Blog

  • How schools still abuse ‘institutional neutrality’ to silence speech

    How schools still abuse ‘institutional neutrality’ to silence speech

    Defending the rights of students and faculty to speak freely has been part and parcel of FIRE’s mission for 26 years. We’ve seen universities try all sorts of ways to restrict expression, from free speech zones and excessive security fees to extensive pre-approval requirements for events. But one technique is particularly disturbing — using ostensibly pro-free speech policies to chill student and faculty expression. 

    As my colleague Graham Piro recently wrote, colleges and universities regularly claim to embrace “institutional neutrality” — an institution’s commitment to refrain from speaking out on the issues of the day — only to silence speech in the principle’s name. Under a genuine policy of institutional neutrality, students and faculty are empowered to debate such issues, without feeling as if the school administration has declared the matter settled.

    As the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report famously warned, a university “cannot take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness. There is no mechanism by which it can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives.”

    Institutional neutrality must not be used to prevent student groups or the wider campus community from expressing their views.

    FIRE is quick to celebrate whenever a college or university adopts a policy substantially similar to the Kalven Report, which is the gold standard of institutional neutrality statements. Schools that make this commitment are rewarded in our College Free Speech Rankings and recognized on our Official Adoptions page. But as Graham explained, adopting the report doesn’t automatically translate to neutrality in practice. FIRE is concerned not only with colleges improperly applying institutional neutrality to infringe on free speech, but also with imperfect adoptions that leave wiggle room in the policy language for universities to apply standards unevenly.

    To the first concern, UT Austin used institutional neutrality to stop its Graduate Student Assembly from considering resolutions expressing opposition to a state law that ended university DEI programs.

    An administrator claimed the resolution constituted “political speech that is not permitted to be issued by a sponsored student organization in their official capacity.” But as FIRE and the ACLU of Texas explained in a letter to UT Austin, institutional neutrality must not be used to prevent student groups or the wider campus community from expressing their views. UT Austin didn’t stop in response to our letter, prompting FIRE and the ACLU of Texas to write another letter urging the university to apply its institutional neutrality rules to itself, not student speech.

    Unfortunately, UT Austin is not alone. At North Carolina State, Palestinian-American author and publisher Hannah Moushabeck was initially barred from reading her children’s book at an event in the name of institutional neutrality. North Carolina State Libraries had invited Moushabeck to participate in various campus events — including “storytime” sessions for local families and students. NC State, under the impression that its duty to neutrality “regarding matters of contemporary political debate or social action” extended to speakers coming to campus, blocked the reading. 

    UNC System Vice President for Communications Jane Stancill told Heterodox Academy’s Free the Inquiry blog that the decision at NC State was “to expand the scope of a proposed event to accommodate more voices,” and that “the author was welcomed to campus and read from her book, along with other authors in attendance.” She further clarified that “nothing in the UNC System’s neutrality policy should be interpreted as constraining individual faculty or visiting speakers.” 

    Indeed, institutional neutrality does not create an obligation for events to give equal time to every perspective on an issue — it merely requires that university leadership refrain from endorsing one perspective. FIRE is pleased to see that the UNC System clarified this point. But the example serves as a reminder for institutions to give clear guidance to those applying institutional neutrality on the ground, and to ensure neutrality is not construed to silence protected expression.

    Meanwhile, a University of Florida “Institutional Neutrality” policy threatens to put leaders’ thumbs on the scales of debate and chill faculty and student voices: 

    UF institutional and unit leadership teams may not make statements or proclamations regarding Social Issues or other issues not directly related to UF’s mission, governance, or operations . . . The authority to make any such statement or proclamation is limited to the President in consultation with the Board Chair. 

    This seems to imply that the president can make statements about issues not directly related to UF’s mission, governance, or operations. To be fair, a message from Interim President Donald Landry does seem to help. Writing to employees, he said the president should only speak out on issues tied to the university’s core mission. Great. But unless that language is actually written into the policy, it doesn’t solve the real problem. The policy still leaves people guessing about when leadership can speak out on issues of the day. 

    The policy also includes a footnote disclaiming that it does not prohibit incidental personal use of communication resources for statements on social issues. While this is an important clarification, UF’s email signature rules, mentioned in the policy, are confusing because they ban personal quotes, statements, and links to personal websites in university emails. UF should clarify that, even though there is an official email signature format, faculty and staff are free to include personal statements, quotes, or links in their emails, even if they touch on social issues.

    When universities attempt to avoid controversy by restricting discussion of social issues, they undermine academic freedom and interfere with meaningful debate.

    FIRE is also concerned that the policy treats “instructional activities” as “university business,” which must avoid all statements on social issues. Such an overly broad prohibition could discourage faculty from teaching controversial but important topics. Faculty should be free to teach their students as they see fit, provided the material is pedagogically relevant and follows the law and university policy. They should also have the academic freedom to make fleeting, non-disruptive personal remarks — even controversial ones — without fear of punishment.

    When universities attempt to avoid controversy by restricting discussion of social issues, they undermine academic freedom and interfere with meaningful debate. Narrowly tailored guidance, as outlined in the Kalven Report, offers a better path forward. By protecting open inquiry and expression, universities can avoid silencing speech while preserving their role as forums for intellectual discovery.

    Source link

  • 2025 sets new record for attempts to silence student speech, FIRE research finds

    2025 sets new record for attempts to silence student speech, FIRE research finds

    PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 16, 2025 — The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression reports a record number of campus incidents involving attempts to investigate, censor, or otherwise punish students for protected expression in 2025.

    FIRE has documented 273 efforts — so far — this year in which students and student groups were targeted for their constitutionally protected expression. This breaks the previous record of 252 set back in 2020, the first year of the Students Under Fire database, during the unrest prompted by Covid-19 lockdowns and the murder of George Floyd.

