Bishop State Community College in Mobile, Ala., evacuated its campus and moved classes online Thursday morning due to a threatening email.
At least four campuses on Thursday received swatting calls—false reports of active or impending threats intended to disrupt operations and whip up a significant police response.
Early Thursday morning, officials at Villanova University outside Philadelphia received a “threat of violence targeted at an academic building” and quickly closed their campus and canceled all activities. University officials issued an all clear at 1:36 p.m. on Thursday and noted that the FBI and local law enforcement were continuing their investigation.
Alcorn State University in Mississippi initiated a campus lockdown Thursday morning due to a “safety threat,” which officials cleared several hours later. Wiley University in Texas also locked down its campus due to a “threat via email” and lifted the lockdown at noon Thursday.
Bishop State Community College in Mobile, Ala., evacuated its campus and moved classes online Thursday morning due to a “threatening” email, college officials said. A nearby elementary school also entered lockdown due to the same threat, AL.com reported.
When a school building fails, everything it supports comes to a halt. Learning stops. Families scramble. Community stability is shaken. And while fire drills and lockdown procedures prepare students and staff for specific emergencies, the buildings themselves often fall short in facing the unexpected.
Between extreme weather events, aging infrastructure, and rising operational demands, facility leaders face mounting pressure to think beyond routine upkeep. Resilience should guide every decision to help schools stay safe, meet compliance demands, and remain prepared for whatever lies ahead.
According to a recent infrastructure report card from the American Society of Civil Engineers, the nation’s 98,000 PK-12 schools received a D+ for physical condition–a clear signal that more proactive design and maintenance strategies are urgently needed.
Designing for resilience means planning for continuity. It’s about integrating smarter materials, better systems, and proactive partnerships so that learning environments can bounce back quickly–or never go down at all.
Start with smarter material choices
The durability of a school begins at ground level. Building materials that resist moisture, mold, impact, and corrosion play a critical role in long-term school resilience and functionality. For example, in flood-prone regions, concrete blocks and fiber-reinforced panels outperform drywall in both durability and recovery time. Surfaces that are easy to clean, dry quickly, and don’t retain contaminants can make the difference between reopening in days versus weeks.
Limit downtime by planning ahead
Downtime is costly, but it’s not always unavoidable. What is avoidable is the scramble that follows when there’s no plan in place. Developing a disaster-response protocol that includes vendors, contact trees, and restoration procedures can significantly reduce response time. Schools that partner with recovery experts before an event occurs often find themselves first in line when restoration resources are stretched thin.
FEMA’s National Resilience Guidance stresses the need to integrate preparedness and long-term recovery planning at the facility level, particularly for schools that often serve as vital community hubs during emergencies.
Maintenance as the first line of defense
Preventative maintenance might not generate headlines, but it can prevent them. Regular inspections of roofing, HVAC, plumbing, and electrical systems help uncover vulnerabilities before they lead to shutdowns. Smart maintenance schedules can extend the lifespan of critical systems and reduce the risk of emergency failures, which are almost always more expensive.
Build flexibility into the design
Truly resilient spaces are defined by their ability to adapt, not just their physical strength. Multi-use rooms that can shift from classroom to shelter, or gymnasiums that double as community command centers, offer critical flexibility during emergencies. Facilities should also consider redundancies in HVAC and power systems to ensure critical areas like server rooms or nurse stations remain functional during outages.
Include restoration experts early
Design and construction teams are essential, but so are the people who will step in after a disaster. Involving restoration professionals during the planning or renovation phase helps ensure the layout and materials selected won’t hinder recovery later. Features like water-resistant flooring, interior drainage, and strategically placed shut-off valves can dramatically cut cleanup and repair times.
Think beyond the building
Resilient schools need more than solid walls. They need protected data, reliable communication systems, and clear procedures for remote learning if the physical space becomes temporarily inaccessible. Facility decisions should consider how technology, security, and backup systems intersect with the physical environment to maintain educational continuity.
Schools are more than schools during a crisis
In many communities, schools become the default support hub during a crisis. They house evacuees, store supplies, and provide a place for neighbors to connect. Resilient infrastructure supports student safety while also reinforcing a school’s role as a vital part of the community. Designs should support this extended role, with access-controlled entries, backup power, and health and sanitation considerations built in from the start.
A resilient mindset starts with leadership
Resilience begins with leadership and is reflected in the decisions that shape a school’s physical and operational readiness. Facility managers, superintendents, and administrative teams must advocate for resilient investments early in the planning process. This includes aligning capital improvement budgets, bond proposals, and RFP language with long-term resilience goals.
There’s no such thing as a truly disaster-proof building. But there are schools that recover faster, withstand more, and serve their communities more effectively during crises. The difference is often found in early choices: what’s designed, built, and maintained before disaster strikes.
When resilience guides every decision, school facilities are better prepared to safeguard students and maintain continuity through disruption.
