Tag: academic

Academic coaching is data-driven support for students in the dark

Universities offer a wide range of support to students – lecturers’ office hours, personal tutors, study skills advisors, peer-mentoring officers, mental health and wellbeing specialists, and more.

But even with these services in place, some students still feel they are falling through the cracks.

Why? One of the most common pieces of student feedback might offer a clue – “I wish I had known you and come to you earlier”.

Within the existing system, most forms of support rely on students to take the first step – to reach out, refer themselves, or report a problem.

But not all students can or will: some are unsure who to turn to, others worry about being judged, and many feel too overwhelmed to even begin. These are the students who often disappear from view – not because support does not exist, but because they cannot access it in time.

Meanwhile, academics are stretched thin by competing research and teaching demands, and support teams – brilliant though they are – can only respond once a student enters this enquiry-response support system.

Systematic support that requires courage

As a result, students struggling silently often go unnoticed: for those “students in the dark”, there is often no obvious red flag for support services to act on until it is too late.

NSS data in recent years reveal a clear pattern of student dissatisfaction with support around feedback and independent study, indicating a growing concern and demand for help outside the classroom.

While the existing framework works well for those confident and proactive students, without more inclusive and personalised mechanisms in place, we risk missing the very group who would benefit most from early, student-centred support.

This is where academic coaching comes in. One of its most distinctive features is that it uses data not as an outcome, but as a starting point. At Buckinghamshire New University, Academic Coaches work with an ecosystem of live data – attendance patterns, assessment outcomes, and engagement time with the VLE – collaborating closely with data intelligence and student experience teams to turn these signals into timely action.

While our academic coaching model is still in its early phase, we have developed simulated student personae based on common disengagement patterns and feedback from colleagues. These hypothetical profiles help us shape our early intervention strategies and continuously polish our academic coaching model.

For example, “Joseph”, a first-year undergraduate (level 4) commuter student, stops logging into the VLE midway through the term. Their engagement drops from above cohort average to zero and stays that way for a week. In the current system, this might pass unnoticed.

But through live data monitoring, we can spot this shift and reach out – not to reprimand but to check in with empathy. Having been through the student years, many of us know, and even still remember, what it is like to feel overwhelmed, isolated, or simply lost in a new environment. The academic coaching model allows us to offer a gentle point of re-entry with either academic or pastoral support.

One thing to clarify – data alone does not diagnose the problem – but it does help identify when something has changed. It flags patterns that suggest a student might be struggling silently, giving us the opportunity to intervene before there is a formal cause for concern. From there, we Academic Coaches reach out with an attentive touch: not with a warning, but with an invitation.

This is what makes the model both scalable and targeted. Instead of waiting for students to self-refer or relying on word of mouth, we can direct time and support where it is likely to matter most – early, quietly, and personally.

Most importantly, academic coaching does not reduce students to data points. It uses data to ask the right questions and to guide an appropriate response. Why has this student disengaged? Perhaps something in their life has changed.

Our role is to notice this change and offer timely and empathetic support, or simply a listening ear, before the struggle becomes overwhelming. It is a model that recognises the earlier we notice and act, the greater the impact will be. Sometimes, the most effective student support begins not with a request, but with a well-timed email in the student’s inbox.

Firefighting? Future-proofing

The academic coaching model is not just about individual students – it is about rethinking how this sector approaches student support at a time of mounting pressure. As UK higher education institutions face financial constraints, rising demand, and increasing complexity in students’ needs, academic coaching offers a student-centred and cost-effective intervention.

It does not replace personal tutors or other academic or wellbeing services – instead, it complements them by stepping in earlier and guiding students toward appropriate support before a crisis hits.

This model also helps relieve pressure on overstretched academic staff by providing a clearly defined, short-term role focused on proactive engagement – shifting the approach from reactive firefighting to preventative care.

Fundamentally, academic coaching addresses a structural gap: some students start their university life already at a disadvantage – unsure how to fit into this new learning environment or make use of available support services to become independent learners – and the current system often makes it harder for them to catch up.

While the existing framework tends to favour confident and well-connected students, academic coaching helps rebalance the system by creating a more equitable pathway into support – one that is data-driven yet recognises and respects each student’s uniqueness. In a sector that urgently needs to do more with less, academic coaching is not just a compassionate gesture, but a future-facing venture.

That said, academic coaching is not a silver bullet and it will not solve every problem or reach every student. From our discussions with colleagues and institutional counterparts, one of the biggest challenges identified – after using data to flag students – is actually getting them on board with the conversation.

Like all interventions, academic coaching needs proper investment, training, interdepartmental cooperation, clear role boundaries, and a scalable framework for evaluating impact.

But it is a timely, student-centred response to a gap that traditional structures often miss – a role designed to notice what is not being said, to act on early warning signs, and to offer students a safe place to re-engage.

As resources tighten and expectations grow, university leadership must invest in smarter, more sensible forms of support. Academic coaching offers not just an added layer – it is a reimagining of how we gently guide students back on track before they drift too far from it.

Source link

September 9, 2025
Predictions for Governance This Academic Year (opinion)
The start of the new academic year has all eyes looking ahead. As we all know, prediction is very difficult, particularly about the future, as physicist Niels Bohr cheekily put it. At the same time, the future is already here—it is just unevenly distributed, as writer William Gibson said. In other words, while predictions are difficult, we have evidence of what we might expect. This essay applies those logics to higher education governance.

If predictions about the future are difficult, predictions about the future of governance might be outright foolish. Nevertheless, it is worth speculating and preparing.

On the Board’s Radar

Since higher education is in the headlines—if not the headline in the news—boards are likely to be more aware and informed of the issues and trends in higher education than they were in the past. This is particularly true because of federal action (I once would have said “policy,” but we are not seeing policy being made or even discussed) making news in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and other outlets read by trustees. Boards read about the Trump executive orders, drastic and devastating reductions in federal research funding, and attacks on institutional autonomy, as well as on specific universities: Harvard, Penn, Columbia, George Mason. The attacks on inclusion and student support for underrepresented groups (even the phrase “underrepresented groups”), DEI or its dismantling, and antisemitism are all subjects of conversations among trustees. Many are having parallel conversations in their corporate and law offices.

The demographic cliff—the long-foretold decline in the numbers of traditional-age students—has only gotten closer. Boards are worried about enrollment. There is concern over international students who are expected to seek alternatives other than the U.S.

For those universities with Division I athletics, there are complexities associated with name, image and likeness rights; the coaching hiring carousel; the transfer portal; and direct student athlete compensation. Boards like to be associated with winning.

Inflation over the past few years has made costs higher and budgets tighter. This means not only that there are fewer operational resources, but fewer dollars have gone into infrastructure. Therefore, deferred maintenance is growing and worrying many.

Then there is AI. As a Princeton University professor wrote in a recent article in The New Yorker, “The White House’s chain-jerk mugging feels, frankly, like a sideshow. The juggernaut actually barreling down the quad is A.I., coming at us with shocking speed.”

Underlining all of this is finances. For boards, particularly those at tuition-dependent institutions as well as those at research funding–dependent institutions, financial well-being is still king. It can and will continue to dominate board conversations. And in extreme cases, it risks becoming the only thing these boards care about.

