Blog

  • a leading force in dental education and clinical innovation in Europe

    a leading force in dental education and clinical innovation in Europe

    European University Cyprus (EUC) has rapidly established itself as a regional leader in dental and health sciences education, combining academic excellence, cutting-edge facilities and international recognition. With top global rankings and a curriculum aligned with European and North American standards, EUC offers one of the most competitive and accessible dentistry programmes in Europe, attracting students from across the continent and beyond.

    A fully accredited Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) program

    The School of Dentistry at EUC offers a comprehensive five-year Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) program taught in English and designed to meet the highest European and North American standards. The curriculum integrates basic biomedical sciences with extensive clinical practice, ensuring that graduates acquire both theoretical depth and hands-on competencies essential for professional success.

    Accredited and aligned with the Association for Dental Education in Europe (ADEE) and included in Annex V of the European Commission Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications, the BDS degree is automatically recognised across all 32 EU and EFTA countries. This global recognition not only enables graduates to practice across Europe and beyond but also provides broad career and specialisation opportunities.

    Cutting-edge facilities and early clinical exposure

    A hallmark of the EUC Dentistry program is its early and continuous exposure to clinical training, beginning in the first year of study. Students learn in state-of-the-art facilities, including:

    • Digital dentistry and planning labs
    • Haptic simulation labs
    • Dental radiology suites
    • Anatomy and pre-clinical labs
    • Fully operational EUC dental clinic on campus

    Through technology-enhanced learning, students gain a deep understanding of oral health sciences while developing clinical precision, manual dexterity and effective patient management skills. The integration of simulation-based learning with supervised clinical practice ensures that graduates are fully prepared to perform dental procedures confidently in professional settings.

    The EUC dental clinic: the heart of clinical training

    At the core of EUC’s Dentistry program lies its on-campus dental clinic, a fully operational, state-of-the-art facility serving both educational and community roles. The primary mission of the clinic is to train students under the close supervision of experienced dentists, specialists, and university professors.

    Students progress from simulation labs to real patient care, gaining essential experience in diagnosis, treatment planning and a wide range of clinical dental procedures

    Here, students progress from simulation labs to real patient care, gaining essential experience in diagnosis, treatment planning and a wide range of clinical dental procedures. The clinic’s dual mission – education and service – ensures that patients receive high-quality oral healthcare while students develop key clinical competencies, professionalism and communication skills.

    This model exemplifies EUC’s philosophy of preparing dental professionals who are not only clinically proficient but also ethically grounded and socially responsible.

    A holistic and accessible admissions process

    Unlike dental schools that rely on standardised entrance exams such as the IMAT or UCAT, European University Cyprus follows a school-based admissions approach, focusing primarily on academic performance. Applicants may also be invited to participate in a personal interview, allowing the admissions team to assess motivation and communication skills.

    This holistic and inclusive process opens doors to qualified candidates from diverse educational backgrounds around the world who share a passion for dental science and patient care.

    Strong global recognition and rankings

    EUC’s excellence in medical and dental education has been recognised by leading global ranking organisations:

    • According to the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings by Subject 2025, EUC is ranked among the top 501–600 universities globally for Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences.
    • EUC is also ranked among the top 801-1,000 universities worldwide overall in the THE World University Rankings 2026.
    • QS Stars University Ratings 2024 awarded five stars overall, with top scores in teaching, employability, global engagement, online learning, diversity, equity & inclusion and the MD Medicine degree.

    These distinctions underscore EUC’s commitment to academic excellence, innovation and employability, positioning it among Europe’s most dynamic universities in Dental and Health Sciences.

    Career prospects and global mobility

    Graduates of the EUC BDS program enjoy diverse career opportunities in both the private and public sectors. Many establish their own dental practices or work in hospitals and community clinics across Europe, while others pursue specialisation in oral surgery, restorative dentistry, orthodontics, prosthodontics or paediatric dentistry.

    Thanks to the program’s European accreditation and international partnerships, EUC graduates enjoy seamless professional mobility across Europe and beyond. They are fully equipped to continue postgraduate studies or advanced specialisation without recognition barriers.

    International collaboration and mobility

    EUC maintains strong international collaborations that expand students’ academic and professional horizons. The School of Dentistry has established a student and faculty exchange program with the Maurice H. Kornberg School of Dentistry at Temple University in Philadelphia, USA.

    Through this partnership, students gain global exposure, research experience and access to postgraduate pathways, enriching their clinical expertise and enhancing career prospects within international healthcare systems.

    A global community of learners

    With more than 12,600 students representing over 80 nationalities, European University Cyprus fosters a vibrant, multicultural learning environment. Its English-taught programs in Dentistry, Medicine and Veterinary Medicine attract aspiring healthcare professionals from the UK, France, Germany, Greece, Scandinavia, Canada and more. 

    This diversity promotes cross-cultural understanding and collaboration, preparing students to practise in a wide range of clinical and cultural contexts with professionalism, empathy and global awareness.