John Scott Mooring, Mooring USA
John Scott Mooring is the Chief Executive Officer at Mooring USA, bringing nearly four decades of experience in disaster recovery and restoration services. With deep roots in a family-run business that helped pioneer the industry, he leads Mooring in delivering turnkey solutions for emergency response, remediation, and commercial construction across the U.S.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
India is becoming the next transnational education (TNE) hotspot, with nine top UK universities having announced plans to open overseas branch campuses out there. Earlier this year, the University of Southampton became the first of this new tranche of campuses to open its doors, with several others close behind.
As the TNE boom continues, several universities have revealed the independent providers that are helping them set up their campuses in India. Meanwhile, other providers have expressed an interest in this space.
Here’s our list of who’s working with who.
Who’s opening a campus in India?
Nine UK universities have confirmed they are joining the TNE scramble in India. They are:
The University of Southampton
The University of Liverpool
The University of York
The University of Aberdeen
The University of Bristol
Coventry University
The University of Surrey
Lancaster University
Queen’s University Belfast
Who are they working with?
Oxford International Education Group (OIEG) – Southampton has confirmed it worked with OIEG in setting up its campus in Gurugram, which opened earlier this year. OIEG provided the financial backing and the professional services needed to set up the campus
India Business Group – Another provider assisting Southampton on the ground, India Business Group is providing the university with strategic support.
Emeritusand Daskalos – The University of York has confirmed it is working with the edtech platform Emeritus to set up its Mumbai campus. Working alongside Emeritius is Daskalos – a new venture from Atul Khosla, the founder and vice-chancellor of Shoolini University, as confirmed by Khosla in a LinkedIn post. Khosla has said Emeritus and Daskalos’s partners include “three Russell Group Universities, one of the oldest universities of the world, a top tier US university and a leading Australian university”.
Khosla has also confirmed on LinkedIn that Daskalos and Emeritus are working with the University of Liverpool on its Bengaluru campus, as well as the University of Bristol on its Mumbai campus. Meanwhile, it appears that the University of Aberdeen may be another institution working with the duo, with a job posting advertising an Emeritus job at the university.
Study World – The education infrastructure company Study World is working with Coventry on its GIFT City campus, according to local news reports. The company’s group chief operating officer Kate Gerrard is quoted as saying: “Study World has over two decades of experience in delivering a wide range of educational services in partnership with leading international universities around the world. This association with Coventry University in India will be highly beneficial for students in India and the wider region.”
GUS Global Services – The University of Surrey has confirmed it it is working with GUS Global Services, with GUS leading on strategic support services such as Indian student enrolment support, advice on the local market and campus and operational management.
For their part, Lancaster University and Queens University Belfast have remained tight lipped on which providers – if any – they are working with as they explore setting up campuses in India.
Which other providers could be eyeing up opportunities?
GEDU Global Education – the UK-headquartered company has already invested in several campuses in GIFT City, making it a prime provider to step in and help institutions set up overseas branches in India.
UniQuad – an arm of ECA, which has previously partnered with UK universities to run overseas campuses and other TNE projects, UniQuad is a new division with a specific goal of introducing university partners to India’s evolving educational landscape, meaning it’s well placed to help in this area.
Amity – the private Indian provider is already working with major British institutions – such as Queen Mary University of London – on program articulation arrangements in India, as well as having MoUs with others on things like joint research and dual degrees. Could it be looking to expand into new ventures?
British Council – while the British Council isn’t a private provider, it is a key strategic enabler for institutions looking to set up in India. It can help with policy dialogue and advocacy, support through the UK Universities in India Alliance, as well as providing market intelligence, helping institutions decide which partners are right for them.
PHOENIX — Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest returned to Phoenix this December as both a spectacle and a reckoning. The annual conference, one of the most influential gatherings in conservative youth politics, unfolded for the first time without its founder, Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated earlier this year. His death transformed what is typically a triumphalist rally into a memorialized assertion of continuity, as speakers, organizers, and attendees sought to project strength, unity, and purpose amid uncertainty about the movement’s future.
AmericaFest 2025 featured a familiar lineup of conservative politicians, media figures, donors, and student activists. Speakers framed the event as proof that the movement Kirk helped build would not only survive but expand. The rhetoric emphasized free speech, opposition to what participants described as ideological capture of higher education, and preparation for the 2026 midterm elections. Yet outside the convention hall, and within higher education itself, Turning Point USA’s presence remains deeply contested.
For almost a decade, Higher Education Inquirer has documented Turning Point USA’s activities on college campuses, tracing a pattern that extends well beyond conventional student organizing. While the group presents itself as a champion of intellectual diversity, its methods have repeatedly generated controversy, fear, and institutional strain. Central to those concerns is TPUSA’s use of public targeting tools, including its Professor Watchlist, which names faculty members accused of promoting so-called leftist ideology. Critics argue that such lists chill academic freedom, invite harassment, and undermine the basic principles of scholarly inquiry. Faculty across the country have reported intimidation, threats, and reputational harm after being singled out.
In August 2025, Higher Education Inquirer published a campus warning urging students to avoid contact with Turning Point USA. That advisory was grounded in years of investigative reporting, campus testimony, and analysis of the organization’s tactics. The warning cited confrontational recruitment practices, opaque funding relationships, and a political strategy that often prioritizes provocation over dialogue. It also highlighted TPUSA’s expansion beyond higher education into school boards and K–12 education, raising alarms among educators about the normalization of partisan activism within public education systems.