    “These findings paint a campus culture in which student expression is increasingly policed and controversial ideas are not tolerated,” said FIRE Senior Researcher Logan Dougherty. “College is supposed to be a place where ideas are freely shared, not where students should be concerned about whether their comments will be subject to university scrutiny.”

    Some especially grievous incidents include the arrest of Columbia University pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil; Indiana University’s censorship of its student newspaper (and firing of the director of student media) over an editorial dispute; the University of Alabama’s decision to shutter two student outlets because they supposedly ran afoul of U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s guidance about D.E.I. programs; and, for good measure, a student at Weber State University in Utah who was directed to censor a presentation — about censorship.

    FIRE’s Students Under Fire tracking relies on publicly available information to document various details about these controversies, including but not limited to the source calling for punishment, the speech topic of controversy, and the political direction of the attempt in relation to the targeted speech. Consistent with other FIRE research, the Students Under Fire database observed an uptick in attempts by the political right to silence speech in 2025.

    The database is unprecedented both in type and scale, offering the most detailed collection of campus controversies involving students’ protected speech to date.

    FIRE also noticed another troubling trend in 2025: A surge in attempts by government officials to influence how universities respond to student speech — especially following the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Some recent examples include:

    We also saw executive orders at the state and federal level used as justification to impose system-wide bans on student-organized drag shows, cancel student film festivals, and outright disband numerous student groups. 

    In all these cases, students were targeted or punished not because their speech was unlawful — but because it caused controversy.

    “Aside from the harm on the individual students involved in these incidents, such actions could have the effect of chilling speech across an entire campus — and across an entire generation,” Dougherty said. “What kind of lesson is that? That the safest move in college is to keep your head down and your mouth shut?”

    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.

    Karl de Vries, Director of Media Relations, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

     

    Source link

  • Are you aware of your level of climate ignorance?

    Are you aware of your level of climate ignorance?

    Do you know which country emits the most greenhouse gases per capita? If not, you aren’t alone.

    I’m a student at The Climate Academy, an international organization founded by philosopher and climate activist Matthew Pye who teaches students about climate change from a systems point of view.

    This year, we surveyed almost 500 people in Brussels, Varese and Milan to analyse the level of climate literacy among populations across Europe. Many people we surveyed pointed at large emitters such as the United States, China and India.

    Yes, these are big emitters in quantity, but when it comes to per capita emissions — the amount divided by the population of the country — the top three are smaller, wealthy countries: Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Belgium.

    These numbers can be explained by the extremely consumeristic, luxury lifestyle of the overwhelming majority of their citizens and the over-reliance on fossil fuels for generating energy. Yet, in our survey, 378 people out of 468 — 81% — named the United States, China or India.

    We must refocus the lens.

    What does this mean? That the media attention is on the wrong players. As stated by the World Economic Forum:

    “When India surpassed the European Union in total annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2019 becoming the third largest emitting country after China and the United States, that statistic only told part of the story. India’s population is nearly three times larger than that of the EU, so based on emissions per person, India ranks much lower among the world’s national emitters.”

    It is crucial to look at per capita emissions. That’s the conclusion of the Global Change Data Lab, a nonprofit organization that produces Our World in Data. It argues that annual national emissions do not take population size into account.

    “All else being equal, we might expect that a country with more people would have higher emissions,” it reported. “Emissions per person are often seen as a fairer way of comparing. Historically — and as is still true in low- and middle-income countries today — CO2 emissions and incomes have been tightly coupled. That means that low per capita emissions have been an indicator of low incomes and high poverty levels.”

    Europe often points at big emitters, but the comfortable lifestyles Europeans have due to their higher living standards aren’t sustainable.

    Who to blame for climate change?

    There’s a misconception that the more a country emits, the more responsible the country is for climate change.

    This is the result of intense lobbying and voluntary misdirection by the richest. The wealthiest individuals are undoubtedly responsible for a considerably higher share of global emissions. But we’re often told that countries like China and India are the most responsible, as they are some of the world’s biggest polluters, a fact which is widely recognized.

    Pye said it isn’t a surprise that the focus is on numbers at the macro level, as international organizations like the United Nations were created by the main global powers and they are still funded mainly by them.

    “Keeping the language and the numbers about the problem general and global masks the fact that the majority of our [per capita] emissions are still from these rich nations,” he said. “This lack of clarity about who is responsible is reflected right across global media coverage. It is not by chance that we don’t have a clear view of the vital statistics, it is by subtle and powerful design.”

    The UN is founded on the principle of human rights, he said.

    “Should it not think and act on climate change with everyone having an equal right to the air?” Pye said. “When you look at per capita and consumption emissions the whole landscape of responsibility is radically different.”

    Surveying people about greenhouse gases

    I conducted my part of the survey in a middle-class neighborhood of Brussels.

    When I asked a 20-year-old, “What would the consequences of a two degree increase in global temperature be?” I got this answer: “More meteorites.” When I put the same question to someone 50 years of age, the answer was, “It’s going to be cold.”

    A 75-year old told me: “I don’t believe in climate change. There were examples of extreme heat in the 17th century, it is natural. Climate change is a tool of the government to control us.”

    All of these are misconceptions about weather events, temperature patterns and the source and type of climate change we experience.

    Now, this survey included only a small sample of the population. But it already shows that the misconceptions in education about climate change are real and existent across every generation and in many ways. Many other surveys made by reputable organizations have supported this conclusion.

    What people don’t know

    A 2010 report by the Yale University Program on Climate Change Education found that 63% of Americans believed that global warming was happening, but many did not understand why. In this assessment, only 8% of Americans had knowledge equivalent to an A or B, 40% would receive a C or D, and 52% would get an F.

