The U.S. Department of Education has named the six inaugural winners of its Postsecondary Success Recognition Program, which were selected out of a pool of 200 institutions invited to apply, according to a Thursday news release.
The program, which was introduced last April, aims to reward institutions that “are enrolling underserved student populations, facilitating successful student transfers and completions, and equipping graduates for careers that lead to economic mobility,” Thursday’s announcement stated.
The winners include three associate degree–granting institutions—CUNY Hostos Community College, Miami Dade College and Salish Kootenai College—and three bachelor’s degree–granting institutions: San José State University, the University of South Carolina and the University of Texas at Arlington.
The department also granted a special “trailblazer” award to Georgia State University, for both its internal efforts to improve graduation rates and its National Institute for Student Success, which supports student success efforts at more than 100 campuses across the country.
The presidents of the winning institutions celebrated the achievement in statements shared by the department.
“As a community college in the South Bronx, the poorest congressional district in the United States, our mission is to provide social mobility through education and to create lifelong learners who will uplift their communities for generations to come,” said Hostos Community College president Daisy Cocco De Filippis. “We understand that for our students, the stakes are high, and the challenges can seem insurmountable. That is why we dedicate ourselves to relentlessly supporting our students and helping them get their degrees with a manos a la obra (all hands on deck) ethos that informs everything we do. While our students’ success is the highest reward, on behalf of the entire faculty and staff of Hostos Community College, I want to express our most sincere gratitude for this recognition of our efforts. Mil gracias y bendiciones.”
A chapter of history is closing: Jim Grossman is retiring after 15 years as executive director of the American Historical Association, a group of more than 10,400 members. He began leading the scholarly organization after two decades at Chicago’s independent Newberry Library, where he was vice president for research and education. His own scholarly work focused on American urban history, especially of Chicago, and the Great Migration of African Americans.
In the past decade and a half, the AHA and its members have commented on contemporary controversies that have arisen from or invoked historical events, such as the Charlottesville, Va., white supremacist rally; the debate over whether to remove Confederate monuments; the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol insurrection; and more. Over that time, lawmakers in some states began restricting how history—especially when it’s relevant to current events—is taught.
Grossman headed the AHA amid such controversies and has repeatedly spoken out in defense of the discipline. He’s denounced the first Trump administration’s 1776 Commission report, which criticized histories produced by Howard Zinn and The New York Times Magazine’s 1619 Project. Grossman called the report “history without historians.” He’s also pushed for other historians to do more public-facing work.
The AHA has itself faced criticism during Grossman’s tenure, including for then-president Jim Sweet’s critique of The 1619 Project in 2022. This past weekend, it entered another current controversy when attendees of its annual conference overwhelmingly passed a resolution opposing “scholasticide” in Gaza and the U.S. government’s funding of Israel’s war.
Inside Higher Ed interviewed Grossman shortly before that conference about his tenure and the current issues the history discipline faces. The questions and answers have been edited for clarity and length.
Q: Why did you apply to become executive director in the first place?
A: I had been involved in a variety of AHA activities. There were things I was trying to do in Chicago at the Newberry Library that involved increasing the public scope of historians. What the AHA provided was the opportunity to do some of those things on a national scale, rather than just within Chicago. How do we get historians to be more involved in public culture, more influential in public policy?
Q: Why are you retiring now?
A: I’m 72 years old. It’s time for somebody younger to be doing this work—not because I don’t enjoy it, but because I think it’s important for membership organizations to be directed by people who are generationally closer to the membership and the audience. And I’ve had 15 years to accomplish what I’ve tried to accomplish.
Q: What have your biggest accomplishments been?
A: At least getting started on helping the discipline rethink the definition of historical scholarship—to broaden the definition of scholarship for promotion and tenure. We came out with recommendations that departments are taking seriously about thinking about going beyond books and peer-reviewed articles. Reference books, textbooks, op-eds, testifying in legislatures and courts—all of these things are works of scholarship.
Second is I think that we reoriented the AHA towards a much broader scope, so that the AHA and the discipline itself take teaching more seriously. Our annual conference is no longer “a research conference”; it includes all sorts of things that relate to teaching, that relate to advocacy, that relate to professional development. I also think that we have ramped up and broadened our advocacy work. We’re very active in state legislatures now; we’re very active in reviewing changes to state social studies and history standards for K-12 education. So, we’ve kept our focus on Capitol Hill and in Washington, but we’ve moved out to the states.
Q: Why did you make such an emphasis during your tenure on broadening the focus of AHA? Is it because of a decline in tenure-track, traditional faculty jobs for new history Ph.D. earners?
A: That was part of it. But that came later. I had that goal from the very beginning because I became a historian because I think historians are useful to public culture as well as academia. If I had my druthers, every time a decision was made at a table in government, private sector, nonprofit sector, I would want a historian at the table. Everything has a history, and since everything has a history, historical context always matters when you’re making decisions, when you’re trying to develop good judgment.
That’s what someone learns in a history course. They learn judgment by thinking about the past. Historians don’t need to be working just as teachers and professors. Historians should be everywhere.
Q: You’re saying you’ve gotten AHA more involved in state legislatures, in discussions of state standards—all of these things are political or politics-adjacent, right?
A: Not necessarily. Let’s start with the federal level. We work on the Hill and in federal agencies to promote history. Our congressional charter, which goes back to 1889, says that we are here to promote history. So that’s not politics. It’s engaging in politics in order to promote history, yes. We are providing historical context to congressional staff so that they can make well-informed decisions when they make recommendations to their member. If you’re going to think about immigration policy, you need to know the door was closed for 40 years.
There are times when we take stands that are perceived as political. We took a stand against the Muslim ban, for example. But we did so on the basis of what we’ve learned from history. State legislatures, it’s the same thing—we are promoting the integrity of history education. We are saying high school teachers need to be trusted as professionals, high school teachers should not be censored in the classroom; we are saying that state history standards should be good history.
Q: What are the biggest issues within K-12 history—teaching and learning—and how do they actually impact colleges and universities?
A: State legislatures have mandated that certain things have to be taught for years. What they have not done in the past is say certain things cannot be taught, which is censorship. There’s very little precedent for this. So that is one big challenge, which is fighting back against this notion that state legislatures can tell teachers you cannot teach X, Y or Z. And that affects college because if students don’t learn things in high school, then they’re less prepared when they get to college. If students don’t learn in high school that racism has been a central aspect of American history since Europeans came to the Americas—if students don’t learn that in high school, then the college professors are starting off at a much different level.
If I had my druthers, every time a decision was made at a table in government, private sector, nonprofit sector, I would want a historian at the table.”
—Jim Grossman
We do know that young people are reading less. Instead of wringing our hands and saying they have to read more, we need to step back and ask ourselves, “How do we rethink our college courses for students who are now educated differently?” That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be pushing them to read, but it also means that we need to think about different ways of teaching history.
Q: Has the discipline of history become increasingly polarized over your tenure?
