Tag: case

  • Lawyers in New Jersey School Segregation Case Want Appellate Court to Weigh in – The 74

    Lawyers in New Jersey School Segregation Case Want Appellate Court to Weigh in – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Attorneys representing a group of New Jersey parents and activist groups are asking a state appellate court to weigh in on a case that could reshape the state’s public education system.

    At the center of the fight is whether New Jersey schools are unconstitutionally segregated by race and socioeconomic status. A lower court judge in October 2023 acknowledged the state’s public schools are segregated by race and that the state must act, but also found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the entire system is segregated across all its districts.

    The parents’ attorneys filed a motion last week with the state’s appellate division asking it to hear the case.

    “It is imperative that no more students be deprived of these rights by the trial court’s avoidance of the straightforward conclusion compelled by the facts and the law in this case — that the state defendants, who are legally obligated to take action to desegregate public schools regardless of the reasons for that segregation, have acted unconstitutionally by failing to do so,” the attorneys wrote in the filing.

    Gov. Phil Murphy and the state Department of Education have until April 28 to respond to the plaintiffs’ new filing. A spokesman for the Murphy administration declined to comment.

    News of the new filing was first reported by Chalkbeat Newark.

    The case dates to 2018, when the Latino Action Network, the NAACP New Jersey State Conference, and several other families and groups sued the state alleging New Jersey failed to address de facto segregation in public schools. The plaintiffs cited data showing that nearly half of all Black and Latino students in New Jersey attend schools that are more than 90% non-white, in districts that are often just blocks from predominantly white districts.

    In New Jersey, students typically attend schools in the municipality where they live. Plaintiffs argued that long-standing housing policies that led to segregated residential neighborhoods led to segregated schools also. New Jersey is the seventh-most segregated state for Black and Latino students, the plaintiffs say.

    In October 2023, after Superior Court Judge Robert Lougy issued his ruling that acknowledged racial segregation in New Jersey schools but said it was not widespread, both sides entered mediation talks in hopes it would resolve more quickly than continued litigation.

    Attorneys for the parties said in February that it’s unlikely continuing the talks would “be constructive.”

    The plaintiffs’ attorneys say the lower court’s October ruling should be reversed. They want a judge to review what they say are six errors in the 2023 order, like the fact that Lougy did not identify a disputed fact.

    “Rather than reach the only logical conclusion that followed — that the state defendants violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights — the trial court left the question of liability for another day,” the filing reads.

    If the appellate court denies the motion, the case would return to the trial court, or could be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

    New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: [email protected].


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • “Inside Higher Ed” Co-Founders Win Prestigious CASE Award

    “Inside Higher Ed” Co-Founders Win Prestigious CASE Award

    The Council for Advancement and Support of Education has awarded Inside Higher Ed co-founders Scott Jaschik and Doug Lederman the 2025 James L. Fisher Award for distinguished service to education.

    The award “highlights individuals whose influence on education extends beyond a single institution.”

    Jaschik and Lederman left The Chronicle of Higher Education to launch Inside Higher Ed in 2004, turning it into “a vital resource for higher education leaders, offering insightful analysis and coverage of critical issues affecting the sector,” the award announcement said.

    “Doug and Scott’s work has increased public understanding of higher education and influenced institutional strategy and policy,” it read. “Their thoughtful reporting has made Inside Higher Ed a trusted source for higher education professionals worldwide.”

    Previous winners of the award include former CBS president Fred Friendly and Vartan Gregorian, who led both the New York Public Library and the Carnegie Corporation.

    “Scott Jaschik and Doug Lederman have provided colleges and universities with an accessible form of quality journalism, expected transparency and truth from leaders, and allowed the celebration of the impact education has on the lives of our students,” Teresa Valerio Parrot, principal of TVP Communications (and a frequent contributor to Inside Higher Ed), said in the CASE statement.

    Jaschik retired from Inside Higher Ed in 2023 and Lederman in 2024.

    The award will be presented at the CASE Summit for Leaders in Advancement in New York City in July.

    Source link

  • The Higher Ed CMO’s Commercial Case for Creativity

    The Higher Ed CMO’s Commercial Case for Creativity

    Legendary ad person Bill Bernbach once said, “If your advertising goes unnoticed, everything else is academic.” It’s not an understatement to say that managing higher ed brands has become increasingly complex. Marketers are forced to compete in a category that’s in flux—within a culture that questions its value—and improve effectiveness across marketing channels that have not only changed the way we consume content but also caused exponential growth in choice.