    A report by King’s College in London, based on a 2019 survey, found a similar level of ignorance.

    Misconceptions are still here, waiting to be tackled. It starts in schools, where new, fresh generations without bias or misconceptions are formed. It starts at home, where parents should adapt and teach their kids the basics. Proper educational programs should be set up by governments.

    This seems natural. But just a few months ago, in the United States, the Trump administration cut funding for schools that hold educational programs on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions reduction.

    Educational systems, too, spread misconceptions about climate change. Because we never stop learning, educational systems shouldn’t have such flaws and should provide accurate information.

    As we dive deeper into the climate crisis, proper knowledge and understanding will be key to systemic change and governmental response.

    Until information on climate change becomes a public good, we will continue to “debate what kind of swimming costume we will wear as the tsunami comes.” Those are the words of then-U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson before the 2008 financial crisis.

    Questions to consider:

    1. Why is it important to consider the size of a population when considering responsibility for climate change?

    2. What is meant by “climate ignorance”?

    3. How can you learn more about climate change?

     

    Source link

  • College Coach for Seniors: Expert Help for Your Final Year Application Push

    College Coach for Seniors: Expert Help for Your Final Year Application Push

    Senior year is not just another academic milestone. It is the moment when everything you have done so far must come together in a clear, credible way. Colleges are no longer evaluating potential alone—they are evaluating readiness, follow-through, and direction.

    At this point, small choices matter more than big promises. Admissions officers want to understand how you think, how you respond to pressure, and how you make decisions under time constraints. That is why senior-year applications are less about adding more and more and more about refining what already exists.

    For students in San Diego and across Southern California, this often means balancing demanding school schedules with extracurricular commitments, part-time work, family responsibilities, and competitive peer environments. The students who stand out are not the busiest—they are the most intentional.

    The goal now is clarity. A clear story. A clear plan. And a clear sense of who you are becoming as you step into college.

    Choosing colleges with strategy, not stress

    One of the fastest ways seniors lose confidence is by building a college list that creates pressure instead of momentum. A strong list should help you move forward, not leave you stuck second-guessing every decision.

    At this stage, your list should reflect three things:

    • Schools where your academic profile aligns realistically

    • Programs that make sense for your interests and strengths

    • Deadlines and requirements you can manage without rushing

    Southern California students often apply to a mix of UC, CSU, and private universities, each with very different expectations. Treating them all the same is a mistake. Each application type requires its own approach, timeline, and level of detail.

    Instead of asking, “Is this school impressive?” ask:

    • Can I clearly explain why this school is a good fit for me?

    • Do I have sufficient time to complete this application?

    • Would I be excited to attend if admitted?

    When your list is built around fit and feasibility, your writing improves, your stress drops, and your applications feel more confident.

    Making your activities work harder for you

    San Diego high school senior reviewing college application deadlines and essays at home.San Diego high school senior reviewing college application deadlines and essays at home.

    Many seniors underestimate the power of the activities section. This is where colleges learn how you spend your time when no one is grading you.

    You do not need to hold formal titles or run large organizations. What matters is how you show responsibility, initiative, and growth. Admissions readers are trained to look for substance, not labels.

    Strong activity descriptions focus on:

    Jobs, family responsibilities, long-term commitments, and community involvement are significant for students in diverse regions like San Diego. Supporting a family business, caring for siblings, or working long hours during the school year can demonstrate maturity and time management when clearly explained.

    Senior year involvement still counts. Colleges recognize that leadership may emerge late, especially when students assume larger roles as others graduate. What matters is honesty and impact, not length alone.

    Writing essays that sound like a real person

    The best essays do not sound impressive—they sound true. Admissions officers read thousands of polished essays every year. What catches their attention is a voice that feels genuine and self-aware.

    When deadlines are close, the most effective essays usually:

    • Focus on a specific moment instead of a broad theme

    • Show thinking, not just events

    • Reveal growth without spelling it out

    • End with forward motion

    Avoid trying to cover your entire life story. One meaningful experience, explored thoughtfully, does more work than a long list of accomplishments. If a reader can understand how you think, they can imagine you on their campus.

    Supplemental essays become easier when you stop treating each one as brand new. Build strong core responses about your interests, goals, and values, then adjust them to reflect each school’s programs and culture. This keeps your writing consistent and saves time without sounding repetitive.

    Staying organized when everything is happening at once

    College application checklist showing deadlines, recommendation letters, and activity planning for seniors.College application checklist showing deadlines, recommendation letters, and activity planning for seniors.

    Strong applications are rarely the result of last-minute effort. They are the result of systems that keep things moving even when life gets busy.

    Successful seniors usually have:

    • One master list of deadlines

    • Clear weekly goals

    • Draft versions saved and labeled

    • Recommendation plans set early

    Teacher recommendations deserve special care. Choose teachers who know how you think, not just how you perform. Provide context on your goals and remind them of projects or moments that reflect your strengths. This helps them write in greater detail rather than offer general praise.

    Build in buffer time. Submitting early protects you from technical issues and gives you space to review your work with fresh eyes. Calm, organized applicants submit stronger applications—it really is that simple.

    How expert guidance supports seniors at the most critical stage

    The proper support does not replace your voice or take over your work. It sharpens your thinking, improves your clarity, and helps you avoid common mistakes that cost time and confidence.

    For seniors, practical guidance focuses on:

    • Refining college lists with realism and purpose

    • Structuring essays without flattening personality

    • Translating activities into meaningful impact

    • Managing deadlines and expectations

    • Preparing for interviews and next steps

    In competitive regions like Southern California, many students are academically strong. What separates successful applicants is not intelligence alone, but how well their story is communicated.

