Here’s my latest Trump and academia vlog report. If you’re new to this series, these videos are where I summarize what the Trump administration has been doing to higher education, and how colleges and universities have responded. Here are the latest developments since the last video, as of today, April 25, 2025.
Previous episodes here:
In March 2024 on International Women’s Day, I launched the Disabled Women in Academia Group.
It is a sub-group of the National Association of Disabled Staff Networks (NADSN) – for those who identify as a woman (or non-binary) at any career stage and from any area working in universities.
The group – set up with the support of Jacquie Nicholson and Hamied Haroon, Vice Chair and Chair of NADSN, aims to provide an inclusive space where all women feel they can join if they wish.
Sessions take place online and each session focuses on a specific topic, or we have a guest speaker.
I set up the group because I felt there was a gap in the market. While we already had schemes like Aurora and the Women in Academia Support Network, there wasn’t a specific space for disabled women to meet. Data from Advance HE (2024) clearly indicates both women and disabled individuals are underrepresented in senior roles at universities.
Given this, it is therefore apparent that disabled women are going to be even more underrepresented in these roles.
Of course, not everyone wishes to hold a senior role in a university, but disabled women deserve the right to thrive as much in the university setting as other groups.
A second reason I wished to set up the group was to enable disabled women to develop a sense that they could be leaders if that’s what they aspired to be.
There are already leadership schemes like Aurora for women, 100 Black Women Professors NOW by the Women in Higher Education Network, and Calibre, a leadership programme to support disabled staff in higher education and the NHS.
While this is not a formalised leadership programme or scheme, we do have discussions around leadership and career progression within our sessions. We need to be having these discussions as it is often the case that disabled women are perceived by others as less able due to the ableist nature of academia.
Jacinda Arden in her role as New Zealand’s Prime Minister redefined what leadership is for women and demonstrated that leaders could have those traits of compassion, show emotion, and remain effective leaders. Such groups like the Disabled Women in Academia Group create that safe space when we are engaging in that process.
The group has run for a year now and it is one of the things I most enjoy doing. I get to meet lots of different women, and we have built up a real sense of collegiality.
I have learnt a lot about the challenges we face as disabled women and strategies to address those challenges. I have learnt about the importance of leadership and that the higher education sector needs people to be working together to bring about real change to support students and staff (see NADSN’s RIDE Higher which is developing a framework to support disabled staff in higher education institutions).
However, this advocacy work, on behalf of ourselves and others carries with it an emotional cost. A colleague mentioned to me a book by Katherine May ‘Wintering: The Power of Rest and Retreat in Uncertain Times’.
Having a disability or chronic illness can bring with it uncertainty, especially if symptoms are unpredictable or we are awaiting medical treatment.
During these times we may need to engage in a period of “wintering” – here I am not referring to the actual season of winter – Katherine May uses it as a metaphor and acknowledges we can “winter” anytime, where we focus on ourselves and develop strategies that work for us, replenish our resources and subsequently come out in the spring rejuvenated and ready to face the world again.
For me, the Disabled Women in Academia Group provides a safe space to do this and fuels my hope of a more equitable environment for disabled women going forward.
Acknowledgments: Thanks to Jacquie Nicholson and Dr Hamied Haroon for comments on an earlier version and supporting the work of the Disabled Women in Academia Group.
Panelists:
Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, Distinguished Professor, Vanderbilt University
Dr. Christina Greer, Associate Professor, Fordham University,
Dr. Annette Gordon Reed, Professor, Harvard University
Natasha S. Alford, SVP, The Grio.
The 2025 National Action Network (NAN) Convention continues to be a clarion call for justice, strategy, and truth-telling. In a climate where DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) is being vilified, this year’s panels didn’t hold back. Amid attacks on civil rights, public education, and academic freedom, one of the most critical conversations came from a powerful panel of scholars and journalists who delivered an unflinching perspective on the state of DEI in higher education and beyond.