AmericaFest took place against this backdrop of sustained scrutiny. While speakers inside the convention center invoked Kirk as a martyr for free speech, HEI’s reporting has consistently shown that TPUSA’s operational model frequently relies on pressure campaigns rather than open debate. The organization’s portrayal of campuses as hostile territory has, in practice, fostered a siege mentality that rewards conflict and amplifies polarization. University administrators are often left navigating legal obligations to recognize student groups while absorbing the consequences of protests, security costs, and fractured campus climates.
The aftermath of Kirk’s death has further intensified these dynamics. TPUSA leaders report a surge in student interest in forming new chapters, developments that have already reignited recognition battles at colleges and universities nationwide. Some institutions have approved chapters over strong objections from faculty and students, citing free-speech obligations. Others have resisted, pointing to TPUSA’s documented history of harassment and disruption. These disputes expose the growing tension between constitutional protections and institutional responsibility for student safety and academic integrity.
AmericaFest also underscored TPUSA’s evolution into a well-funded national political operation with deep donor networks and significant influence over educational discourse. What began as a student-focused nonprofit now operates as a coordinated political apparatus embedded within academic spaces. This shift raises fundamental questions about whether TPUSA should still be treated as an ordinary student organization or recognized as a strategic political entity operating on campus terrain.
For supporters, AmericaFest was a declaration that conservative youth politics will advance undeterred by tragedy or criticism. For higher-education observers, it was a reminder that the struggle over campuses is not merely ideological but structural. The question is no longer whether conservative voices belong in higher education; they do. The question is whether organizations built on surveillance, targeting, and intimidation can coexist with universities’ core mission as spaces for inquiry rather than instruments of ideological warfare.
As Turning Point USA charts its post-Kirk future, colleges and universities face a parallel challenge. They must defend free expression without surrendering academic freedom, protect student participation without enabling political exploitation, and ensure that campuses remain places of learning rather than permanent battlegrounds. AmericaFest may celebrate momentum, but the consequences of that momentum will continue to unfold far beyond the convention floor, in classrooms, faculty offices, and student communities across the country.
North Carolina campus leaders are urging international students and staff to take precautions and promising to protect student privacy amid a surge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in the Raleigh, Durham and Charlotte areas. But some students and employees fear campuses aren’t doing enough to protect them after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security boasted upwards of 250 arrests in and around Charlotte on Wednesday.
North Carolina State University’s executive vice chancellor and provost, Warwick Arden, sent a memo to deans and department heads on Tuesday, offering guidance on how to handle any brushes with federal and state agents in Raleigh.
He stressed that the university follows all federal laws—including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, so administrators shouldn’t release information about students or staff without consulting the Office of General Counsel. He also advised all international students, faculty and staff to “carry evidence of their immigration status with them at all times,” including their passports if they leave the Raleigh area.
“I want to assure you that we are closely monitoring developments that may impact our community,” Arden wrote in the memo.
Duke University administrators sent a similar message to students and staff on Wednesday, recommending that international students and employees carry travel documents “at all times” and promising to safeguard student privacy in accordance with federal law. They also told employees to call Duke police if federal agents requested information or sought to enter nonpublic areas.
Sharon L. Gaber, chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, released a memo on Monday, which was updated Thursday, reminding students and employees of the university’s protocols if they encounter anyone who identifies themselves as federal law enforcement. She urged them to call campus police, who “will work with the Office of Legal Affairs to review and verify any subpoenas or warrants that may be presented.”
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s interim executive vice chancellor and provost, James W. Dean Jr., also put out a message to students and staff on Tuesday, acknowledging “anxiety” caused by the presence of ICE officials and encouraging students and employees “to learn more about their rights and available resources.”
Dean emphasized that the university “complies with all federal and state laws and guidance”; ICE has the right to approach individuals in public spaces, he said, but they need a warrant to access classrooms, offices or dorms.
He also said that while FERPA prevents the university from sharing a student’s class schedule and immigration status, their name, address and phone number are public information unless a student previously told the registrar not to share such details. He directed concerned students to the dean of students for “individual supports and services.”
Fears and Concerns
Nearby raids have heightened fear and anxiety among students.
Rumors have been swirling on social media about U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents and vehicles sighted near North Carolina State and UNC Charlotte, with students and nearby residents alerting each other about unrecognized cars near campus. Ojo Obrero, an ICE activity tracker created by the Latino and immigrant advocacy organization Siembra NC, showed several sightings of CBP agents and vehicles reported within two miles of UNC Charlotte.
“The University has been monitoring available information since Customs and Border Protection arrived in Charlotte and had no confirmed reports of CBP on campus; however, they have been in the area,” Christy Jackson, deputy chief communications officer at UNC Charlotte, said in a statement to Inside Higher Ed.
North Carolina State Police have likewise found “no credible sightings of federal agents on campus” at North Carolina State, Mick Kulikowski, the university’s director of strategic communications and media relations, wrote to Inside Higher Ed.