    Senior year is demanding, but it is also an opportunity. With the proper structure and support, it becomes a focused push rather than a stressful scramble—and the applications you submit will reflect that.

    At College Planning Source, we help students and families navigate every step of the college admissions process. Get direct one-on-one guidance with a complimentary virtual college planning assessment—call 858-676-0700 or schedule online at collegeplanningsource.com/assessments. 

    Source link

  • Inside Texas A&M University’s partnership with Google for AI training

    Inside Texas A&M University’s partnership with Google for AI training

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

      A long line of students wrapped around Texas A&M University’s academic plaza in early October to receive free training from Google employees on how to use the company’s artificial intelligence tools, such as its chatbot, Gemini, and its research assistant, NotebookLM.  

    That same day, about 400 faculty members huddled in a campus building for deeper training from Google on how they could use AI tools to improve teaching and learning in their classrooms and how to effectively and ethically help their students use them as well, said Shonda Gibson, Texas A&M System’s chief transformation officer.

    The daylong event was part of Google’s three-year $1 billion initiative to support AI education and job training programs throughout the U.S. The initiative, which launched in August, supports the tech giant’s AI for Education Accelerator that provides higher education students and educators with free access to tools and training and aims to create a community of institutions sharing best practices.

    Texas A&M is one of over 200 higher ed institutions that have signed up for Google’s accelerator, according to Lisa Gevelber, founder of Grow with Google, the company’s workforce development campaign.  They include higher ed systems like the University of Texas and University of North Carolina, as well as large institutions like the University of Pennsylvania, University of Michigan and University of Virginia. 

    “Every student deserves access to the digital tools and the skills and training to set them up for success. And this is our commitment to supporting that,” said Gevelber. 

    The initiative comes as colleges race to ensure their students are prepared to enter a workforce that is becoming increasingly shaped by AI. 

    “It’s not just about using the tools,” said Gibson. “We really want our students to have the best experience possible so that they’re fully prepared whenever they leave us to go on and do whatever they’re going to do in their future.”

    Professors that integrate AI into their lessons should follow guidance on how to use it to further student learning, said Alexa Joubin, director of George Washington University’s Digital Humanities Institute. 

    Without that guidance, students risk using AI as a shortcut by having it summarize information for them instead of actually reading the materials presented and experiencing their lessons, said Joubin. 

    Meanwhile, recent research suggests AI could be detrimental to students’ skills and outcomes.

    A Massachusetts Institute of Technology study released in June found that using AI tools to write essays can impact critical thinking skills and lead to lower cognitive performance. 

    Over four months, study participants who used AI tools to write essays underperformed at “neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels” compared with those who didn’t, raising concerns about the long-term educational implications of relying on the technology, the study found. 

    Students are essentially “outsourcing key cognitive tasks to AI,” said Joubin. 

    The $1 billion initiative

    The Texas A&M System joined Google’s initiative, Gibson said, because officials viewed the tech behemoth as the only company offering assistance and guidance at that level. 

    Gibson also pointed out the free access to normally paid versions of Google tools, which will be available over the next two years to students attending the system’s 12 institutions. 

    Google’s tools can act as a personal tutor for students to help them work through problems and learn material in a customized way, said Gevelber. 

    Gemini, for example, has a guided learning feature that can accommodate their learning needs, said Gevelber. The guided learning tool, for example, asks students probing and open-ended questions to spark discussions and dig deeper into the subjects, and it also introduces images, diagrams, videos and interactive quizzes to help them learn topics. 

    Source link

  • How an AI-generated song transformed my ELL classroom

    How an AI-generated song transformed my ELL classroom

    Key points:

    A trending AI song went viral, but in my classroom, it did something even more powerful: it unlocked student voice.

    When teachers discuss AI in education, the conversation often focuses on risk: plagiarism, misinformation, or over-reliance on tools. But in my English Language Learners (ELL) classroom, a simple AI-generated song unexpectedly became the catalyst for one of the most joyful, culturally rich, and academically productive lessons of the year.

    It began with a trending headline about an AI-created song that topped a music chart metric. The story was interesting, but what truly captured my attention was its potential as a learning moment: music, identity, language, culture, creativity, and critical thinking–all wrapped in one accessible trend.

    What followed was a powerful reminder that when we honor students’ voices and languages, motivation flourishes, confidence grows, and even the shyest learners can find their space to shine.

    Why music works for ELLs

    Music has always been a powerful tool for language development. Research consistently shows that rhythm, repetition, and melody support vocabulary acquisition, pronunciation, and memory (Schön et al., 2008). For multilingual learners, songs are more than entertainment–they are cultural artifacts and linguistic resources.

    But AI-generated songs add a new dimension. According to UNESCO’s Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research (2023), AI trends can serve as “entry points for student-centered learning” when used as prompts for analysis, creativity, and discussion rather than passive consumption.

    In this lesson, AI wasn’t the final product; it was the spark. It was neutral, playful, and contemporary–a topic students were naturally curious about. This lowered the affective filter (Krashen, 1982), making students more willing to take risks with language and participate actively.

    From AI trend to multilingual dialogue

    Phase 1: Listening and critical analysis

    We listened to the AI-generated song as a group. Students were immediately intrigued, posing questions such as:

    “How does the computer make a song?”

    “Does it copy another singer?”

    “Why does it sound real?”

    These sparked critical thinking naturally aligned with Bloom’s Taxonomy:

    • Understanding: What is the song about?
    • Analyzing: How does it compare to a human-written song?
    • Evaluating: Is AI music truly ‘creative’?

    Students analyzed the lyrics, identifying figurative language, tone, and structure. Even lower-proficiency learners contributed by highlighting repeated phrases or simple vocabulary.

