Tag: Address

  • Missouri President Wants Local Officials to Address Crime

    Missouri President Wants Local Officials to Address Crime

    University of Missouri president Mun Choi is pressing local officials about crime rates near the Columbia campus after a student from neighboring Stephens College died Sunday following a downtown shooting, KCUR and the Columbia Missourian reported. 

    The president’s demand to address the city’s “rampant crime rate” has gathered some support, but critics say that his characterization of the local climate is overexaggerated, pointing to data from the local police department.

    The shooting, which also resulted in serious injuries to two others, took place early Saturday morning on the college town’s main street. One individual, not from the city, got into a verbal dispute and then opened fire toward the people he was confronting. The three individuals he hit, however, were bystanders.    

    In a letter sent the same day as the shooting, Choi called on city and county leaders to bolster the police presence and prosecute crimes to the fullest extent of the law. He also urged them to take down encampments of unhoused individuals, pass a loitering notice and repeal policies that “attract criminals to the region.”  

    But when asked during a press conference Monday what policies and practices he believes “attract criminals,” the MU president said he had none to cite. Neither the shooter in the Saturday incident nor any of the victims have been identified as unhoused, according to local reporting.

    “That is why I am asking [local leaders] to evaluate the processes that we have and the practices,” he explained. “Are we giving the impression to potential criminals that this is a region that doesn’t take crime enforcement as well as the punishment that comes with it seriously?”

    Choi later added that students and local business owners have been raising safety concerns about the city’s unhoused population. According to university data, the number of arrests and trespassing violations issued to the unhoused has “gone up dramatically” since 2019, he said.

    That is different, however, from what some local police department data shows.

    In a Facebook post Monday, the city’s mayor, Barbara Buffaloe, said there have been 58 gunshot incidents since the beginning of the year. That’s down from 105 in the first nine months of 2024.

    Columbia Police Department chief Jill Schlude did note in a separate letter, however, that since 2019 more crimes have been concentrated downtown, occurring between midnight and 3 a.m. 

    “The connection between late-night social activity and violence is clear, and that is where we continue to focus our efforts,” Schlude said.

    Regardless of any disputes over the data, multiple government officials—including Gov. Mike Kehoe, several members of the Columbia City Council and Mayor Buffaloe—have voiced support for Choi’s general call to improve safety. Buffaloe has also committed to forming a task force on the matter, and the CPD has outlined plans to increase the police presence downtown. 

    “Statistics cannot be used solely as a reason for us to move away from what needs to be done in the city of Columbia,” Choi said.

    Source link

  • We cannot address the AI challenge by acting as though assessment is a standalone activity

    We cannot address the AI challenge by acting as though assessment is a standalone activity

    How to design reliable, valid and fair assessment in an AI-infused world is one of those challenges that feels intractable.

    The scale and extent of the task, it seems, outstrips the available resource to deal with it. In these circumstances it is always worth stepping back to re-frame, perhaps reconceptualise, what the problem is, exactly. Is our framing too narrow? Have we succeeded (yet) in perceiving the most salient aspects of it?

    As an educational development professional, seeking to support institutional policy and learning and teaching practices, I’ve been part of numerous discussions within and beyond my institution. At first, we framed the problem as a threat to the integrity of universities’ power to reliably and fairly award degrees and to certify levels of competence. How do we safeguard this authority and credibly certify learning when the evidence we collect of the learning having taken place can be mimicked so easily? And the act is so undetectable to boot?

    Seen this way the challenge is insurmountable.

    But this framing positions students as devoid of ethical intent, love of learning for its own sake, or capacity for disciplined “digital professionalism”. It also absolves us of the responsibility of providing an education which results in these outcomes. What if we frame the problem instead as a challenge of AI to higher education practices as a whole and not just to assessment? We know the use of AI in HE ranges widely, but we are only just beginning to comprehend the extent to which it redraws the basis of our educative relationship with students.

    Rooted in subject knowledge

    I’m finding that some very old ideas about what constitutes teaching expertise and how students learn are illuminating: the very questions that expert teachers have always asked themselves are in fact newly pertinent as we (re)design education in an AI world. This challenge of AI is not as novel as it first appeared.

    Fundamentally, we are responsible for curriculum design which builds students’ ethical, intellectual and creative development over the course of a whole programme in ways that are relevant to society and future employment. Academic subject content knowledge is at the core of this endeavour and it is this which is the most unnerving part of the challenge presented by AI. I have lost count of the number of times colleagues have said, “I am an expert in [insert relevant subject area], I did not train for this” – where “this” is AI.

    The most resource-intensive need that we have is for an expansion of subject content knowledge: every academic who teaches now needs a subject content knowledge which encompasses a consideration of the interplay between their field of expertise and AI, and specifically the use of AI in learning and professional practice in their field.

    It is only on the basis of this enhanced subject content knowledge that we can then go on to ask: what preconceptions are my students bringing to this subject matter? What prior experience and views do they have about AI use? What precisely will be my educational purpose? How will students engage with this through a newly adjusted repertoire of curriculum and teaching strategies? The task of HE remains a matter of comprehending a new reality and then designing for the comprehension of others. Perhaps the difference now is that the journey of comprehension is even more collaborative and even less finite that it once would have seemed.

    Beyond futile gestures

    All this is not to say that the specific challenge of ensuring that assessment is valid disappears. A universal need for all learners is to develop a capacity for qualitative judgement and to learn to seek, interpret and critically respond to feedback about their own work. AI may well assist in some of these processes, but developing students’ agency, competence and ethical use of it is arguably a prerequisite. In response to this conundrum, some colleagues suggest a return to the in-person examination – even as a baseline to establish in a valid way levels of students’ understanding.

    Let’s leave aside for a moment the argument about the extent to which in-person exams were ever a valid way of assessing much of what we claimed. Rather than focusing on how we can verify students’ learning, let’s emphasise more strongly the need for students themselves to be in touch with the extent and depth of their own understanding, independently of AI.

    What if we reimagined the in-person high stakes summative examination as a low-stakes diagnostic event in which students test and re-test their understanding, capacity to articulate new concepts or design novel solutions? What if such events became periodic collaborative learning reviews? And yes, also a baseline, which assists us all – including students, who after all also have a vested interest – in ensuring that our assessments are valid.

    Treating the challenge of AI as though assessment stands alone from the rest of higher education is too narrow a frame – one that consigns us to a kind of futile authoritarianism which renders assessment practices performative and irrelevant to our and our students’ reality.

    There is much work to do in expanding subject content knowledge and in reimagining our curricula and reconfiguring assessment design at programme level such that it redraws our educative relationship with students. Assessment more than ever has to become a common endeavour rather than something we “provide” to students. A focus on how we conceptualise the trajectory of students’ intellectual, ethical and creative development is inescapable if we are serious about tackling this challenge in meaningful way.

    Source link

  • Productivity roundtable should address RPL – Campus Review

    Productivity roundtable should address RPL – Campus Review

    Streamlining recognition of prior learning (RPL) is one way the tertiary education sector can boost the economy during the Albanese government‘s mission to tackle declining productivity.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • How to address harassment and sexual misconduct experienced by PGRs

    How to address harassment and sexual misconduct experienced by PGRs

    The experiences of postgraduate researchers (PGRs) have not received the same level of attention as undergraduate students in relation to tackling harassment and sexual misconduct.

    PGRs have very different conditions of study than undergraduate or taught postgraduate students, and they may be at a different stage in life with significant professional experience.

    It would be a mistake, however, to assume that PGRs’ maturity and longer tenure within higher education institutions means that they are less likely to experience these issues.

    PGRs face significant risks – particularly in relation to abuses of power from staff both within and outside their institution – that can have deleterious impacts on their lives, careers, and health, requiring a different approach to provisions for students at other levels.