A: The discipline itself has not been polarized. Historians are still much more capable of disagreeing with each other in a civil manner than my neighbors in the capital. The larger polarization in public culture has harnessed the discipline of history in the same way it’s harnessed other disciplines and other aspects of life, but no, historians are still arguing with each other in a way that’s productive and constructive.
Q: How do you expect the Trump administration and Republican control of both chambers of Congress to impact the discipline of history?
A: I have no idea—that’s why we’re here to watch.
Q: I know you’ve expressed concern about the 1776 Commission coming back.
A: There has been talk among people who are part of the incoming administration of reviving the 1776 Commission and that notorious report, and so I’m concerned about that possibility, and I’m prepared for that possibility, and when things like that happen, we will speak out.
Q: What impact has The 1619 Project had on the teaching of history and history scholarship? For instance, I know you were leading the AHA as it faced controversy over former association president Jim Sweet’s criticism of that work.
A: Jim Sweet, like every historian, has a right to criticize any work of historical scholarship. The 1619 Project is not a work of historical scholarship. It’s—according to its compiler, its organizer—it’s journalism. And that’s fine, and there are aspects of it that I and many of my colleagues agree with, and aspects of it that I and many of my colleagues disagree with, just like any other piece of historical scholarship or journalism. It’s an easy target for people who want to take one thing that has been controversial and then use it for all sorts of other purposes.
Controversies that ask people to ask questions are useful. It’s useful for teachers to be able to say to students, “So how do we think about the beginnings of a nation? Do we think of the beginning of a nation as the creation of its governing documents? Or do we think about the beginnings of a nation as the origins of its economy? Or do we think about the beginnings of the nation as the beginning of its culture, or as the origins of it, the roots of its culture?” Those are good historical questions, and The 1619 Project has initiated or nourished those questions.
Q: What impact have the ongoing Israel-Hamas war and related U.S. higher education developments had on the teaching and study and scholarship of history?
A: I think that many people who teach Middle Eastern history have probably been more careful, and I suspect that classroom management has been more difficult because it’s an emotional topic. But it’s different from The 1619 Project. The 1619 Project offered a certain way of understanding the history of the United States, and a controversial way of seeing the history of the United States—and offered, therefore, teachers an opportunity, or a nudge, to ask important questions and have students address them.
That’s very different from a war that’s happening on the other side of the world. It’s important to the United States, it’s important to Americans, but it doesn’t have the same valence in teaching a course in American history, which is the most widely taught course in the United States. It does mean that historians have to balance sensitivity to diversity of students in their classroom with the integrity of the history that they teach.
I often ignore my well-being—mind, body and spirit—while advancing my academic career. As a woman of color academic, balancing work and life feels very hard. My personal and professional lives are tangled, pulling at me in tiring ways. Relaxing seems wrong, and resting feels like a luxury.
I get so caught up in meetings and deadlines that on a typical day I often skip lunch. I forget to drink water and don’t even step outside for fresh air. My self-care plan has been “out of sight, out of mind.”
Now, in my 40s, I see the toll this has taken. I struggle with muscle spasms, neck pain, mental health issues and deep exhaustion. The hardest part? My six-year-old daughter says, “Mom works a lot.”
Enter Slow Living: A Revolutionary Recalibration
The slow living movement, rooted in the slow food movement, promotes a lifestyle centered on mindfulness, sustainability and quality over quantity. It encourages us to slow down and make intentional choices in a world that often values speed and productivity. This philosophy emphasizes the importance of relationships, well-being and balance.
For women of color in academia, slow living practices provide a means to counteract the intense pressures of teaching, administration, funding and publication. These pressures are heightened by systemic challenges such as microaggressions, tokenism, code-switching and the obligation to mentor students from similar backgrounds. This leads to cultural taxation and the demands of invisible labor, resulting in increased stress and burnout. The slow living approach promotes self-care and helps us reconnect with what truly matters, enhancing resilience and mental well-being.
The Invisible Burdens Women of Color Carry
Women of color in academia often face unique challenges that remain invisible to many of their peers. For example, the overwhelming burden of service work, particularly mentoring students of color, frequently contributes to feelings of isolation and burnout. While mentorship is vital and rewarding, it takes a significant toll, contributing to a sense of alienation, invisible labor and racial battle fatigue. The emotional and intellectual labor involved often detracts from time that could otherwise be spent on research, teaching or personal pursuits. Addressing these issues requires a deeper understanding of systemic obstacles and intentional efforts to foster equitable academic environments.
Furthermore, women of color academics often encounter challenges related to tokenism within predominantly white academic settings. Their roles can be perceived as symbolic, which leads to the expectation that they represent entire racial or ethnic communities. Faculty of color are frequently called upon to address student concerns regarding racism or to spearhead diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, a burden not equally shared by their white colleagues.
Moreover, microaggressions—subtle yet harmful discriminatory behaviors—can create an environment in which faculty of color feel compelled to continually validate their competence. These experiences highlight the need for systemic change to cultivate a more inclusive atmosphere where women of color faculty can thrive and contribute their invaluable perspectives.
The Slow Living Solution
The principles of slow living offer women of color academics a robust way to reclaim their time and energy, enabling them to focus on their well-being, passions and purpose. Embracing slow living practices may aid us in navigating the often overwhelming demands of academic life with greater intention and balance, which may amplify self-agency.
Mindfulness practices such as morning meditation or walking in nature can provide essential moments of peace. Setting boundaries, saying “no” to additional commitments and taking mental health days are other strategies that allow academics to preserve their energy. Intentional time management helps reduce stress and ensures alignment with personal values, creating a more fulfilling academic experience. Institutional support for mindful practices can be crucial in promoting the well-being and retention of women of color faculty by creating environments that prioritize self-care, work-life balance and mental health.
Slow living enhances career satisfaction by aligning daily tasks with long-term goals. Reflecting on work can help identify opportunities that bring purpose and joy, like prioritizing collaborative projects that match personal values. A model that reflects this intentional approach is transformational leadership in academia. This model focuses on leaders encouraging collaboration, promoting shared goals and emphasizing personal growth and well-being. Women of color faculty may use this model to engage in work that is aligned with their values and supported by institutional leadership, promoting meaningful collaboration and decreasing the likelihood of feeling disconnected or burned out.
Incorporating slow living into academia can inspire a ripple effect across departments and institutions. Women of color faculty prioritizing well-being and balance set a powerful example for colleagues and students. These shifts can foster a culture that values mental health and personal fulfillment as much as professional achievement. Over time, tailored slow-living principles could encourage academic institutions to reimagine success metrics, emphasizing sustainability, collaboration and community impact.
From Individual Change to Institutional Transformation
Slow living can’t flourish in a vacuum. For women of color faculty to thrive, institutions must provide meaningful support. Structural changes can transform individual efforts into a sustainable culture shift—and, honestly, wouldn’t academia be better off for it?