    Creativity continues to drive commercial value, however, investing in the intangible up front—with both time and resourcing—can prove to be difficult when budgets remain static. And yet, we know that:

    • We are exposed to upwards of 4,000 marketing messages a day.
    • Our audience reports that our marketing efforts look the same and that most entertainment and consumer brands produce content that lacks imagination.

    Without an investment in creativity—the vehicle for our big brand ideas—we risk our message getting lost, splintered and, worst case, ignored.

    For those managing higher education brands in our current media environment, the words of Paul Feldwick have never been more true: “If there is a choice to be made between efficiency and thinking big, you cannot afford to be efficient if you want to be famous.” And there’s quite a case building across a decade or so of data that shows just how an investment in creativity is an investment in the bottom line. Here are four that are applicable to higher education.

    Outside of brand size, creativity is the most important lever in profitability.

    Just as in the case of network theory, the rich get big. That also tends to play out among brands. However, creative quality can be an equalizer of sorts. According to Data2Decisions, the creative execution of your messages is the second most impactful driver of profitability after market/brand size. And while brand size has the greatest overall impact, creative quality remains the most powerful lever marketers can actively control.

    Ads that are perceived to be different are more likely to drive business outcomes.

    ​Research from Kantar’s Link database, as well as research from academia, indicates that ads that are perceived as different or unique are more likely to drive positive business outcomes. Per the database, the top one-third of ads that “make the brand seem really different” achieved a 90 percent lift in likelihood to drive short-term sales versus the bottom third.

    Emotion unlocks the key output that drives business outcomes.

    Starting with the IPA’s “The Link Between Creativity and Effectiveness” and subsequent industry research, there’s not only a through line between creative award-winning campaigns driving market share growth (11x) and top-box profit but intermediate metrics, such as word-of-mouth/social shares, and outputs, such as ad recall.

    The largest contributor to lift from advertising is the creative.

    Nielsen’s exploration of more than 500 Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) brands showed that the most important component of a campaign (targeting, reach, brand, context, frequency and creative) was strong or quality creative. Similar patterns were found in the work done by the World Advertising Research Center and Kantar.

    If brand is the most valuable business tool and if we argue that brand exists in the minds of the consumer, or our favorite saying in higher education, “a brand is what your audience says when you aren’t in the room,” then it’s time to treat it as a commercial asset and invest accordingly. Whether it’s through internal resourcing or giving partners the time and space to commit to breakthrough ideas, a commitment to creativity isn’t just brave anymore—it’s related to the bottom line.

    Christopher Huebner is a director of strategy at SimpsonScarborough.

    Source link

  • CUPA-HR Joins Amicus Brief in Case Regarding NCAA Eligibility Rules

    CUPA-HR Joins Amicus Brief in Case Regarding NCAA Eligibility Rules

    by CUPA-HR | April 8, 2025

    On March 28, CUPA-HR joined the American Council on Education and other higher education associations in filing an amicus brief in Pavia v. NCAA, which challenges the association’s eligibility rules with respect to the five-year time limits for student-athletes. The brief was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

    Background

    Pavia filed the lawsuit against the NCAA in November 2024, claiming that the NCAA’s ability to limit eligibility for previous junior college transfers by counting their competition years in junior college towards the number of years they are eligible to compete in NCAA sports restrains labor market forces and thus violates antitrust laws. A federal district court judge agreed on the merits of Pavia’s arguments and issued a preliminary injunction blocking the NCAA from enforcing its eligibility rules and allowing Pavia only to play an additional season. The judge argued that the ability for student-athletes to earn money through name, image and likeness (NIL) deals thus makes the NCAA’s eligibility rules “commercial,” meaning the rules themselves would not survive antitrust scrutiny. The NCAA appealed this ruling to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case awaits further litigation.

    Amicus Brief

    The brief, filed by ACE, CUPA-HR, and five other higher education associations, argues that all eligibility rules set by the NCAA, including the five-year time limitations challenged in this case, aim to ensure “the primacy of the educational context for the student-athlete experience.” The brief argues that the preliminary injunction placed by the district court threatens to “shift the formulation and enforcement of the NCAA’s eligibility rules from educators and athletics administrators to federal courts” as any student-athlete disqualified by an eligibility rule could request a court to file an injunction and argue that the eligibility rule restricts their ability to pursue NIL deals. This would ultimately result in a patchwork of waivers granted by judges nationwide, undermining the national system of enforcement already in place through athletic associations like the NCAA and cementing federal judges as the unofficial court of appeals for the NCAA.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for updates related to this court case.