Despite memos and reassurances, students and staff expressed frustration that campus leaders’ statements didn’t make a stronger commitment to resisting federal immigration enforcement efforts.
A joint statement from the American Association of University Professors chapter at UNC Chapel Hill, UE Local 150 and the student organization transparUNCy slammed their administration’s response as “tepid” and “inadequate to meet the moment of fear and uncertainty.” The groups called on university leaders to “do all in their power to deny CBP access to our community,” because “example after example has shown that CBP is acting above the law.”
Administrators have “instead taken the cowardly approach of saying they’re just going to follow the law,” said Michael Palm, president of the UNC Chapel Hill AAUP chapter. “Everyone that I know who works or studies at UNC understands that we have to protect ourselves, because no one in the administration will help with that.”
Palm said he and other faculty members are allowing fearful students to attend class remotely after some of his colleagues found them “afraid to come to class, afraid to leave home, if they’re on campus, afraid to leave their dorms.”
“There has been a real network effort of mutual care to make sure that those students are not just not punished for missing class or excluded from class but also to make sure that they’re getting food, medicine and other supplies,” he said, “and human contact and support so they don’t feel even more isolated and afraid than they already, understandably, do.”
Since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022, higher education as a sector has grappled with the role large language models and generative artificial intelligence tools can and should play in students’ lives.
A recent survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that nearly all college students say they know how and when to use AI for their coursework, which they attribute largely to faculty instruction or syllabus language.
Eighty-seven percent of respondents said they know when to use AI, with the share of those saying they don’t shrinking from 31 percent in spring 2024 to 13 percent in August 2025.
The greatest share of respondents (41 percent) said they know when to use AI because their professors include statements in their syllabi explaining appropriate and inappropriate AI use. An additional 35 percent said they know because their instructors have addressed it in class.
“It’s good news that students feel like they understand the basic ground rules for when AI is appropriate,” said Dylan Ruediger, principal for the research enterprise at Ithaka S+R. “It suggests that there are some real benefits to having faculty be the primary point of contact for information about what practices around AI should look like.”
The data points to a trend in higher education to move away from a top-down approach of organizing AI policies to a more decentralized approach, allowing faculty to be experts in their subjects.
“I think that faculty should have wide latitudes to teach their courses how they see fit. Trusting them to understand what’s pedagogically appropriate for their ways of teaching and within their discipline” is a smart place to start, Ruediger said.
The challenge becomes how to create campuswide priorities for workforce development that ensure all students, regardless of major program, can engage in AI as a career tool and understand academic integrity expectations.
Student Perspectives
While the survey points to institutional efforts to integrate AI into the curriculum, some students remain unaware or unsure of when they can use AI tools. Only 17 percent of students said they are aware of appropriate AI use cases because their institution has published a policy on the subject, whereas 25 percent said they know when to use AI because they’ve researched the topic themselves.
Ruediger hypothesizes that some students learn about AI tools and their uses from peers in addition to their own research.
Some demographic groups were less likely than others to be aware of appropriate AI use on campus, signaling disparities in who’s receiving this information. Nearly one-quarter of adult learners (aged 25 or older) said they don’t know how or when to use AI for coursework, compared to 10 percent of their traditional-aged peers. Similarly, two-year college students were less likely to say they are aware of appropriate use cases (20 percent) than their four-year peers (10 percent).
Students working full-time (19 percent) or those who had dropped out for a semester (20 percent) were also more likely to say they don’t know when to use AI.
While decentralizing AI policies and giving autonomy to faculty members can better serve academic freedom and AI applications, having clearly outlined and widely available policies also benefits students.
“There is a scenario here where [AI] rules are left somewhat informal and inconsistent that ends up giving an advantage to students who have more cultural capital or are better positioned to understand hidden curricular issues,” Ruediger said.
In a survey of provosts and chief academic officers this fall, Inside Higher Ed found that one in five provosts said their institution is taking an intentionally hands-off approach to regulating AI use, with no formal governance or policies about AI. Fourteen percent of respondents indicated their institution has established a comprehensive AI governance policy or institutional strategy, but the greatest share said they are still developing policies.
A handful of students also indicated they have no interest in ever using AI.
In 2024, 2 percent of Student Voice survey respondents (n=93) wrote in “other” responses to the question, “Do you have a clear sense of when, how or whether to use generative artificial intelligence to help with your coursework?” More than half of those responses—55—expressed distrust, disdain or disagreement with the use of generative AI. That view appears to be growing; this year, 3 percent of respondents (n=138) wrote free responses, and 113 comments opposed AI use in college for ethical or personal reasons.
“I hate AI we should never ever ever use it,” wrote one second-year student at a community college in Wyoming. “It’s terrible for the environment. People who use AI lack critical thinking skills and just use AI as a cop out.”
The Institutional Perspective
A separate survey fielded by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that more than half of student success administrators (55 percent) reported that their institution is “somewhat effective” at helping students understand how, when and whether to use generative AI tools in academic settings. (“Somewhat effective” is defined as “there being some structured efforts, but guidance is not consistent or comprehensive.”)
