet” in a comfortable U.S. suburb, it’s one thing. If you read the same book in Chile, it feels different, almost too precious, definitely not the tone I would take in talking about ecology in South American countries.”

    The Center for Health Communication at Harvard University says that showing, not telling induces stronger emotional responses as visual imagery and helps our brains understand abstract and complex associations like those between climate and health.

    Connecting emotion to change

    Telling stories through books, plays or social media also help to create emotion, and change beliefs and behaviours. They may also reduce feelings of anxiety and depression that surface when bombarded with alarmist news about the climate crisis. Focusing on solutions is more effective.

    Pike said the way to get through the barrage of media messages and talk about the climate crisis is with honesty, independence and humour. “Acknowledge the hypocrisy and move on toward solutions,” Pike said. “A solution offers me a choice, agency, a chance to put up a sail and navigate to a goal.”

    Pike taught a class called “Environmental Reporting for a Hopeful Planet” in the spring 2024 semester. One assignment was “Forest Friday”: students were asked to read, watch or listen to examples of environmental storytelling.

    One week, the students were assigned a video of Rebecca Solnit. She’s a writer, historian and activist who has been examining hope and the unpredictability of change for more than two decades. In 2023 she co-edited an anthology called “It’s Not Too Late”, a guide for finding hope even while climate change-induced disasters continue. This is what one student said after they watched that video:

    “I felt reassured by her calmness and her endless lists of knowledge of times and places in which meaningful change has occurred. I think she makes many great points about the way that just because ideas don’t always get the opportunity to fully take shape they are still impactful on society as a whole.”

    So, what’s the best way to write about the climate crisis?

    “Read environmental writing and write,” Pike said. “Be so deeply curious about how ecology works, how nature and culture interact, how businesses and institutions works and their role in the climate crisis.”

    Ways to write effectively

    Having a community of people who also write about and care about the environment can also help. But most importantly, Pike said: “Work to tell a story well.”

    This means reading the publications which interest you and seeing if your story would be a good fit. Try different mediums. Take Dr. Seuss’ “The Lorax”. It’s a children’s book written in 1971 about a character who speaks for the trees as a business tycoon destroys the environment. The story encourages activism and involvement in making the situation better. In it the Lorax tells us: “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

    More recently, there are films like “Flow“, which won an Academy Award for Best Animated Feature and was nominated for Best International Feature Film, and “The Wild Robot“, which was nominated for three Academy Awards including Best Animated Feature.

    In both, climate change is a world-building element; one showed a submerged Golden Gate Bridge, the other showed a flood of biblical proportions. But they’re both animated films, with cute animals coming together to save the world, reaching a younger audience who will grow up with climate change and its impacts.

    Creating a story that can make people think about our planet and how we can tackle climate change isn’t easy. Pike said it is worth persevering.

    “If you get tired, don’t give up,” Pike said. “Rest and get back to it when you can. We all plant seeds and it’s hard to say which ones will take.”

     

    Three questions to consider:

    1. What makes you switch off the news when a story about climate change comes on?
    2. What happens to our brain when we show, rather than tell, in our writing on climate change?
    3. What might you learn in a course like “Environmental Reporting for a Hopeful Planet?” 

     

    Source link

  • More than 200,000 former Walden University students owe more than $9 Billion

    More than 200,000 former Walden University students owe more than $9 Billion

    The Higher Education Inquirer has recently received a Freedom of Information (FOIA) response regarding student loan debt held by former Liberty University students.  The FOIA was 25-01941-F.  

    Source link

  • From Soviet Influence to Market Economy: Mongolia’s Higher Education Journey

    From Soviet Influence to Market Economy: Mongolia’s Higher Education Journey

    It’s been a while since we did an episode looking at the higher education system of a far-flung corner of the world. Recently I was perusing the pages of International Higher Education, a wonderful quarterly publication out of Boston College, and I saw a great little article about the challenges facing Mongolian higher education, and I knew this was something we had to cover on the podcast.