    A new standard in dental education

    By combining rigorous academics, clinical excellence and global recognition, European University Cyprus has become a benchmark for dental education in Europe.

    With its ADEE-approved curriculum, high global rankings and on-campus dental clinic, EUC produces graduates who are not only clinically skilled but also globally mobile and career-ready.

    Whether establishing private practices, joining international hospital networks or pursuing advanced specialisation, EUC graduates are shaping the future of dentistry—equipped  with the confidence, compassion and adaptability to excel anywhere in the world.

    Source link

  • ED Releases Rule on Loan Limits for Public Comment

    ED Releases Rule on Loan Limits for Public Comment

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | FabrikaCr and ivanastar/iStock/Getty Images

    The Department of Education has taken its penultimate step in finalizing a new rule that will put a limit on how much graduate students can borrow from the government to fund their education. The plan has seen significant public pushback in recent months, and now concerned constituents will get the chance to have their say.

    A committee of higher ed experts cautiously signed off on the department’s plans in November. On Thursday, the department’s more thorough formal proposal was published to the Federal Register for comment. (What was published closely mirrors the regulatory text committee members agreed to but adds further explanations.)

    Members of the public now have until March 2 to submit their comments. And after that, the only step left is for department officials to review and respond to the comments before they finalize the rule. The policy is supposed to take effect July 1.

    “For years, American families have rightfully been concerned about the escalating cost of higher education, the long-term—and often negative—effects of student loan debt, and how their postsecondary education translates into real-world jobs and higher wages,” Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said in a news release. “[The regulation] offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to lower tuition costs and improve the student loan system to better support borrowers.”

    The regulations, written in response to the higher ed section of Congress’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, end Grad PLUS loans and limit Parent PLUS loans, which allowed postbaccalaureate students and the parents of undergrads to borrow up to the full cost of attendance. They also eliminate multiple loan-repayment options for borrowers.

    But the most contentious aspect of the regulation is the new limit on loans for students in graduate and professional programs, which could force universities to rethink their approach to graduate education and lead students to rely more on private loans. Congress capped federal loans for students in programs that qualify as professional at up to $50,000 per year and $200,000 total. Graduate students in nonprofessional programs will only be able to borrow up to $20,500 per year, to a total of $100,000. But it was up to the department and the rule-making committee to decide which degree programs fell into which category.

    In the end, the department decided to automatically designate 11 programs as professional. That list mostly mirrors an existing statutory definition and attached list of examples, except for the addition of clinical psychology. The negotiating committee unanimously agreed to this plan, though some members said they only did so to protect other compromises in the proposal.

    Committee members and other advocates have argued that omitting other degrees needed for high-demand health-care roles from the professional category could lead to critical provider shortages.

    Various trade groups and professional associations—particularly the American Nurses Association and the American Association of Colleges of Nursing—have spread the word about the changes in recent months. They wanted to see the master’s and doctoral degrees needed to be a nurse practitioner or anesthetist included and pushed back on the proposal in statements, social media campaigns, petitions and letters to Congress.

    In the wake of pushback from associations, some individuals took to social media to voice their opposition to the rule. But much of that online commentary focused on the general connotation of being considered professional rather than the technicality of the term. They often cast the Trump administration’s move as a form of disrespect or a threat to licensure rather than a matter of loan access. As a result, the Trump administration put out a public statement to “set the record straight” and explain that the term “professional student” is only used to distinguish programs that have access to the higher amount of federal loans.

    In a summary of the regulation, the department once again sought to make clear what it meant by “professional.”

    “The designation, or lack thereof, of a program as ‘professional’ does not reflect a value judgment by the Department regarding whether a borrower graduating from the program is considered a ‘professional,’” the summary reads.

    And the fight over which programs are considered professional likely won’t end with this rule. Democrats in the House have already proposed legislation to change the law, and a bipartisan group of lawmakers from both chambers has urged ED to rethink the loan-cap proposal—or at least add nursing to the list of professional programs.

    “According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, 57 percent of Medicare beneficiaries received a primary care service from an NP or physician associate, and 66 percent of rural Medicare patients received a primary care service from an NP or PA,” the letter signed by over 140 representatives said. “At a time when our nation is facing a health-care shortage, especially in primary care, now is not the time to cut off the student pipeline to these programs.”

    Source link

  • Walberg Questions Evanston Mayor Over Northwestern Protests

    Walberg Questions Evanston Mayor Over Northwestern Protests

    eyfoto/iStock/Getty Images

    Rep. Tim Walberg, chair of the House Education and Workforce Committee, wants to have a briefing with the mayor of Evanston, Ill., regarding his decision not to help dismantle a pro-Palestinian encampment at Northwestern University in April 2024.

    Walberg, a Republican, requested the briefing in a Jan. 28 letter to Mayor Daniel Biss, which included 13 pages of communications among then–Northwestern president Michael Schill and university trustees as well as between Schill and Biss.