Governance Crystal Ball

What does the above mean regarding the near-term future for governance? Before answering that question, I need to acknowledge the tremendous variation in boards and their composition as well as in the mission and geographic contexts in which they are operating. Governance generally is not governance locally. At the risk of overgeneralizing:
- Expect more anxiety and energy in the board room. Board members feel the pressure on higher education and their institutions. Some boards will amplify that pressure and others will help dissipate it. Nevertheless, expect boards to be 1) well-read on higher education because it’s in the national headlines and 2) animated about what they are reading and how they are translating that into the institutional context.
- Anticipate activist trustees and activist boards. In some instances, activism will be instigated by individual board members. Activist trustees as well as donors will likely continue to borrow approaches from their corporate brethren, driving agendas, trying to influence board composition, leveraging philanthropy and working behind the scenes. Ten years ago, the Harvard Business Review published an article about corporate activism. While there are clearly lessons to be learned and translated, the most striking part was that one named example of a corporate activist is now a familiar name to many in higher education after playing a key role in forcing the leadership change at Harvard University.
In other instances, the boards themselves (or at least a majority of members) may be activist. We have seen such examples in Florida, Idaho, Texas and Virginia. This is a different conversation altogether, when it is the full board as compared to individuals.
- Increased questioning of the role if not value of faculty governance. Many more boards are likely to openly question the value of faculty governance and how it can be improved. They may have done this privately in the past, but don’t expect quiet conversations about faculty decision-making. Given the enrollment and other external pressures and the “entrenched problems” with higher education (real and perceived, thus the quotation marks), boards may increasingly ask what faculty governance has contributed and in extreme instances why it exists. Most do not have it, or anything substantially similar, in their professional lives.
- A desire to consolidate power in the presidency. When the chips are down, corporate leaders may see their roles as being about making hard decisions, leading change and making unpopular choices to right their organizations. Captains of industry steer the ships under their charge. In higher education boardrooms, they then wonder why the college president—the institutional CEO—seems to have such comparatively little power in relation to their corporate peers. Often without realizing the differences in organizational contexts, they think that their approach to leadership, which typically works for them because they are successful (otherwise they most likely would not be trustees) should apply to colleges and universities. Presidents will be presented with corporate playbooks.
- Increased focus on what is taught. The idea of viewpoint diversity will likely gain increased weight this year in board rooms. Boards may see it as part of their oversight role to ensure a range of ideas is being taught. This means that boards may be focusing on the curriculum and in some instances on the content of individual courses. This also means that boards may want to create new structures and centers, particularly those focused on conservative thought. This too requires much unpacking. Some boards will likely approach this issue with a genuine sense of inquiry and interest, with student learning at heart. Other boards—not so much.
- Increased focus on how the curriculum is taught. Boards may be asking new and more pointed questions about how teaching and learning is conducted. The AI conversation may be driving some of this focus, but not all. Instructional costs, program enrollments, challenges of postgraduation employment and strained resources may also be behind their interest in curriculum.
- More time on campus issues and on campus. I sense that all of these will mean that board members will be increasing their engagement with higher education trends and issues and also spending more time on or in close contact with the campus. I anticipate calls and texts to presidents and possibly others on campus will increase—first in response to the day’s headlines. And second because they will simply have more questions or solutions.
Near-Term Action Agenda for Campus Leaders

While the above are predictions, solid and careful preparation may suit presidents well. It’s best to take that umbrella rather than get caught out in the rain.
1. Make more time for governance. We all know the complexities and demands of presidential schedules. Yet, be prepared to increase the time dedicated to the board. Board engagement is something that for the most part only presidents can do. That will mean delegating other tasks and responsibilities to the team. One might consider extending the time of board meetings and creating ways to meet with the board between meetings (briefings and updates are good strategies). There will likely be more governance work to do; don’t let old meeting structures impede good governance.
2. Increase communication with board leaders and with the board as a whole. It’s better to shape the narrative of information rather than constantly respond. Increase regular communications; send out special messages. Be sure to spend more time helping the board understand what they need to know and appreciate.
3. Prepare the board for crises. We don’t know what will happen this year, but one can safely assume there will be crises of some magnitude across a range of institutions. Have a clear communications plan—know who speaks for the campus and who speaks for the board. Clarify the process for the board of how messages get crafted and vetted. Be clear on who will communicate to the individual trustees. Set expectations for which trustees will know what and when. Remind trustees of the importance of confidentiality. Finally, consider conducting tabletop activities in which the board can work through a crisis before one occurs.
4. Lay the foundation for discussions about faculty governance. Be prepared to explain and possibly defend the idea, its structures and the culture of shared decision-making. A simple point to remind the board is that making decisions and actually implementing them are two different things. While shared governance may result in slower decision-making processes, it expedites implementation and ensures a greater likelihood of success because faculty were involved and have a sense of ownership. Bring faculty into board conversations as experts and contributors. Demonstrate their value, which is more powerful than explaining their value.
5. Invest in board education. Board members will want to engage. So it’s best to prepare them to do so from the point of knowledge and information. If boards are going to question academic freedom, for example, get ahead of the inquiries.
6. Bolster the board chair. Chairs play exceedingly important roles in effective governance. These are volunteer roles in which they manage the board and its personalities; set governance expectations and run interference, when need be; facilitate meetings (again running interference when need be); and support the president and serve as a strategic thought partner.
7. Ensure you have a top-notch board professional. Just as chairs play pivotal roles, so do board professionals. Good ones are worth their weight in gold, as they work mostly behind the scenes on governance, but they also engage directly with trustees. And speaking of gold, do your best to ensure they have the resources needed to do their jobs.
8. Spend more time on the development of committee and board meeting agendas. Boards do much of their work through meetings. Make sure the president and the senior team are intentional about the content of the agendas, the anticipated outcomes of each meeting and the materials boards need to have informed discussions. This point should go without saying, but too many board agendas are rote, poorly framed and lack focus.
9. Finally, intentionally address issues of finances—again particularly for those tuition-dependent and research funding–dependent institutions. Boards will be concerned and want action: By addressing financial well-being intentionally, you can then get the board to focus on other strategic priorities without being distracted. Attending to trustee priorities is important, but ensuring a balanced board agenda will better play the long game needed right now.
Conclusion

This calendar year has been one like no other. A safe bet is to predict that this academic year will be no different. The ideas above may be alarmist. Many boards will continue to govern effectively and do so in ways consistent with past practices. For that be thankful. Other boards may take it upon themselves to look in the mirror and move forward in new, positive and more constructive ways. Be even more thankful for that. As one experienced general counsel said to me, “If trustees truly want to guide their institutions and make sure that their problem-solving and future planning decisions are the best they can be, they need to keep their governance blades sharp.”

Peter Eckel is a senior fellow and director of the Global Higher Education Management program at the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education. He thanks two humans, a ChatGPT-generated novice board chair and a long-serving president for their feedback on the essay. The humans offered better insights, which could be due to the prompt writing or the caliber of the humans.
Source link
September 4, 2025
Job Descriptions – Academic Affairs

Job Description Index

Academic Affairs

Developed with the help of volunteer leaders and member institutions across the country, The Job Descriptions Index provides access to sample job descriptions for positions unique to higher education.

Descriptions housed within the index are aligned with the annual survey data collected by the CUPA-HR research team. To aid in the completion of IPEDS and other reporting, all position descriptions are accompanied by a crosswalk section like the one below.

Crosswalk Example

Position Number: The CUPA-HR position number
BLS SOC#: Bureau of Labor Statistics occupation classification code
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Bureau of Labor Statistics occupation category title
US Census Code#: U.S. Census occupation classification code
VETS-4212 Category: EEO-1 job category title used on VETS-4212 form

***SOC codes are provided as suggestions only. Variations in the specific functions of a position may cause the position to better align with an alternate SOC code.