    As a result, implementation of the Office for Students’ (OfS) regulatory requirements, coming into force on 1 August 2025, needs to ensure that it takes into account the specific situations and needs of PGRs.

    At The 1752 Group, to support HEIs to do this, in partnership with the UK Council for Graduate Education we have published a toolkit to guide work in this area. It draws on our own, as well as international research in this area, to give a snapshot of current good practice.

    It also addresses the obligations outlined in the Worker Protection Act – in force since October 2024 – which requires employers to take reasonable steps to prevent the sexual harassment of employees.

    While the OfS regulations apply to England only, the toolkit can also be used outside England to guide institutional work on addressing harassment and sexual misconduct experienced by PGRs.

    Prevalence

    Perhaps the most problematic misconception in the sector about harassment and sexual misconduct is that it is rare. A 2023 survey conducted on behalf of OfS (n=5090) found that 6 per cent of PGRs had experienced unwanted behaviours of a sexual nature in the previous year.

    The findings also show there is work to be done on confidence in reporting – 32 per cent of PGRs were not confident in knowing where to seek university support, while 35 per cent were not confident in knowing how to report sexual misconduct.

    However, the OfS survey only had a small number of PGR respondents. Larger-scale studies from Australia (n=31,000) and the US (n=181,752) indicate that as many as 15 per cent of postgraduate students experience sexual harassment in a university setting each year, with 58 per cent being targeted by another student and 10 per cent being targeted by a tutor or lecturer from their university (the data is not disaggregated for PGRs specifically).

    Of course, sexual harassment intersects with harassment on the basis of other protected characteristics – non-binary and trans people are subjected to higher rates of sexual harassment at university than women (45 per cent and 32 per cent respectively), and lesbian, bisexual, gay and queer students, as well as women, also experience significantly higher rates of sexual harassment than heterosexual, cis-gendered men.

    On top of sexual harassment, LBGTQ+ doctoral students may also be experiencing homophobic and/or transphobic behaviour or feel that they have to conceal their sexual orientation/expression and/or gender identity/expression. There is also a risk that, following the Supreme Court’s recent judgement on the legal definition of sex, trans and non-binary students and staff (as well as those perceived to be trans, non-binary or gender nonconforming) face an even higher risk of harassment.

    OfS regulatory requirements around E6 cover all forms of harassment on the basis of protected characteristics. Data on experiences among PGRs is often unavailable. However, in a 2020 survey of 828 students across all levels of study in the UK, 24 per cent of respondents from an ethnic minority background had experienced racial harassment since becoming a student.

    That figure rose to 45 per cent of Black respondents, with the most common form of harassment being racist name calling, insults or “jokes”. Research specifically focusing on the experiences of racially minoritised PGRs in the UK shows that they face “multiple challenges, which are often triggered and amplified by circumstances specific to their ethnicity and result in their disempowerment within HEIs”, with women and international racially minoritised PGRs being especially marginalised.

    Similarly, Muslim doctoral students, who may also be racially minoritised, face Islamophobia, overt and covert racism, and marginalisation.

    What, then, do higher education institutions need to do to address this issue? A first step is to make sure that appropriate institutional governance and oversight is in place. Beyond that, institutional provision can be divided into three stages (based in public health models of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention):

    • Preventing harassment before it occurs
    • Short-term responses that should be in place when gender-based violence or harassment occurs, including to prevent it from recurring
    • Longer-term actions to deal with the lasting consequences of gender-based violence

    Preventing harassment

    The first stage, preventing harassment before it occurs, should be where the most substantial amount of work occurs. One area is in preventing abuses of power. OfS requires institutions to take one or more steps which could (individually or in combination) make a significant and credible difference in protecting students from any actual or potential conflict of interest and/or abuse of power.

    This is a significant challenge in relation to PGRs, given deeply hierarchical nature of academia. Ways in which HEIs can prevent abuses of power include clarifying professional boundaries, introducing a staff-student relationships policy, minimising power imbalances in admissions processes and supervision arrangements, and safer staff recruitment.

    For example, discussions of professional boundaries with supervisors and PGRs within departments and schools can feed into an institution-wide policy in this area. Institutional requirements in terms of professional boundaries could then be added to existing staff training and PGR professional development programmes, as well as induction procedures.

    More generally, training is required not only for PGRs themselves, but most urgently for staff, not least because any staff member could potentially receive a disclosure of harassment or sexual misconduct. Staff involved in making decisions or providing ongoing support will need further training on the required knowledge and skills.

    The OfS guidance does not discuss addressing inequalities as part of prevention work. Nevertheless, this is an essential part of preventing harassment and sexual misconduct. For example, racialised inequalities can support a culture where harassment on the basis of race is normalised and accepted, or a predominance of male students or staff can enable a culture where sexualised humour or derogatory comments about women or gender minorities are seen as normal.

    These inequalities can shape the culture in different disciplines or departments; some disciplines – medicine, engineering, and law – have been found in the US to have higher rates of sexual harassment by staff and/or postgraduate students, which may relate to gender inequality in some of these disciplines.

    As such, it is important to link up work to gather data and address inequalities in higher education with initiatives to prevent harassment and sexual misconduct. These could include programmes on increasing diversity in recruitment and admissions to PGR programmes, “People, Culture and Environment” statements for the Research Excellence Framework, and where relevant to PGRs, Athena Swan, Race Equality Charter, and Access and Participation Plans.

    Data collected for these programmes of work can reveal areas of the institution where gender and other inequalities exist, and therefore where there is a heightened risk of harassment and sexual misconduct occurring.

    One area where many if not most institutions have a long way to go is in gathering and using data to assess risk, as required by the Worker Protection Act. Data to assess risk relating to harassment and sexual misconduct can be obtained from online reporting systems, formal reporting, informal disclosures, or institutional surveys. In the toolkit, we highlight a good practice example from the University of Bath. They use quantitative data from their online reporting system as well as qualitative data from independent advisers to understand PGRs’ experiences and to report to the university’s Governing Body. This data then feeds into the content of mandatory in-person training for doctoral supervisors.

    Short-term responses when harassment occurs

    Often PGRs do not wish to make a formal, named report about their experiences. Wherever possible, choice and control as to next steps should be left with the person who has been targeted. As well as supporting the person/people targeted, an HEI should consider informal/precautionary actions and a risk assessment, and/or a proactive investigation instigated by the institution.

    For formal reports, E6 requires HEIs to have an effective reporting mechanism and an investigatory approach that is fair, credible, and in line with natural justice, and to include in their central information hub details on how students, staff and others can report harassment and/or sexual misconduct and how the information received in connection to harassment and/or sexual misconduct will be “handled sensitively and used fairly.”

    This is of course a complex area that we have previously written about for Wonkhe, and in the toolkit we highlight some areas of good practice, for example, completing an investigation even where the responding staff member leaves the institution in the middle of it.

    Longer-term response after harassment has occurred

    Finally, while not addressed in the OfS guidance, to minimise the impacts harassment and sexual misconduct have on gender and other inequalities, longer-term responses are required.

    These could include remedies at the end of a reporting process, addressing wider cultural issues that may have been revealed by reports or investigations, or taking steps to enhance transparency and openness in institutional responses to harassment and sexual misconduct.

    For example, UCL’s relevant policy states that the reporting party will be informed if someone is dismissed or expelled from the institution as a result of their complaint. This might seem like a very minor step, but many HEIs do not even share this much information with complainants, even though the Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance clearly states that it is possible to do so.

    HEIs should also consider how PGRs with relevant lived experience (whether they disclose this or not) can be consulted on policy and practice in accessible, trauma-informed and non-exploitative ways.

    Working across the sector

    Addressing harassment and sexual misconduct require a cross-sector approach and cannot be addressed solely on the level of individual institutions. This is especially applicable to PGRs, who on top of their doctoral studies may also be employed in (often precarious) roles within other institutions or may have supervision arrangements or affiliations outside their primary institution.