More than one-third (36 percent) reported their institution is not very effective—meaning they offer limited guidance and many students rely on informal or independent learning—and 2 percent said their institution is “very effective,” or that students receive clear guidance across multiple channels.
Ithaka S+R published its own study this spring, which found that the average instructor had at least experimented with using AI in classroom activities. According to Inside Higher Ed’s most recent survey of provosts, two-thirds of respondents said their institution offers professional development for faculty on AI or integrating AI into the curriculum.
Engaging Students in AI
Some colleges and universities have taken measures to ensure all students are aware of ethical AI use cases.
Indiana University created an online course, GenAI 101, for anyone with a campus login to earn a certificate denoting they’ve learned about practical applications for AI tools, ethical considerations of using those tools and how to fact-check content produced by AI.
This year the University of Mary Washington offered students a one-credit online summer course on how to use generative AI tools, which covered academic integrity, professional development applications and how to evaluate AI output.
The State University of New York system identified AI as a core competency to be included in all general education courses for undergraduates. All classes that fulfill the information literacy competency requirement will include a lesson on AI ethics and literacy starting fall 2026.
Touro University is requiring all faculty members to include an AI statement in their syllabi by next spring, Shlomo Argamon, associate provost for artificial intelligence, told Inside Higher Ed in a podcast episode. The university also has an official AI policy that serves as the default if faculty do not have more or less restrictive policies.
As Thu Thu Htet, “T”, was nearing graduation at her high school in Burma, she knew she wanted to go abroad to study engineering. She wanted to study at the Rochester Institute of Technology in New York State, but didn’t want to spend tens of thousands of dollars a year in tuition, since international students don’t qualify for federal aid.
Instead, she decided to start her higher education journey at Monroe Community College, also in Rochester, where tuition is cheaper. T, now in her second semester, has made friends with dozens of other international students at MCC, who have helped her feel less lonely being so far away from family.
“There are times where I don’t feel like I fit in. Or I feel alone sometimes. The most important thing is the friends that you have,” she said.
International student enrolments have surged at US community colleges ever since the pandemic, including this fall. As community colleges host more international students, administrators are looking for ways to make them feel welcome on campuses where most students are local commuters.
One way international students at MCC can find support is through campus life. T serves as the president of the Global Union – a student-run club for international students, immigrant students, and anyone interested in learning about other cultures. Through her role, she greets new students, helps them to overcome challenges, and organises events to help them showcase their cultures.
“Sometimes, you need to be around people that have the same feeling as yours. When we are in the same club with immigrants, refugees, or other international students, we feel like we fit in with each other,” T said.
An unexpected increase
Because of President Trump’s policies, analysts predicted a 15% drop in total international students at American colleges and universities this fall. Experts warned that the Trump administration’s near month-long pause on visa interviews, travel bans, and war against many of the nation’s most prestigious universities would harm enrolment.
Instead, this fall’s international student enrolment across all degree programs, including OPT, grew by 0.8%, according to the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) data that the Department of Homeland Security publishes.
Community colleges have helped to move the needle. For associate degree programs, international student enrolment increased by 9.1%, with community colleges welcoming nearly 5,500 more students than last year. Meanwhile, enrolment shrunk slightly for master’s programs and hardly changed for bachelor’s programs.
Rather than choosing not to study in the US this fall, it seems like students are choosing different kinds of degrees or schools. That’s according to Chris Glass, director of Boston College’s higher education program, who recently analysed the latest SEVIS data.
“If we’re to take this data at face value, the system is far more resilient than the tumultuous headlines would suggest,” Glass previously told The PIE News .
Based on his analysis, the over 9% growth of international students at community colleges may not be a fluke. Glass argues that international students gravitate toward schools with less political spotlight, more affordable tuition, and access to opportunities after graduation. Community colleges check all of those boxes.
MCC is hosting more international students now than before the pandemic. This fall, the campus’ international student body grew by 35%, hosting 120 students from over 30 countries.
MCC’s international recruiting efforts for soccer, baseball, and other sports has helped to draw students from across continents, said Carly O’Keefe, MCC’s assistant director of global education and international services. The current men’s and women’s soccer team roster has a combined 34 international students.
In addition, unlike many other community colleges, MCC has dorms. For T, attending a college with on-campus dorms was critical, since she had no family or friends in Rochester to live with.
O’Keefe said international students at MCC bring ideas and culture from across the globe, enriching a campus where most students are local. Some local students – limited by jobs, financial constraints, or family obligations – have never traveled overseas.
“They’re able to make friendships with people from other countries that they maybe would have never connected with otherwise,” she said.
Finding a community through campus life
The wall of the Global Union office is decorated with dozens of paintings of hot air balloons containing flags, created by students to represent their countries. Colourful cloth flags and souvenirs from across the world fill the room.
“At the time when I saw the Korean flag, I was so proud,” said Onyu Cha, a first-semester international student from South Korea studying nursing.
Hot air balloon paintings at Global Union office. Photo: MCC Global Union
Onyu made friends with other Koreans through campus life and through her sister, who also lives in Rochester. Recently, she and other Korean students went to her sister’s house to cook food for the holiday of Chuseok, a mid-autumn harvest festival often referred to as Korean Thanksgiving.