Sample Job Descriptions

Academic Advisor/Counselor

Advises students concerning an appropriate academic schedule, choice of major, number of hours that may be taken, probation, and/or suspension. Contact may be on individual or group basis or be made by correspondence. No supervisory responsibilities. Requires a bachelor’s degree in counseling or related field or equivalent plus 2-3 years’ related experience. Exclude instructional faculty.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 401130
BLS SOC # 21-1012
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Educational, Guidance, and Career Counselors and Advisors
US Census Code # 2550
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Advisor, Academic (Oregon State University)
Academic Advisor (University of Rhode Island)
Academic Advisor (Notre Dame of Maryland University)

Academic Evaluator

Responsible for reviewing, analyzing, assessing and processing information, records and transcripts for determining academic credit and eligibility for degrees and specialized program designations. Requires at least six months of related experience.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 400150
BLS SOC # 25-9030
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Instructional Coordinators
US Census Code # 2550
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Manager, Degree Clearance (Oregon State University)
Academic Services Coordinator I (University of Memphis)

Academic Support Coordinator

Plans programs and supervises individuals involved in proficiency/evaluation testing. Supervises special tutors for students with language barriers or students requiring remedial education in math or English. Maintains a liaison with academic deans and faculty. Advises and assists students in determining proficiency in college-level courses. Requires bachelor’s degree or equivalent plus 2-3 years’ related experience.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 400120
BLS SOC # 25-9030
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Instructional Coordinators
US Census Code # 2550
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Director, Academic Support Center (York College of Pennsylvania)

Continuing Education Conference/Workshop Coordinator

Coordinates activities involved in provision of conference and workshop services. Assists in the selection or design of workshops to be presented. Develops preliminary program budget. Coordinates registration process, including fee collection and payment of honorarium and conference expenses. Secures appropriate conference setting and arranges for auxiliary services, including lodging, meals, and transportation. Requires a bachelor’s degree or equivalent plus 2-3 years’ related experience.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 404120
BLS SOC # 25-9030
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Instructional Coordinators
US Census Code # 2550
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Director of Continuing Education and Business Services (Illinois Valley Community College)
Continuing Education Administrator (North Carolina A&T State University)
Manager, Conferences and Special Program Development (University of Rhode Island)

Continuing Education Specialist

Responsible for planning and developing continuing education programs. Coordinates and manages the planning, design, and development of university level credit and non-credit courses. May include planning and development of workshops, certificate programs, seminars, and special events. Requires a bachelor’s degree or equivalent plus 4-5 years’ related experience.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 404110
BLS SOC # 25-9030
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Instructional Coordinators
US Census Code # 2550
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Coordinator Continuing Education (Florida International University)
Program Manager (Illinois Valley Community College)
Program Representative (University of California, Santa Barbara)

Credential Specialist

Responsible for a broad range of credentialing functions that include reviewing, analyzing, evaluating, and processing applications for public school teaching credentials, certificates, and permits. Serves as a campus resource and provides assistance, guidance, and current information to students, members of the faculty, faculty committees, and other interested parties on matters regarding state and campus credentialing requirements.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 400140
BLS SOC # 25-9030
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Instructional Coordinators
US Census Code # 2550
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Coordinator, Academic Programs (Oregon State University)

Curriculum Development Specialist

Coordinates, assists, and facilitates various aspects of the development and implementation of academic curricula and associated educational initiatives in collaboration with faculty instructors.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 406060
BLS SOC #: 25-9030
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name:  Instructional Coordinators
US Census Code: 2550
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Curriculum Coordinator (Johnson County Community College)
Curriculum Development Manager (Cochise College)

Faculty Development Professional

Coaches instructors on effective classroom teaching. Develops faculty, graduate teaching assistants, and postdocs in evaluating and refining teaching skills and practices. Promotes conversations and develops workshops on teaching and learning.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 409100
BLS SOC # 13-1150
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Training & Development Specialists
US Census Code # 0650
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Faculty Development Specialist II (University of Rhode Island)
Coordinator of Professional Development (Prince George’s Community College)
Center for Teaching Learning Assistant Director (Oregon State University)

Head, Executive Education

Reporting to the Dean, the Executive Director articulates and operationalizes an entrepreneurial vision for state of the art execution education programs. This position leads a team of business development staff, educational designers, and instructors who deliver custom training, open enrollment classes, certificate curricula, online learning, consulting and related research. Identifies and cultivates key client/stakeholder groups to be served, develops and maintains a network of relationships to build understanding of the major forces shaping the needs, positions and actions of key client/stakeholder groups. Develops and executes a business plan that supports the strategic priorities of the program and the needs of key client stakeholders. Secures professional development contracts with major corporations, nonprofits, and government entities. May work with an advisory board. Qualifications typically include 10+ years of experience, with a master’s degree mandatory and a PhD preferred.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 407100
BLS SOC # 25-9030
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Instructional Coordinators
US Census Code # 2550
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS

Head, Campus Educational Media Services

Responsible for providing audio-visual/media services and equipment in support of the institution’s instruction/learning process, research and public service programs.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 406140
BLS SOC # 25-9030
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Instructional Coordinators
US Census Code # 2550
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Associate Director of Media Services (Oregon State University)

Head, Campus Learning Resources Center

Directs all activities of the institution’s Learning Resources Center for students.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 400130
BLS SOC # 25-9030
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Instructional Coordinators
US Census Code # 2550
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS

Head, Campus Teaching Center

Responsible for promoting innovative college teaching, providing a venue for sharing pedagogical strategies across disciplines, introducing advances in teaching and curricular improvement, strengthening graduate students’ teaching skills and enhancing and facilitating undergraduate and graduate student learning.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 400135
BLS SOC # 25-9030
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Instructional Coordinators
US Census Code # 2550
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning (Oregon State University)

Head, Foreign Student Services

Recruits and advises foreign students and coordinates academic studies for foreign students on campus.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 400160
BLS SOC # 25-9030
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Instructional Coordinators
US Census Code # 2550
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS

Head, Intensive English Program

Oversees a program to provide international students with the language and cultural skills needed to be successful at an American university. The director’s functions include placing students; planning courses; selecting and training teachers; selecting texts and materials; supervising testing and evaluation. In addition, the Director and the IEP contribute to the integration of international students into all aspects of campus life, and collaborates with faculty, staff and students across campus toward creating a successful academic experience for all international students.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 407160
BLS SOC # 25-9030
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Instructional Coordinators
US Census Code # 2550
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Director of English Language Institute (Notre Dame of Maryland University)
Director Intensive English (Wichita State University)

Head, Student Academic Counseling

Directs the provision of academic counseling and testing services for students. Generally reports to Chief Campus Academic Advising Administrator, 196320

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 401010
BLS SOC # 21-1012
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Educational, Guidance, and Career Counselors and Advisors
US Census Code # 2550
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Director of CCSI (Oregon State University)
Supervisor, Academic Advising Center (Texas State University)
Director of Academic and Career Advising (The Evergreen State College)

Head, Theater/Performing Arts Center

Works with senior management to create a vision and strategy for performing arts. Plans, directs and markets theater/performing arts center programs. Responsible for all administrative activities and the day-to-day operations of the theater, including working with students, faculty and rental clients, hiring and scheduling of staff, managing revenue targets, payroll and budget management, program development, overseeing new productions, marketing, public relations, and developing community related performing arts programs, such as festivals and concert series. Integrating the theater more into student and community life is always a focus, including managing the relationships between the Center and other academic and administrative departments.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 408200
BLS SOC # 27-2012
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Entertainers and Performers, Sports and Related Workers / Producers and Directors
US Census Code # 2600
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Special Events Manager (Florida International University)
Dean, Division of Humanities, Fine Arts, and Social Sciences (Illinois Valley Community College)
Performing Arts Facilities Director (Mills College)

Head, Tutoring Program

Responsible for fostering student learning and development by providing vision, leadership, best practices and assessment for the tutoring program. The position works closely with other staff on campus (e.g., in Student Affairs), and with faculty from all schools to improve campus-wide tutoring on a continual basis.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 407140
BLS SOC # 25-9030
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Instructional Coordinators
US Census Code # 2550
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS

Instructional Technology, Faculty Support Manager

Supervises and oversees online education instructional and document support services, which may include a training center. Provides educational support to online education faculty. Creates online, face-to-face and/or blended customized training courses and products. Teaches instructional sessions for faculty, teaching assistants and graders on online learning teaching styles and methodologies based on individual or group needs. Conducts training needs assessments and evaluates training effectiveness. Develops strategies to streamline paper processes. Recommends new technical services to improve faculty support services. Minimum requirements typically include Bachelor’s degree, knowledge of online learning curriculum design, development and training, with 3 or more years of relevant experience.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 406050
BLS SOC # 25-9030
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Instructional Coordinators
US Census Code # 2550
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Online Campus Manager (College of Western Idaho)
Director of Instructional Design and Technology (Notre Dame of Maryland University)

Instructional Technology, Specialist

Responsible for working with faculty to promote the effective uses of IT in support of teaching and learning.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 406110
BLS SOC # 25-9030
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Instructional Coordinators
US Census Code # 2550
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Instructional Designer (Missouri State)
Senior Instructional Designer (Missouri State)

Librarian, Data Services

Responsible for a comprehensive data management program that serves the needs of faculty and students. Works in collaboration with subject librarians to build liaisons with faculty, students, and staff in the collection, description, curation, and reuse of data. Provides training and support in the discovery, use, and management of locally created and externally available data. Common job specialties include but are not limited to: data curation, data visualization, management of institutional repositories and disciplinary specializations in STEM, geographic information systems (GIS), social sciences, or humanities. Job titles include Data Librarian, Research Data Librarian, Research Data Management Librarian, or Data Curation Librarian. Degree requirement: ALA Accredited Masters or other graduate degree with experience.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 402275
BLS SOC #: 25-4020
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name:  Librarians and Media Collections Specialists
US Census Code: 2430
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Information Services Librarian (The University of Memphis)

Librarian, Digital Scholarship

Responsible for identifying, adopting, and applying digital arts and humanities approaches to research, teaching, and learning; identifies and evaluates tools and methods for digital arts and humanities scholars; collaborates with other areas of the library such as digital initiatives, data management, and digital repository or publishing; often serves as the liaison to Humanities areas. This position often collaborates with campus IT and teaching and learning offices to provide expertise in the fields of digital scholarship. Job titles may include: Digital Humanities Librarian, Open Science. Degree requirement: ALA Accredited Masters.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 402310
BLS SOC #: 25-4020
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name:  Librarians and Media Collections Specialists
US Census Code: 2430
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Information Services Librarian (The University of Memphis)
Supervisor Library Department (The University of Memphis)

Librarian, Research and Instruction (Ref Level I)

Provides general and virtual information, research, and reference services. Plans, teaches, and assesses information literacy instruction in collaboration with faculty and/or department head. Develops web- and print-based materials. Serves as liaison to academic departments. Locates and creates digital content to support academic instruction. Explores, evaluates, and encourages deployment of emergent technologies into library programs and services. Job titles may include Reference Librarian, Liaison Librarian, First Year Experience Librarian, Student Success Librarian, Instructional Design Librarian, Government Documents Librarian. Generally has 0‐1 years of experience in the field. Degree requirement: ALA Accredited Masters.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 402180
BLS SOC #: 25-4020
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name:  Librarians and Media Collections Specialists
US Census Code: 2430
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Library Assistant I (The University of Memphis)

Librarian, Scholarly Communications

Directs and assesses the scholarly communications programs of the library, including educating librarians and campus communities and coordinating promotions. Coordinates with the digital resources librarian for the storage and dissemination of digital content. Has a deep knowledge of one or more of the technologies used to maintain and disseminate scholarly works. Understands the power of and need for excellent metadata, the issues related to open access, the current publishing model, and how open scholarship influences academia. Works closely with liaison librarians to educate the campus community regarding scholarly communications issues. Job titles may include: Scholarly Services Librarian, Copyright and Intellectual Property Librarian, Open Access Librarian. Degree requirement: ALA Accredited Masters.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 402320
BLS SOC #: 25-4020
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name:  Librarians and Media Collections Specialists
US Census Code: 2430
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Coordinator Community Relations – University Libraries (The University of Memphis)

Librarian, Systems/Digital Resources

Serves as the database administrator for the library’s integrated system. Investigates, recommends, implements, and troubleshoots APIs and other integrations for the purpose of expediting the quality of work within library departments and/or the user experience with library resources. Responsible for the information technology infrastructure for the library; trains staff on new technologies; provides leadership in solving problems associated with delivery of electronic resources. Researches, evaluates, and recommends methodologies, standards, and software for the creation and preservation of digital collections. Serves as an expert to other library and college staff regarding the digitization and preservation of resources and records. Manages any open source projects and licensing of digital content. Degree requirement: ALA Accredited Masters.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 402065
BLS SOC #: 25-4020
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Librarians and Media Collections Specialists
US Census Code: 2430
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Electronic Resources Librarian (Cochise College)

Online Instructional Designer

Provides support to faculty, programs and schools in development and conversion of courses and programs to innovative online and other technology-assisted educational venues and/or face-to-face courses utilizing cutting-edge and creative design and course delivery options. Responsibilities include analysis, design, development, and implementation of online courses, web-based training, and face-to-face training curricula; proactive consultation with subject matter experts to identify and obtain training objectives and content; draft storyboards and mock-ups, and write and develop content as needed. Minimum requirements typically include Bachelor’s degree in education, education technology, instructional design or related field.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 406120
BLS SOC # 25-9030
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Instructional Coordinators
US Census Code # 2550
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Instructional Designer (College of Western Idaho)
Instructional Design Specialist (Oregon State University)
Instructional Designer/Developer (Prince George’s Community College)
Instructional Designer (Roosevelt University)
Instructional Design and Technology Specialist (Saint Francis University)
Director of Instructional Support and Online Operations, School for Professional Studies (Elmhurst College)
Senior Instructional Designer (Missouri State)
Instructional Designer (Oakland University)
Assistant Director, Online Education (University of Rhode Island)

Study Abroad Advisor

With supervision from the Director, provides advisory, referral, and information services to students, parents, and others interested in study abroad opportunities, as well as work, travel, or volunteer opportunities. Provides, organizes, and implements materials and forums regarding overseas study opportunities and sources of financial aid; assists students in complying with registration and academic credit transfer requirements. May supervise support staff positions. Requires a bachelor’s degree and 2 years’ related professional experience.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 400110
BLS SOC # 25-9030
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Instructional Coordinators
US Census Code # 0020
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Coordinator, Academic Support Services (Florida International University)
International Academic Specialist (University of California, Santa Barbara)
Advisor, Education Abroad (University of Rhode Island)
Study Abroad Advisor (The University of Memphis)

Study Abroad Program Coordinator

Develops, manages, and markets study abroad programs. Collaborates with faculty and external/international providers to ensure the academic quality of programs.

CROSSWALKS
Position Number: 400115
BLS SOC #: 25-9030
BLS Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Category Name: Instructional Coordinators
US Census Code: 0020
VETS-4212 Category: Prof

SAMPLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Coordinator of Study Abroad and Global Education (York College of Pennsylvania)
Study Abroad Advisor (The University of Memphis)

The post Job Descriptions – Academic Affairs appeared first on CUPA-HR.

Source link

September 2, 2025
6 higher education trends to watch for in the 2025-26 academic year

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

This year has already brought big challenges to the higher education sector, from major shifts in federal policy to massive cuts in government research funding.

As college leaders gear up for the 2025-26 academic year, they’re staring down even more change ahead.

The U.S. Department of Education is undertaking massive regulatory changes, the Trump administration is ramping up investigations into colleges, and Republican lawmakers are continuing their crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion.

Below, we’re rounding up six trends we’re keeping tabs on.

Trump and Republicans usher in a new era of financial retrenchment

Last year, colleges slashed spending on staff, faculty, programs and more in response to difficult enrollment realities and rising costs. The budget pressures have only intensified for many in the higher education world since President Donald Trump took office in January.