    Phase 2: The power of translanguaging

    The turning point came when I invited students to choose a song from their home language and bring a short excerpt to share. The classroom transformed instantly.

    Students became cultural guides and storytellers. They explained why a song mattered, translated its meaning into English, discussed metaphors from their cultures, or described musical traditions from home.

    This is translanguaging–using the full linguistic repertoire to make meaning, an approach strongly supported by García & Li (2014) and widely encouraged in TESOL practice.

    Phase 3: Shy learners found their voices

    What surprised me most was the participation of my shyest learners.

    A student who had not spoken aloud all week read translated lyrics from a Kurdish lullaby. Two Yemeni students, usually quiet, collaborated to explain a line of poetry.

    This aligns with research showing that culturally familiar content reduces performance anxiety and increases willingness to communicate (MacIntyre, 2007). When students feel emotionally connected to the material, participation becomes safer and joyful.

    One student said, “This feels like home.”

    By the end of the lesson, every student participated, whether by sharing a song, translating a line, or contributing to analysis.

    Embedding digital and ethical literacy

    Beyond cultural sharing, students engaged in deeper reflection essential for digital literacy (OECD, 2021):

    • Who owns creativity if AI can produce songs?
    • Should AI songs compete with human artists?
    • Does language lose meaning when generated artificially?

    Students debated respectfully, used sentence starters, and justified their opinions, developing both critical reasoning and AI literacy.

    Exit tickets: Evidence of deeper learning

    Students completed exit tickets:

    • One thing I learned about AI-generated music
    • One thing I learned from someone else’s culture
    • One question I still have

    Their responses showed genuine depth:

    • “AI makes us think about what creativity means.”
    • “My friend’s song made me understand his country better.”
    • “I didn’t know Kurdish has words that don’t translate, you need feeling to explain it.”

    The research behind the impact

    This lesson’s success is grounded in research:

    • Translanguaging Enhances Cognition (García & Li, 2014): allowing all languages improves comprehension and expression.
    • Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000): the lesson fostered autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
    • Lowering the Affective Filter (Krashen, 1982): familiar music reduced anxiety.
    • Digital Literacy Matters (UNESCO, 2023; OECD, 2021): students must analyze AI, not just use it.

    Conclusion: A small trend with big impact

    An AI-generated song might seem trivial, but when transformed thoughtfully, it became a bridge, between languages, cultures, abilities, and levels of confidence.

    In a time when schools are still asking how to use AI meaningfully, this lesson showed that the true power of AI lies not in replacing learning, but in opening doors for every learner to express who they are.

    I encourage educators to try this activity–not to teach AI, but rather to teach humanity.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Teen Girls, Marriage, and Social Inequality

    Teen Girls, Marriage, and Social Inequality

    A profound shift is taking place in the aspirations of American teenagers. In a Pew Research analysis of 2023 University of Michigan survey data, only 61 percent of 12th-grade girls expected to marry someday, down sharply from 83 percent in 1993. Boys, in contrast, reported a stable 74 percent, surpassing girls for the first time. Alongside this, fewer teens anticipated having children or staying married for life. Only 48 percent of 12th-graders said they were “very likely” to want children, and belief in lifelong marriage dropped from 59 percent to 51 percent over three decades.

    These figures are more than statistical curiosities; they reflect structural changes in the lives of young women and reveal how cultural, economic, and social inequality shape personal expectations. Access to education and professional opportunity has expanded dramatically for women, allowing them to envision futures independent of traditional marriage and family structures. Yet these gains exist alongside persistent barriers: economic instability, student debt, and unequal labor markets make long-term commitments like marriage and homeownership fraught and uncertain. For many girls, the choice to delay or reject marriage is not merely personal—it is pragmatic.

    Cultural shifts amplify this trend. For decades, mainstream media promoted the narrative of “happily ever after,” equating personal fulfillment with marriage and motherhood. Today, stories about self-discovery, financial independence, and flexibility dominate the imagination of young women. In this context, marriage is no longer the default marker of adulthood or success; it is one of many possible pathways, often weighed against educational ambitions, career goals, and economic realities.

    This evolution of expectations is deeply intertwined with inequality. Historically, marriage has often reinforced gendered hierarchies, particularly among working-class and minority women, for whom early marriage frequently constrained educational and career opportunities. Delaying marriage, or choosing to forgo it altogether, can represent a form of empowerment—but it also exposes young women to the structural vulnerabilities of a society where social support and economic stability are unevenly distributed. For those without family wealth or safety nets, the decision to prioritize education or autonomy over marriage is often a negotiation with risk rather than pure choice.

    The broader social implications are significant. Declining enthusiasm for marriage may influence fertility patterns, reshape household structures, and challenge institutions built around traditional family models. For policymakers, educators, and social institutions, the question becomes whether systems will adapt to support diverse life paths or continue to privilege outdated models that assume early marriage and childbearing. For young women navigating these choices, the cultural shift represents both liberation and uncertainty, an opportunity to define adulthood on their own terms amid economic and social pressures.

    As these teenagers mature, their choices may redefine what adulthood looks like in the United States. The decline in the “happily ever after” fantasy signals not a rejection of commitment, but a recalibration of priorities under the weight of opportunity, constraint, and inequality. It is a moment that reveals how deeply personal aspirations—love, marriage, family—are shaped by the structures, inequities, and possibilities of the world they inherit.