Through her role as the vice-president of the Global Union, Onyu has got to learn about the cultures of other students. Currently, the club is planning for an event to celebrate holidays from across the world, all on one day. That’s similar to last year’s Global Fusion Festival – an event in the campus atrium to celebrate the cultures of all MCC students. It featured African drummers, Ukrainian dancers, and food from across the globe.
Judichael Razafintsalama – a student from Madagascar who graduated from MCC last May – said serving as the Global Union president allowed him to support his fellow international students.
Having international students on campus at a community college can be really enriching to a local community
Dr. Melissa Whatley, William & Mary
The summer before starting his first year at MCC, Razafintsalama landed in Rochester around 2am. When he got to his dorm, he realised he had no food. The vending machines were empty, the campus’ food services were closed, and he hadn’t set up rideshare on his phone. To get groceries, he walked two hours to a Walmart and back, carrying four bags while jet lagged.
Now, international students come together to help the Office of Global Education provide packages of canned food, granola bars and utensils for incoming international students.
“We even helped two of our students move into their apartment and make sure that everything is settled after going through what I went through,” Razafintsalama said.
Razafintsalama said he’s had the chance to teach others at MCC about his country and his culture. Most students he encountered had never met anyone from Madagascar, the island nation off the southeastern coast of Africa.
“They usually attach it to the cartoon movie,” he said. “It’s great because I can see that people are interested in my country and to see what it actually is like.”
Supporting international students’ social and housing needs is critical to making them feel welcome, said Dr. Melissa Whatley, an assistant professor of higher education at William & Mary University. Her research group recently released a report on international education at community colleges, finding that 82% hosted international students.
Whatley hopes that these colleges are providing international students with campus life opportunities and, if they don’t have dorms, are helping students to find housing.
“Having international students on campus at a community college can be really enriching to a local community, to the extent that the community is equipped to welcome them,” she said.
Concerns over travel ban
Currently, the US hosts over 1.2 million international students or recent graduates, according to SEVIS data. The dataset doesn’t distinguish between students and graduates working temporarily through Optional Practical Training (OPT). More in-depth statistics will become available once the Institute of International Education publishes its annual report later in November.
However, because of President Trump’s travel ban, some prospective international students have been restricted from studying in the US. That includes Burmese students who didn’t secure a visa before June 9.
MCC has seen an uptick in Burmese students ever since a civil war broke out in the country, interrupting higher education for many students. The war began in 2021 when military forces toppled the country’s democratically elected government. Last spring, MCC still hosted more students from Burma than from any other country, O’Keefe said.
Now, Burma is among the 12 countries included in Trump’s travel ban, impacting all immigrant and non-immigrant visas. Seven more countries are under a partial travel ban that impacts international student visas.
As for international enrolments at MCC? “We’ll see how the trends change over the next few semesters. I would be surprised to see such a significant level of continued growth but we can hope things at least stay stable,” O’Keefe said in an email.
The takeaway from this fall’s enrolment data is that students’ perceptions take a long time to change, said Gerardo Blanco, academic director of the Centre for International Higher Education at Boston College. He previously told The PIE that the 0.8% international student increase revealed in SEVIS records came as a surprise, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be a decline in coming years.
“I hope the takeaway message is not that the US is invincible, in that even hostile policies towards international students cannot change perceptions,” he said.
Seven in 10 college students say most or nearly all students on their college campus feel welcomed, valued and supported, according to a July 2025 survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab.
The data, collected from over 260 two- and four-year colleges across the country, paints a relatively rosy picture of students’ sentiments on campus this fall against the backdrop of free speech restrictions, tense protests and cutbacks to programs that serve students from racial minorities.
While respondents indicated the average student is welcome at their institution, they were less confident about whether they themselves fit in academically or socially.
Fewer than one-third of respondents said they have an “excellent” or “above average” sense of social belonging on campus; 42 percent reported “average” feelings of belonging. Additionally, 38 percent of students said they had an “excellent” or “above average” sense of academic fit at their institution, while just under half said they had an average sense of academic fit.
Survey data also pointed to positive sentiments about personal and academic inquiry. When asked how encouraged and supported they felt to explore different perspectives and challenge their beliefs, a majority of students indicated they feel “somewhat” (45 percent) or “very” supported (35 percent) on campus.
A Warm Welcome
Campus climate, or the perception of how much respect and inclusion students feel on campus, is tied to learning; research shows that students who face discrimination are less likely to succeed academically. Research has also found that students of color are less likely than their white peers to report feeling at home at college.
Inside Higher Ed’s Student Voice survey found minor variance among racial groups in reporting a generally positive campus climate. White students (75 percent) and Asian American or Pacific Islander students (73 percent) were most likely to indicate “most” or “nearly all” students are welcome on campus, compared to Hispanic (71 percent) or Black (68 percent) respondents. Seventy percent of “other” students, which Generation Lab classifies as students of two or more races or who come from outside the U.S., had positive reviews on campus climate.