Institutions can enhance the well-being and retention of women of color faculty through several structural changes. Implementing flexible work policies, such as remote teaching and flexible hours, helps faculty manage their professional and personal lives. A holistic approach to tenure and promotion that values work-life balance, teaching quality, mentorship and community impact fosters inclusivity. Mentorship programs and employee affinity groups provide essential support and collaboration. Additionally, dedicated mental health resources help mitigate burnout. Programs like the Advancing Faculty Diversity initiative at the University of California celebrate (and fund) faculty DEI contributions. Finally, incentivizing collaborative work can shift success metrics to prioritize impactful contributions, benefiting faculty and institutions.
A Paradigm Shift Worth Embracing
After years of pushing myself to the limit, I realized it was time for a change. While moving to a peaceful countryside cottage wasn’t possible, I discovered that small daily habits could transform my busy life. I started by walking: Each morning, I would take a 10-minute walk through my neighborhood, paying attention to the rhythm of my steps and allowing myself to immerse in the present moment fully. I also began typing slower, breathing mindfully and speaking intentionally. These simple changes introduced mindfulness, making me feel less frantic about productivity and helping me prioritize quality family time.
Embracing slow living in my professional life has been a game-changer. It’s helped me focus on well-being and redefine success as living better rather than just doing more. As academics, we should celebrate lifelong learning and incorporate slow living into our lives. After all, if we’re too busy to care for ourselves, what are we truly working for?
So here’s my challenge to you, dear reader: Take a deep breath. Walk a little slower. Break away from the chime of an email sitting in your inbox. Speak with intention. Let’s rewrite the script that tells us we must hustle to the point of harm. Our careers, families and, most importantly, we are worth it.
Kenyatta Y. Dawson is a program director and faculty member at Texas Woman’s University. She specializes in diversity, equity, inclusion, student success and professional development in higher education. Her research focuses on mentoring adult learners, career satisfaction and equity-driven leadership. Grateful to Texas Woman’s University’s Women’s Thought Leadership Program for advancing underrepresented voices, Dawson embraces the Write to Change the World mission for inclusivity and social impact.
As a first-year college student, Sarah Ellison never imagined working in higher education or earning a doctorate, but her experiences have developed her passion for helping students identify their strengths and build strong foundations for their futures beyond graduation.
Sarah Ellison, Sonoma State University’s associate vice president of student affairs
Sarah Ellison, Sonoma State University
Since Jan. 8, 2024, Ellison has served as associate vice president for student affairs at Sonoma State University, part of the California State University system, overseeing the university’s student access and success team. Ellison spoke with Inside Higher Ed about her work in and outside higher education, her portfolio at Sonoma State, and her goals for the future.
Q: What led you to a career in higher education?
A: I’ll have to say, it wasn’t something I was looking for.
I, right out of high school, went to the University of Hawaii and was planning to do a business degree. I failed my entire freshman year and went to community college. In community college, I thought I would do a focus still in business, so I did do my associate’s, and then continued on to my bachelor’s at the University of La Verne in business.
My whole entire plan was to go into sales. That’s what I thought I would do. I was really fascinated with companies like Coach and Michael Kors, Macy’s.
But throughout that time, life just happens while you’re in college, right? You’re learning about yourself, you’re learning about your goals, defining them, more and more.
During that time, I was very fortunate to meet my husband, and life started to happen during that time as well when I was finishing my undergrad. I actually went to work for a nonprofit organization, Goodwill, in California and got to work at Fort Irwin, which is a military base, serving as a career adviser for transitioning veterans. And I really loved it.
Career services was a new field to me, and I really thought that’s what I wanted to do. And so I ended up doing my master’s in career services, and was trying to think about how I would advance my career from that role into career services in higher education. I really couldn’t find a direct path, but I got into academic advising, and fell in love with academic advising. I met a recruiter at one of our fairs for military folks, and she really introduced me to the whole field of higher education. I had been exposed through going to college and meeting with different mentors. I did my internship in career services at the University of La Verne, and the director there was phenomenal, and that’s what kind of started that piece.
But that’s how I found myself working directly in higher education. I started at a small private university, then went into the Cal State system, then went to University of Kentucky, and then now I found myself back in the Cal State system. It’s been a bit of a wild ride, but it’s been a lot of fun.
Q: Would you say that you’ve brought any of your career services experiences into the work that you do now?
A: I felt that my experience working with transitioning veterans and working in career services really helped my advising platform and role working with students from the advising standpoint, because I was able to better connect with students, with their plans for their degree, and then all of the opportunities that come from different knowing different career fields and aspects, and then helping them leverage all of their experience.
I worked with nontraditional students, first-generation students [and] traditional students, and it’s just amazing how much students can learn from the career aspect that helps with their finishing of their degree, so working towards retention and degree completion.
While I don’t directly find myself in career services in higher education in my current role as associate vice president, I have a pretty large portfolio, and one of those areas being career services now. Now I get to oversee both academic advising [and] career services, as well as many other parts of my portfolio that include advising for equity and access program, disability services, and then also precollegiate programs. It is cool to find myself now directly overseeing those aspects.
Q: Who are your learners at Sonoma State and what are some of the challenges and opportunities at the university based on your student population?
A: Sonoma State has a very diverse student population. We are an HSI, so we do serve a large proportion of Hispanic students. We do have a large proportion of first-generation students, but our makeup is really, really diverse.
I think with anything, like most institutions are facing right now in terms of serving our students, it’s really about showing that pathway, so really working within the community, so that our [high school] students see a path directly into a four-year institution.
[Through] a lot of my precollegiate programs, which serve our K-12 setting, we’re really trying to strengthen and build pathways for those students who typically come from low income, and also our will-be first-generation college students, really helping them to define that pathway and see a clear vision for going into a four-year institution.
I also think it’s the life after, it’s the career trajectory, it’s the employability plans for students that they see the value in their degree. That’s what we’re really working with here, with our students, is really helping them see the value of their degree, retaining them and helping them move them into careers that are both fruitful, exciting and in line with how they saw themselves, with their goals and what they wanted to do.
Q: One of the cool things about working at a public institution is you get to serve your region and the state as a whole. How is that incorporated into your vision for student success?
A: That is one thing I’ve always enjoyed about the Cal State system is that regional perspective and focus that we have.
My first Cal State experience was at Cal State San Bernardino, and then now being here at Sonoma State, it’s amazing how different the Northern California and Southern California regions are—even the issues that we face with those students—but coming together in the system is always really exciting, because we do get to collaborate and think about how we serve the state, but then also, again, focus in on initiatives specific to the regions that all of the Cal State [institutions] are in.
In the work that I do now, I find myself in the community a lot more: serving on different boards, working with different local employers, local community agencies. I will say that Sonoma State has had a pretty good grounding in that prior to my time here.
Before coming to Sonoma State, I worked at the University of Kentucky, which is a land-grant–serving institution, and [that] also gave me a lot of experience to what it is to serve the community in the region and meet the needs of the state as well, too. I spent about three years there learning a lot about extension work.
I strongly believe that it’s amazing to have those ties to the community, because it helps us keep a pulse on what the needs are of the community, helping to prepare our students to go into different career fields, but also have a civic tie as well to what they’re doing.
Q: “Access” is a key word in your list of responsibilities, managing the student access and success team. How is access central to your role?