    Unless you spend a lot of time reading about the Chinggis Khan Empire, or in my case, watching the upper echelons of professional Sumo, my guess is you probably don’t think about Mongolia that often.

    As a state it’s only a little over a century old, a child of the disintegration of the Chinese empire, which found protection under the Soviet banner. Its fortunes, both as a country and as a higher education system, therefore, look a lot like those from the further flung stands of Central Asia — that is seriously under-resourced and heavily influenced by a Russian model, which splits teaching and research into two very different buckets.

    Today my guest is Dendev Badarch, a professor at the Mongolian University of Science and Technology in Ulan Bator, and one of the co-authors of that IHE article. He has an interesting take on the current situation in Mongolia and the likely keys to the system’s future success as the country moves towards upper-middle-income status and deals with the challenge of becoming a service economy.

    But enough for me. Let’s turn it over to Dendev. 

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.24 | From Soviet Influence to Market Economy: Mongolia’s Higher Education Journey 

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Let’s start with a brief history of Mongolian higher education. You’re from the oldest university in the country, and the National University of Mongolia is only about 80 years old, founded in 1942, if I’m not mistaken. My guess is that, at the start, the system would have been heavily dependent on the Soviet model.

    How did higher education develop during the socialist period up to the late 1980s? Beyond training government cadres, what industries was it designed to support, and how quickly did Mongolian become the primary language of instruction?

    Badarch Dendev (BD): First of all, thank you very much for inviting me to this podcast. Yes, you are correct—the Mongolian higher education system was heavily influenced by the Soviet system. The first university, the National University of Mongolia, was established in 1942, and its curriculum, structure, and administration closely followed the Soviet model.

    To meet the needs of Mongolia’s planned economy, several small, specialized schools were established from the 1950s to the 1960s, including institutions for medical training, agriculture, teacher education, and polytechnic studies. These schools played a significant role in supplying specialists with the skills necessary to support the Mongolian economy.

    In its early years, instruction at the university was conducted in Russian. However, as more Mongolian specialists graduated with higher education degrees, Mongolian gradually became the primary language of instruction. By the 1960s, many courses—particularly in the social sciences and humanities—were being taught in Mongolian.

    AU: By the 1970s, Mongolia had a system that was producing professionals, and instruction was primarily in the Mongolian language. Then, at the end of the 1980s, there was a shift to a market economy, which must have had a profound impact on higher education. What were the biggest changes that occurred in that first decade of a market economy?

    BD:  The Democratic Revolution of 1989–1990 marked a historic transition in our country. We moved from a socialist one-party system to a multi-party democracy and a free-market economy. This shift led to significant changes in higher education.

    In response to the pressure from the new democratic system, the government, in my opinion, took three key steps.

    The first was significant changes to public institutions, reclassifying old public institutes as universities and giving them more authority. Mongolia faced economic difficulties at the time. Under socialism, higher education was fully funded by the government—covering tuition, student stipends, faculty salaries, and more. But after the transition to democracy, we faced a very difficult situation.

    Second, under socialism, all higher education institutions were public. With the reforms, the government allowed the establishment of private universities and colleges, which significantly increased access to higher education.

    The third major step was the adoption of Mongolia’s first higher education law. These three key steps taken by the government shaped Mongolia’s higher education system as it exists today.

    AU: What’s the division now between public and private higher education? In countries like China and Russia, maybe three-quarters of students are still in public universities, but there’s still a significant private or non-state sector that educates about a quarter of the students. Is that the case in Mongolia as well? How big is the private sector?

    BD: You see, when the government made the decision to establish private institutions, there was a boom—a surge of small private colleges that had no infrastructure, no proper teaching facilities, and not enough qualified faculty. At one point, there were almost 200 private colleges.

    But as of last year, the 2022–2023 academic year, we have 69 higher education institutions—19 public and 50 private.

    However, in terms of student numbers, 60 percent of students are in public universities—because of reputation, infrastructure, and other factors. In total, Mongolia has about 145,000 students.