    At multiple points, Schill discusses his intention to arrest protesters but adds that there aren’t enough campus police officers to do so. Later, Schill says that a trustee, Michael Sacks, believed the mayor wouldn’t provide additional police support and would “tell folks to shore up his progressive credentials.” In a record of a different conversation, Sacks wrote, “I know Biss well. If the wind blows in the wrong way he will throw you under the bus. No hesitation.” 

    Schill previously told the House committee that Biss declined to provide Evanston police officers to clear the encampments despite a mutual aid agreement between the city and Northwestern.

    “He said, ‘You know, you can me sue me if you want,’” Schill said, according to a transcript released by the House committee.

    Walberg accused Biss, a Democrat who is running for Congress, of failing to protect Jewish students at Northwestern. The requested briefing will “aid the Committee in considering whether potential legislative changes, including legislation to specifically address antisemitic discrimination, are needed,” according to the letter.

    Biss defended his decision not to intervene at a press conference Thursday, according to The Daily Northwestern, and said it was not politically motivated. He did, however, call Walberg’s letter “a dishonest political attack.”

    “But we are here today because that attack is an effort to go at the right to peacefully protest. This is an effort to use the very real danger of antisemitism to advance a political agenda,” Biss said, as reported by the student newspaper. “I will say that, personally, as a Jewish person, as a grandson of Holocaust survivors, I find it deeply, deeply offensive.”

    Source link

  • Abortion Rights Advocate Talk Canceled After TPUSA Pressure

    Abortion Rights Advocate Talk Canceled After TPUSA Pressure

    Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center canceled a talk by a retired doctor who advocates for a woman’s right to receive a third-trimester abortion, the conservative Texas Scorecard website reported.

    Shelley Sella, whose website describes her as “the first woman to openly practice third-trimester abortion care in the U.S.,” was set to speak at the institution last Monday.

    The Health Sciences Center didn’t return Inside Higher Ed’s requests for comment Thursday on who within the institution decided to nix the speech, but the Health Sciences Center sent a statement to the Scorecard saying the center “evaluated the request and determined that it is not in the best interest of the university to host this event on campus.”

    Preston Parsons, president of the wider Texas Tech chapter of Turning Point USA and a Texas Tech University freshman, told Inside Higher Ed that his group, alongside “extremely pro-life” advocates in Lubbock, urged leaders of the university system—including system chancellor Brandon Creighton—to stop the speech. Before becoming chancellor in September, Creighton was a Republican state senator who successfully pushed sweeping statewide higher ed overhauls, and in 2017 he sponsored a bill “designed to prevent doctors from encouraging abortions,” according to The Texas Tribune.

    Parsons said, “This wasn’t a suppression of free speech.” Texas has a near-total ban on abortion, and Lubbock, where the Health Sciences Center is headquartered, has its own restrictions.

    “She would be speaking on government property, supporting an illegal activity,” Parsons said. He said Sella is welcome to speak “anywhere that isn’t a government-funded building.”

    Charlie Kirk—the founder of TPUSA, a conservative, campus-focused national group—was shot to death in September at Utah Valley University. Since his death, conservatives have held him up as a hero of free speech and civil discourse. Parsons said Kirk “would have been absolutely in support of our movement here,” saying Kirk advocated in Lubbock for its local-level abortion restrictions.

    But PEN America, a free speech advocacy group, denounced the cancellation. In a news release, Amy Reid, director of the organization’s Freedom to Learn program, called it “yet another example of the dangerous pattern of censorship spreading across Texas universities.”

    “Universities, especially major public research institutions, must remain open to diverse and even controversial perspectives if they are to continue to be sites of open inquiry and critical thinking that serve the public good,” Reid said. “This is especially crucial when the topic relates to potentially life-saving medical care. Leaning on the excuse of Texas law to restrict the ideas Texas Tech students can access is alarming for the state of free expression and public higher education.”

    Source link

  • Averett Sells Athletic Facilities

    Averett Sells Athletic Facilities

    Seeking financial stability, Averett University has sold its North Campus athletic facilities in an $18 million deal that will allow it to lease back the nearby 70-acre site, Cardinal News reported.

    The property is located about a 10-minute drive from Averett’s main campus in Virginia.

    The site was purchased by local entities: the Danville Regional Foundation and the Danville-Pittsylvania Regional Industrial Facility Authority, which each own 50 percent of the property, according to Averett’s announcement. Averett will pay annual fees to lease the site and will have the opportunity to buy the campus and facilities back at the original purchase price. 

    The deal will free up much-needed cash for the embattled university, which has struggled with a shortfall attributed to financial mismanagement that was discovered in July 2024. Officials have blamed the shortfall on a former employee who made unauthorized withdrawals from the endowment. While administrators have said there was no evidence of embezzlement or theft, they filed a lawsuit last April alleging the former chief financial officer and an investment firm colluded to hide budget deficits and drained the endowment of almost $20 million.

    Fallout from the financial shortfall prompted Averett to enact pay cuts shortly after it was discovered and subsequently axe jobs and programs as officials tried to plug budget holes.