As states roll back DEI programs and silence academic voices, these experts stood firm and affirmed that this is not simply a political moment—it’s a moral crisis.
The War on DEI: A Strategic, Anti-Black Attack 
Pam McElvane
Panelists opened with a clear message: what’s happening now is not new—it’s a rebranding of old tactics. As one professor framed it, “We are the canaries in the coal mine.” The dismantling of DEI isn’t isolated, it’s a warning of broader regression.
They urged us to stop abbreviating “DEI.” Say the words: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. The administration’s weaponization of the acronym has become a strategic assault to reassert white supremacy, particularly that of white male dominance. What we are witnessing, they said, is anti-Black racism cloaked in policy and politics.
This is not a slip or misunderstanding—it is a calculated dismantling of progress.
The Media and the Misuse of “Woke”
Journalist Natasha Alford shared how mainstream media has failed to accurately report the DEI backlash. “They took our word—woke—and twisted it into something divisive and dangerous,” she said. The original term was meant to empower and enlighten people of color, yet now it’s used as a slur to silence those demanding equity.
She called out the need for media literacy among our youth, who are often misled or confused about what’s true. “We must leverage today’s information cycles to educate, not manipulate,” Alford said. Following Black media outlets that tell the truth—like The Grio, Roland Martin Unfiltered, and others—is critical to staying grounded in reality.
DEI is About Competition—and They Don’t Want That
Dr. Michael Eric Dyson laid the issue bare: Diversity forces competition, and some in power are unwilling to compete. “When America wants to segregate again, it’s because it longs for a time when it didn’t have to compete with us,” he declared.
He challenged not only the far right but also white liberals who remain silent, excusing their inaction. “Diversity is what makes America what it is. Equity means recognizing that not everyone starts in the same place. Inclusion means everyone belongs,” he said. And we must beware of the temptation to accept compromises or “payoffs” from those who ultimately seek to suppress our progress.
Collateral Damage: The Loss of Intellectual and Scientific Power
Beyond social issues, this anti-DEI movement threatens the entire intellectual infrastructure of the nation. The cancellation of Pell Grants and threats to federal funding for universities that support DEI policies don’t just impact Black communities—they hurt poor and working-class white students too.
Researchers—some of the greatest minds of our time—are losing funding, careers, and platforms. “We’re watching the dismantling of the very fabric that holds America’s innovation and academic leadership together,” one professor warned.
What Do We Do Now? Marching Orders for the Movement
The panel didn’t just offer critique—they offered marching orders:
They reminded us that history holds the answers: “We’ve already come through what we’ve been through,” one speaker said. We were once outlawed from reading, yet we learned to read in secret and built institutions that shaped this country. We must now read, remember, and reclaim our narrative.
A Final Word: This Is the Time to Fight
“Welcome, white America, to the Black experience,” one professor said, poignantly summing up this moment. As this administration strips away rights, rewrites history, and silences voices, it’s more important than ever to stand on truth.
This isn’t the end—it’s the beginning of a new resistance. And we must fight not just to be seen or heard—but to lead.
Pam McElvane is the CEO & Publisher of Diversity MBA Media.
In the dystopian world of Severance, employees undergo a controversial procedure that separates their work lives from their personal lives, creating a chillingly compartmentalized existence. While this premise seems far-fetched, the show’s underlying critique of institutional control, bureaucratic systems, and dehumanizing workplace environments mirrors certain aspects of U.S. higher education administration.
At the heart of Severance is the radical division of personal and professional identities. Employees, when at work, have no memory of their personal lives, and when they leave the office, their work experiences are erased from their minds. This deliberate separation is an exaggerated version of a common practice in higher education—compartmentalizing roles and interactions.
In many academic institutions, faculty, staff, and students often navigate strict hierarchies and narrowly defined roles, which can create significant barriers between these groups. Administrators focus on policies and data, while faculty members concentrate on teaching and research. This division can lead to limited communication and a lack of understanding between those shaping the institution’s direction and those most impacted by decisions.