    The risk of harassment from third parties outside the institution extends to conferences, online, on field trips, or in relationships with external mentors. These issues draw our attention to the importance of sector-wide work in this area – for example through initiatives such as the Misconduct Disclosure Scheme, which supports safer staff recruitment practices – as well as the role of disciplinary communities in addressing harassment and sexual misconduct.

    PGRs may be equally or more aligned to their disciplinary community than their institution, and as such, HEIs need to work in partnership with professional societies on addressing harassment and sexual misconduct. Another example of cross-institutional work comes from research funding organisations (RFOs).

    In recognition of their role in setting out and upholding expectations in relation to unacceptable behaviours in research, many RFOs require notification of upheld findings (and sometimes open investigations) relating to any personnel working on research they have funded. RFOs often require funded organisations to have relevant policies and reporting mechanisms.

    Moving forward

    Throughout the toolkit we have featured PGRs’ own voices about their experiences of harassment and sexual misconduct in higher education. One PGR, Polly, described how:

    “The harassment I received is one of the reasons why I don’t want to go into academia. And I did. I passionately did. And I was a good student. I had an exemplary record, I still have an exemplary academic record. And I just thought, I can’t bear the secrecy and the hypocrisy.

    Polly’s words remind us what is at stake if this work is not done, and why we continue to press for change. The amount of work that is required may seem daunting, but the toolkit offers an opportunity for institutional leaders to co-create with colleagues and PGRs a bespoke package of work which addresses the local context. As the examples highlighted in the toolkit demonstrate, some HEIs are already making good progress, and continue to review and develop their prevention efforts.

    Overall, our hope is that in five years’ time this toolkit will be outdated as good practice will have moved on significantly. As such, work in this area can be seen as part of an ongoing – and, we hope, rapidly changing – movement for preventing and responding to harassment and sexual misconduct in higher education.

    Download the toolkit

    We would like to thank the Enhancing Research Culture fund from Research England via the University of York for supporting the development of this toolkit and the UK Council for Graduate Education (UKCGE) for partnering with us to consult on the development of the toolkit and to disseminate it.

    Source link

  • States balance supports and discipline to address troubling student behaviors

    States balance supports and discipline to address troubling student behaviors

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

    In Arkansas, a $7 million program approved last year aims to support students’ mental health by restricting their cellphone use and using telehealth to connect more students to mental health providers.

    In Texas, a multiyear effort to study student mental and behavioral health yielded a host of recommendations, including putting Medicaid funds toward school-based mental health supports and better tracking of interventions.

    And in West Virginia, state education leaders and partnership organizations have amassed a trove of resource documents and built out training to help schools address student mental health challenges.

    All three states are working to proactively to respond to the student mental health crisis that worsened due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

    All three states are also considering or expected to pass laws allowing schools to implement tougher discipline policies.

    Likewise, many states are tweaking their discipline policies at the same time they are putting more resources toward supporting students’ mental well-being.  

    Although school discipline and mental health supports are mostly addressed at the local level, state leadership is critical for setting expectations for accountability and requiring transparency in disciplinary actions, said Richard Welsh, founding director of the School Discipline Lab, a research center that shares information about school discipline.

    And states are using a variety of measures from proactively providing mental health supports to loosening restrictions for exclusionary discipline, said Welsh, who is also an associate professor of education and public policy at Vanderbilt University. 

    Post pandemic, “we did have an uptick in student misbehavior,” Welsh said. “But I think what also gets missing in that was we also had an uptick in student and teacher needs.” 

    The COVID factor

    Post-COVID, schools have reported a rise in unruly behaviors, including among young students. Some of the behaviors have been violent and have even injured teachers, leading them to turn away from the profession.

    Research published by the American Psychological Association last year found an increase in violence against K-12 educators over the past decade. After COVID restrictions ended in 2022, a survey of 11,814 school staff, including teachers and administrators, found that 2% to 56% of respondents reported physical violence at least once during the year, with rates varying by school staff role and aggressor. 

    Data also shows that student verbal abuse occurring at least once a week on average, doubled from 4.8% in the 2009-10 school year to 9.8% in 2019-20, according to APA.

    Students’ mental health needs increased during and after the pandemic, according to studies. Additional research showed that teachers, administrators and other school staff lacked resources to properly address students’ needs

    Some educators, parents and advocates worry that harsher student discipline policies will undermine evidenced-based practices for decreasing challenging behaviors and keeping students in school. They are also concerned that after several years of expanding positive behavior supports and restorative practices, a focus on stricter discipline policies will disproportionately affect students of color and those with disabilities. 

    The legislative activity at the state level is occurring at the same time President Donald Trump is calling for “reinstating common sense” to school discipline policies. An April executive order calls for the U.S. Department of Education to issue guidance to districts and states regarding their obligations under Title VI to protect students against racial discrimination in relation to the discipline of students. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in federally funded programs. 

    The Trump administration has called for the federal government to enact policies that are “colorblind,” not favoring one race over others.

    The order also directs the Education Department to submit a report by late August on the “status of discriminatory-equity-ideology-based school discipline and behavior modification techniques in American public education.” 

    Welsh predicts that the executive order will lead to more state activity addressing student behavior and a specific focus on the guidelines for administering punitive discipline. 

    Source link

  • Harvard Eyes Changes to Address Antisemitism, Anti-Muslim Bias

    Harvard Eyes Changes to Address Antisemitism, Anti-Muslim Bias

    Harvard University is introducing changes to its admissions, curriculum and orientation and other aspects of campus life as recommended by two internal task force reports on discrimination and harassment released Tuesday. The goal is to support civil discourse and address concerns raised by the two task forces, which were convened more than a year ago to review antisemitism and anti-Muslim bias at the university.

    The university also plans to initiate a research project on antisemitism and provide support for a “comprehensive historical analysis of Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians at Harvard,” officials announced Tuesday. Harvard will also invest in Jewish studies and organize events featuring experts on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Deans will work with faculty to ensure students are treated fairly regardless of political and religious beliefs and prevent professors from taking political positions in class that create feelings of exclusion, according to the task force reports.

    A review of disciplinary policies and procedures is also planned.

    The announcement comes as the nation’s wealthiest university is locked in a standoff with the Trump administration over how officials handled pro-Palestinian campus protests last spring, which has prompted the federal government to freeze billions in research funding for Harvard and led the university to fire back with a lawsuit. Now, amid withering federal scrutiny and an ongoing Title VI investigation, Harvard has released more than 500 pages detailing the recent concerns of Jewish, Muslim, Arab and Palestinian students along with recommended improvements.

    Of the two task forces, one focused on combating antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias while the other took on anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias. Those task forces, launched in January 2024, were asked to examine Harvard’s recent history, identify root causes of bias, evaluate evidence on the frequency of such behaviors and recommend steps to combat bias.

    That work is now done. And the end result finds Harvard lacking—but aiming for improvement.

    Harvard president Alan Garber noted that the report “revealed aspects of a charged period in our recent history” that required addressing. While the university has already made various changes since he became president last January, he noted the work is far from finished.

    He also expressed concerns about the findings.

    “Especially disturbing is the reported willingness of some students to treat each other with disdain rather than sympathy, eager to criticize and ostracize, particularly when afforded the anonymity and distance that social media provides. Some students reported being pushed by their peers to the periphery of campus life because of who they are or what they believe, eroding our shared sense of community in the process,” Garber wrote in a Tuesday statement.

    The Findings

    The dual task force reports show a campus sharply divided in the aftermath of the deadly Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which prompted a brutal counteroffensive in Gaza and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, children among them. The antisemitism task force report makes clear that tensions had been building on campus since the mid-2010s as the Israel-Palestine conflict became more divisive. The report found that after Oct. 7, “our Harvard community fell apart.”