    Averett president Thomas H. Powell described the sale as a win for all parties involved.

    “This partnership is crucial for the long-term stability of Averett University. As the city’s only four-year college, Averett is richly embedded in the fabric of the region and is a key economic force in Southside Virginia,” Powell said in a news release. “With this partnership, Averett will now be able to continue to grow and evolve into a university that better serves the community. Averett is becoming a new, more efficient and focused university that has always changed with the times and will provide wide-ranging benefits and advantages to the Dan River Region.”

    Averett competes at the NCAA Division III level.

    Source link

  • DeVry Embeds AI Literacy in All Courses

    DeVry Embeds AI Literacy in All Courses

    As artificial intelligence continues to redefine how we learn and work, DeVry University will embed AI literacy and skill building into every course by the end of the year.

    The effort expands on the automation and machine-learning curriculum DeVry launched in 2020, adding new AI-focused courses and credentials and embedding AI learning assistants in every class. It’s all part of the institution’s push to give every student the technical proficiency and applied fluency needed to succeed in an AI-augmented workforce.

    Elise Awwad, president and chief executive officer of DeVry University, said AI literacy is an important skill set for students to have across disciplines and industries as the workplace rapidly evolves.

    “What I’ve realized from talking to employers and watching workforce trends is AI skills are going to be a baseline and a necessity, and perhaps may even be a basic requirement for job descriptions,” Awwad said. “So we’ve got to take ownership of that as educators, and we’ve got to get our students prepared for what’s happening.”

    This comes as DeVry’s annual report on upskilling and reskilling, which draws on a survey of more than 1,500 workers and over 500 employers, found that “while workers highly value AI skills, they lack clarity on how to use them effectively.” The survey also found that, as AI transforms the workplace, 78 percent of employers and 63 percent of workers say durable skills like critical thinking, communication and adaptability are emerging as the true drivers of job security and career advancement.

    “Everyone’s using [AI] in some way, shape or form,” Awwad said. “Our goal is to embed that into the curriculum in ways where they’re using it differently in each course so [students] can understand that you have to implement critical thinking as well.”

    The strategy: Awwad said DeVry faculty are participating in a proprietary AI training program, “created by faculty for faculty,” to ensure they can effectively support students’ development of AI fluency.

    “Faculty are very much involved because they’re going to be at the center of teaching,” Awwad said. “It’s a standard program that we’ve embedded across all faculty—both full-time and part-time—to make sure they’re supporting AI fluency development through coursework, discussions, projects and learning experiences.”

    DeVry also plans to expand its applied AI coursework, specializations and certificates in business, and technology programs for both undergraduate and graduate students.

    “Employers want human-centric skills alongside technical skills … AI fluency is all about that,” Awwad said. “It’s not just about how to prompt something, it’s about applying those durable skills as well.”

    Awwad noted that AI learning assistants will be embedded in every course, providing real-time conversational support whenever students need it. She added that the assistants currently handle more than 90 percent of routine student questions—such as how to submit assignments or check grades—reducing friction and allowing faculty to focus on higher-value instruction and mentorship.

    In addition, Awwad said the university uses advisers as well as AI tools to support students. Among students who received targeted outreach and tutoring, 80 percent saw improved assignment grades, and 96 percent either graduated or persisted in their studies.

    “This commitment for us is about expanding access for every student to develop the technical proficiency and fluency needed in this now AI-augmented workforce,” Awwad said. “I don’t want our learners graduating without this skill set, because they would be at a severe disadvantage.”

    The response: Awwad said other institutions shouldn’t shy away from implementing AI across their campuses.

    “There’s been so much noise out there of folks scared of bringing AI into the classroom, and we certainly don’t want any academic integrity issues, but shying away from it is not realistic,” Awwad said. “Learners are going to use it, so how are they using it? Are they applying critical thinking? Are they applying the creativity needed alongside it?”

    She added that responsibly embracing AI now gives educators the opportunity to guide students in developing the skills and judgment they’ll need.

    “Don’t take your eye off the ball, because we owe it to society to train [students] on what’s going to be necessary in the future,” Awwad said.

    Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.

    Source link

  • “Digital Twins” and the Prescience of Cheesy Science Fiction

    “Digital Twins” and the Prescience of Cheesy Science Fiction

    This week, a colleague received a spam email from an AI company—I won’t advertise it—that opened as follows:

    “[Company name] is working with a number of Universities to create digital AI twins of professors that enhance asynchronous learning through always-available, personalized support.

    “We’re seeking technical feedback from professionals in your field to help us refine the product.”

    I don’t know if it was a prank; I hope it was, but even if it was, it’s plausible. It seems like the logical endpoint of AI and bots: Create AI versions of people and you don’t need as many people! Heck, after a while, the twins could replace the originals. The financial argument makes itself, at least in the short term, at least as long as you’ve never heard of the labor theory of value or have any concept of aggregate demand.

    But I also recognized it as the plot of the 1981 movie Looker, with Albert Finney and Susan Dey, written and directed by Michael Crichton.