    Sources:

    Ms. Magazine. “Actually It’s Good That Fewer High Schoolers Want to Get Married.” 2025. https://msmagazine.com/2025/11/20/high-school-girls-marriage

    New York Post. “High school girls are shifting away from marriage and ‘happily ever after,’ expert says.” 2025. https://nypost.com/2025/11/25/media/high-school-girls-are-shifting-away-from-marriage-and-happily-ever-after-expert-says

    The Times. “Jobs, porn and manfluencers: the real reasons girls don’t want to get married.” 2025. https://www.thetimes.com/us/news-today/article/why-dont-girls-plan-to-get-married-f7hr8jgp0

    Source link

  • That’s All, Folks? Five points of note about higher education in 2025

    That’s All, Folks? Five points of note about higher education in 2025

    Nick Hillman, HEPI’s Director, takes a look at some of the changes affecting higher education in 2025. (These remarks were originally delivered to the Executive Advisory Council of HEPI Partner Ellucian on the evening of 15 December 2025.)

    Room at the top

    The higher education sector continued to see huge churn in those who oversee it during 2025. In the middle of last year, we had a change of Government; in the middle of this year, we saw a new Chief Executive at UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) when Professor Sir Ian Chapman succeeded Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser, and a new Chair in the Office for Students (OfS), when Professor Edward Peck replaced the interim Chair, Sir David Behan.

    Then last month, we heard that John Blake, the Director for Fair Access and Participation, one of the three really big executive jobs at the OfS, had stood down with pretty much immediate effect – with John’s predecessor, Professor Chris Millward, taking back the reins.

    And we end the year with the news that the hardest job in the whole of English higher education is soon to fall vacant, as the Chief Executive of the OfS, Susan Lapworth, will stand down at the end of her four-year term in charge. So one thing seems certain: 2026 will see a continuing shift in the OfS’s priorities.

    There are other personnel changes I could mention too, such as the incoming CEO of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA), Kathleen Fisher, who will take over early in the new year. 

    It feels like we have had a new broom in other respects too. While our two main Ministers in Whitehall, Baroness Smith (Minister for Skills) and Lord Vallance (Minister for Science), remain in place, their jobs have changed significantly as a result of the reshuffle forced on the Prime Minister when Angela Rayner resigned.

    Jacqui Smith is no longer just a Minister in the Department for Education as she was at the beginning of the year; she is now also a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions. Meanwhile, Patrick Vallance is not just a Minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology; he is also now a Minister in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.

    If, like me, you thought it was all a bit of a mess before – with the teaching functions of higher education separated from the research functions of universities at a ministerial, departmental and quango level – it is undeniably even more of a mess now.

    And who knows what the 2026 elections in Scotland and Wales will mean for oversight of higher education, not to mention the local elections in England? (Look out for some HEPI output on Wales early in 2026.)

    Incoherence?

    Perhaps the biggest higher education news in 2025 was the Post-16 Education and Skills white paper. Certainly, Ministers had seemingly spent the previous 12 months and more responding to every tricky higher education and skills question by telling people to wait for this all-important document. Yet when it appeared, many felt it was a bit of a damp squib.

    The clue to the problem lies in the Foreword to the white paper, which is signed by three different Secretaries of State: the Rt Hon. Bridget Phillipson MP, Secretary of State for Education; the Rt Hon. Pat McFadden MP, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; and the Rt Hon. Liz Kendall MP, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology. On reading the document, it seemed a bit too obvious who had overseen which bits with some frustrating cracks between the different sections. Together, the ideas seemed to be less than the sum of their parts, as they did not really add up to a truly coherent new plan in the way white papers are meant to.

    For example, the white paper urged institutions to change direction, for example by doing less (labelled ‘specialisation’) and also, perhaps contradictorily, collaborating more. But the white paper lacked the clear incentives necessary for institutions to overcome countervailing pressures, such as those that come from market competition, institutions’ own statutory charitable responsibilities, a shortage of resources, a highly unionised workforce and the priorities of league table compilers.

    In the cold light of day, the top line of the white paper seemed to be ‘we want you to use your autonomy to do what we want you to do’, but with little in the way of policy levers or new funding to persuade institutions to do something radically different from what they have been doing.

    As I noted in one blog before the white paper came out, this is the same challenge that Lionel Robbins wrestled with over 60 years ago, for the Robbins report concluded:

    it is not reasonable to expect that the Government, which is the source of finance, should be content with an absence of co-ordination or should be without influence thereon. … where free discussion is not sufficient to elicit the desired result in the desired time, it is still possible, and may often be expedient, to attempt to secure it by special incentives. … in emphasising the claims of academic freedom, we stipulate that they must be consistent with the maintenance of coherence throughout the system as a whole.

    It is not only me who sees these sorts of problems with the white paper by the way. For example, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, has said:

    the proposals do not always add up to a coherent overall strategy. There is insufficient indication of how the different reforms connect, or strategic vision for how key trade-offs in the system will be resolved.

    Thinking about this whole issue more parochially, it strikes me that there is an analogy with think-tank land. HEPI is an autonomous independent charity, just as most universities are. If Ministers were suddenly to declare that think tanks should specialise and collaborate, I suspect it would only happen if this were in line with each organisation’s charitable objectives and strategy, if each organisation’s Trustees agreed and if there were sufficient resources to make it feasible. It certainly would not happen just because Ministers say it should.

    Resources

    Yet to be fair to the Government, they did use the Post-16 white paper to do something important and overdue that the previous Government repeatedly chickened out of doing: raising tuition fees in line with inflation. This will protect the unit-of-resource spent on students to some degree and is aligned with the sector’s lobbying, so the representative bodies and mission groups have generally felt obliged to welcome the news.

    But in truth, the extra money is chicken feed because it merely beds in the real terms cuts that have occurred since 2012 and takes no account of rising costs, including those imposed on the sector by the current Government, such as higher National Insurance payments. Any university on the cusp of discussing a breach of convenant with their main lender is unlikely to feel in a much more secure position now than before the tuition fee rises were announced.