    AU: My understanding is that both public and private institutions rely heavily on tuition fees, and that tuition fees are quite high. Is that good for financial sustainability, or does it create risks for institutions?

    BD: Tuition fees are not high, but universities and higher education institutions depend almost entirely on tuition. About 90 percent of their income comes from tuition. There is no public funding—except for some government subsidies for students.

    AU: So, in that situation, it’s not really a question of whether a high dependence on tuition is bad. If there’s no public subsidy, it’s simply the only way to operate, right?

    BD: Yes. Exactly.

    AU: Badarch, another critical function of universities is research. How does Mongolia compare internationally in terms of scientific research? What are the successes, and what are the biggest barriers to developing a stronger research culture?

    BD: You know, from the beginning, Mongolian universities were primarily training institutions, not research institutions. But in the last 10 years, there has been significant investment in higher education, especially in public universities. For the first time, university professors have started publishing internationally. In fact, the five largest public universities now produce 65% of all internationally published research papers. However, in Mongolia, higher education and research have been separate from the start, following the Russian model.

    AU: You would have an Academy of Sciences?

    BD: Yes, research was traditionally conducted by the Academy of Sciences. But universities have received significant investment in research infrastructure. For example, the National University of Mongolia now has more than 40 research laboratories in fields like biology, environmental sciences, and even nuclear physics. The Mongolian University of Science and Technology has supercomputer laboratories and modern mechanical engineering facilities. In addition, we now have many graduates returning from foreign universities to work in Mongolian universities, and they are contributing to research.

    But there are still major challenges. Universities do not receive sufficient research funding because most of the research budget goes to the Academy of Sciences. There is very little collaboration with industry and almost no funding from the private sector. There are also no endowment funds or other financial support systems for university research.

    Another critical issue is the weak graduate programs. Almost 99% of graduate students are part-time—there are no full-time graduate students. This severely limits research output. Without strong graduate programs, research activity remains low. This is one of the biggest challenges for Mongolian universities.

    AU: A couple of years ago, a set of laws were passed aimed at increasing university autonomy—governance, leadership selection, those kinds of things. Do universities now have real independence, or does political influence remain a challenge? And what did the laws do to promote political independence?

    BD: Over the last three years, there were extensive discussions about the concept and details of these new laws. In July 2023, Parliament adopted a set of education laws. For the first time, these laws covered all levels of education as a single system, creating better interconnection between different stages of education. That is a very good sign.

    Second, for the first time, the law explicitly recognized academic freedom as a key principle of higher education, which is another positive step.

    The third important issue relates to governance. According to the law, if implemented correctly, universities should have independent governing boards. Another key aspect is the diversification of funding for universities, as well as strengthening university research. The law also states that public universities should receive government subsidies to help cover maintenance costs.

    I think these are the positive aspects of the new law. However, in reality, the implementation of these important measures has not yet happened. Political interference still exists, particularly in the selection of university directors and key leadership appointments.

    AU: We’ve talked a lot about the challenges in Mongolian higher education. What do you see as the opportunities? Where do you think the greatest improvements could happen in the next few years?

    BD: Yes, there are definitely opportunities. First, universities are expanding their cooperation with international communities, and they are learning a lot from these collaborations. Also, as I mentioned earlier, we have a new wave of young specialists and graduates from world-leading universities. We need to hire them. If we bring in these young professionals, give them opportunities to conduct research, teach, and help reform higher education institutions, we will see positive changes soon.

    Second, there is a major opportunity in digital technologies. If we use them smartly and correctly—things like AI, online learning, and MOOCs—then Mongolian universities can take a big step forward.

    But in order to take advantage of these opportunities, we need to ensure that the new laws are properly implemented.

    AU: If we think even further ahead, maybe to 2050, what do you think the system will look like? Will Mongolia have caught up with countries like China, Korea, or Japan? Do you think the system will have developed to the point where it can be considered alongside those peers?

    BD: You may know that the government has adopted the “Vision 2050” long-term strategic development plan. According to this plan, by 2050, Mongolia should have one of the leading universities in the region.