A: When it comes to access, I think it’s critical for students, because when we think about the different student populations we serve, there’s also these technology pieces. In higher ed—at least at all of the institutions I’ve worked at—we love new technology. We love starting new programs and new platforms.
I think it’s always really critical that we ensure our students understand and have a knowledge base as well, and that the technology works for them. So how they schedule appointments, the flexibility to do Zoom, and then also thinking about some of our students who are native in other languages. Do we have opportunities and space for students to be able to speak with advisers and faculty and have support in their native language? That’s always been really critical, because the meaning is different.
When I was at Cal State San Bernardino, we had some really great faculty from our Spanish department who would come in and help in group advising sessions and do it in Spanish, which is really helpful for our students.
When we think about the technology pieces, that’s critical, how they apply to come to any university. And then when they get to campus, and that consistent communication from the time that they’re interested to … actually enrolling, and then when they’re here, can I get ahold of and work with folks in all of the offices that I need to? That’s critical for us in higher ed to always consider and be mindful of, because that is another part of the student experience.
Q: What are some of your short- and long-term goals at Sonoma State?
A: I’m a year in, so I still consider myself very new in my role.
In terms of some short-term goals … we’re really looking at making sure students have an adviser, someone they can connect with. That we’re breaking down silos within the institution, so that way, advisers, faculty, staff [and] directors feel comfortable working with each other and communicating and supporting each other.
In terms of long term, it’s really strengthening that career side. We have a lot coming down from the governor here in California related to workforce development and those things. I’m partnering with our vice president for student affairs and our provost and associate provost, building out and strengthening our career services programming. So that’s another focus, and some long-term planning that we really need to think about for the future here at Sonoma State, while still continuing to focus on improving equity gaps, retention rates, graduation rates and enrollment as well.
Q: Career services is a growing focus nationally within higher education. What are some of those barriers that you’re facing, or where do you need those resources to really strengthen that arm of the institution?
A: I would say, throughout my time in higher ed for all the institutions I’ve worked at, I think staffing is a huge piece of career services, being able to have enough career staff to meet the needs of the campus.
I also think there’s a training and development piece, and that, to me, ties in to the connection with the faculty and academic departments to make sure that the career advising aligns with the major and department and career pathways.
Leveraging the network as well, I think that’s another thing with career services, is really building strong portfolios for professional networks, and that can be an issue depending on the institution, what their access, their leadership, being embedded in the community and those things, as well as embedded nationally to see new trends, new careers.
That’s another exciting piece about careers, that there are jobs that we don’t even know of that are going to be created here soon. How do we think about skill sets and plans and helping students see their strengths in everything that they’ve accomplished throughout their time, in their academics and at the institution, to prepare for [future] fields? And then we have emerging fields, in AI, green technology, agriculture, health services and all of that.
That’s what’s kind of the fun side of career services, but also creates the challenges, because you’re thinking about current trends, emerging trends and then the trends that you don’t even know are going to exist yet. Helping students define and understand the skill sets that they have, and making sure they’re building and aligning those to those professional fields.
Do you have a career preparation program that impacts student success? Tell us about it.
A years-long effort to change how colleges respond to reports of sexual harassment and discrimination and to expand protections for transgender students is dead after a federal judge ruled Thursday that the Biden administration’s overhaul of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was unlawful.
The court order vacates the rule nationwide and could create more confusion for colleges as they seek to move forward without running afoul of the federal gender equity law. The Title IX changes were already on hold in 26 states and at hundreds of colleges, thanks to a series of lawsuits from 26 Republican attorneys general. Thursday’s order is the first final ruling in those cases and was part of a lawsuit brought by Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.
Republican lawmakers and state officials celebrated the ruling as a victory for women and girls while advocates for LGBTQ+ students criticized the decision as an attack on transgender students. The Biden rule allowed students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity.
Chief Judge Danny Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, who previously criticized the rule, wrote in a 15-page opinion that the regulations suffer “significant constitutional infirmities.” For instance, using the wrong pronouns for a student could be considered harassment under the rule. That provision “offends the First Amendment,” wrote Reeves, a George W. Bush appointee.
“As expected, courts have continued to find it impossible to justify the Biden administration’s changes to Title IX rules eviscerating students’ speech and due process rights,” said Tyler Coward, lead counsel for government affairs at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech and civil liberties advocacy organization.
The ruling is the latest legal setback for Biden’s higher ed agenda, which hasn’t fared well in federal court.
‘Back in Time’
Colleges and universities will now revert to the previous Title IX rule, which took effect in summer 2020 during the first Trump administration. Those regulations required colleges to hold live hearings with an opportunity for cross-examination to allow those accused of sexual misconduct to confront their accusers—a provision the Biden rules nixed. Additionally, the 2020 regulations defined sexual harassment more narrowly than the Biden Title IX rule.
“Fitting, I guess—everything’s going back in time four years,” said Brigid Harrington, a higher education attorney at Bowditch & Dewey who focuses on compliance with civil rights laws. “Schools that had been enjoined were already there, so it doesn’t change things for many.”
Colleges don’t have to throw out all their new policies related to harassment and discrimination; they can keep the parts that don’t conflict with the 2020 rule. For example, under the 2024 regulations, colleges must give pregnant students notice of their rights, and the 2020 rule doesn’t prevent a college from doing so. (Reeves didn’t take issue with the pregnancy provisions but said, “It simply is not proper for the court to rewrite the regulations by excising the offending material.”)
Thursday’s ruling wasn’t a complete surprise for colleges and universities, considering the injunction and upcoming change in administrations. Andrea Stagg, director of consulting services at Grand River Solutions, a company that works with colleges on Title IX and other issues, said that colleges already have started talking about what to change in their policies and what to keep.
Still, reimplementing the 2020 regulations will mean retraining and re-educating students, staff and faculty about the changes.
“It’s very complicated, expensive and exhausting … and folks don’t have the resources,” she said. “For a field that already experiences a ton of burnout … it’s demoralizing to work so hard and then have the rules change on you.”
Several other lawsuits challenging the rule are still pending, and the Biden administration could appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, so Thursday’s decision may not be the end of the legal battle over Title IX. The Education Department could not be reached for comment Thursday because the offices were closed in commemoration of former president Jimmy Carter’s passing.
“I don’t think this is the last that we’re going to hear of this,” said Harrington. “I think that civil rights are going to be a big topic for the next four years.”
“The court’s ruling is yet another repudiation of the Biden administration’s relentless push to impose a radical gender ideology through unconstitutional and illegal rulemaking,” Tennessee attorney general Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement. “Because the Biden rule is vacated altogether, President Trump will be free to take a fresh look at our Title IX regulations when he returns to office [Jan. 20].”
President-elect Donald Trump has criticized Biden’s Title IX changes, and many experts expect him to issue new regulations that are more conservative than his 2020 rule, especially concerning LGBTQ+ students.