Adult and two-year students were more likely to say nearly all students are welcome on campus (24 percent) than the average respondent (20 percent), which could reflect the diverse student bodies at two-year institutions and the preferences of adult learners to enroll in two-year or online institutions.
By comparison, students who had considered leaving college were less likely to say “most” or “nearly all” students are welcomed (64 percent) compared to all respondents (73 percent) or students who had never considered dropping out (77 percent).
Three percent of survey respondents wrote in other responses, indicating they completed their classes online and therefore could not speak to the campus climate.
Academic Success and Belonging
The survey also asked students to rank their own sense of social belonging and academic fit on a scale of poor to excellent.
Across racial demographics, Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) students were most likely to rate their social belonging as high (33 percent), followed by white and international students (30 percent each), Black students (25 percent), and Latinos (22 percent).
On academic fit, white students had the highest ratings; 43 percent of respondents said their fit was “excellent” or “above average,” followed by AAPI (42 percent), Black students (33 percent) and Latino students (30 percent).
Students who had considered leaving college were much more likely than their peers to report they had a “poor” sense of belonging (15 percent versus 6 percent).
First-generation students were more likely to rate their sense of academic fit and social belonging as “below average” or “poor” (17 percent and 37 percent, respectively) compared to their continuing-generation peers (13 percent and 28 percent).
DEI Cutbacks
Inside Higher Ed’s survey also asked students whether federal actions to limit diversity, equity and inclusion have impacted their experiences. The most popular response was “no real impact on my experience” (37 percent), and a handful of students wrote in that they anticipated greater impact after returning to campus this fall. This view held across racial groups, with the greatest share of respondents saying it hasn’t impacted their experience.
About 20 percent of students said the changes to DEI on campus have “somewhat negatively impacted my experience” and 16 percent indicated “I don’t feel impacted, but my peers have been negatively impacted.”
Nonbinary students were most likely to say it’s severely negatively impacting their experience (39 percent).
Ten percent of respondents said they are somewhat or significantly impacted in a positive manner by the changes.
Too many student-parents never make it to graduation, in no small part because their campuses don’t adequately help them fit college into their lives — or even just fit in.
Yet over 3 million student-parents across the nation, myself included, are pursuing higher education, seeking the intergenerational benefits that come with earning a degree. To reap them, we must overcome many obstacles, as colleges aren’t designed for students like us.
For me, the last hurdle I had to clear was graduation itself. After years of sacrifice — not just my own, but my whole family’s — walking the stage with my four children at my graduation from the University of California, Santa Cruz was deeply important.
The university, however, didn’t understand that or account for us. When I asked to accept my diploma with my kids, I was met with resistance, a particularly tough reminder of the work institutions have left to do to meet the needs and priorities of student-parents.
Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.
Earning my college degree in my late 30s was undoubtedly a major achievement, but so was going back for my bachelor’s in the first place — I didn’t even finish high school the first time around.
After I became a mom at 20, I earned my GED, hoping it would help me support my family. Continuing my education only got harder. I started and stopped community college more times than I can count, juggling bills, jobs, custody battles and parenting.
Finally, I transferred to UCSC, proud that I was taking this step two decades in the making and changing the trajectory of my and my family’s lives.
However, I didn’t fully realize what my education would cost my children. Used to our tight-knit Tongan community, they felt like cultural outsiders when we moved to Santa Cruz, no longer surrounded by family, our native language or familiar foods and music.
My children sacrificed their home and sense of belonging so that I could pursue this dream. As graduation approached, I knew I wanted to walk the stage with them. They had earned it just as much as I had.
Yet the administration denied my request, citing the added logistical difficulties. They suggested I bring my kids to a separate, informal celebration for those of us living in family student housing instead. The offer sounded like “be invisible or settle for less.”
I immediately started mobilizing UCSC’s Student Parent Organization, where I was president. Working with the student government, I drafted a resolution permitting student-parents to walk with their children. I reached out to alumni, administrators, fellow parents and friends for support.
Thanks to our collective voice, the dean of students changed his mind, offered an apology and committed to changing the policy going forward for all graduating student-parents. Though my kids and I were placed at the end of the ceremony, we crossed the stage together as a family.
That seed of inclusion will grow in them, just like it will for all the children of student-parents who walk that path in the future.
The next year, my mentee and friend walked with her son at the UCSC commencement, this time without pushback. The university invited them to rehearsal, and on graduation day, they had VIP seats. She was one of the first to walk, not the last.
That is the power of advocacy. It turns exclusion into inclusion. It rewrites the rules not just for one person, but for those who come after. I am proud to continue my advocacy work as a graduate student at the University of San Francisco and a member of The California Alliance for Student Parent Success.
I have since seen institutions across California make good progress on their efforts to support student-parents, but colleges and universities nationwide must still do more. At the University at Buffalo, university police chased a graduating student across the stage when he attempted to bring his infant son with him.
These stories and the momentum building in the wake of September’s National Student Parent Month should serve as a call to higher education leaders across the country to cultivate campus climates that build trust and belonging among student-parents.
This work should start before we even step foot on campus and continue until we graduate.
Institutions that truly wish to serve families will ensure that the value we bring to higher education is visible. They will account for student-parents when planning campus events and weave together support networks of faculty, staff and peers who can respond to our needs.