    And this year, we also had the announcement and then fleshing out of another new cost in England’s new International Student Levy, to be set at a little under £1,000 per student. When this was first announced, many people I know seemed to think it was such a mad idea it could never be implemented. But never underestimate the disdain for universities among some policymakers, especially when they are under pressure from a resurgent populist right. While it continues to seem mad to most of us that we would voluntarily self-impose a big new tariff on one of the most successful export sectors of our whole economy, it does tell us something about current political realities and also reminds us we live in a world of ever higher borders in which global conflict sadly no longer looks so unlikely.

    When it comes to the other big resource issue of student living costs and maintenance support, 2025 saw no change to the way that we deal with rising living costs among students, with the only clear commitment to continued increases in line with forecast inflation, which tends to run far behind real inflation and is anyway a continuation of the status quo dressed up as something new.

    Our research from August of this year suggests students need around £20k a year, twice as much as the standard maximum maintenance loan, to take part fully in university life. Our numbers are used by the Foreign Office for international scholars but not (yet) by the Department for Education for home students. So no wonder, as the HEPI / Advance HE 2025 Student Academic Experience Survey as well as our more recent work with a diverse group of four universities led by the University of Lancashire shows, two-thirds of today’s undergraduates now take part in paid employment during term time.

    Personally, I would like to see a modern version of the Anderson Committee, which sat from 1958 until 1960 and which considered student living costs in detail, leading to the first set of national rules on maintenance support. However, we should not kid ourselves on the likelihood of this happening: the same arguments that are used against increases to the benefits bill will likely continue to be used against changes to students’ maintenance costs at a time when there is such a big deficit and when we are spending so much on debt interest as a country.

    In the absence of better maintenance and at a time of rising unemployment, my best guess is people will still choose to go to higher education but may look for cheaper ways to live as a student, such as living at home. It had been said that, ‘You can see the commuter student everywhere—except in the student data‘ but it now appears as if the data might be catching up too. Last week, UCAS noted:

    31% of UK 18-year-old accepted applicants indicated in their UCAS application that they intended to live at home this year – a record high and a slight increase on 30% in 2024. This compares to 22% a decade ago, with the number of young people planning to live at home climbing steadily since 2016.

    Young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds are also more likely to live at home. In total, 52% of UK 18-year-olds in IMD Quintile 1 indicated they planned to live at home compared to 17.9% of UK 18-year-olds in IMD Quintile 5. By nation, this means IMD Quintile 1 in England are 3.5 times more likely to live at home, SIMD Quintile 1 in Scotland are 1.7 times more likely and WIMD Quintile 1 in Wales 2.3 times more likely. There is no difference between NIMDM Quintiles 1 and 5 in Northern Ireland.

    The pipeline

    Another big event in higher education in 2025 was Keir Starmer’s ‘bold new target’, made at the Labour Party Conference, to get ‘two-thirds of young people participating in higher-level learning – academic, technical or apprenticeships – by age 25’.

    Personally, I welcome this, though it is important to note it is not actually that ambitious but rather a continuation of the direction of travel of the last few decades. Oddly, the new target was dressed up as an attack on Blair’s 50% target, long since surpassed. Either we have to wonder whether the Government’s heart is really in it or, more likely, whether they thought they were performing some clever-clever political trick in announcing a progressive target in a regressive way.

    Either way, to hit the target we need to make further strides in widening participation. And one disappointment this year was a continuing failure to grip the educational underperformance of boys, a long-term interest of HEPI and the theme of a report we published in March of this year.

    When Ministers want positive headlines in right-of-centre media, they tend to speak out about the educational underachievements of white working-class boys, including in August of this year during exam results season. So I was presumably not the only person to be disappointed that October’s Post-16 white paper or November’s Government-commissioned Curriculum and Assessment Review and associated Government response did not include clear measures aimed at addressing the issue.

    Sadly, this fight needs to go on – and that is one reason why, last week, we published a blog by the author of some vitally important new research from the Netherlands proving the achievement gap between boys and girls is ‘larger in favour of girls in countries where women are more strongly overrepresented among secondary-school teachers’.

    Technology

    Given my audience, I touch upon my fifth and final topic of technology, including AI, a little trepidatiously. But I do not want to leave it out because the appetite for discussing it is huge: HEPI has been going nearly 25 years and our most well-read piece of output ever is the 2025 wave of our annual survey on students’ use of generative AI, which came out in February of this year. Similarly, our most well-read full-length HEPI Report of 2025 was our collection with the University of Southampton on AI and the Future of Universities, which looked at how AI could change everything from strategic planning, through teaching, to university research.

    So the march of AI continues at pace, but it still feels as if no one has fully worked out what it all means yet, including for education. Alongside all those hits on our AI work, for me 2025 will also partly be remembered for some pretty embarrassing AI cock ups, including:

    One of the more interesting books I read this year, and one which I reviewed for the HEPI website, was More Than Words: How to Think about Writing in the Age of AI by John Warner.

    In this book, the author upends one traditional approach to AI by arguing that it is wrong for students to think generative AI is good for creating an initial draft. Instead, he argues the first draft is the most important draft ‘as it establishes the intention behind the expression.’ In other words, just as we might expect a musician to use technology to hone a song they have written; we would probably approach a song that was entirely created by AI from the ground up with a little more scepticism about its originality or authenticity. 

    You may or may not think I am right about this but you can come to your own judgement later this week when our last publication of the year (and one of the biggest we have ever done) appears. This gathers together 30 of my book reviews about higher education that have appeared on the HEPI website and other outlets over the past 13[ years, since 2012/13 when those higher tuition fees first began. After all, our goal as a think tank is to make people think; it is not to tell people what to think. So do look out for this new publication on Thursday.