Congressional Republicans, who sought to overturn the Title IX rule, also praised the ruling and pledged to protect educational opportunities for women and girls. Passing legislation that would prevent transgender students from participating on the sports team consistent with their gender identity is a top priority for the House.
“It is clear the Biden-Harris administration completely lost its way on Title IX,” said Louisiana senator Dr. Bill Cassidy, the chair of the HELP committee, in a news release. “They betrayed the original intent of Title IX by removing longstanding protections that ensured fairness for women and girls.”
Representative Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said that Biden’s proposed rewrite “would have undermined safety, freedom and fairness for women.”
Meanwhile, advocates for LGBTQ+ students and those who experience harassment or sexual violence described the ruling as an attack on trans students and others that would impact their educations.
“With these protections already removed in some states, students who experience sexual assault have had their complaints dismissed, or worse, been punished by their schools after reporting; pregnant students have been unfairly penalized for taking time off to give birth to a child; and LGBTQI+ students have faced vicious bullying and harassment just for being who they are,” said Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center.
Tracey Vitchers, executive director of It’s On Us, a national organization working to combat campus sexual assault, took issue with claims that overturning the Biden rule would protect women and girls.
“The 2020 regulations did well-documented harm to the safety of women and girls by making it more difficult to report and obtain justice if they experience sexual violence in school,” she said. “If preserving the rights and safety of women and girls was the actual litmus test for today’s decision, the judge would have chosen to uphold Biden’s rule. Instead, the safety of women and girls is being weaponized to discriminate” against trans people.
Vitchers added that while Title IX is important, colleges are required under state and federal laws to respond to reports of harassment and address student safety.
“Institutions are going to have to find ways to be creative to uphold the rights and safety of students on their campus under this new environment,” she said. “If Title IX is going to continue to be this horrible political football it has turned into, we need to see schools invest in evidence-based approaches to sexual violence prevention, because the ultimate goal is to ensure students have an education free of sexual violence.”
Instead of canceling class sessions, professors with conflicts at Old Dominion University may now schedule guest lectures on substance use, stress management, nutrition, safe sex and sleep.
xavierarnau/E+/Getty Images
“Hello faculty! Are you attending a conference, going on vacation, taking a sick day or want to take a break from your usual lecture? Consider having staff from the Recreation and Wellness Health Promotion team come in and lead an engaging and educational presentation during your class time!”
So reads a circulating announcement from Old Dominion University’s Rec Well staff, inviting professors to consider their guest-lecturer services when conflicts with teaching schedules arise.
What it is: Health educator Steven Gunzelman says that the new service—called “Don’t Cancel That Class!”—is also available to conflict-free professors who simply see value in connecting their students with key health information they might not otherwise get.
“One of our strategic cornerstones is health and well-being, so we really wanted to develop something that would go into the classrooms and meet with students in that kind of setting, where we can talk about these kinds of things that they might not learn other ways, like feeling stress or sleep issues,” he explains. “Students are here to, of course, get their academics. But in order to be able to graduate and get those life skills, they need health and well-being. It’s a big component of [student success], as well.”
ODU follows the collective impact approach to well-being, meaning that no single department or office on campus owns this responsibility, or—to put it another way—that everyone owns this responsibility. Rec Well, for its part, offers programs throughout campus on a wide variety of topics. But the “Don’t Cancel That Class!” initiative allows professors to pick a guest talk from the following list of five, starting with one concerning the use of alcohol and other drugs:
AOD & Me: Safety With Substances
Burn Bright, Not Out: Strategies for Managing Stress
Food for Thought: Nutrition 101
Play It Safe: The Lowdown on Safe Sex
Zzz’s for a Better You: A Sleep Hygiene Journey
The why and how: Gunzelman says the list is informed, in part, by the top four health campus health concerns, based on internal data gleaned from the American College Health Association’s National College Health Assessment: stress, anxiety, depression and sleep.
This tracks with Inside Higher Ed’s own Student Voice survey series, which in 2024 found that nearly all students said stress was impacting their ability to focus, learn and perform well academically, either a great deal (43 percent) or some (42 percent), and fewer than half (42 percent) rated their mental health as excellent or good. And in another 2023 Student Voice survey that asked about sleep, 60 percent of respondents said getting more of it was a top health goal.
ODU professors interested in scheduling a guest lecture can fill out this form. Gunzelman says the first to schedule a guest lecture was a professor of engineering, who wanted students to learn more about managing stress. He expects this to be a particularly popular topic.
While the current “Don’t Cancel That Class” staff is small, Gunzelman’s hope is that it will be able to accommodate as many requests as possible and possibly expand topic options with time. As for measuring impact, Gunzelman initially plans to solicit feedback from students about the usefulness of the information shared and how likely it is to influence their behavior going forward.
The student feedback will also help staff members refine their approach.
“Can we add in more engagement, or can we add in more topics that are more geared toward students?” he says, for example. Gunzelman also suggests that professors encourage student participation, “whether it be surprise, whether it be a plan, whether it’s built into the syllabus for credit, or if they want to be part of it and are still in the room with us.”
Don’t cancel that class: ODU is one of a growing number of institutions to offer a Don’t Cancel That Class–style initiative. The University of Minnesota at Morris, for example, offers one that includes workshops on professional development and academic skills such as time management, financial literacy and résumé building.
Programs of that nature highlight the connection between academics and other pillars of student success, such as health and wellness. But the general practice of finding alternatives to canceling course sessions, especially multiple course sessions, is also considered a best practice in faculty work. The English department at the University of Louisville, for example, suggests rescheduling sessions (including via synchronous online sessions), asking a faculty colleague to fill in or assigning students an independent learning exercise or asynchronous lesson.
Does your institution have a different kind of don’t-cancel-that-class initiative? Tell us about it.
Personal life events impact students’ ability to meet academic expectations, which can result in academic dismissal, according to new research.
visualspace/E+/Getty Images
Around 40 million Americans have some college credit but no credential. While some of these students left higher education voluntarily, others left involuntarily due to academic dismissal, or repeated low academic achievement.
Recently published research from a Texas A&M University, San Antonio, faculty member seeks to understand how students who experienced academic dismissal fared and how institutions can support these learners as they return to college.
Author Ripsimé K. Bledsoe found a majority of learners experienced a major life event that contributed to their academic shortfall, including loss of a loved one or illness of self or others. Students who have returned to college after dismissal demonstrated greater self-awareness, help-seeking behaviors and understanding of how to achieve success.
The background: While students stop out for a variety of reasons—with recent studies pointing to the high costs of higher education as a major driver—academic challenges are a common factor. At many colleges, students whose cumulative grade point average falls below 2.0 are placed on academic probation, followed by academic dismissal if they make insufficient academic progress.
Previous research shows a gap in creating a model of academic dismissal reinstatement, one that has created challenges for institutions who want to assess readmission policies or create programs to address the issue, according to the report.
The present study uses community college student survey and interview data to understand the factors that influenced them to return to college and what assisted in this process.
Methodology
All students who participated in the study had left a two- or four-year college due to academic dismissal; re-enrolled at a large, urban community college; and were taking a Strategies for Student Success course. The survey includes 171 respondents from 13 course sections, and researchers conducted semistructured interviews with 11 of the respondents. Data was collected in fall 2018.