When we ask institutions for policies and practices to better accommodate our families, they will listen and act. They will hold themselves accountable to all of their students, parents included.
Walking the stage with my kids was a step in the right direction, albeit an uphill climb. Let’s keep going and do better by student-parents and their families.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
The UNC system doesn’t have a policy that specifies how syllabi are treated under open-records laws.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Liudmila Chernetska and Davizro/iStock/Getty Images
As right-wing groups increasingly weaponize Freedom of Information Act requests to expose and dox faculty members who teach about gender, race and diversity, University of North Carolina system campuses are split over whether syllabi and other course materials should be subject to public records requests.
In July, officials at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill determined that the documents are not automatically subject to such requests after the Oversight Project, founded by the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, requested that the university hand over any course materials from more than 70 classes that contained one of 30 words or phrases, including “gender identity,” “intersectionality,” “queer” and “sexuality.” Officials ultimately denied the request, writing, “There are no existing or responsive University records subject to disclosure under the North Carolina Public Records Act. Course materials, including but not limited to exams, lectures, assignments and syllabi, are the intellectual property of the preparer.”
The requested materials are protected by copyright policies, a UNC Chapel Hill spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed. “The university has a longstanding practice of recognizing faculty’s intellectual property rights in course materials and does not reproduce these materials in response to public records requests without first asking for faculty consent,” they wrote in an email.
But an hour’s drive west, at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, officials decided just the opposite. Professors were asked to hand over their spring 2025 syllabi in response to a Freedom of Information Act request earlier this fall, said Chuck Bolton, a professor of history at UNC Greensboro and chair of the Faculty Senate. He is among dozens of faculty members who were asked to upload their syllabi into a central database.
“The Public Records Act is inclusive in its coverage and unless there is an explicit exception, which this is not, it is covered,” UNC Greensboro spokesperson Diana Lawrence said in an email. “As a matter of public policy, transparency should take [precedence] over questions where there is doubt and we do not believe that the Federal Copyright Act provides a specific exemption or preempts what has been passed in state law.”
Which university is interpreting the law correctly? It’s hard to know, said Hugh Stevens, an attorney who specializes in public records and FOIA law and litigation at the law firm Stevens Martin Vaughn & Tadych. There is no case law specific to this question, and the answer likely depends on how different course materials—from lecture notes to syllabi to course descriptions—are defined under the law.
“It’s probably a matter of degree,” Stevens said. “Something that you post online for your class to read, it’s pretty hard to say those are not subject to [public records requests]. But on the other hand, the materials that you use to prepare to teach your class, but which are never published to anybody, are certainly, in my view, copyrightable and proprietary.”
For years, UNC Greensboro put syllabi online as part of an accreditation requirement, said Jeff Jones, a history professor and head of the institution’s American Association of University Professors chapter. After the university’s website was redesigned and accreditation procedures changed, the syllabi were no longer posted.
The UNC system doesn’t have a policy that specifies how syllabi are treated under open-records laws, leaving the decision up to individual campuses. The policy “does not discuss distribution of course materials” and “essentially covers the basic functions and procedures involved with records requests,” said UNC system spokesperson Andy Wallace.
But the system does define copyrightable works, which include coursework produced by faculty members, Wallace added.
Lawrence, the Greensboro spokesperson, did not respond to questions about whether the university’s records request was also from the Oversight Project and whether it has already provided the material. The FOIA request has not been made public, but Bolton, the history professor, believes it’s a narrower request than what UNC Chapel Hill received and that it is focused exclusively on syllabi.
The opposing interpretations of the law from two universities in the same public system have left faculty confused and worried about their safety as right-wing groups rifle through course materials for any terminology they don’t like, usually related to gender identity, sexuality or race. Faculty members at Texas A&M University, the University of Houston and George Mason University, among others, have been targeted and sometimes threatened on social media for their instruction and teaching materials. Bolton said he knows of several UNC Greensboro faculty members who have been doxed.
“Faculty have been upset and scared and freaked out about it, because there are people that seem to be [making FOIA requests] because they are trying to create gotcha moments by taking certain things out of context,” he said.
Michael Palm, an associate professor of media and technology studies and cultural studies at UNC Chapel Hill, said in an email that while many faculty are glad Chapel Hill decided not to release the requested course materials, some expressed frustration about the lack of transparency. “We were disappointed when we learned through news reports that UNC Chapel Hill’s lawyers had decided not to respond to the requests, rather than having that decision communicated to us by administrators,” he said.
Some professors are also concerned about how long and how vigorously the university will continue to protect faculty. “We are all concerned about the increasing political interference into our classrooms and attempts to quash our academic freedom,” said Erik Gellman, a history professor at Chapel Hill.
Bolton, at UNC Greensboro, has similar worries.
“This is a tough time for universities,” he said. “There are a lot of attacks coming from a lot of different directions, and that increases the anxiety and anger on behalf of the faculty, because we know that these kinds of things are not being done just because people want to find out what’s on our syllabus for intellectual reasons. They’re doing it for more nefarious reasons.”