    I see two possible scenarios for the development of higher education in Mongolia by 2050—one optimistic and one pessimistic.

    Starting with the optimistic scenario: If we can reduce government and political interference in university governance and give universities full autonomy, that would be a big step forward. The government should also increase its support for universities, establish strong links with industry, and adopt models like the triple helix approach. Additionally, partnerships with leading international universities would help improve graduate programs.

    If these changes happen, Mongolia could develop strong higher education institutions. But right now, many of the most talented secondary school students are not choosing local universities—they are looking abroad for their education.

    The pessimistic scenario is that if things continue as they are today, universities will still exist, but they will lack freedom and independence. The issues we are currently facing—political interference, funding limitations, and weak institutional autonomy—will persist. That would be very unfortunate. However, I hope that we will see changes in government policy and that Mongolia will implement best practices from other higher education systems around the world.

    AU: Thank you so much for joining us today.

    BD: Thank you.

    AU: And before we go, I’d like to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, as well as our listeners, viewers, and readers for tuning in. If you have any questions or comments about today’s podcast, please don’t hesitate to contact us at [email protected]. If you’re worried about missing an episode of The World of Higher Education, why not subscribe to our YouTube channel? Go there today—don’t delay—never miss an episode!

    Join us next week when our guest will be Steven Mintz, a professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin. We’ll be discussing his new book, The Learning-Centered University. Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    This episode is sponsored by Studiosity. Student success, at scale – with an evidence-based ROI of 4.4x return for universities and colleges. Because Studiosity is AI for Learning — not corrections – to develop critical thinking, agency, and retention — empowering educators with learning insight. For future-ready graduates — and for future-ready institutions. Learn more at studiosity.com.

    Source link

  • Judge blocks cuts to Education Department teacher training grants

    Judge blocks cuts to Education Department teacher training grants

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    The U.S. Department of Education cannot terminate three educator training grant programs, a federal judge ordered on Monday.

    Specifically, the Education Department is enjoined from ending any grants provided through the three congressionally appropriated programs — the Supporting Effective Educator Development Grant Program, the Teacher Quality Partnership Program, and the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program, according to the ruling from Judge Julie Rubin of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

    In addition to the injunction, the three plaintiffs — teacher preparation groups that sued the Education Department for making cuts to over 70 of these federal grant programs in February — must have their grant awards reinstated within five business days of the March 17 order.

    Rubin wrote that the cuts to the teacher training grant programs are “likely unlawful” under the Administrative Procedure Act.

    The plaintiffs in the case are the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, National Center for Teacher Residencies, and Maryland Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

    The order means that grantees affiliated with the plaintiff organizations can soon “draw down funds without any restrictions,” AACTE said in a Monday statement. 

    “We are thrilled that the court has ruled in favor of preserving funding for TQP, SEED, and TSL grants, which have a transformative impact on our nation’s education system,” said AACTE President and CEO Cheryl Holcomb-McCoy. 

    “I commend the unwavering dedication that led to this decision and remain hopeful that institutions, nonprofits, and partners across America can continue to strengthen our educator workforce, and address critical shortages while ensuring that every child in our nation has access to exceptional educators and a high-quality educational experience.”

    Last week, eight attorneys general had an initial victory in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts with a similar lawsuit over the Education Department’s cuts to millions of dollars in teacher training grants. That lawsuit only mentioned the SEED and TQP grants.

    When announcing the cuts on Feb. 17, the Education Department said the $600 million in withdrawn funds had been allocated to “divisive” teacher training grants. The department did not initially name the specific grants it slashed, but it later confirmed to K-12 Dive that the cuts included SEED and TQP.

    Source link

  • Charitable giving to colleges jumped 3% in FY 2024

    Charitable giving to colleges jumped 3% in FY 2024

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief: 

    • Donors gave $61.5 billion to U.S. colleges in the 2023-24 fiscal year, reflecting a 3% increase from the year before after accounting for inflation in the sector, according to an annual report from the Council for Advancement and Support of Education released Thursday. 
    • Foundations increased their giving the most, contributing $20.4 billion, a 10.1% year-over-year jump. Conversely, corporations pulled back their higher education donations to $7.6 billion overall, a 9.9% drop from the prior year. 
    • Charitable giving remains a stable source of income for the sector, according to the report, accounting for 10.2% of colleges’ educational and general expenditures in 2024. That’s roughly level with the rate seen a decade prior — 10.5%. 