    Authors of that report noted that since the 2010s, pro-Israeli events and guests were targeted, and some Jewish students with pro-Israel views found themselves excluded socially. They also found that Jewish students and others on campus faced instances of bullying, intimidation and harassment and were shunned for expressing pro-Israel or moderate views. Students also alleged that university programming skewed in favor of Palestinian views. But then after Oct. 7, some Jewish students noticed a shift in the campus climate.

    “My experience has been different before and after October 7th,” one student wrote to the task forces. “Before October 7th, being Jewish was largely irrelevant. It was not a barrier. I was proud to be Jewish. When it came up, it was positive. After October 7th, I experienced the following in this order: first there was pressure, then there was chaos, then hostility, and in certain spaces, the normalization of subtle discrimination like, ‘We’ll welcome you in this space if you align in a certain way. If not, you can’t come here.’ This has to do with the enforcement of rules.”

    Jewish students also expressed concerns about speaking up.

    “I do not feel mentally safe on campus. Though I am not Israeli, I have openly expressed sympathy for October 7th survivors and attended events for Holocaust survivors. I have faced many social consequences for not thinking in ways my classmates would deem progressive, which I find unreasonable,” one student wrote in response to a survey by the two task forces.

    The task force exploring anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias yielded similar findings, with students and employees alike reporting threats and concerns related to their identities.

    “The feeling over and over again for Palestinians is that their lives don’t matter as much,” one student said. “Sometimes it’s explicit. It’s really hard when it’s your family that matters less.”

    Others expressed free speech concerns.

    “It would be close to impossible to express views at Harvard sympathizing with Palestinians,” one Harvard faculty member said, as quoted in the report. “The idea of ‘antisemitism’ has been expanded so much that anything that even remotely expresses concern about the calamity that’s facing Palestinians is prohibited at Harvard. I’m not Arab/Muslim and have no ethnic or religious affiliations with Palestinians other than having a connection as a fellow human being.”

    Both reports also expressed safety concerns regarding doxxing trucks and related online campaigns as well as about the role those outside the Harvard community had in amplifying campus divisions.

    Respondents to task force surveys also saw Harvard as complicit in failing to address concerns.

    “I’ve had positive interactions with the administration. They just don’t know what to do,” one graduate student wrote in a response. “They didn’t expect this level of anti-Zionism. [My school] didn’t expect having to draw a line between free speech and harassment. Anti-Zionism is considered an intellectual exercise and not as discrimination by some in the administration.”

    The Next Steps

    In his statement, Garber noted the university has already “made necessary changes and essential progress on many fronts” including campus protest rules and various other areas.

    But more changes are coming as a result of the task force’s recommendations. On admissions, Harvard has committed to reviewing its processes to emphasize candidates who “engage constructively with different perspectives, show empathy, and participate in civil discourse.”

    The university will also offer additional training for Office for Community Conduct staff on antisemitism and hire a staffer to oversee all antisemitism and shared-ancestry complaints. Mental health professionals at Harvard have already received cultural competency training on anti-Muslim bias and antisemitism to give them a better understanding of student needs.

    Harvard has also committed to partnering with an Israeli university.

    Additionally, deans will work with faculty “to define shared expectations for teaching excellence,” a process intended to ensure “appropriate focus on course subject matter” and to ensure “that students are treated fairly regardless of their identity or political/religious beliefs.” That effort also aims to promote “intellectual openness and respectful dialogue among students” and urges faculty members to refrain “from endorsing or advocating political positions in a manner that may cause students to feel pressure to demonstrate allegiance.” The stated aim of a related curriculum review is to uphold “standards of academic excellence and intellectual rigor.”

    The university will also host a series of events on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    Harvard is further investing in Jewish studies, including hiring additional personnel. The university will make similar investments in Arabic language and cultures and Islamic and Palestinian studies.

    Harvard is also “exploring the creation of a major initiative to promote viewpoint diversity.”

    Source link

  • US Department of Education’s Failure to Address Food Insecurity Among College Students (Government Accountability Office)

    US Department of Education’s Failure to Address Food Insecurity Among College Students (Government Accountability Office)

    Nearly 25% of college students in 2020 reported
    limited or uncertain access to food. Despite being potentially eligible,
    most didn’t receive Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP)
    benefits—formerly known as “food stamps”—which could help them pay for
    food.

    A recent law gave the Department of Education
    authority to share students’ Free Application for Federal Student Aid
    data with federal and state SNAP agencies to identify and help students
    who may be eligible for benefits.

    But Education hasn’t made a plan to start sharing this data—nor have states received guidance about this opportunity.

    We recommended ways to address these issues.

    What GAO Found

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of
    Education have taken some steps to connect college students with
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to help them
    pay for food, but gaps in planning and execution remain. Effective July
    2024, a new law gave Education authority to share students’ Free
    Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) data with USDA and state
    SNAP agencies to conduct student outreach and streamline benefit
    administration. However, according to officials, Education had not yet
    developed a plan to implement these complex data-sharing arrangements.
    This risks delays in students getting important information that could
    help them access benefits they are eligible for. Following the passage
    of this new law, Education began providing a notification about federal
    benefit programs for students who may be eligible for them. However, it
    has not evaluated its method for identifying potentially eligible
    students. According to GAO analysis of 2020 Education data, Education’s
    method could miss an estimated 40 percent of potentially SNAP-eligible
    students.

    USDA encouraged state SNAP agencies to enhance student outreach and
    enrollment assistance. However, USDA has not included important
    information about the use of SNAP data and other student data in its
    guidance to state SNAP agencies. These gaps in guidance have left states
    with questions about how to permissibly use and share students’ data to
    help connect them with benefits.

    Student Food Assistance at a College Basic Needs Center

    Officials from the three selected states and seven colleges GAO
    contacted described key strategies for communicating with students about
    their potential SNAP eligibility. These include using destigmatizing
    language, linking students directly to an application or support staff,
    and coordinating outreach efforts with SNAP agencies. Officials from the
    states and colleges GAO contacted said it is helpful to have staff
    available on campus to assist students with the SNAP application. Some
    colleges have found it helpful to partner with their respective SNAP
    agencies to obtain information on the status of students’ applications.

    Why GAO Did This Study

    According to a national survey, almost one-quarter of college
    students were food insecure in 2020, yet GAO found many who were
    potentially eligible for SNAP had not received benefits. The substantial
    federal investment in higher education is at risk of not serving its
    intended purpose if students drop out because of limited or uncertain
    access to food. Studies have found using data to direct outreach to
    those potentially eligible can increase benefit uptake.

    GAO was asked to review college student food insecurity. This report
    addresses (1) the extent to which Education and USDA have supported data
    use to help college students access SNAP benefits, and (2) how selected
    states and colleges have used student data to help connect students
    with SNAP benefits.

    GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and agency documents. GAO also
    interviewed officials from Education, USDA, and national higher
    education and SNAP associations. GAO selected three states and
    interviewed officials from state SNAP and higher education agencies and
    seven colleges in these states. GAO visited one selected state in person
    and interviewed two virtually. States were selected based on actions to
    support food insecure students and stakeholder recommendations.

    Recommendations

    GAO is making five recommendations, including that Education develop a
    plan to implement FAFSA data-sharing and assess its benefit
    notification approach; and that USDA improve its SNAP agency guidance.
    The agencies neither agreed nor disagreed with these recommendations.