Severance also critiques how systems of power, driven by bureaucracy, strip employees of their humanity. This theme resonates with the reality of higher education administration, where decisions are made far from the classroom, often by individuals who may have little connection to the day-to-day experiences of faculty or students.
Universities rely on complex bureaucratic systems to manage operations, from student admissions to faculty performance assessments. These systems can often feel impersonal, and the pressure to conform to institutional standards—whether in terms of research output, teaching evaluations, or service requirements—can leave faculty and staff feeling like mere cogs in a well-oiled machine. The result is a sense of alienation and detachment from the institution, not unlike the isolated existence portrayed in Severance.
In Severance, employees are constantly surveilled, their actions monitored and manipulated by the corporation to maintain control. This chilling form of oversight is mirrored in higher education, where increasing reliance on data analytics and monitoring systems tracks everything from student performance to faculty productivity.
Universities increasingly collect vast amounts of data, from tracking graduation rates to measuring faculty research output, with the intent of improving efficiency and accountability. However, for many faculty and staff, these systems can feel intrusive, reducing their work to numbers and metrics, much like the employees of Severance who are stripped of their identities in favor of institutional goals.
One of the key tensions in Severance is the idea of “work-life balance” taken to an extreme, where the characters’ personal and professional identities are completely isolated. In higher education, this balance is a perennial challenge. Administrators often promote the importance of self-care and work-life balance, yet faculty and staff are regularly expected to juggle multiple roles—teaching, research, administrative duties—and produce high levels of output.
As a result, the lines between personal and professional life often blur, with faculty members frequently working late into the night or on weekends to meet the demands of the job. Despite official policies promoting balance, the pressure to perform can create a culture of burnout, not unlike the invasive control experienced by Severance‘s characters.
Finally, Severance explores the tension between conformity and individuality, a dynamic that is also evident in academia. In the show, employees are forced to conform to the institution’s demands, stifling their personal identities. Similarly, universities increasingly measure success through standardized metrics—graduation rates, research grants, and student satisfaction surveys—that prioritize efficiency over creativity or personal growth.
For faculty members, this pressure to conform to institutional expectations can stifle academic freedom and exploration. While universities often champion individuality and intellectual curiosity, the overwhelming focus on data-driven outcomes can push faculty to prioritize “safe” or “marketable” research topics over more innovative or personal endeavors.
Women in higher education and industry leadership, especially in Engineering and STEM, have reshaped academia and industry through groundbreaking contributions. Over the past two centuries, they have advanced knowledge, dismantled systemic barriers, and set new standards in innovation and leadership. Yet Black women remain significantly underrepresented, highlighting the urgent need for institutional change.
After all, when we lack diversity, we limit our ability to evolve and tackle the challenges of a rapidly changing world.
Despite the progress made, the numbers remain stark. In the UK, women constitute 48% of overall academic staff, yet only 30% hold professorial roles. At present, among these, only 80+ Black women hold professorial positions across all disciplines. In the US, Black women account for just 2% of science and engineering roles. These figures underscore the persistent barriers that hinder progression into leadership roles in academia and industry.
These disparities highlight the urgent need for fundamental change to ensure equitable access to opportunities and resources.
The 200-year journey of Black women in academia has been shaped by structural barriers but also by resilience and advocacy. Initiatives like the Black Female Academics’ Network and the national EDI Hub+, led by the University of Leeds, have played pivotal roles in championing change and providing visibility and support for Black women in academia and higher education leadership. But the reality is that real change comes not just from support networks but from institutions and governance bodies truly committed to transformation through policy implementation and its incorporation into operational management.
Black women have broken barriers in education, research, and industry, driving policy changes and fostering inclusivity. They have led pioneering research, challenged outdated structures, and risen to leadership in historically non-diverse sectors. In Engineering and STEM, figures like Dr. Aprille Ericsson, the first Black woman to earn a PhD in Mechanical Engineering from Howard University, have held key roles at NASA. Yewande Akinola, a Nigerian-born engineer, has advanced sustainable water systems while advocating for diversity. In the UK, Professor Esther Akinlabi has made significant contributions to academic leadership, engineering, research, and advocacy.