    Finally, let me end by thanking everyone who has supported our work in whatever way in 2025 and wishing all our readers the very best for the Christmas and New Year break.

    Source link

  • Career Guidance Falls Short for California College Students

    Career Guidance Falls Short for California College Students

    About 40 percent of students participate in work-based learning, but access to such programs is not equitable.

    Phynart Studio/Getty Images

    A new report found that only one in five California college students were fully satisfied with the career guidance they received, with many saying the help often arrived too late.

    The data, released by California Competes, comes as more than 80 percent of first-year college students say obtaining a better job is a very important reason they enrolled in college.

    “There’s a real opportunity for higher ed to do better because students want more and there’s a lot of room for improvement,” said Su Jin Jez, chief executive officer of California Competes, a nonpartisan organization focused on research and policy to improve the state’s higher education and workforce development.

    “It’s really critical, particularly as more first generation students, more low income students, and more students of color are going to college,” Jez said. “These students are more likely to not have professional networks in their homes and in their families, so they really need guidance from higher ed.”

    The research, conducted in collaboration with the College Futures Foundation and Strada Education Foundation, analyzed data from more than 5,000 California college students and recent graduates who responded to the 2023 Strada-College Pulse survey, which examined employment outcomes, student access to quality coaching and work-based learning, and the alignment between postsecondary education and state job requirements.

    By examining students’ experiences with career guidance and work-based learning, as well as their early career outcomes, the report found that many lack sufficient preparation for meaningful employment.

    The research identified opportunities to strengthen college-to-career pathways and boost economic mobility.

    Career Pathways Guidance

    About 60 percent of students reported receiving some form of career guidance, and 50 percent said they received information about potential earnings in careers related to their academic programs before the end of their first year.

    But only 20 percent reported feeling very satisfied with the career guidance they received.

    When asked where they got their career advice, 66 percent said they received it from college faculty and staff, followed by 59 percent who said they relied on family and friends.

    “Higher ed makes a lot of sense to be the ones to provide career guidance because they know better than other entities what skills students are learning,” Jez said. “They can help them connect to employers, particularly alumni networks, which are really powerful connectors.”

    Work-Based Learning

    About 40 percent of near-graduates participated in work-based learning, with internships being the most common type.

    The report found that internship participation was associated with better early career outcomes for students, greater satisfaction with their education, and a stronger sense of return on their investment, compared with those who did not intern.

    But access to work-based learning remains inequitable, with 50 percent reporting that course loads were too heavy and 48 percent saying they were uncertain about how to find opportunities.

    “Colleges should integrate work-based learning into their programs of study, into majors, so that it becomes a real pathway and not just a privilege,” Jez said.

    “It makes their heavy course load issue not as critical,” Jez said. “And then, similarly, it takes the burden off of students to find the internship because the university will have already identified the internships that make sense for the students based on their major.”

    Jez cited Compton College, El Camino College, and West Los Angeles College as good examples of institutions that place work-based learning at the center of their programs.

    “They approach employers and think together about where a work-based learning opportunity fits well into their programs because it’s not something that has to be unique to every campus,” Jez said, adding that colleges collaborating on such efforts helps streamline the process for employers who are often approached by multiple institutions.

    “Huge kudos to them for tackling this work that’s hard on your own, but even more challenging to do collaboratively,” Jez said.

    Early Career Outcomes

    The report also found that less than half of recent graduates are highly satisfied with their first job or their career progress.

    “This is not a new issue, but I do think that just because it’s not new doesn’t make it not problematic,” Jez said. “I would love for higher ed institutions to really think about this early on.”

    She noted that colleges should consider students’ early career outcomes even before they matriculate.

    “I think a lot of people will say that higher ed isn’t vocational,” Jez said. “[But] it is the reason why people are going to college today and it has to help students make good transitions into work.”

    Jez highlighted California’s recent establishment of the California Education Interagency Council, a statewide coordinating body aimed at breaking down silos between higher education and workforce development efforts.

    “This is something we’ve advocated for,” Jez said, adding that the council will help set a strategic plan and address cross-sector issues.

    “If we’re serious about strengthening the value of higher education, the first step is listening to students’ needs,” Jez said. “They know what they need and they know the struggle they’ve had.”

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

    Source link

  • College Park President Cleared of Plagiarism Claims

    College Park President Cleared of Plagiarism Claims

    An investigation cleared Pines of academic misconduct.

    University of Maryland, College Park

    University of Maryland College Park President Darryll Pines did not commit academic misconduct, an investigation determined, clearing him of plagiarism allegations that emerged last September.

    A joint investigation that involved both the campus and the University System of Maryland but was led by an outside law firm “found no evidence of misconduct on the part of President Pines,” according to an emailed announcement from College Park and system officials sent on Friday.

    Last fall, Pines was accused of lifting 1,500 words from a tutorial website for a 5,000-word paper that he co-authored in 2002, and of later reusing that same text for a 2006 publication, according to the initial allegations against him that first broke in The Daily Wire, a conservative website.

    Pines disputed the claims from the start, stating that they had no merit.

    However, Joshua Altmann, who wrote the text that Pines was accused of lifting, told Inside Higher Ed last year that “I do consider it to be plagiarism, and not worthy of an academic.”

    The investigation, which concluded after more than a year, included three rounds of external reviews and was extended to other articles Pines wrote. While it found no evidence of misconduct, investigators noted attribution errors in some works.

    “The committee did determine that the two works highlighted last year contained select portions of text previously published by another author in the introductory sections. In a separate text, a discrepancy in assignment of authorship was made. However, President Pines was not found responsible for the inclusion of such text in any of the three works, nor was he found responsible for scholarly misconduct of any kind,” College Park and system officials announced last week.

    Officials also expressed confidence in Pines’s leadership going forward.

    Source link