    Recommendations for Executive Action

    Agency Affected Recommendation Status
    Department of Education The
    Secretary of Education should develop a written plan for implementing
    provisions in the FAFSA Simplification Act related to sharing FAFSA data
    with SNAP administrators, to aid in benefit outreach and enrollment
    assistance. (Recommendation 1)
    Department of Education The
    Secretary of Education should, in consultation with USDA, evaluate its
    approach to identifying and notifying FAFSA applicants who are
    potentially eligible for SNAP benefits and adjust its approach as
    needed. (Recommendation 2)
    Department of Education The
    Secretary of Education should inform colleges and state higher
    education agencies that FAFSA notifications are being sent to applicants
    who are potentially eligible for SNAP benefits. (Recommendation 3)
    Department of Agriculture The
    Administrator of USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service should, in
    consultation with Education, issue guidance to state SNAP agencies—such
    as in its SNAP outreach priority memo—to clarify permissible uses of
    student data, including FAFSA data, for SNAP outreach and enrollment
    assistance. (Recommendation 4)
    Department of Agriculture The
    Administrator of USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service should issue
    guidance to state SNAP agencies—such as in its SNAP outreach priority
    memo—to clarify the permissible uses and disclosure of SNAP data to
    support SNAP student outreach and enrollment assistance. (Recommendation
    5)

    Source link

  • Colleges address barriers to mental health with integrated services

    Colleges address barriers to mental health with integrated services

    Mental health challenges are among the greatest threats to student persistence and retention in higher education, but providing large-scale preventative and responsive mental health care is a looming challenge for colleges and universities.

    In addition to having sufficient clinicians and trained professionals to support students in crisis, finding ways to deliver wellness support to students before they’re in crisis is critical.

    One strategy is embedding mental health counselors into student spaces or academic departments. By integrating services into a physical location, such as a student center, clinicians can connect with students in informal and intentional ways, gaining their trust and supporting specific pockets of the campus community. Around 32 percent of college counseling centers employ an embedded clinician, according to a recent survey by the Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors.

    In this episode of Voices of Student Success, host Ashley Mowreader spoke with Estevan Garcia, chief wellness officer at Dartmouth College, to learn more about public health approaches to mental health support on college campuses. Later, hear from Casey Fox, associate director of integrated services at the University of South Carolina, who leads the university’s integrated mental health program, about how efforts have scaled.

    An edited version of the podcast appears below.

    Inside Higher Ed: The focus on health and wellness is an ever-present and growing concern in higher education, as more institutions realize the potential that negative health and wellness can have on student retention and outcomes and their thriving throughout their college experience. We’ve seen more recently, mental health has grown as a concern; students are telling us that, national data is showing that.

    I wonder if you can talk a little bit about the public mental health crisis that we’re seeing among young people, especially college students, and just this ever-growing need for more support and more resources to help our young people?

    Estevan Garcia, Chief Wellness Officer at Dartmouth College

    Dartmouth College / Katie Lenhart

    Estevan Garcia: To think about where we are today, and a little bit about how we got here, as far as young adults, adolescents, teenagers as well, and the challenges around mental health, the way I look at this is probably, for the last 10-plus years, we’ve seen an increase in mental health concerns, an increase in depression, anxiety.

    I’m a clinician; I work in emergency departments. And in about 2012, 2014 in that area, I started seeing children and young adults coming in in crisis with mental health crisis. This is not something that we saw before.

    I tell folks all the time that I did not have a significant amount of training around emergent mental health crisis in children and young adults—even though my specialty is pediatric emergency medicine, which is this area where we take care of kids in the emergency department—and I say young adults, because we really do cover till about age 25.

    So this was not looked at as a need for the training back then, and I trained in the ’90s up to about 2000, but then we saw this really increased need, I think, and most researchers believe that this coincides significantly with the use of a cellphone or the use of an iPhone, and the idea that social media has become so pervasive in everything that our children do.

    That is something that we know is a contributor. There’s quite a bit of evidence that suggests that. So what we’ve understood, that we were in crisis for several years, we were starting to see these needs of our children, adolescents and young adults, and then the pandemic hit in 2020 and that really tipped us over.

    The reason that happened, and we all understand this now, at the time, I was a public health practitioner and so really was an advocate of, “Let’s make sure we’re not spreading COVID. Let’s close those schools,” and do all of the things that we thought were the way we kept our kids safe and our faculty safe.

    What happened is, any of those social connections that students had really dissipated during the pandemic. They were not allowed to be in school together. They weren’t allowed to even play outdoors. We were so worried about the pandemic. That was kind of the fraying of the social fabric that was supporting many of these kids.

    So that’s when this really did peak, and what we’ve noticed since then—it wasn’t as if those students in college in 2020 to 2024, it’s over once they graduate. That’s not it at all. Because there were children in middle school who weren’t able to go to school. They were children in elementary school, those kids in high school that clearly impacted their ability to have social cohesion and support from peers.

    And what we’ve seen in colleges now is there is a leveling off of the anxiety and depression numbers we were seeing—and that’s good news—since about 2021, 2022. And we’re hopeful that what that means is that we’re starting to see some correction here, but it’s still significant. There’s still a significant need. We’ve kind of returned to that pre-pandemic level of anxiety, depression and need, and that is ongoing. It’s across college campuses, whether you’re an Ivy League or you’re a community college. It’s across high schools, junior highs, and there’s real need for us to pay attention, to support students through this process and happy to talk about that some more, but that need is there. It’s real, and we need to really focus on how we address those needs.

    Inside Higher Ed: We know from research also that sometimes college students who have the most need are not the ones accessing resources, as well. We see students from historically marginalized backgrounds, who may come from less resourced communities, feel more independent where like they can solve problems on their own.

    I’m thinking of our first-gen students who are historically rewarded for being independent and solving their own problems, and then get to college and might not access those same resources. Providing access to support for these students with greater mental health concerns is a growing issue.

    I wonder if you can talk about the clinician role in helping students break down those barriers to accessing mental health resources and understanding the role that they can have in their recovery and their support throughout college.

    Garcia: I think it’s important to divide our efforts into two camps, or two ways of really approaching this.

    You have individuals who have clinical needs, and at Dartmouth, that’s about 20, 25 percent, and those clinical needs are clinical diagnoses of anxiety or depression … and that is what we provide on campus and a bunch of different ways. I’m happy to address those.

    In addition to that, I think we need to work with the rest of the student body from a preventative wellness approach, to make sure that they understand that they have access to wellness activities, to things that build resilience. It’s a toolbox or a tool kit of ways to manage daily stressors in life, failing a test, breaking up with a significant other, potentially loss of a family member—all of the things that they’re going to encounter, in addition to being in academics and being in college.

    We need to build their portfolio of resources. That’s also, I think, very important in the way we approach this kind of mental health crisis, is to really look at it from a preventative lens.

    So to your point about making sure that we are addressing the individual needs of communities, especially marginalized communities, potentially first-generation communities, I think it’s important to not paint this with a broad brush. We need to be individual, and we need to work with the individuals. We need to look at our individual groups and really understand what they need.

    This is when we partner with our students: Our students are telling us what they need, and we can’t assume that they’re going to come to us; we need to come to them. We need to make sure that we’re embedding mental health resources where the students would access them and not [saying], “Come to the counseling center, and that’s when we’ll meet with you.”

    One example that I give is our really integrating our ability to support students and their mental health in our athletic programs. And at Dartmouth—we call it DP2, it’s really our Dartmouth Peak Performance—and we are embedding within the varsity sports, but also our club sports intramurals. About 60, 65 percent of students participate in athletics at Dartmouth.

    We are really trying to embed within those different systems supports that make it easy for a student to reach out and to talk to the coach, we then help the coach understand how to identify a student in need, what to do if they if they have higher needs, and [if] the coach and or the athletic trainer is comfortable managing, we do training and mental health first aid.

    We also do something we call Campus Connect, that allows us to identify the resources for students, and then obviously they can engage my office if there are real concerns about students, that they’re afraid, that need immediate support, and we do that as well. So that is just one example of how we embed within the activities that students are doing every day that they may not think have a wellness component or have this potential counseling component, and they’re there.

    Inside Higher Ed: I’m so glad that you bring up this network of supports for students, because there is no silver bullet when it comes to supporting student mental health, and every student’s needs are going to look a little different. It really does take a public health approach to addressing student needs, because they’re all different.