    Dive Insight: 

    The findings, based on an annual survey of higher education institutions, suggest that charitable giving to higher education institutions did not slow in fiscal 2024. That’s despite sectorwide headwinds including painful cost increases, rising scrutiny from state and federal lawmakers, and questions about its value. 

    “At a time when higher education faces financial and political scrutiny, this sustained giving is a powerful vote of confidence,” Sue Cunningham, president and CEO of CASE, said in a statement. 

    Strong market conditions in fiscal 2024 likely helped boost charitable donations, as giving to colleges tends to rise when the economy does well, according to CASE’s report. In 2024, both the New York Stock Exchange and the U.S.’ gross domestic product saw increases.

    “Voluntary support of higher education institutions in the U.S. expanded at a level between the two, illustrating that the level of giving is based on both economic factors,” the report said. 

    Foundations weren’t alone in increasing their charitable giving to the higher education sector in fiscal 2024. 

    Alumni gave $12.9 billion, up 4.4% from the year before, while non-alumni donated $8.9 billion, a 1.7% increase. Donor-advised funds — many of which are funded by alumni, according to CASE — gave $6.5 billion in fiscal 2024, representing an 8.9% jump from the prior year. 

    Among donor-restricted gifts to colleges’ endowments, 48.3% were designated for student financial aid in fiscal 2024. Roughly a quarter, 23%, went toward academic divisions, while another 15.9% went to employee compensation. The remainder was spread among research, athletics and student life. 

    Groups also donate to colleges’ current operations. Among those contributions, 43.6% went toward research in fiscal 2024, 28.1% went toward academic divisions and 12.8% went toward athletics. Financial aid, employee compensation and student life received the rest. 

    The results also indicate the number and value of gifts of securities, such as stocks, are rising. In fiscal 2024, 240 surveyed colleges said they received $2.4 billion in securities spread across nearly 28,200 gifts. That’s compared to $1.7 billion across around 24,400 gifts the previous year. The report also noted that gifts of securities are “worth more in a more robust market.”

    Source link

  • Who Is Katrina Armstrong?

    Who Is Katrina Armstrong?

    Columbia University interim president Katrina Armstrong is no stranger to crisis.

    During her time in medical school and residency in Baltimore in the early 1990s, Armstrong treated patients with AIDS as the epidemic claimed tens of thousands of lives with no cure in sight.

    Then, on Armstrong’s first day as physician in chief and chair of the department of medicine at Harvard University’s Massachusetts General Hospital in 2013, terrorists set off bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring nearly 300 others. Staff at Mass General responded immediately, activating emergency protocols and mobilizing trauma teams and other resources to treat the victims.

    But in recent months, Armstrong has navigated a crisis that no medical training could prepare her for, one that threatens the financial health and public standing of Columbia.

    She was thrust into the spotlight eight months ago, elevated from CEO of Columbia’s Irving Medical Center to the Ivy League institution’s top job after then-president Minouche Shafik stepped down following a difficult year of protests and congressional scrutiny. Now, months after her ascent, the Trump administration has Columbia squarely in its crosshairs for, it claims, failing to address antisemitism in the wake of the pro-Palestinian protests that roiled the campus last spring and spread nationwide.

    Already Trump officials have stripped Columbia of $400 million in federal grants and leveled a series of sweeping and legally dubious demands to overhaul student disciplinary policies, reform admissions and clamp down on an academic department—moves experts have cast as an autocratic attack on higher education. They come even though the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has not yet completed a Title IV investigation into reports of antisemitism on campus.