    To be clear, Looker is not a very good movie. I remember watching it on a local UHF station on a Sunday afternoon a few years after it came out. Other than the plot, which somehow stuck with me, the most memorable part of it was the musical score.

    The plot revolves around studios (I think) that had been trying to optimize the beauty of actresses in commercials and movies through plastic surgery. At some point, the studios figured out that they can instead create digital twins of the actresses and optimize those, thereby saving money and trouble. Of course, as long as the actual actresses were still running around, there was a risk that they’d do things to diminish the appeal of the digital twins. Accordingly, the baddies closed the loop by systematically murdering the actresses after they’ve been copied, thereby ensuring total control over their images. The rest of the movie became a murder mystery, with plastic surgeon Albert Finney piecing the conspiracy together and trying to nab the baddies.

    For all of its flaws, Looker at least portrayed the manufacturers of digital twins as the bad guys. The sexism of the premise (and the camerawork) wasn’t exactly subtle, but there was a discernible (if flawed) strain of humanism in there. We were meant to assume that humans are more valuable than their digital twins.

    I’d like to hold on to that, at least.

    When I reflect on classes that I took in college and grad school, part of what I remember is the professors themselves. They were full, present humans, with the quirks, strengths and flaws implied by that. Some were funny and some weren’t; some were likable and some couldn’t be bothered with that. They had styles and perspectives, and each was singular in some way.

    The same can’t be said of, say, the bots I encounter on websites when I’m looking for customer service. Aside from their chronic inability to understand what I’m asking, which I assume will get less bad as the technology improves, they’re interchangeable. I forget them as soon as I close the browser in frustration.

    Part of the reason that MOOCs didn’t bring the revolution some expected is that education is largely relational. Even when the lecturer on screen is uncommonly eloquent, the relational element is missing. Parasocial relationships aren’t the same as human ones.

    Worse, I could foresee digital twins creating workload expectations that effectively rule out actual people. The work would become entirely transactional and impersonal. Faculty would be reduced to the equivalent of the old Scantron machines. Students wouldn’t see their humanity, and lessons wouldn’t stick. We could optimize ourselves into complete system failure.

    Albert Finney’s character wasn’t admirable, but he got a basic point right. In this, as in so many things, cheesy ’80s movies will show us the way.

    Source link

  • HBCU Experts Look to Solve Leadership Churn

    HBCU Experts Look to Solve Leadership Churn

    Earlier this month, Morris Brown College’s Board of Trustees abruptly laid off the historically Black college’s president, Kevin James, after seven years at the helm. James took to social media and decried the board’s actions, noting that the college regained accreditation during his tenure and the institution couldn’t afford instability with an upcoming meeting with the accreditor.

    A week later, the board announced his reinstatement, even as allegations against James surfaced in local media. Channel 2 Action News reported that it obtained multiple employee complaints against James, including claims of harassment and retaliatory behavior. An alumni group has since called for his re-firing.

    “After careful review, the Board determined that Dr. James’ separation from the College did not fully comply with the procedural and contractual requirements outlined in his employment agreement,” a statement from the board read. The board also acknowledged worries about James, noting that “retaliation against individuals who raise concerns in good faith is not acceptable.”

    The board promised to ensure “appropriate processes” for expressing concerns and “take additional steps to review governance practices and institutional processes, with the goal of restoring and strengthening trust, transparency and accountability across the Morris Brown community.”

    While a unique and still-unfolding situation, Morris Brown’s whiplash moment of leadership instability quickly sparked a larger conversation about HBCU leadership churn and governance. A flurry of op-eds and articles came out, debating the causes of HBCU presidents’ often-short tenures. Some placed the blame on fractious boards, presidents or both. Others suggested institutions need more clearly delineated governance roles and bylaws.

    Before the allegations against James came out, Erin Lynch, president of the education nonprofit QEM Network, described him as “a charismatic leader with strategic vision” whom the board “unexpectedly dismissed at a turning point of stability for an institution that has been without it” in an op-ed for EduLedger on board–president tensions at HBCUs.

    “Dear Boards, it’s y’all,” Lynch wrote. “We know, board inconsistency impacts our institutional reputation, [and] it steers would-be effective leaders from schools with the most need.”

    In recent years, multiple HBCU presidents left after brief stints. Ben Vinson III, Howard University’s 18th president, stepped down in August after just two years in the role. A former president of Spelman College, Helene Gayle, also spent just over two years at the helm before the board announced a leave of absence followed by the news she wouldn’t return. Including acting presidents, Jackson State University had four presidents in five years. The Mississippi university has had an interim president since its last leader, Marcus Thompson, suddenly resigned last May after less than a year and a half on the job.