The Trump administration has targeted about $3.3 billion in grant funding for termination at public and private universities nationwide — about $206 per student — according to an analysis by the Center for American Progress.

In addition to contractions in research spending, institutions are juggling myriad changes to federal policy by Trump and congressional Republicans that could have significant effects on institutional budget planning. This includes a more fraught environment for international students, cuts to federal student lending and a higher endowment tax, to name just a few.

As they brace for a painful new era of higher ed, institutions of all kinds — from Stanford University to the University of Nebraska — are freezing hiring, offering buyouts, laying off faculty and staff, and pulling back on capital projects.

The new legal minefield

The Trump administration’s legal and financial warfare against Harvard University has grabbed an outsized share of headlines, and arguably for good reason. Harvard is the richest and oldest college in the U.S. If the administration succeeds in a multi-agency, omnidirectional attack on the institution, where does that leave the rest of the nation’s colleges?

Facing this question, some institutions have already made deals with the Trump administration as they attempt to maintain their federal funding and stay out of legal battles. Others are reported or confirmed to be in negotiations with the federal government. And many colleges are facing a difficult balancing act between mission and compliance.

In its attacks on colleges, the Trump administration has introduced novel and aggressive readings of civil rights laws and U.S. Supreme Court cases, as well as threatened vast sums of funding for colleges it considers out of compliance with federal statute.

For instance, the Education Department deemed the University of Pennsylvania in violation of civil rights law for prior policies allowing transgender women to play on sports teams aligning with their gender identity. Penn became one of the first colleges to strike a deal with the administration rather than risk the sort of multi-agency attack — complete with prolonged litigation — being deployed against Harvard.

Meanwhile, federal agencies suspended nearly $600 million in funding from the University of California, Los Angeles over allegations that it violated civil rights law because it didn’t do enough to respond to a pro-Palestinian protest encampment on its campus in spring 2024. Police cleared the encampment at the university’s request after less than a week.

Among other legal risks under Trump, policies meant to support transgender students or diversity programs can now potentially prompt prosecution of a college under the False Claims Act, a federal law dealing with fraud in government contracting. That’s according to a May message from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche introducing the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative that specifically listed colleges as potential False Claims Act targets.

New regulations coming down the pike

The Education Department has its work cut out for it over the next year. That’s because the agency must craft regulations to carry out the higher education-related provisions of the sweeping domestic policy bill passed by Republican lawmakers this summer.

The changes under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — which has been slammed by many higher education advocates — are vast.

They include phasing out Grad PLUS loans, which allow graduate and professional students to borrow up to the cost of their college attendance. The legislation also caps lifetime borrowing limits at $100,000 for most graduate students and $200,000 for those pursuing professional degrees, and it will consolidate a handful of repayment plans into just two options. And it opens up Pell Grants to programs as short as eight weeks.

Colleges will also face new regulations.

Under the legislation, their programs will lose federal student loan eligibility if they can’t prove their students get an earnings boost. For undergraduate programs, that means showing that at least half their graduates earn more than workers with only a high school diploma in their state.

The Education Department is devising the new regulations through a process called negotiated rulemaking. Under this process, the agency convenes representatives who will be impacted by the regulations — such as colleges, student loan borrowers and state officials — to hash out policy details.

If they agree on language, the Education Department is largely bound to adopt their rules as written for its regulatory proposal. If they don’t, however, the agency is free to come up with its own regulations.

The Education Department kicked off the process earlier this month and will hold meetings with negotiated rulemaking committees through January.

A shifting landscape for federal research funding

Legal battles over threatened federal research funding are likely to heat up in the months ahead.

Under the Trump administration, at least four major federal agencies have announced plans to cap reimbursement for indirect research costs — which support expenses like laboratory and facilities maintenance — at 15% for colleges. Many major research universities have negotiated rates hovering around 50% to 60%, meaning these policies threaten vast sums of their federal research funding.

So far, courts have blocked or paused each of the caps. The Trump administration has appealed three of the rulings, and one case is still playing out in federal district court.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court recently dealt a major blow to research universities by pausing a lower court order that would have restored $783 million in cut funding from the National Institutes of Health under the agency’s anti-DEI policy. While the high court preserved the ruling against the anti-DEI directives, it said the plaintiffs would have to pursue their claims to restore the cut grant funding in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which hears monetary claims against the federal government.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, who has led a coalition of states suing over the NIH cuts, indicated in a statement that the fight was not over.

“Even if accountability is delayed, we won’t stop fighting to protect this funding, our residents, and our rule of law,” Campbell said.

The battle over in-state tuition for undocumented students

At least 25 states and Washington, D.C., started the year with policies allowing eligible undocumented students to pay in-state rates at some or all of their public colleges. But since Trump began his second term, Republicans and his administration have prioritized reducing undocumented students’ access to higher education.

Florida first spurred the shift during a January special legislative session, repealing a law that made certain undocumented students eligible for in-state tuition rates at its public colleges.

Then, following an executive order from Trump, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Texas in June over its decades-old law — the first of its kind in the country — making undocumented students eligible for in-state tuition if they meet certain residency criteria and other requirements.

Despite the attack on the state statute, officials within Texas’ attorney general’s office quickly sided with the DOJ and filed a joint motion with the Trump administration to end the policy. A federal judge overseeing the case struck down the law only hours after the DOJ first filed its lawsuit.

Texas’ cooperation gave the Trump administration an early win and an example to cite as precedent as it moved on to target less amenable states.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has since filed lawsuits in rapid succession against Minnesota, Oklahoma and Kentucky over their in-state tuition policies for undocumented students. Like Texas, Oklahoma leaders partnered with the DOJ and filed a joint motion to end its policy. The request has not yet been approved by a federal judge.

Bondi argued in multiple, nearly identical statements that in-state tuition rates for undocumented students illegally provide benefits not offered to all U.S. citizens. One higher education attorney has argued that the Texas policy has the same requirements for participation for U.S. citizens and undocumented residents.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and other groups have sought to intervene in the state’s case and asked a federal court to set aside the order declaring Texas’ in-state tuition policy unconstitutional. The same federal judge that struck down the law ruled against them earlier this month, though the groups have already appealed.

Enforcement of new DEI restrictions

For years, conservatives have led coordinated efforts to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in higher education. The campaign only grew following Trump’s return to office and his administration’s push to crack down on diversity initiatives.

To comply with new federal directives and state laws, colleges have sprinted to cut programs, cancel events, restructure student services and reassign or lay off DEI-focused employees. In Ohio and Kentucky — two of the most recent states to enact DEI bans at public colleges — some higher education leaders read the writing on the wall and began cutting DEI work prior to the new laws’ passage.

Colleges are now being increasingly singled out for alleged violations of DEI bans. One method is through secretly recorded and heavily edited videos of employees. The videos, shared online and via conservative media outlets, appear to depict college officials talking about how to avoid DEI restrictions.

The dean of students at the University of North Carolina Asheville is “no longer employed” there after one such recording went viral, according to a university official. And in the same state, Western Carolina University announced it would close its Office of Intercultural Affairs, following a widely-shared video of a former employee who suggested DEI work be embedded across campus.

Two of Iowa’s three public universities — the University of Iowa and Iowa State University — are under state scrutiny after similar videos surfaced of their staff. The state attorney general is investigating the incidents at the University of Iowa at the behest of Iowa’s governor.

Two University of Iowa employees have been put on leave, with the Republican chair of the Legislature’s House higher education committee calling for them to be fired. Iowa State University told local media outlets that a video showing one of its administrators discussing DEI work appeared to be filmed a year prior to its release and featured a former employee who had not worked there since 2024.

GOP lawmakers from conservative-led states have also been calling on the Trump administration to investigate colleges over their DEI efforts.