    Columbia law professors and conservative legal scholars have questioned the legality of Trump’s actions. But whether they are lawful or not, Columbia is facing an unprecedented threat to its finances and autonomy with a first-time president at the helm.

    Soon enough, the university will find out if she’s up to the challenge.

    The Leader

    Originally from Alabama, Armstrong earned a bachelor of arts in architecture from Yale University in 1986 and added a medical degree from Johns Hopkins University in 1991. She joined the medical school faculty at the University of Pennsylvania in 1996, where she stayed until 2013, when she was hired as a professor at Harvard University and its affiliate, Massachusetts General Hospital.

    Over the course of her academic career, Armstrong has churned out more than 300 publications. Her body of work includes research on “cancer risk and prevention in Black and Latino patients; racial inequities in genetic testing and neonatal care; and the impact of segregation, discrimination, and patient distrust on the health of marginalized populations,” according to Columbia Magazine. Many of those topics have drawn scrutiny from the Trump administration in recent months, raising the question of whether such projects would receive federal funding now.

    (Columbia did not make Armstrong available for an interview.)

    To her supporters, Armstrong is a brilliant researcher with a celebrated career in medicine and academia, someone they describe as charismatic and magnetic with a strong moral compass.

    But to her detractors, Armstrong is someone who has capitulated to the Trump administration and failed to defend the institution from politically motivated and possibly unlawful broadsides.

    Roy Vagelos is firmly in the supporters’ camp.

    Now 95, Vagelos earned a medical degree from Columbia in 1954 and went on to a career in academia and medical science, serving as chief executive officer of the pharmaceutical giant Merck. In August, amid ongoing antiwar protests, Vagelos and his wife, Diana Vagelos (whom he met on campus in 1951), donated $400 million to Columbia’s medical school.

    That gift, he told Inside Higher Ed, reflects his confidence in Armstrong, whom he praised for having a nonstop work ethic and developing a clear vision for the medical school.

    “Katrina is different from other academic leaders in that she wants to impact society beyond just education,” Vagelos said. “She is a doctor, she wants to cure disease, she wants to improve lives throughout the world by improving health. I had a different kind of career, but our objectives are the same.”

    Claire Shipman, vice chair of the Columbia Board of Trustees, complimented Armstrong as an authentic and “exceptional leader” who “came in to help us heal and get our campus in order.” She added that Armstrong is cool under pressure despite the enormity of the current threats.

    “Columbia is the epicenter of the political struggle somehow, and she’s getting a crash course in politics,” Shipman said. “Maybe it’s because she’s a doctor, but she’s definitely used to working in crisis conditions, and she just gets into the zone and handles it.”

    (Shipman declined to discuss board deliberations on the Trump administration’s demand letter ahead of today’s deadline for a response.)

    Columbia students protest on campus, Nov. 14, 2023.

    Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis/Getty Images

    James McKiernan, who holds several roles at Columbia, including interim dean of the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, argued that Armstrong is making the most of a tough situation, balancing legal compliance with a continued commitment to student free speech.

    “I think she inherited a situation where the boundaries had not been established, particularly physical boundaries on time, manner, and place for demonstrations,” McKiernan said.

    While he noted Armstrong has been criticized for allowing federal agencies, including Immigration and Custom Enforcement, on campus, “she’s doing what is required by the law.”

    Colleagues from other phases of Armstrong’s career also spoke effusively about her.

    David Asch, a professor and senior vice president for strategic initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania who worked with Armstrong years ago, called her “completely electric in the classroom.” He added that he was unsurprised she ascended to the top job at Columbia.

    “She had ‘university president’ written all over her,” Asch said.

    Johns Hopkins Medicine International president Charles Wiener, who also worked with Armstrong in the 1990s, said she had a good personal touch with patients and their families and was motivated by a “relentless drive to take care of people.”

    Even critics looking for her to take a stronger stand against Trump had positive things to say about Armstrong.

    Michael Thaddeus, a math professor and vice president of the Columbia chapter of the American Association of University Professors, described her as the most open and accessible leader he’s seen in his 27 years at the university.