    Leadership churn and governance woes are hardly unique to HBCUs. Inside Higher Ed covers board and leadership drama in just about every higher ed sector, and presidents’ term lengths over all have been trending downward. But HBCU presidents do tend to have shorter terms than their peers at predominantly white institutions. The United Negro College Fund recently released a new report on HBCU leadership—unrelated to the goings-on at Morris Brown—which found that HBCU presidents spend, on average, 4.22 years in their roles. (UNCF’s member institutions, 37 private HBCUs, had an even shorter average at three years.) In contrast, a 2023 report by the American Council on Education found that college presidents over all spend 5.9 years in their roles on average.

    Aja Johnson, the author of the report and senior program manager for executive leadership at UNCF’s Institute for Capacity Building, said it’s critical to not just diagnose the problem but also identify proactive solutions because of the toll leadership turnover can take on HBCUs and their students.

    “If you have constant turnover, it’s really hard for an institution to keep having transformation, to keep up with the strategic plan,” Johnson said. “It’s not just about institutional stability. It’s about the lives that the institution touches. It’s about student morale, faculty morale, the community that our HBCUs serve.”

    Felecia Commodore, an associate professor of education policy, organization and leadership at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who studies HBCU governance, agreed that the stakes are high.

    “It’s so important for us to get this right in the HBCU sector, because these institutions are so important to the lifeblood of higher education access in this country,” she said.

    Assessing the Problem

    Experts pointed to a range of causes for HBCU leadership churn.

    Walter Kimbrough, UNCF’s executive vice president of research and member engagement, said the president’s role is hard at any type of institution. But at HBCUs, incoming presidents are sometimes ill prepared for the challenges of running colleges low on resources, as many HBCUs are, he said. He believes first-time presidents in particular often “underestimate” the strains.

    “HBCUs are underresourced institutions serving underresourced people,” Kimbrough said, “so the level of complexity of the job is much more.”

    He emphasized that roughly two-thirds of HBCU students are eligible for Pell Grants, the federal financial aid program for low-income students, enhancing their risk of stopping out if they or their families experience any kind of financial hit.

    Commodore stressed that HBCU boards and leaders are also under extra pressure because they see themselves as not just representing and serving their campuses but their wider Black communities as an outgrowth of their historic missions. That additional sense of responsibility—and competing visions for how to fulfill communal needs—can compound tensions, she said. She believes other colleges founded to serve particular cultures or identities, like religious colleges, women’s colleges and other types of minority-serving institutions, face similar struggles.

    “When we do consider how decisions are made, why decisions are made, the processes, the approaches, there has to be a conversation about cultural influence” and “the history of the institution,” Commodore said. “We haven’t provided that nuance in our evaluation of governance practices at HBCUs as much as I think will prove helpful.”

    She added that, like other colleges and universities, HBCU board members don’t always come into their roles with experience in higher ed. Some come from business backgrounds while others come from church backgrounds, depending on the culture of the institution, she said.

    That can lead to “diverse understandings of the mission of the school” among board members or disagreements over who should be nominated to the board, outside of public institutions, where board members are appointed by state lawmakers. Also, sometimes board members need help “understanding higher ed governance and how it might be different from your corporation or your church or your civic organization.”

    Different personalities and “emotions are always going to be in the room, because we’re dealing with humans, not robots,” Commodore said. “But we can put processes in place that help us get past that.”

    Finding Solutions

    Johnson, the author of the UNCF report, said it’s time for HBCU experts and leaders to talk solutions.

    Her team noticed “so many reports and articles and analyses coming out that just talked about the problem of HBCU presidential tenure and the turnover,” she said, but those reports “never really double clicked further and talked about what are some sustainable practices we could partake in as a collective, from a systems level, to really make sure we don’t have to keep talking about the deficits?”

    Kimbrough believes reforms to the presidential selection process could help, including adding former presidents to board search committees. He also stressed that would-be presidents need to think about whether an institution is the right fit.

    “When I’m talking to prospective people who want to be presidents, I try to help them figure out, is this a good place for you to go … because if you go to an institution that has a history of instability, you have to ask different kinds of questions,” he said. He also finds that “people crash and burn if they don’t have higher ed experience, if they don’t have HBCU experience” prior to the role.

    Kimbrough, who served in multiple long-term HBCU presidential roles, believes the key to his success was maintaining consistent communication with his boards, building up trust and relationships “necessary to be successful.” A core question for him is “How do we get boards and presidents to work better together?”

    Commodore argued that boards often shoulder the blame for short presidential tenures, but generally, board members and presidents are both trying to act in a college’s best interests. She believes a lot of board–president tensions can be resolved by creating more robust governance documents to guide board processes—and making sure that board members know the bylaws. And board members and presidents need HBCU-specific training and professional development that accounts for the “unique history and culture that impacts how they make their decisions.”

    The goal should be “how do we see each other’s perspectives and buy into a joint vision and properly understand both our roles in achieving that joint vision for the institution?” she said. “Strengthening your governance structures and processes is investing in the long-term health and sustainability of your institution.”

    Johnson noted that the report found 11 presidents among UNCF members who, on average, served in their past roles for a decade. Of those presidents,10 had spent eight years on average in their current roles. To her, that signals there are boards and presidents successfully working together and achieving stability. That’s why a future UNCF report, planned for the spring, will interview and study boards and presidents that can serve as models.