In Texas, a Republican state representative requested the Trump administration to investigate Texas A&M University over allegations the institution “engaged in DEI courses and discriminatory ‘targeted recruiting’ practices.”

Two states over, a congressional representative from Tennessee similarly called for a federal investigation into Belmont University, alleging the private Christian college’s restructuring of its DEI office was “an intentional effort to deceive federal authorities and continue promoting discriminatory programming under a new name.”

Some colleges — particularly public ones in conservative states — are cracking down on behavior that could draw lawmaker attention.

Tarrant County College, in Texas, fired two administrators over the inclusion of DEI content in a mandatory training video, according to The Collegian, the institution’s student newspaper.

The community college also disciplined two employees over DEI-related offensives — one for conducting a workshop on “Microaggressions & Mental Health” and the other for gifting women co-workers a bouquet of flowers with a “Happy International Women’s Day” card.

Source link

August 28, 2025
Ohio University to cut 11 academic programs to comply with new law
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- Ohio University plans to wind down 11 undergraduate programs and merge another 18 to comply with a new state law that sets minimum graduation thresholds. The university said Tuesday it would suspend admission to the programs upon receiving approval from the state higher education department.
- Signed in March, Ohio’s sweeping Advance Ohio Higher Education Act gave state colleges just months to determine which programs to cut. The law requires public institutions to eliminate any undergraduate program that issues fewer than five degrees annually over a three-year period.
- At Ohio University, 36 programs fell below the allowed threshold. Along with the programs it plans to cut and merge, the university said it will request waivers to keep operating another seven.
Dive Insight:

With the passage of the new legislation, also known as SB 1, Ohio lawmakers made deep inroads into the academic operations of public colleges, asserting new state controls over decisions historically left to faculty and administrators.

The law bans diversity, equity and inclusion training, requires post-tenure review, prohibits full-time faculty from striking and even requires certain questions in student evaluations of professors.

SB 1 also created a policy that could wipe out dozens or even hundreds of academic programs if the experience of Ohio’s neighboring state is any gauge.

In Indiana, a similar policy with programmatic graduation thresholds — inserted into the most recent state budget bill — has already put 75 degree programs on the chopping block. The state’s public colleges also moved to suspend another 101 programs and consolidate 232.

As in Ohio, Indiana state colleges only had months to review their portfolios for cuts. That created uncertainty for many.

“Even tenured faculty are wondering, am I going to have a job in two months?” one faculty governance leader in Indiana told local media, describing “chaos and confusion” on campus.

At Ohio University, many programs slated to end have parallel programs that will continue. For example, the university is on track to suspend bachelor’s of arts degrees in chemistry, geological sciences, mathematics and physics, but it will continue offering bachelor’s of science degrees in those topics.

Students currently enrolled in affected programs will be able to complete their degrees, the university said.

Meanwhile, the institution is planning curricular changes to merge 18 programs with similar or overlapping degrees, most of them in the visual and performing and liberal arts such as instrumental music and several geography majors.

Ohio University requested waivers to keep open seven other programs, even though they fell below the thresholds. The institution said the degrees are unique, have undergone curriculum changes or meet workforce needs, the institution said.

Earlier this year, the University of Toledo also announced it was suspending admissions to nine programs to comply with SB 1.

Some students in Ohio are protesting SB 1’s overall and widespread impacts on campuses in the state. A petition launched by the Ohio Student Association asserts that “students have lost not only programs, centers, and scholarships — but also the sense of community and support that made higher education in Ohio accessible, inclusive, and excellent.”

The petition urged administrators at state colleges “not to overcomply with SB 1 — to act in the interest of students rather than in fear of the legislature,” adding that “institutional overcompliance furthers a broader political movement that seeks to erase the progress made toward justice in higher education.”

The group called on campus stakeholders to wear black in protest of the bill and its impacts.
Source link
August 27, 2025
AAUP Academic Freedom Statement Needs a Refresh (opinion)

I am a lifetime member of the American Association of University Professors. It is an organization that has done remarkable work in defending academic freedom for people who teach in this nation’s colleges and universities.

But as I contemplate returning to teaching this fall, I worry that the AAUP’s understanding of academic freedom is dangerously behind the times. The AAUP’s understanding of academic freedom urgently needs updating to take account of dangers that could not have been contemplated in 1940 when its statement on academic freedom was issued.

It is time for the organization to think anew about what academic freedom means and what must be done to protect it in an era when the federal government and some state governments are seeking to curtail it. We can understand why its failure to do has been problematic by taking a look at lawsuits filed by the AAUP and its campus-based chapters at universities that have been attacked by the Trump administration.

But before looking at those suits, let me say a bit about the 1940 statement.

The AAUP tells the story of its “Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure” this way: “In 1915 the Committee on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure of the American Association of University Professors formulated a statement of principles on academic freedom and academic tenure known as the 1915 Declaration of Principles … In 1940 … representatives of the American Association of University Professors and of the Association of American Colleges agreed on a restatement of the principles. This restatement is known to the profession as the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure.”

Thirty years later, the AAUP considered updating the 1940 statement but ultimately decided not to undertake a wholesale revision. Instead, it added a series of “Interpretive Comments” to the existing document. Those comments, the AAUP explains, were intended to update the document in light of “the experience gained in implementing and applying it for over thirty years and of adapting it to current needs.”

This history reminds us that the thinking guiding that statement goes back more than a century, to a time when the modern university was just taking shape. As Yale Law School professor Robert Post notes, “The American concept of academic freedom was forged early in the 20th century. It emerged from struggles between the newly professionalizing American professoriate and the governmental, business, and parochial powers that controlled American universities.”

And it has been more than half a century since the AAUP’s influential statement on academic freedom was refreshed at all.

The 1940 statement imagined that the main threat to the “full freedom” in research, teaching and extramural speech would come “from institutional censorship or discipline.” The statement was, in that sense, addressed not just to teachers and scholars, but to university administrators.

That is why if they do not follow the principles laid out in the AAUP statement, they can be subjected to censure. As the AAUP explains it, censure is reserved for institutions “that, as evidenced by a past violation … are not observing the generally recognized principles of academic freedom and tenure approved by this Association.”

I searched the censure list, looking for the Trump administration. Alas, it was nowhere to be found.

Not surprising, because by the AAUP’s standards, the Trump administration cannot violate academic freedom except indirectly by pressuring higher educational institutions to do so on its behalf.

To be fair, the AAUP has not been silent about what the administration has done since Jan. 20. In February, it joined a suit seeking to prevent the Trump administration “from using federal grants and contracts as leverage to force colleges and universities to end all diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, whether federally funded or not, and from terminating any ‘equity-related’ federal grants or contracts.”

In March, it sued the Trump administration for “unlawfully cutting off $400 million in federal funding for crucial public health research in an attempt to force Columbia University to surrender its academic independence.” As the AAUP noted, “This move represents a stunning new tactic: using cuts as a cudgel to coerce a private institution to adopt restrictive speech codes and allow government control over teaching and learning. “

But here again, consonant with its existing approach to academic freedom, the focus was on what Columbia would do to its faculty.

Also in March, the AAUP joined a lawsuit “seeking to block the Trump administration from carrying out large-scale arrests, detentions, and deportations of noncitizen students and faculty members who participate in pro-Palestinian protests and other protected First Amendment activities.” But note, the primary claim is about freedom of speech, not academic freedom.

In April, the AAUP and its chapter at Harvard University sued “to block the Trump administration from demanding that Harvard University restrict speech and restructure its core operations or else face the cancellation of $8.7 billion in federal funding for the university and its affiliated hospitals.”

Like the suit brought on behalf of Columbia University, it focused on what Harvard might do to restrict the academic freedom of those who teach and do research there.