Students say: The survey results demonstrated that academic readiness from high school did not directly predict success in college, as a majority of students took key college preparatory coursework in high school, including AP classes or Algebra 2 or higher, and only 40 percent took developmental courses in college.
Further, almost half of students were “downward transfers,” with 45 percent admitted to a four-year college, and 41 percent attended a four-year institution at some point. Around 75 percent of students had enrolled in college within three months of completing high school or a GED, and half of respondents passed some type of first-year seminar.
The greatest share of students on academic dismissal (43 percent) appealed to return immediately after being placed on dismissal. One-third returned a year later or more time.
Two-thirds (67 percent) of dismissed students said a life-changing event was the strongest reason their grades dropped, including the death of someone close to them (26 percent), sickness (24 percent), the birth of a child (17 percent), moving away from home (11 percent), involvement in a violent experience (8 percent), loss of a job (7 percent) or spousal problems (6 percent).
Put in practice: In interviews, researchers identified five factors that affected students’ dismissal and could, conversely, impact academic momentum.
College readiness. For some students, transitioning to college contributed to their dismissal because the environment was more challenging and less structured. To combat this upon their return, students sought more structure and community to ensure academic achievement, including investing in study skills, note taking, time management and self-monitoring.
A critical incident. While many learners experienced dismissal following a challenging experience in their lives, academic dismissal provided a turning point, particularly for learners who spent their time away from college working, to reassess their goals and ambitions. The institution where study participants attended required learners to reflect on their experiences prior to re-enrolling, which also helped students’ self-evaluation. “Consequently, institutions with automatic reinstatement, loose structuring, or no policies at all, can potentially rob students of the critical impact of academic dismissal and an appeal process,” according to the report.
Effective teaching. Students said faculty interactions and support was one of the most important factors of success in the classroom upon their return. Faculty who created an atmosphere for active learning and participation were more engaging and effective. Students also identified their own learning strategies, including metacognition and self-regulation, as previous barriers to success and now a focus area.
Academic resilience. Learners who returned had motivational attributes including a strong growth mindset, clear goals, self-determination and sense of personal responsibility. Students also demonstrated resilience when they faced setbacks and found solutions for the obstacles in their way, including turning to peers, tutors or faculty members.
Supportive guidance. All participants in the study participated in specialized advising to guide them through the appeal process as well as help around course choices, loads and majors. These experiences were relational, not transactional, and helped affirm students’ help-seeking behaviors in positive ways, mitigating students’ feelings of confusion or like they must navigate higher ed on their own.
So what? While this study provides characteristics of students returning from academic dismissal, there is a need for more data around probation, time away after dismissal or forced withdrawals versus voluntary departure, according to the report.
College and university leaders should also consider their appeal process to create greater connections between students and staff or faculty, rather than an automatic reinstatement policy or a loose policy.
“Formulating a well-crafted, institution-specific policy provides a meaningful milestone for students to stop, seek support, and reassess,” Bledsoe wrote.
The study does not advocate for dismissal programs but does ask institutional leaders to create policies with more awareness of the different factors that impact academic success and to tie dismissal to support systems.
Get more content like this directly to your inbox every weekday morning. Subscribe here.
The year 2023 was a watershed moment for artificial intelligence. ChatGPT made its way into classrooms, prompting educators to grapple with AI’s potential and pitfalls. Industry leaders like Sundar Pichai declared AI as transformative as fire or electricity, while others voiced caution, warning of ethical dilemmas and societal upheaval.
Two years later, amid the headlines and hype, the deeper question remains: What will AI actually look like in our day-to-day lives in higher ed? Understanding how AI will shape learning, recruitment and operations by 2025 is no longer optional—it’s essential.
Below are five key ways AI is poised to transform higher education in 2025. These predictions aren’t abstract theories; they’re practical insights to guide your strategic planning, help you stay competitive and ensure your institution thrives in an AI-driven era.
AI Agents Will Revolutionize Learning and Administration
AI-powered agents are on the cusp of becoming indispensable tools in higher education. These intelligent systems are already taking on roles as digital mentors, capable of guiding students through complex material with tailored feedback. You may be familiar, for example, with Georgia State University’s AI chat-bot pilot program that answered student questions about financial aid and registration, reducing summer melt by 21 percent. In 2025, such agents will act as personalized tutors, adapting to individual learning styles and offering real-time academic support.
Beyond learning, AI will also streamline administrative operations. Routine tasks like course scheduling, admissions processing and answering common student inquiries will increasingly fall to these systems, freeing human staff to focus on strategic initiatives.
Imagine admissions officers who no longer spend hours manually reviewing applications but instead analyze data-driven insights provided by AI agents to make quicker, more informed decisions.
This year will also bring us a new generation of AI that doesn’t just respond but takes action. For example, with agentic AI, a text might automatically go out to an applicant who needs a nudge to submit remaining documents—without a staff member lifting a finger.
The future of higher education will be defined by AI systems that seamlessly blend proactive support with human expertise, transforming both student success and institutional efficiency.
Generative AI Search Will Reshape Digital Engagement
Generative AI is changing how prospective students discover and interact with institutions online. Platforms like ChatGPT are making it easier for users to ask complex questions and receive synthesized, conversational answers. Instead of clicking through multiple webpages, users increasingly expect clear and direct responses. In 2025, this shift will make traditional SEO strategies less effective, forcing institutions to reimagine their digital presence.
One way they might do that is to incorporate generative AI search into their websites. You’ve likely used generative AI search yourself in Google—it’s the AI overview at the top of the page when you do a search that shows a summary answer of your query drawn from the sites that would traditionally appear in a list of search results.
To prepare for students using AI tools outside of your site (e.g., ChatGPT, Perplexity) to learn about your school or incorporate generative AI search into your own site, there are critical to-dos for your website content teams to make your content as relevant, up-to-date and engaging as possible.
The stakes are high: AI often relies on the most visible or credible content to provide answers. Universities with fragmented or outdated digital strategies risk being left behind, while those with robust, high-quality content will find themselves highlighted in AI-driven searches.
Institutions that prioritize creating unique, authoritative content—such as faculty research profiles or interactive student success stories—will gain an edge in this new search landscape.
Hyperpersonalization Will Redefine Student Engagement
The days of one-size-fits-all communication and student services have ended. In 2025, institutions will rely on AI to create hyperpersonalized experiences that resonate with each student’s unique needs and goals. Drawing inspiration from industries like retail and entertainment, universities will use AI to craft individualized learning paths, anticipate challenges and deliver targeted interventions before students even ask for help.
For example, Purdue University’s Course Signals initiative uses data analytics to identify students who may be at risk of falling behind and sends personalized alerts encouraging them to seek support. This type of proactive engagement not only improves retention rates but also fosters a sense of belonging. As McKinsey aptly describes it, the future of student engagement hinges on embracing the “care of one.”