    “There are models of success,” Johnson said. But “what does it look like? What characteristics do those boards have,” and how do they conduct presidential searches?

    “We want to look at those models,” she added, “and then see how we can bring that to the field, so it’s not just all these stories about the board and the president and the chaos that can ensue.”

    Source link

  • Demand for Jewish Employee Lists Unconstitutional (opinion)

    Demand for Jewish Employee Lists Unconstitutional (opinion)

    The Trump administration’s effort to use the problem of antisemitism on campuses as an excuse to bend universities to its will has been well documented. Reaching into its bag of tricks, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sent a subpoena to the University of Pennsylvania last July seeking the names of Jewish employees who’d filed complaints alleging antisemitism or discrimination based on religion or ancestry/national origin, as well as employees affiliated with its Jewish studies program, Jewish organizations or community events.

    When the university refused, the EEOC filed a lawsuit. It asked a federal judge to enforce its subpoena.

    It claimed to need the personal information about Penn’s Jewish employees to investigate claims that Penn engaged in “unlawful employment practices by allowing antisemitic harassment to persist and escalate throughout its Philadelphia campus and creating a hostile work environment for Jewish faculty and staff.”

    On Jan. 20, Penn responded by calling the EEOC’s demand “extraordinary and unconstitutional.” It was right to do so.

    As three University of Pennsylvania faculty members note in an op-ed in The Guardian, “If history teaches us anything, it is that making lists of Jews, no matter the ostensible purpose, is often a prelude to their and others’ persecution … Even if the EEOC is collecting Jewish community members’ personal data in a good-faith effort to ensure safety, lists of Jews can later be leaked, or deployed to other, more sinister ends.”

    Such concerns seem particularly warranted at a time of rising levels of antisemitism and violent hate crimes against Jewish Americans. One recent survey found that “one-third (33 percent) of American Jews say they have been the personal target of antisemitism—in person or virtually—at least once over the last year.” Moreover, “Nearly six in 10 (56 percent) American Jews say they altered their behavior out of fear of antisemitism” in 2024.

    In its suit, the EEOC said it is investigating “a pattern of antisemitic behavior that has been publicly displayed throughout Respondent’s campus.” It claimed that the list of Jewish employees would enable it to reach out to them: “Throughout its investigation, the EEOC has endeavored to locate employees exposed to this harassment and to identify other harassing events not noted by Respondent in its communications, but Respondent has refused to furnish this information, thereby hampering the EEOC’s investigation.”

    But what the EEOC is offering, many Jewish employees at Penn do not want.

    As the three Penn faculty members pointed out in their Guardian op-ed, “Jewish and non-Jewish community members at Penn and beyond have united to support the university’s resistance to compiling and releasing data about members of campus Jewish organizations, the Jewish studies department, and individuals who participated in confidential listening sessions and surveys about antisemitism.”

    On Jan. 20, the Penn Faculty Alliance to Combat Antisemitism, an association whose membership consists predominantly of Jewish faculty, asked permission to file a friend-of-the-court brief opposing the EEOC’s effort. Their brief, which they appended to their request, pointed out that “disclosure of sensitive information about the members of Jewish organizations … burdens Jewish association rights, unintentionally echoing troubling attempts in both distant and recent history to single out and identify Jews—a historically persecuted minority.”

    While expressing appreciation for the “EEOC’s concern regarding antisemitism on university campuses,” the alliance noted that by requesting lists of Jewish employees, the EEOC was “exacerbating the fear and uncertainty of Jewish faculty at Penn.” It called the EEOC’s subpoena “an ill-designed means for addressing workplace antisemitism, particularly because the agency could accomplish its goals in ways that would better protect the university’s Jewish faculty and staff, as well as their First Amendment rights.”

    “Ill designed” is one way to put it, but more important is the point that Jewish faculty at Penn make about the burden on association rights and their fear. As for many Americans, that fear is in part based on mistrust of the Trump administration.

    It is born of the administration’s growing record of disregard for constitutional rights and basic human dignity, and of its seeming willingness to do anything to accomplish its goals.

    Almost 70 years ago, the United States Supreme Court made clear that the government cannot demand and force an organization to turn over its membership list absent a “compelling justification” for doing so. In NAACP v. Alabama (1958), the court found that Alabama’s request for the NAACP’s membership list “trespasses upon fundamental freedoms,” ruling that “the effect of compelled disclosure of the membership lists will be to abridge the rights of its rank-and-file members to engage in lawful association in support of their common beliefs. “

    In that case, the court recognized what it called “the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations.”

    The University of Pennsylvania, in its response to the EEOC lawsuit, says that the EEOC “seeks to invade employees’ private affairs and compel the disclosure of their associations without articulating any compelling interest justifying that serious burden on First Amendment rights.” It went on to say that “if the information demanded were somehow made public, the individuals identified on the lists could face real risk of antisemitic harm.”