    “When I was in her office, I mentioned that AAUP was having a happy hour at a nearby bar that evening,” Thaddeus said. “She and her husband showed up at the happy hour and stayed for 90 minutes. That’s just something inconceivable that any previous president wouldn’t have dreamed of doing.”

    Still, he voiced concerns about her leadership, including that the campus remains closed to the public and that she has yet to clearly articulate a response to Trump. Thaddeus noted that the university has been in a “holding pattern” since the “turbulent reign” of Shafik, and that Armstrong has largely focused on calming campus tensions. But now that the federal government has brought the fight to Columbia, he wants to see her step it up.

    “She’s in a very difficult position now, and what she’s done in the last seven or eight months is not going to work anymore,” Thaddeus said. “She needs to commit to some course of action.”

    Others argue that Armstrong is in fact crumbling in the face of threats from the federal government.

    Last week AAUP president Todd Wolfson blasted Columbia in a statement that accused campus leaders of surrendering to authoritarianism and sacrificing students to appease Trump.

    “The subjugation of universities to state power is a hallmark of autocracy. Columbia University’s immediate submission and betrayal of the core mission of higher education reflects cowardice and capitulation to a government that seems intent on destroying US higher education,” Wolfson wrote.

    The Response

    The largest decision of Armstrong’s short tenure as president is looming.

    Columbia faces a deadline today to respond to a demand letter from the Trump administration, which called on leadership to make sweeping changes, including expelling or suspending student protesters, overhauling disciplinary procedures, banning masks on campus, and reforming admissions. Arguably the most onerous demand is placing the Middle East, South Asian and African Studies Department into “academic receivership” for a minimum of five years, though Trump officials did not specify what that should entail.

    A Wall Street Journal article published Wednesday indicated the university is likely to yield to Trump’s demands. Armstrong’s public statements have offered few clues as to what Columbia will do. But on March 13, Columbia punished student protesters who occupied Hamilton Hall last spring—months after Armstrong apologized for the “hurt” their arrests caused on campus. Sanctions included multiyear suspensions, expulsions and temporary degree revocations. Though the punishments were announced the same day the Trump administration sent the demand letter, Columbia officials said the decisions were the result of lengthy investigations.

    In a series of public statements, Armstrong has emphasized the importance of unity and standing up for Columbia’s values, a commitment to free speech, and her guiding principles.

    Experts have mixed views of Armstrong’s communiqués.

    Lisa Corrigan, a communications professor at the University of Arkansas and an expert on rhetoric and political communication, believes the president is scapegoating protesters and taking a tepid stance.

    After analyzing her statements, Corrigan told Inside Higher Ed by email that she thinks Armstrong is “trying to walk the line between the larger national higher ed community and the donors/Trump administration.” Her statements seem to accept “the administration’s rationale for financial sanctions,” Corrigan said, which “only paves the way for further funding and speech assaults at Columbia and elsewhere using the antisemitism canard. Given the speedy exit of her immediate predecessor, Minouche Shafik, after her catastrophic testimony in congressional hearings in April 2024 on antisemitism on Columbia’s campus, Armstrong’s remarks clearly paint her as more amenable to the administration’s increasing control over the future of the institution.”

    Minouche Shafik, a woman with light skin, dark hair and red-framed glasses, sits at a table in a congressional hearing room

    Former Columbia president Minouche Shafik testifies before Congress in April 2024. She resigned from the post last August.

    Drew Angerer/Getty Images

    Larry Ladd, a subject matter specialist at AGB Consulting, emphasized that Armstrong is navigating an unprecedented moment, treading carefully as she tries simultaneously to listen to the concerns of the campus community and to respond to threats from the federal government.

    He likened the situation at Columbia to the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and its neighbors.

    “The president of Columbia has the same challenge the president of Mexico or the prime minister of Canada has: how to create constructive conversation with the federal government. She is doing the best she can to engage in that conversation, because the government has power to help or harm the university, and she is trying to protect the university and its values,” Ladd said. “She has to be careful to defend its values without causing harm to the university.”

    Source link