In one sense, this is a remarkable record for which the AAUP deserves enormous credit. But, as I pointed out in January, there are new threats to individual faculty members “to intimidate them into silence,” as Darrell M. West put it. It is time that the AAUP acknowledged them in its foundational statement on academic freedom.

Protecting academic freedom now requires that colleges and universities not only refrain from abridging it themselves but that they take measures to protect and support members of their faculties in the face of governmental or other external threats targeting them directly. The AAUP should revise its 1940 statement to make clear that higher education institutions have an affirmative obligation to advance and protect academic freedom. Doing so would encourage recognition of academic freedom as a positive good in which the universities and their faculties have a joint interest.

For colleges and universities, implementing that affirmative obligation requires, among other things, that they stand ready to provide legal assistance, make public statements of support and offer help in devising crisis communication strategies for faculty whose freedom in research, in teaching or in their use of academic expertise as citizens is threatened or abridged by external forces.

That’s a big ask.

It calls on universities to provide resources, spend reputational capital and stand behind faculty whose views administrators might not share. The university, in this new understanding, has to put itself more at risk to promote and protect academic freedom.

Universities won’t do this easily, which is why the AAUP would play such an important role in advancing this goal. Redrafting the 1940 statement is a good place to start.

As the history of its current statement suggests, the AAUP does not move easily or quickly to reconsider its principles. But the need is great, and the time for action is here. By meeting the challenge of the moment, the AAUP will once again demonstrate its essential role in the world of American higher education.

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

Source link

August 27, 2025
Black Women’s Leadership in Higher Education: The Remaking of Academic Power

I
Dr. Tina M. King n the storied halls of higher education, Black women who ascend to the presidency do so while carrying the weight of history, community, and the unspoken expectation that we will be both miracle workers and scapegoats. Black women in higher education leadership navigate a complex matrix of anti-Blackness and misogynoir —a reality where their expertise is simultaneously appropriated and undermined. Research reveals that more than most Black women executives in predominantly white institutions (PWIs) experience racelighting (racialized gaslighting), characterized by dehumanizing scrutiny. We endure identity taxation, where we are expected to carry the unsustainable burden of single-handedly solving institutional race problems, often where we are the target of the attack while comforting white fragility. Simultaneously, we experience racelighting where people of color receive racialized messages and question their thoughts and experiences. This racelighting is perpetuated by the institution’s willingness to tokenize Black women’s identities for diversity optics while suppressing our agenda for transformative anti-racist praxis. The narrative of Black women’s leadership in PWIs is not simply a tale of individual achievement but also reflects the deep, persistent anti-Blackness embedded in the academy’s very structure.

The attacks, swift and severe, are often cloaked in the familiar rhetoric of “governance, academic integrity, or collegial concern,” but the subtext is unmistakably racial. They are orchestrated not as a response to policy but as a rebuke of Black authority daring to reshape the institution’s priorities. In such attacks, we are called incompetent, corrupt, and unwilling to do the hard work (lazy), echoing tropes that have long been used to undermine Black people in general and Black women in leadership specifically. The most insidious move, however, is often the elevation of a single Black or Brown person to be the messenger or carrier of the attack, serving as a shield to deflect accusations of racism and to lend legitimacy to the movement or campaign t o disparage and discredit Black women’s leadership.Dr. Regina Stanback Stroud

This dynamic is not new. Dr. Patricia Hill Collins (2000), in her foundational work on Black Feminist Thought, describes how Black women in leadership are subjected to controlling images— stereotypes that are deployed to police the boundaries of acceptable Blackness. In the academy, these images manifest as relentless questioning of competence, insinuations of aggression, and the expectation that Black women will perform emotional labor to maintain white comfort. The token messenger, perhaps unwittingly, becomes complicit in this system, their proximity to whiteness granting her temporary power even as it reinforces the very structures that marginalize leaders of color—in other words, they become complicit in using the academic tools of white supremacy to join in the assault on Black women’s leadership.

What begins to emerge is a spectator sport where people at all levels of influence remain silent in the face of orchestrated attacks. Please make no mistake: silence does not represent neutrality; it represents complicity. By refusing to address the racialized nature of the attacks, the institution is signaling that Black women leaders are ultimately expendable, their contributions contingent upon their willingness to placate white interests and prioritize white comfort. This is the reality of what Breonna Collins (2022) calls “epistemic violence” –the systematic invalidation of Black knowledge and leadership under the guise of procedural fairness.

Yet Black women leaders have always found ways to resist and reimagine the academy. Drawing on the tradition of Black feminist resistance, we create counterspaces within hostile institutions, mentoring the next generation and insisting on the legitimacy of their vision. We redefine “institutional fit” not as assimilation into white norms but as the capacity to transform the institution in service of justice.

Despite these acts of resistance and reimagination, the very presence and leadership of Black women in academic spaces often disrupts entrenched power structures and exposes the discomfort many have with authentic Black excellence. A threat to many, Black excellence in leadership prioritizes the needs of marginalized students and communities over the preservation of the status quo.

While some may wish to uphold privilege and power for themselves, others may be well-intentioned but unable to recognize Black excellence. They may interpret Black leadership as arrogance or see Black Leaders simply as flaunting their positions or being opinionated. Still others may believe they are doing good but fail to recognize their own deep biases. Those who consider themselves allies may suffer fatigue along with Black leaders, but that mutual suffering does not, an ally make. It must be accompanied by one’s willingness to use their white privilege and capital to actively combat anti-Blackness and misogynoir at play.

Studies of HBCU leadership reveal how Black women executives subvert PWI pathologies through radical self-definition, where we reject white-normed leadership frameworks to implement culturally grounded approaches and ethical care (prioritizing community needs over respectability politics). We create counter-spaces that center Black epistemologies, such as mentorship programs that affirm Black women’s intellectual sovereignty. Black women leaders engage in institutional truth-telling where we document systemic racelighting through critical race methodology.

True transformation requires more than performative allyship. It demands redistribution of resources, independent accountability structures, and a commitment to centering Black epistemologies in institutional decision-making. There is a growing recognition that Black leadership is not incidental— it is essential to the future of higher education. The time has come for institutions to choose: will they cling to the master’s tools, or will they finally make room for the radical imagination and power of Black women’s leadership?

Until higher education is willing to confront its foundational anti-Blackness, it will continue to sacrifice its most visionary leaders on the altar of white comfort. The question is not whether another attack will come but who will have the courage to stand in solidarity and say, “Enough.” The future of academia depends on this shift. Ultimately, we must move beyond the white gaze and demand for our pain, and instead, embrace the Black radical imagination and the remaking of power in the academy.

Dr. Tina M. King is president of San Diego College of Continuing Education

Dr. Regina Stanback Stroud is the chief executive officer of RSSC Consulting

Dr. Jennifer Taylor Mendoza serves as the 13th president of West Valley College.

Source link

August 22, 2025
How to offer academic asylum to scholars at risk

Since President Trump rolled out executive orders to eliminate DEI programmes and began to unpick the funding infrastructure of American research, a number of countries have offered safe haven to academics currently working in the USA.

As rector of Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Jan Danckaert, noted:

American universities and their researchers are the biggest victims of this political and ideological interference. They’re seeing millions in research funding disappear for ideological reasons.

From Singapore and Australia to Norway and Belgium, governments and individual universities around the globe are seizing the opportunity to attract the top American minds. For scholars fearful of their government’s policy direction on academic freedom, such as those working in gender studies, on vaccine research or climate change, the situation is urgent.

At risk academics

Yet this is nothing new. The Council for At-Risk Academics (CARA) has helped researchers escape persecution and conflict for almost a century, bringing the likes of Nikolaus Pevsner, Max Born and Albie Sachs to safety in Britain. Conceived in response to the Nazi assault on universities, CARA drove Britain’s scholarly rescue mission in the 1930s. At the same time, a parallel movement began in the USA. The Institute for Advanced Study was created at Princeton, with Albert Einstein appointed as the first Fellow in 1932. Other European academics such as Paul Dirac and Emmy Noether soon followed.