    And, similar to the case with the NAACP, Penn suggested that disclosure of membership in Jewish organizations “will have a substantial chilling effect on the association with Penn Jewish organizations and participation in Jewish life on campus.”

    The EEOC’s effort to access such information is clearly unconstitutional. It is now up to the courts to stop that effort.

    Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College.

    Source link

  • How Many More Americans Need to Die? A Prediction.

    How Many More Americans Need to Die? A Prediction.

    In a press conference following the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old Veterans Affairs ICU nurse, Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey presented a reasonably provocative question that I have posed numerous times at various junctures over my 50-year lifespan as a Black man and career as a social scientist: “How many more Americans need to die?”

    I remember asking this same question when police officers shot and killed Breonna Taylor, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Sonya Massey and so many other unarmed Black people. I wondered the same thing when George Zimmerman was acquitted in the killing of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old Black boy. Minnesota governor Tim Walz declared in a press conference this week that Pretti’s shooting is an “inflection point” for our nation.

    As protests erupted around the world in summer 2020, many people thought that Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin’s murder of George Floyd also was an inflection point in long-standing demands for police accountability and reform. To date, Congress still has not passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which former California congresswoman Karen Bass introduced in 2021.

    During the COVID-19 pandemic, I remember watching the daily death toll trackers. I kept asking myself and others, “How many more Americans need to die?” Meanwhile, the U.S. president was proposing unscientific remedies. “So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light,” Donald Trump said in an April 2020 White House briefing. “I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?”

    As it turns out, ultraviolet light cleansings and bleach-infused cocktails did not reduce infections and deaths in the U.S. In fact, according to data from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Coronavirus Resource Center, more than 1.1 million people across our nation died from COVID-related illnesses, the highest of any country in the world. Brazil was a distant second with 699,276 fatalities. Did that many Americans have to die?

    I often teach, write and speak about racialized health disparities. Like COVID, most other diseases disproportionately kill Black Americans. As I regularly review statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other federal data sources, I repeatedly ask how many more of my people need to die before elected officials, taxpayer-supported public health agencies, doctors and health-care professionals, philanthropic foundations, and other entities aggressively dismantle the deeply researched systemic forces that cyclically place Black people at highest risk of preventable deaths.

    The maternal mortality crisis is one example that I frequently highlight. For years, CDC data have shown that Black women die in childbirth at exponentially higher rates than do white women. Specifically, the death rate is consistently more than three times higher for Black women. In 2023, the federal agency reported that in comparison to the previous year, death rates worsened for Black expectant mothers, while they improved for white women.

    Here is my prediction: Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions more Americans will senselessly die during this era of underappreciation for scientific evidence and facts, race-neutral policymaking, politicized or nonexistent investigations, and insufficient efforts to hold elected officials accountable for governmental negligence and fatal acts of violence.

    Last year, the Trump administration canceled an unprecedented number of research grants spanning a range of topics. They also stopped investing in long-standing federally funded data-collection activities and programs that focused on diversity, equity and inclusion. Many federal agency websites were scrubbed of charts, tables and statistics that showed racial disparities between Americans on health outcomes and other metrics. Inevitably, cuts to scientific inquiry into the causes and cures of racial inequities in cancer diagnoses will exacerbate gaps in who lives and who dies from cancers. The same is most certainly true of other diseases.

    Discarding decades of evidence from vaccine researchers will increase the spread of deadly diseases. Refusing to take climate science seriously will result in more severe climate disasters that kill people in the U.S. and across the planet. Federal cuts to HIV research and prevention will likely reverse decades of progress—more people will die from AIDS-related illnesses. Dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development will surely affect lifesaving care delivered around the world. All these executive actions, policy choices and funding reductions occurred during the first year of Trump’s second presidency.

    Nonpartisan pursuits of scientific knowledge in university labs and other trustworthy spaces like the CDC are irrefutably important—but so too are rigorous, credible investigations into catastrophes that result in mortalities. Within hours of Pretti’s and Renee Good’s killings in Minneapolis, Trump, Vice President JD Vance, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and other federal officials blamed the slain Americans for their fatalities. Their abrupt conclusions were not based on investigations. It is plausible that the lack of such inquiries will empower immigration agents and other law enforcement officers to unnecessarily kill more people. Knowing that the White House will defend their actions, no matter what, will compel more, not fewer of them to engage in acts of violence that result in fatalities.

    Uncontaminated facts about mortality are essential. Without them, more people will die and there will be less accountability for preventable losses of life. Good and Pretti did not have to die. The unarmed Black people whom police officers have killed did not have to die. Likewise, neither the more than 1.1 million Americans with COVID infections nor the countless people of color whom other racialized health inequities killed had to die. Tragically, there will be numerous others.

    Shaun Harper is University Professor and Provost Professor of Education, Public Policy and Business at the University of Southern California, where he holds the Clifford and Betty Allen Chair in Urban Leadership. His most recent book is titled Let’s Talk About DEI: Productive Disagreements About America’s Most Polarizing Topics.

    Source link