However, this approach raises ethical concerns. Institutions must carefully manage data privacy and ensure that algorithms do not inadvertently disadvantage certain groups. Transparency about how student data is collected and used will be crucial in maintaining trust.
Faculty and Staff Roles Will Evolve Alongside AI
The integration of AI will not replace faculty and staff but will redefine their roles. In 2025, educators will focus less on rote instruction and more on mentorship, critical thinking and creativity. This shift is already evident in programs like Northeastern University’s Experiential AI initiative, which trains faculty to incorporate AI tools into their teaching to enrich the student experience.
Marketing and admissions teams will also need to adapt. AI insights can reveal patterns in prospective student behavior, allowing teams to craft campaigns that resonate on a deeper level. However, this will require staff to develop new skills in data interpretation and digital strategy.
The transition won’t be without challenges. Institutions must invest in professional development to help their teams thrive in an AI-enhanced environment. Collaborative efforts between IT, academic affairs and marketing will ensure the successful adoption of these technologies.
Ethical Challenges Will Take Center Stage
The adoption of AI presents significant ethical considerations that will shape its implementation in higher education. From ensuring unbiased algorithms to safeguarding student data, institutions will need to tread carefully. Recent incidents, such as the use of biased AI tools in hiring processes, highlight the risks of unchecked AI deployment.
Higher education can lead the way by modeling responsible AI practices. For example, Stanford University has established an Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, emphasizing the ethical use of AI technologies across disciplines. By prioritizing fairness, transparency and accountability, institutions can harness AI’s potential without compromising their values.
Preparing for 2025 and Beyond
AI will ultimately elevate higher ed. Institutions that embrace AI’s changes with foresight and care will enhance their competitiveness, improve operational efficiency and create more meaningful experiences for students and staff alike. Success will depend on a willingness to adapt, invest in ethical practices and put students at the center of every decision.
Mallory Willsea is chief strategist and producer at Enrollify.
A bipartisan effort to update the nation’s workforce development law is dead, depriving hundreds of community colleges of increased funds and opportunities to cut through the red tape surrounding short-term job training.
The Stronger Workforce for America Act would have given community colleges automatic eligibility to enter into training contracts with local workforce development offices, introduced a new federal grant and protected several existing programs from potential budget cuts in the new fiscal year.
The bill’s sponsors were hopeful that the bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act would pass Congress before the end of the year, as it was included in a wider spending package to fund the government. But when Republicans voiced opposition to the omnibus spending bill just over 24 hours before the government shutdown deadline, lawmakers reversed course. They instead passed a pared-down continuing resolution to fund the government through mid-March, and WIOA reauthorization didn’t make the cut.
Leaders on the House education and workforce committee had said the Stronger Workforce for America Act would create “transformative change” for the American workforce, pointing to how WIOA helps American workers keep pace with an ever-changing job market and gain high-demand skills. Reauthorizing WIOA was a top priority for Representative Virginia Foxx, the North Carolina Republican who chaired the committee until December.
Members of the House and Senate education and workforce committees worked for the last two years to update the workforce bill, which expired in 2020. The House plan overwhelmingly passed last spring, and the Senate released a draft plan over the summer. The Senate bill didn’t move forward, but key lawmakers in the House and Senate reached a compromise in late November to update WIOA.
Groups like the National Association of Workforce Boards and the American Association of Community Colleges say the death of the Stronger Workforce act won’t kill their programs, but nonetheless they expressed concerns about how a lack of reauthorization makes their programs vulnerable. They are trying to remain hopeful that reauthorization will be a priority for this Congress.
“As the session waned, it was clear that getting a bill enacted in 2024 was going to be extremely difficult,” David Baime, senior vice president of government relations at AACC, said in a statement. “However, we are grateful for WIOA’s champions and very optimistic that a reauthorization will be enacted by the next Congress.”
Until then, Inside Higher Ed called Baime to talk about the bill and what it means for community colleges and short-term workforce training. Here are three key obstacles he said remain until WIOA gets an update.
Bureaucracy and Eligibility
One of the largest benefits for community colleges under the Stronger Workforce act was that their training programs would have automatically qualified for federal WIOA grants.
Currently, any training provider—be it a community college, an employer or a for-profit technical institution—must meet certain performance criteria in order to receive WIOA dollars. About $500 million is available for job training vouchers each year.
Often, colleges receive funds by entering a contract with a local workforce board. The process begins with local workforce development agencies identifying key trades or certifications that are in high demand among their community. Then the board picks an approved training provider and contracts with them to train a set number of workers.
But for years, jumping through the hoops required to make that eligibility list kept many underresourced community colleges from receiving those contracts and federal funds.
“The bureaucratic nature of WIOA has made for some presidents not being as engaged as they might be,” Baime said. “In these cases, they just don’t find it worthwhile to invest a lot of time in their local workforce boards.”
The WIOA update would have cut down that red tape.
Increased Funds
But even if community colleges did automatically qualify, Baime said, the funding set aside specifically for training programs is limited, and competition with other providers like for-profit technical institutions and employers is steep.
“In fact, a lot more money for training goes to our students through Pell than through WIOA,” Baime explained.
Since 2020, the Strengthening Community Colleges Training Grant program has provided dedicated funding for training programs at community colleges. Most recently, the Labor Department awarded $65 million to 18 colleges. Through five rounds of funding, more than 200 colleges have received a total $265 million.
But the grant program was never formally authorized. That means there is no mandate requiring Congress to set aside a certain amount of funds each year, and the grant depends entirely on advocacy from specific lawmakers.
The WIOA update would have authorized the grant, providing statutory protection for the funds.
“SCCTG is a really important program for us. The program relies upon a tested model of community colleges working directly with businesses, in coordination with the federal workforce system. It’s not funded at the level we would like, but it reflects an appropriate prioritization of the role that community colleges play in job training,” Baime said.
A few other, less direct funding increases were also lost when the legislation died. For example, one policy would have required 50 percent of all WIOA funds to be spent on training rather than administrative fees, leading local workforce boards to invest more in contracts with outside providers.
Another would have specified that historically broad H1-B grants, which use the revenue from skills-based visas to train American workers, must be used to upskill individuals forced out of their current roles by innovations like AI. Workers would have received up to $5,000 through that change.
“We think a voucher that size may be an attractive inducement for dislocated workers to receive training at community colleges,” Baime said.
Future Vulnerability
Finally, for community colleges, a key concern is how the incoming Congress and Trump administration will approach WIOA, especially now that legislation has failed.
Republicans in Congress have made it clear they want to “substantially reduce funding,” so Baime fears that WIOA funding of all types could face serious cuts.
The SCCTG, for example, which has historically been advocated for by Democrats, may no longer get a budget line at all.
“The importance of workforce education is appreciated by lawmakers across the Hill,” he explained. “But we certainly would have rather gotten that bipartisan, bicameral demonstration of support by being part of this bill and enacted into statute going into the [fiscal year 2026] appropriations process.”