    I want to go back to your example of athletics-embedded resources, because I think that’s a really interesting student population that we have where they’re very competitive, they’re driven, they’re engaged, they’re super involved on campus. And sometimes that can result in some of these challenges when it comes to juggling mental health and academics or their personal lives or things like that, and how those targeted resources can address those specific needs that those athletes might have compared to the general student population.

    The benefit that it brings, one, to the students, but also to the practitioners who are working with them, and that intimate relationship that they get to cultivate with those athletes. So I wonder if you can just talk about that a little bit more, the relationship between how embedded resources are targeted but also personalized and intimate.

    Garcia: For our athletes, and certainly our varsity athletes here, we do have a fairly robust set of offerings. There are two embedded psychologists that have expertise in sports psychology, embedded for the varsity teams and the varsity athletes.

    But in addition to that, there are performance coaches, which is a different level of support, but focusing on what the needs are … You would understand that some athletes maybe need nutrition and sleep coaching and support. We have embedded nutritionists; we have sleep support. We have an entire module and support around leadership. So these are all areas across the campus that we’re offering to our athletes.

    Initially, this was offered really to our varsity athletes, but as we’re growing our understanding of what our … intramural students participating in sports need, we’ve selected a couple of our really winning supports, and we’re going to be able to expand those in the future to the larger population of athletes on campus. That includes that leadership component, the sleep and nutrition and mental performance. Those are three areas that we will be then taking best practices from varsity athletes and expanding the trainings, the offerings and the supports to other athletes.

    Then our ultimate goal is to be able to share these resources with any student on campus who is interested in learning in this way.

    There is a direct link from, of course, from our sports psychologist to our overall counseling center. And if they believe someone needs more in-depth counseling, or if they’re identifying other concerns, maybe an eating disorder, we’re able to utilize our system of care here on campus to support the students that have those needs identified through the sports psychologists and performance coaches … and if they need, they’re then moved to our counseling center. We have a close relationship with Dartmouth Health, which is actually our health system here, even being in a rural location, and so we have access to experts across the field, and we’re able to engage with them as well, so that that really does tie in here.

    Inside Higher Ed: Placing access where students are is one way to remove barriers to formal mental health care. Are there other strategies or interventions that you’re all considering when it comes to helping students move past the stigma of utilizing mental health resources?

    Garcia: Interestingly enough, the stigma for college students is real. It’s still there. It’s probably more significant for male college students than female college students. But it’s clearly something that we see. We mentioned a little bit about marginalized groups and their use of mental health services. I will say one thing we’re proud of at Dartmouth is that our use of mental health services is the same for that 20, 25 percent, depending on the year, is [reflective] of all students. Our first-generation students or historically marginalized students do not utilize health services at a lower rate than anybody else here. We’re really proud about that.

    We’ve made the idea of mental health services part of who you are. We’re integrating the idea of wellness into academics. I think that’s something that we forget. Oftentimes people feel like you can move it separate: You’re a student at one point, and then when you’re depressed, you’re not a student, or you’re not somebody who’s worried about the academics. And we clearly know that the pressures of academics for college students and being successful will impact them as well.

    So certainly, I think it’s important to understand that you want to go back and you want to see where the students are and meet their needs. But one thing that I think is really important is the idea of peer support.

    We have a mental health student union here on campus, and last year, they held a town hall for students, and … four individual students who had mental health concerns and diagnoses came forward and talked about those individual concerns they had and how they were able to receive the help they needed on campus, as well as through the networks, and really bringing forward the idea that it’s OK to have these conversations. They shouldn’t be talked about only in an office. They shouldn’t be talked about in whispers; we really do need to make it clear that if you have concerns or and need support, it’s here.

    We train students to be peer advisers and peer supporters, and we do it in many different areas across campus, but that is also very important, because often students will go to a fellow classmate first before they come to us. And I think that’s really important to understand. Our peer supporters get good training. They’re not expected to be counselors. They’re expected to be a shoulder to lean on, and then they understand what the resources are and available on campus. So peer support is really important as well. And I think we need to continue to strengthen those engagements between students as well.

    Inside Higher Ed: I’m so glad that that’s something that you touched on, because I think at Ivy institutions specifically, there can be a stereotype or a misconception that students are hypercompetitive. They are obviously high-achieving students, but that they are able to perform those interpersonal relationships and be vulnerable with each other about the struggles that they’re going through as well, I think really helps break down that barrier of “Everybody else is doing just fine, but I’m not,” or “I’m the only person who’s struggling with this” and really creates a community of care where students can lean on one another, and, like you said, be referred to more resources as they need.

    The University of South Carolina is one institution that has designated embedded counseling supports as a focus for holistic student care. Casey Fox from Carolina shares more about the campus work.

    Inside Higher Ed: When we talk about the integrated services program, what does that mean on a practical and logistical level?

    Casey Fox smiles for a headshot outside in the University of South Carolina

    Casey Fox, a licensed marriage and family therapist, professional counselor and professional counselor supervisor, as well as 
    the associate director of integrated services at the University of South Carolina. 

    University of South Carolina

    Casey Fox: Right now, we have integrated clinicians in four spaces across campus. We are a large urban campus, and we have a central hub where we provide our counseling services.

    In 2022 we identified a space in the law school, so we embedded a clinician over there, and she has been there doing wonderful work since then, but we now have clinicians that are in three other spaces across campus. So we’ve got the First-Gen Center, we’ve also got Global Carolina, and then we’ve got an embedded clinician in the engineering and computing school.

    The idea of integrated services is really just looking at the barriers to access. One of the pieces with that is, when you look at the central hub for coming over for services, a lot of students, depending on positionality, are not able to get to this location. Maybe it’s the parking, maybe it’s the gaps between their classes, maybe they don’t live on campus, and just even coming to that main space is difficult based on all of their competing values.

    What we’ve looked at is ways that we can spread staff out in order to address that and remove some of those barriers, so that we’re welcoming students in some spaces that maybe they’re more likely to walk into.

    Inside Higher Ed: You mentioned that you started with the law school, and that’s a population when it comes to embedded counseling I haven’t seen quite as much. We talk a lot about athletes or underrepresented minority students. What are some of those barriers for law school students that they’re not engaging at that central facility?

    Fox: When we’re looking at the barriers for law school students, I think historically, if we look at the nature of what it is like to be in the law school and be a law student, there’s a lot of time in between courses that students are really just in that space studying.

    But the other side of that, we’ve got students who, in many ways, are not traditional students anymore. Law school is not undergraduate, and so there’s a lot of things that are competing for time. There’s some law school students that are parents, there’s some law school students that have families that they attend to, and so coming over to the other side of campus for counseling services, I think can be really difficult.

    But the other piece of that, not just time, but I think there’s some perceived stigma. I think that there’s a competitive nature to being a law school student, and with that, I maybe don’t want to say that I feel weak, or this idea that I need the support or help, because this is supposed to be stressful. Then there’s this perception, I think very often, of, like, “If I need any form of mental health resources or services, that must mean that I’m not doing well, or there’s something acutely wrong with me.”

    I think what’s really beautiful about embedding someone in that space in particular, is that we’ve been able to do some of this wraparound care and mental health literacy, to really address, right, that, like, “Hey, it’s really normative to need these services.” Our embedded clinician there has become a part of that team and unit, and it’s really normalized what it means to have a conversation with someone in the world of mental health, what it means to maybe acknowledge that mental health has multifaceted layers, and that there’s a lot of areas around prevention. Like, if I’m feeling overwhelmed, maybe I need to talk to somebody to develop some coping strategies so that I can better manage this, so that it doesn’t become something that is maybe acute or pervasive.

    Inside Higher Ed: I love the relational element of integrated counseling services, because, like you’ve mentioned, it’s not just that one-on-one time. They’re also not omnipresent, but very present in those spaces, and can build relationships. I wonder if you can talk about that element and how that also decreases barriers to access.