Just as German scientists sought academic freedom in the USA and UK in the 1930s, now American scholars are beginning to cross the Atlantic in the other direction. In France, Aix-Marseille University received around 300 applications for its Safe Place for Science initiative, which aims to offer 15 million Euro to support research across the next three years. The first eight researchers arrived in France in June, with up to 20 expected by the beginning of the new academic year.

The UK’s universities meanwhile seem mired in a funding crisis due to financial models all too dependent on precarious markets of international students, leading to shrinking budgets, staff layoffs and even the looming possibility of full-blown bankruptcy. Offering cash and “academic asylum” to any foreign academics in these straitened circumstances is unlikely to be seen as a priority. And yet Institutes for Advanced Study, or IASs, already provide the necessary infrastructure and perhaps the fastest means of response.

What is an Institute for Advanced Study?

Princeton’s Institute remains remarkable: since its inception, visitors have been selected solely on the basis of academic ability, regardless of gender, race or religion; its mission of Advanced Study centres the “curiosity-driven pursuit of knowledge” as a good in itself, with no view to practical application or the expectation of meeting predetermined goals. This approach, and the inherent interdisciplinarity of bringing together researchers across the sciences, arts and humanities, inspired counterparts around the world, including the UK’s first IAS at the University of Edinburgh in 1969. Other UK universities with an IAS now include Warwick, Loughborough, Durham, Stirling, UCL and Birmingham.

These Institutes vary in size and scope but all share Princeton’s founding mission of untrammelled academic freedom for blue-sky thinking. Interdisciplinarity is the scholarly keystone of Advanced Study. Researchers from diverse disciplines and career stages form a community of practice, which may also encompass artists, journalists, community activists and others who likewise benefit from a reflective, supportive, non-hierarchical environment in which to work. Conversations and serendipitous encounters in such an environment can be the “source from which undreamed-of utility is derived” in the words of Abraham Flexner, founder of Princeton’s IAS.

What can these institutes offer?

Amid difficult economic times, approaches to knowledge production have become ever more instrumental, with research increasingly valorised for its capacity to be commercialised or to have some form of impact beyond the academy. However, an overemphasis on applied research risks circumscribing the conceptual imagination that underscores so many scientific advances. The curiosity-driven IAS approach can be a necessary corrective to instrumentalism, bolstering a healthy research culture.

From their inception in the 1930s, IASs have also always had a moral mission to support colleagues around the world when threatened by conflict, displacement or, in the case of the new wave of populist governments, by illiberalism. For those escaping war and trauma, such institutes form quiet places of refuge, rehabilitation and recovery. A small institute can be agile enough to respond to urgent need when research is threatened, where a whole department is less able to pivot. It is worth noting that recent programmes for Ukrainian scholars and their families have tended to emerge from IASs, along with bespoke schemes for researchers from Palestine, Syria, Hungary or Türkiye – and now perhaps America.

Lastly, opportunities for career advancement have reduced across the whole university sector, nationally and internationally. Early-career scholars in particular face an impossibly precarious work environment, and staff development programmes are often the first casualty of cuts to expenditure. Whilst contracted research – as PDRA on a senior scholar’s project – can be an important stepping stone in the early stages of an academic career, there is a need for more funded opportunities to support independent research at postdoctoral level. IASs are one of very few means by which such research can flourish. Each year, hundreds of global scholars are appointed to IAS Fellowships at postdoctoral and more senior levels.

Given the polycrises facing the sector, turning us inward, perhaps it is necessary to reconsider higher education as a global commons. In doing so, universities must embrace their particular responsibilities as places of sanctuary, of fundamental knowledge production and as incubators for the next generation of scholarship. The concept of Advanced Study was created to foster innovation across all these areas in a time of persecution.

Now more than ever, Institutes devoted to that transformative potential could be the vehicle for promoting the highest standards of international collaboration, extending a hand to academics at risk in the global south and north, including our American counterparts.

Source link

August 19, 2025
Academic Entrepreneurship with Toyin Alli, PhD

Dr. Toyin Alli returns to The Social Academic podcast to talk about showing up online for yourself and your business as an academic. As an entrepreneur herself, Toyin has balanced full time academic life with her business. Now, she helps academics like you create a semester-proof business that works for your full time academic life.

In this episode: finding community, video for YouTube, and running a business in 5 hours a week or less.

Bio

Dr. Toyin Alli is a math professor, business strategist, and the founder of The Academic Society, where she helps grad students with time management, productivity, self-care and grad school success strategies.

After building her own six-figure business while teaching full-time, Toyin now mentors other professors through her signature program Six Figure Professor and her community, The Secret Society of Academic Entrepreneurs.

She’s been featured on various academic podcasts and has spoken at universities across the country.

Whether she’s teaching in the classroom, facilitating a virtual workshop, or coaching behind the scenes, Dr. Toyin Alli is on a mission to help academics reclaim their time, expand their influence, and redefine success on their own terms.

Watch our past interview with Dr. Toyin Alli about grad school.

Source link

August 14, 2025
Post-pandemic, student academic recovery remains elusive
Key points:

Five years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, academic recovery has stalled nationwide, and achievement gaps have widened, according to the State of Student Learning 2025 report from from Curriculum Associates.

The report offers one of the most comprehensive looks at Grades K–8 student performance in reading and mathematics, based on data from close to 14 million students who took the i-Ready Diagnostic assessment in the 2024–2025 school year.

The report shows that most students have not yet reached pre-pandemic achievement levels, and some are falling even further behind. The report does find some bright spots: Some historically underserved schools, especially majority-Black schools, are seeing modest, positive gains in both reading and mathematics. However, those gains have not yet translated into closing longstanding disparities.

“This report shows that disrupted schooling due to the pandemic continues to impact student learning, particularly for students who are in early grades, are lower performing, or are from historically underserved communities,” said Kristen Huff, head of measurement at Curriculum Associates. “Academic recovery has never been one-size-fits-all, and these results reaffirm the importance of nuanced, data-informed approaches. Above all, they underscore the vital work educators are doing every day to meet students where they are and help them move forward.”

Key findings
- Academic progress has plateaued. Since spring 2023, national achievement has remained flat. While many students are growing at pre-pandemic rates, that growth isn’t closing the gap caused by pandemic disruptions.
- The achievement gap has grown in many cases. Students who were already behind, particularly those scoring in the bottom 10th percentile, continue to fall behind, while top-performing students have often recovered or surpassed their pre-pandemic levels.
- Younger students experienced greater learning losses. Even though they were not yet in school during the pandemic, elementary students, especially in Grades K and 1, saw the largest drops in achievement after the pandemic.
- Vulnerable populations are experiencing uneven recovery. The report shows widening gaps between the nation’s highest and lowest performers. Across most grades, the differences between higher and lower percentiles have increased over time.
A data-driven, nationwide look

The 2025 report examines data through the critical years pre- and post-pandemic, from spring 2019 to spring 2025. Using a nationally representative sample of more than 11.7 million reading and 13.4 million mathematics assessments, the research examines:
- Grade-level placement: how many students are performing at or below grade level
- Scale scores by percentile: how learning differs across performance groups
- Annual growth: whether students are making enough academic progress during the school year to recover lost ground
The findings reinforce that targeted support is needed to ensure every student can thrive academically, especially younger students, lower-performing students, and historically underserved communities.

This press release originally appeared online.

eSchool Media staff cover education technology in all its aspects–from legislation and litigation, to best practices, to lessons learned and new products. First published in March of 1998 as a monthly print and digital newspaper, eSchool Media provides the news and information necessary to help K-20 decision-makers successfully use technology and innovation to transform schools and colleges and achieve their educational goals.

Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)
Source link
August 13, 2025