What is a climate justice university, and how can our universities transform into institutions that truly promote the well-being of the earth and humanity? Jennie C. Stephens’s new book, Climate Justice and the University: Shaping a Hopeful Future for All (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2024), sets out to answer that question. It outlines where today’s universities fall short in their handling not only of the climate crisis but also a wealth of other modern social issues.
The book lays out broad ideas for transforming how universities function in society, such as shifting research practices to collaborate with people and communities affected by the issues, like the climate crisis, at the center of that research. Stephens, who is a professor at both the National University of Ireland Maynoonth and Northeastern University, acknowledges in the introduction that such a transformation would be a major undertaking, and one that many universities would be disinclined to tackle. “Because of the internal pressure within higher education to maintain institutional norms, this book and its proposal for climate justice universities are, in some ways, radical acts of resistance,” she writes.
In a phone interview, Stephens spoke with Inside Higher Ed about her vision for climate justice universities—and how modern institutions fail to meet it. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Q: It was interesting reading that your perspective on these issues comes both from your scholarly work and from a time that you worked on the administrative side of academia. Could you describe how those experiences came together to inspire this book?
A: I’ve been working in academia my whole career—more than 30 years—and during that time, I’ve been focused on climate and energy issues and sustainability from a very social justice perspective. What has happened through my experiences over time is that I see part of society’s inadequate response to the climate crisis mirrored in academia.
I think higher education has a really big role in society—in what we are doing and what we’re not doing, in how we’re teaching and learning, in what we’re doing research on and what we’re not doing research on—and I think that our collective insufficient response to the climate crisis is related to what’s been happening in our higher education institutions, which are increasingly very financialized. They’re driven by profit-seeking priorities and new tech and start-ups and focused on job training. We’ve drifted away from a public-good mission of higher education: What does society need in this very disruptive time, and how can our higher education institutions better respond to the needs of society, particularly of vulnerable and marginalized communities and people and households who are increasingly struggling with all kinds of precarity and vulnerabilities?
Q: How would you define the term “climate justice university”?
A: The idea of a climate justice university is a university with a mission and a purpose to create more healthy, equitable, sustainable futures for everyone. So, that is a very public-good mission. The idea is to connect the climate crisis with all the other injustices and the … multiple different crises that are happening right now; the climate crisis is just one among many. We also have a cost of living crisis; we have a mental health crisis, we have financial crises; we have a plastic pollution crisis and a biodiversity crisis; we have a crisis in international law and a militarization crisis. We have all of these crises, and yet what we’re doing in our universities tends to continue to be quite siloed and trying to address parts of specific problems, rather than acknowledging that these crises are symptoms of larger systemic challenges.
For me, climate justice is a paradigm shift toward a transformative lens, acknowledging that things are getting worse and worse in so many dimensions, and that if we want a better future for humanity and for societies around the world, we actually need big, transformative change. A lot of things we do in our universities are reinforcing the status quo and not promoting or endorsing transformative change. So, climate justice is a paradigm shift with a transformative lens that focuses less on individual behavior, more on collective action, less on technological change, more on social change, and less on profit-seeking priorities, more on well-being priorities. What do human beings need to live meaningful, healthy lives, and how can society be more oriented toward that?
Q: Can you talk a bit more about how the current structure of the university maintains the status quo with regard to climate?
A: One of the ways that I think universities kind of perpetuate the status quo is by not acknowledging what a disruptive time we’re in with regard to climate crisis, but other crises as well. There’s an encouragement on many campuses for kind of being complacent, like, “Oh, this is the way the world is.” Not necessarily encouraging students and researchers to imagine alternative futures.
There’s also a focus on doing research that billionaires or corporate interests want us to do, and—in particular, in the climate space—what this has led to is a lot of climate and energy research that is funded by big companies and other wealthy donors who actually don’t want change. We have more and more research to show who has been obstructing climate action and transformative change for a more stable climate future. We know many of those same companies and same fossil fuel interests have also been very strategically investing in our universities. What that does is constrain the research and also the public discourse about climate and energy futures toward very fossil fuel–friendly futures.
Early on in my own career, I worked on projects that were funded by the fossil fuel industry on carbon capture and storage, and a lot of the climate and energy research in our universities is focused on carbon capture and storage, carbon dioxide removal technology, geoengineering—all these technical fixes that assume we’re just going to keep using fossil fuels. What we really need, if we had more climate justice universities that were focused on the public good and what the climate science has been telling us for decades, is to phase out fossil fuels. We need a global initiative to phase out fossil fuels. But we don’t have in our universities much research on how to phase out fossil fuels.
Q: In your book, you discuss the concept of exnovation—the process of phasing out inefficient or harmful technologies. Why is research into exnovation not already more common in higher education, and what are the main barriers for researchers who want to take this approach?
A: I do think funding has a lot to do with it. There’s a whole chapter in the book about the financialization of higher education institutions, which has resulted from kind of a decline in public support toward more private sector support, which means that universities are beholden to private sector interests, increasingly, and they’re encouraged and incentivized to cater to and partner with … private sector interests. I think that has really changed the kinds of impact that higher education institutions and research has had.
Of course, there are a lot of people within universities who are interested in the public good and doing research on exnovation. But the incentive structure, even among those of us who would want to contribute in those ways, is such that we are increasingly incentivized and promoted based on how much money we can bring in, how many papers can we get published and the scale of resources available to do research. So, there’s a larger, long-term strategy to orient research toward the technical fixes, particularly when it comes to climate and energy, and a lot less funding available for social change or governance research on how to bring back the public-good priorities in our policies, our funding, in our universities. It’s really a longer-term trend that has led to this financialization.
Q: You lay out a lot of alternative ideas for financing universities, which is important given that anxiety over funding is at an all-time high at some institutions. Walk me through some of your ideas and talk about the feasibility of restructuring how universities are funded.
A: One idea in the chapter on new ways of engaging and being more relevant is what if we imagine higher education institutions more like public libraries? Public libraries, we all kind of recognize as valuable resources for everyone; every community should have some access to a public library. What if higher education could be [better] invested in that sense of being a resource and not being an ivory tower that is really hard to get into and only some privileged people get access to? What if our higher education institutions were designed and funded to provide more accessible and relevant resources, co-created with communities? That’s kind of one of the big ideas of imagining what this really valuable resource could be more relevant and more connected to the needs of society and of communities.
You also asked about feasibility, and one of the things that I want to point out is that this book is not a how-to; every context and region and different place in the world has different things going on with their higher education institutions. The idea with this book is to invite us all to kind of think about, what is the purpose of higher education institutions? And how can we better leverage all the public investment that is already spent on higher education institutions? How can that be oriented toward better futures for everyone?
At higher education institutions that are feeling very vulnerable, having a lot of anxiety about funding levels—the ideas in this book don’t provide a prescription on how to fix that in the near term. But the ideas in the book are really to encourage us all—and especially those involved in higher education policy and higher education funding—to re-evaluate and reclaim the public-good mission of higher education and reconsider how to restructure higher education so that the value and the resources are more accessible, more relevant and more transformative, in terms of fitting the needs of a very disruptive time for humanity and for societies and communities around the country and around the world.