These Black women, and countless others, have played critical roles, and yet their paths have not been easy. They have faced barriers, from being underestimated in their abilities to encountering biases that make progression in academia and industry far harder than it should be. It is important to highlight their successes but equally crucial to recognise the dramatic shifts needed to create a more inclusive landscape.
As the first Black female professor in the School of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Leeds, I have witnessed firsthand the impact of underrepresentation on individuals and institutions. Without diverse voices in leadership, we lose perspectives that drive innovation and meaningful change. True equity and inclusion require representation at the highest levels, where policies and practices are shaped.
Mentorship and networking are vital for career progression, yet many Black women in academia and industry lack mentors with shared experiences. Institutions must formalise support systems rather than relying on individual efforts. A cultural shift is needed, one where diversity is not just discussed but reinforced through real structural changes that create lasting opportunities.
Breaking barriers is not just about individuals but about how institutions respond. Are they fostering environments where Black women can thrive? Are they tackling unconscious bias in hiring and promotions? Are they offering real support for retention and advancement beyond just celebrating ‘firsts’? It’s time to move from symbolic gestures to tangible change that empowers the next generation in academia and industry.
The legacy of Black women in academia and industry extends beyond their achievements to the opportunities they create for future generations. Recognising and amplifying their voices is essential. Their contributions must be seamlessly woven into the broader narrative of advancement and innovation in women’s higher education and industry leadership.
Much work remains. Representation is not enough; true progress requires dismantling barriers to access and opportunity. Black women in academia and industry, especially in Engineering and STEM, must be empowered, supported, and able to lead without the constant need to justify their place.
The goal should be that, in the future, their contributions are not exceptional but expected, and their presence in leadership roles is not a rarity but the norm.
This quote caught my eye in the Gainesville Sun today. It is about, Ben Sasse, the likely new president of UF, and faculty opposition: “I think many of my colleagues feel that his academic credentials are not where we would have wanted them to be.”
I’ve deleted the name of the person quoted because that quote is representative of law professors speak. They say things that mean nothing or, put differently, allow for total deniability while at the same time stirring the pot ever so gently. It’s the reason I was always an outsider in the Ivory Tower.
The statement, and that of law professors’ generally, reminds of a something John Cage said, “I have nothing to say and I am saying it.”
For example, note the speaker only “thinks” this could be the case. This leaves room to say, if asked to defend the statement, “It’s only what I thought or the impression I had. I could be wrong.”And then there is the word “many.” What is “many?” Is it 12? Could be. Is it a majority? Maybe, maybe not.
This reminds me of what I call faculty trolling. For example, say you think someone up for tenure does not deserve it but you are too much of a wuss to say it. You go office to office and say, “I have heard that some people are concerned about Joe’s (the candidate) scholarship.” Not you, of course, unless the person you are talking to says someone like “Yes, I too was wondering about this.” If that is the response, the troller has has hit pay dirt and gets a movement started without ever actually taking a position. If the answer is “I have not heard anything about that.” The troller moves on to the next office.
And could someone tell me what “where we would have wanted them to be” means. How about, “are not satisfactory” What on earth does “where we would have wanted them to be” actually say. “We would have/” Would have what? In a different universe? On Mars?
But wait. In the same passage the writer does use the word “we” which includes “I.” So it could say “I wish his credentials were better.” The problem is nearly everyone wishes everything were better. I wish my car got better mileage but what it gets is fine. I wish my dinner was better last night but it was fine. Wishing for better or wanting better is saying nothing.
So what would my quote have been of the Sun had asked me? “I can’t speak for everyone but his academic credentials make him unfit. In addition, he is obviously the product of a rigged search that was guaranteed to produce a candidate to the liking of our right wing, mean spirited Governor.”