    Fox: The relationship part is one of my favorite parts. I am over in the First-Gen Center, and I love the relationships that I’m building, not just with the students in those spaces, but also with any faculty or staff member.

    What’s really important to acknowledge is, if we look at students, if we look at faculty and staff, I think everyone genuinely cares about the Carolina community and wants to support each other, but sometimes we don’t know how. I think with faculty staff as well, there’s a lot of things that are competing for our time and energy, and if we feel like maybe we don’t have that skill set, we might not know how to navigate a difficult conversation or sit with a student in distress.

    So the relationship building, in particular, for me feels so important, because I’m able to then become a friendly face that students are like, “OK, I chatted with her about the cookies she brought in, and so now I’m feeling a little overwhelmed, and maybe I can go and chat with her about this thing that I’ve never shared with anyone.”

    Really similarly with faculty and staff, where they want to help students, but maybe are feeling like they’re not sure how. If they know me, if they’ve met me and had a conversation with me, they are much more likely to say, “Casey, I’d like to consult with you,” which is a significant part of an embedded clinician’s role is: to offer space to consult.

    The other piece that I talk about a lot is we consult with a lot of students who actually are wanting to care for friends—sometimes family, too—but friends that are students here. I have people who come in and they’re like, “I’m really worried about my roommate, and I don’t know what to do. I don’t think I need counseling. But can I talk to you about what’s available to me or how I navigate this?” I love that preventative component of this. Not only are we building relationships with a lot of stakeholders and campus partners, but we’re actually out there with students, and I think experiencing, too, some of the emerging needs and really paying attention to some of the specific components of what it means to be a law school student or engineering student.

    Yesterday, I was at a career fair for the engineering students, and I watched people walk around, and I thought to myself, “This is really intimidating, right?” I think even being in those spaces, and getting a feel for what that might be like for students allows for me to walk into a space feeling more informed and navigating that with that student.

    Inside Higher Ed: There’s obviously benefits to the student, and like you mentioned, the faculty and staff by having you be present in these spaces, but for you as a clinician as well, it helps build your knowledge of what those student needs might be, and gives you an ear to the ground on campus. Can you talk a little bit more about that?

    Fox: I believe that is part of our role. We are looking at, what are the trends, what are the themes? Law school students in particular, something our clinician has done there, has named that like during different parts or stages of the semester, there’s things that I want to home in on because students are really focusing hard on all the things they have to do. Some of their courses are comprehensive exams that can be really stressful. There are initiatives that are put in place to provide support and care with awareness of how that structure academically maybe looks different than other structures.

    Another, I think, really important piece to acknowledge is that our embedded clinician law school is aware and privy to information on, what does the bar [association] need? Another barrier right is that sometimes people are like, “Well, if I do come in for counseling, is that going to be reported to the bar? Am I not going to be able to then sit for the bar—like, what are the implications of this?”

    Our embedded clinician knows the ins and outs of that, knows how to walk students through that and to offer care and comfort around “Hey, like, this is a normative experience, and this is how this process looks, and this is what you need from me,” so that students can get the care they need without feeling that worry on the front side that really is misinformed. Like, “Oh, I can’t do this, because if I do this, then it’s going to mean this thing,” but without that information, or somebody really speaking to that, like, on the ground, I don’t know how students would know otherwise.

    Inside Higher Ed: We’ve talked a little bit about how having somebody in the ecosystem with relationships can benefit students and that access, but I also wonder the physical element of just being in student spaces like the first-gen center, and how that can create relationships and, again, remove that barrier to access. Can you talk about the physical environment as well?

    Fox: It’s a different environment. Our central hub is part of our health center, and so students feel sometimes, “If I walk into the health center, that means I’m going for this thing that I need.” So whether I’m not feeling well, or I’m going in for therapy, or whatever they might be coming to this space for, and I think it’s really important, when we’re in these communities with students, what we’re doing is we’re not only saying this is really normative and becoming a part of just the culture of that space, but we’re also building relationship and connection for them to feel like they can broach a conversation.

    The First-Generation Center in particular is a living-learning community, so there’s a lot of students who live in that space. So I’ll sit in the lobby sometimes with students, and they’re playing board games, or they’re just hanging out in that space eating pizza, and I’m chatting with them again, not even about anything mental health connected, but just being a face and someone that they can maybe feel connected to and feel willing to then come and talk to.

    I try to open that up all the time, of, like, if you ever need something from me, if you ever want to talk about anything you might be experiencing, if you have questions, if you’re not sure how to navigate something, let me know what I can do to support you. And again, I think the difference is that’s a really different environment. They’re really comfortable, they’re lounging, they’re eating pizza, or they’re coming to me and saying, “I don’t know if I want to talk to you, but I saw you had cookies,” and I’m like, “Take a cookie. You don’t have to talk to me. I ask nothing of you, other than for you to know that I’m here and I care.” And I think that has been really powerful in itself.

    Inside Higher Ed: I think taking those baby steps to understand what mental health services could look like or could feel like is so important for students, especially who might have never engaged with those services previously, or have a misconception of what that looks like and what that means for them. So that’s wonderful that you get to do that.

    When it comes to identifying groups that are receiving embedded counselors, how does the university go about that process? Or what are some of those priorities when it comes to identifying where to place counselors?

    Fox: We are continuing to develop that process. Moving forward, I think that the demand will continue for this resource.

    The law school identified an interest and has a significant amount of care and the mental health of the students there, so it makes a lot of sense that that was our first launching of an embedded clinician. And the other ways that we’ve identified is looking at maybe students that we want to pay a lot of attention to around retention, so wanting to be really on purpose with what we offer, wanting to have somebody who can really advocate for and speak to that.

    I think there’s a lot of assumptions we make about the time students want to be seen. If we were to look at just freshman students, there’s this idea of like, well, they want to be seen in the evenings. We often will base some of what we navigate in a counseling center on information that doesn’t maybe comprehensively link to all needs. I think identifying that there’s some unique needs, there’s some unique needs in being an engineering and computing student, and so that has been how we’ve navigated it thus far, is really looking at like, again, we want to retain these people. We want to offer support.

    Honestly, the other piece of what we’ve done has been based on this awareness from faculty and staff that have shared, like, “You know what? I think that we maybe need this.” I also want to acknowledge that a lot of these requests are coming from the departments or units themselves, which I feel is really powerful, because for me, that shows this culture of care that is within those units or schools. I really love that. I know engineering, right, like, they really want us in that space, and I can say the same for all of these locations, but we’re welcomed. There’s a lot of care around mental health and sustainable well-being for students, and that is coming from everyone that is working in those units. That feels really powerful, that ask of, like, “I really want to support these students in these spaces, and I’m aware of these unique needs.”

    It has been this concerted effort that we’ve made, not just with counseling [services], because this wasn’t necessarily coming from our end. I think that that’s really important to acknowledge these requests [that] were coming from these departments or units or colleges, and that is a really powerful piece, too, where then they’re showing their care for their students.

    I have a lot of love for that idea, or concept of, like, not only are we showing up and offering what I believe to be really good-quality care and concern for students, but for them to know that my college, or this part of my identity, cares so much about me being here, that they’re advocating and pushing for a clinician to be in this space, I feel like even just that sets a standard of just welcoming conversation around needs.

    Inside Higher Ed: It also seems like the only way to really create these successful partnerships is to be in community with the faculty and staff and really have that trust and relationship. National data has told us that faculty and staff see these issues, but being able to make that partnership and bridge that gap is so critical. So it’s wonderful that you all have that community of care that is able to do that successfully.

    If you had to give advice to a practitioner who is looking to get either into this space by finding an embedded counselor to work alongside, or a clinician who’s interested in becoming an embedded counselor, what sort of insight or advice would you give?

    Fox: I think as an embedded counselor, we are wearing many hats, and so I think that you have to enjoy wearing many hats. My role shifts so much. Of course, there’s my associate director piece of what I do. But outside of that, I am sitting in spaces where I’m doing one-on-one counseling. I am then walking into [student] tabling [events]. I am walking into maybe some strategic group spaces where we’re looking at some really targeted intentional workshops based on different needs for the population. I’m sitting in these spaces with our stakeholders where I’m, like, talking about what we’re doing and advocating for that and mingling.

    Throughout my day, I love that variety, and I think if, you know, somebody were to say, “Would this be something I would want to do?” I would ask that question of, “Do you think that you would enjoy wearing many hats and maybe being in multiple spaces throughout the day?” I boogie around campus. I’m in several places throughout a day as well.

    The other piece is this love or care for mental health literacy. I have been at this university for going on seven years, and anyone who knows me here laughs when I say mental health literacy, because it is like something I’ve said a million times since I’ve been here. I love the idea of mental health literacy, the idea that every person who is employed by the University of South Carolina is a critical piece of all students’ sustainable well-being. If I can change that for faculty and staff or a student caring for another student, or student caring for themselves, that feels so incredible to me. This awareness that I can influence not only the individual I’m sitting with, but influence a college or unit or the system in a really meaningful, sustainable way. Anyone who loves that idea of mental health literacy and informing and educating all campus partners on that, this would be a really interesting role that they would probably enjoy.

    Historically, some of the data has shown us that these positions at times have led to some feelings of maybe being siloed or separated from the main center, and there’s something really magical about our main center. I love being in that space, because I can consult with all my colleagues that I just think are wonderful and are doing such great work.

    When you’re in embedded sites, it makes so much sense, and I’ve worked really hard to do this since I’ve taken on the associate director role of checking in with my embedded staff to make sure that I’m attending to their needs. I don’t want them to feel alone. I want them to feel supported and cared for. But I think when you’re out there and you’re wearing so many hats, and you’re transitioning so much throughout the day, that can be hard to even know to ask for that or when to ask for that. Then you’re also building the relationship with the faculty and staff and the spaces you’re in. And so again, how much of my time and energy do I have to then shift gears for this other need? So I think there has to be a lot of intentionality in how we care for staff in these spaces.

    But I am really excited about our move. My position is new, and so we’ve not had anyone in this space, and so that I’m meeting with the staff in those spaces, we’re meeting collectively. We’re meeting individually, and I’m working really intentionally, to make sure that they’re feeling the support and care that you would feel if you were in this main center.

    Inside Higher Ed: We’ve talked a little bit about [how] your position is new, and there’s a lot of new things happening on campus when it comes to embedded in integrated counseling. But is there anything else new we haven’t talked on that you want to share?

    Fox: I think, over all, embedded counseling is a really important initiative, and I’m really happy that the University of South Carolina is looking at ways that we can expand this. We are looking at a variety of options. I don’t know that there’s a one-size-fits-all [approach].

    I’ve talked to so many wonderful people doing the role that I’m doing at other universities across the U.S., trying to inform myself of what some of these best practices are and what I’ve learned. I keep showing up the table saying, “I don’t know that there’s a one-size-fits-all.”

    There’s so many nuanced components to what it means to be in some of these spaces and to do this work—what we’re going to do in the School of Computing and Engineering is very different than what we’re going to do in a first-gen center. I have really appreciated getting to maybe understand the flexibility that we need to have, and how we view this.

    I think the University of South Carolina is holding a lot of care for this idea that we want to care for all of Carolina, and we want to be really strategic in how we do that. I believe as we move forward, we will continue to be able to collect some really good data that shows the benefit of this.

    I speak a lot to the piece of prevention, and I love this idea of “let me have a conversation with someone before this becomes so problematic that now I’m feeling it physically in my body, let me know that it’s really normal that during final exams, I am just really struggling and I’m feeling overwhelmed.”

    I think one of the things that embedded clinicians are really able to do in these spaces is normalize a whole lot of concerns for students, faculty and staff, and then really highlight, too, like, the mental health awareness component of when do we need to have some conversations and just care for each other, and when does somebody need therapy? I think that’s a really powerful thing that we need to address as we move forward, that I think embedded is going to be a part of, is really acknowledging that.

    The statement that’s come out a lot is we could never hire enough people to meet the need, and I think that what we’re doing is trying to acknowledge that we’re aware of the needs. How can we normalize, how can we offer skills? How can we offer all of these things on the front side, so that students can feel empowered and equipped to navigate what they need for themselves, and to trust that when they do need a higher level of response or more individualized services, or one on one, that they can trust in the care that they will receive, but also trusting in their capacity to care for self when they can, or trusting that I could also have a conversation with a faculty member or staff member? Because all of the University of South Carolina cares about the Carolina community.

    Listen to previous episodes of Voices of Student Success here.

    Source link

  • 39% of colleges rely on donors to address food insecurity

    39% of colleges rely on donors to address food insecurity

    Jason Koski, Cornell University

    College students are more likely to experience food insecurity, compared to the general population, but funding and support for programs that address basic needs in higher education remains limited.

    A 2024 survey by Swipe Out Hunger, a nonprofit group that addresses hunger among college students, found while a majority of colleges have a pantry for student supports, most are supported by philanthropy and not the institution.

    The campus leader survey, released last month, included responses from 347 of Swipe’s 850 partner campuses, representing over 766,600 students who engaged with basic needs resources, whether through the food pantry, SNAP enrollment program or a basic needs hub.

    The most popular campus support program was a food pantry, with almost all respondents (95 percent) indicating their college offers one for students. In 2024, campus pantries distributed over eight million meals and 687,000 additional items, such as toiletries, diapers or appliance lending.

    Campus leaders shared their primary win in the past year was expanding their program (56 percent) and supporting students (20 percent), but only 1 percent of respondents said they had administrative support, and 8 percent indicated they earned additional funding to aid expansion.

    In a similar vein, when asked what their primary challenges were, the greatest share identified funding (47 percent), followed by staffing (16 percent), space (11 percent) and support (10 percent).

    Two in five campuses identified donations as their primary funding source, which included staff payroll deductions and crowdsourcing. Only 5 percent of campus leaders said they had a dedicated budget from campus as their primary source of funding for programming.

    “This severe lack of sustainable funding for antihunger programs is preventing students from accessing the food they need to survive, which in turn affects their ability to stay enrolled,” says Jaime Hansen, executive director of Swipe Out Hunger. “With rising food costs and the lack of government support, campus food pantries and similar resources are becoming the only lifeline for students. If these programs continue to be overburdened and underfunded, we can expect to see less students being able to afford to stay in college.”

    A corresponding student experience survey found 40 percent of program users engaged with on-campus services weekly, and an additional 8 percent used resources every day.

    The top barriers to accessing nutritious food, students reported, were time constraints due to multiple responsibilities; the cost of meal plans, including on-campus food costs; anxiety about resource scarcity (taking away from peers who need it more); elevated costs of diet-specific foods; and living far away from affordable foods.

    Tackling basic needs insecurity: Some of the ways other organizations and institutions are addressing college student hunger include these efforts:

    • Believe in Students created an online curriculum to empower faculty to engage in basic needs support, providing relevant data and insights as well as how-to advice and encouragement.
    • Community colleges utilize FAFSA data to notify learners of their eligibility for SNAP or other state-level food assistance programs.
    • A group of students at Anne Arundel Community College contributed to a faculty-led cookbook featuring students’ nostalgic recipes adapted to utilize campus pantry ingredients.
    • New Jersey built a centralized website to help college students identify basic needs resources across the state.
    • Virginia Commonwealth University built miniature food pantries, modeled off little lending libraries, to increase access to shelf-safe food items across campus.

    How is your campus addressing food insecurity among students? Tell us more.

    Source link