    Source link

  • Title IX Case Against Maine Schools Headed to U.S. Department of Justice – The 74

    Title IX Case Against Maine Schools Headed to U.S. Department of Justice – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    The conflict between the state of Maine and the Trump administration over transgender student athletes reached a new pivot point on Monday. As the first of several deadlines set by the federal government has now expired, whether Maine can continue to allow trans athletes to participate in school sports appears likely to be decided by the courts.

    Two separate federal agencies determined that Maine is in violation of Title IX based on the Trump administration’s interpretation of the anti-sex discrimination protection.

    The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a final warning Monday to the Maine Department of Education regarding its noncompliance with a federal directive for allowing trans girls to participate in girls’ sports.

    If the state does not propose an agreement that’s acceptable to the office by April 11, the case will be referred to the Department of Justice, the letter said.

    Meanwhile, a separate investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ civil rights office that found Maine in violation of Title IX for “continuing to unlawfully allow” trans girls to compete in girl’s sports has been referred to the U.S. Department of Justice, according to a Monday social media post from the agency.

    In a letter dated March 17, HHS had given Maine a deadline of 10 days to comply with federal guidance. Monday marked ten business days from that warning.

    Both agencies determined that Maine had violated federal law after dayslong investigations that included no interviews, while typical investigations take months and are eventually settled with resolution agreements. The probes were launched after Gov. Janet Mills and President Donald Trump had a heated exchange over the state’s trans athlete policy. Millions of dollars in federal funding might be at risk, depending on how the cases proceed.

    “We just need an answer at this point as to, ‘Does the Trump administration have the authority to do what it’s doing when it comes to fast tracking the removal of federal funds?’” said Jackie Wernz, a former OCR lawyer for the Education Department who now represents school districts nationwide in these types of cases.

    “This is just unprecedented, and we’re not following the process that we’re used to. So I think it’s going to be really helpful for courts to start weighing in on whether or not they have the authority to do this.”

    Meanwhile, Republican state lawmakers said in a news conference on Tuesday that they want the state to repeal trans students’ rights to athletics, locker rooms and bathrooms, and to roll back inclusion of gender as a protected class in the Maine Human Rights Act.

    “The problem is that the term gender identity and the Human Rights Act is being interpreted way too broadly by the left,” said Senate Minority Leader Trey Stewart (R-Aroostook). “And what it’s saying is there’s no boundary between men’s and women’s spaces.”

    Rep. Michael Soboleski (R- Phillips) said he is introducing a bill to remove consideration of gender identity from the act, and asked Democrats and Mills to support the legislation in order to avoid the risk of losing federal funding.

    Earlier this year, Iowa became the first state in the nation to remove civil rights from a state law when its Legislature voted to remove gender identity from its civil rights act.

    “This is not sustainable,” Stewart said. “We’re a poor state. We are heavily reliant on federal money. The governor needs to move on this.”

    On March 19, the Department of Education’s civil rights office notified Maine of its noncompliance and proposed a resolution agreement that would require the state to rescind its support of trans athletes, which is currently required by the Maine Human Rights Act. A Cumberland-area school district and the Maine Principals Association, which runs student athletics, that were also found in violation have already refused to sign the agreement.

    This development is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to enforce Title IX provisions concerning gender and athletics. Earlier this year, the administration launched investigations in several other states for similar policies allowing trans athletes to compete in alignment with their gender identity.

    Title IX, the federal law banning sex-based discrimination, does not reference trans people directly, but the Trump administration has interpreted Maine’s policy as discrimination against cisgender girls.

    Rachel Perera, a fellow in the governance studies program for the Brown Center on Education Policy at national think tank The Brookings Institution, said the Trump administration’s interpretation of Title IX leaves room for questioning. If the policy goes to trial, she said federal courts may come up with a clearer interpretation.

    “It’s going to be really important to see how Maine proceeds, because they’re sort of setting the tone in terms of these other states and other localities who are going to be trying to navigate these very same dynamics,” she said.

    Maine Morning Star is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maine Morning Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Lauren McCauley for questions: [email protected].


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Making a sustained case for international student mobility

    Making a sustained case for international student mobility

    Today on the HEPI blog, Professor David Phoenix OBE and Dr. Katerina Kolyva explore how England’s post-16 education system can move beyond competition to create a more integrated, collaborative approach that benefits learners, local economies, and national prosperity. You can read the blog here.

    Below, colleagues at the University of Surrey explore the evolving landscape of global student mobility, highlighting innovative programmes and making the case for a new approach to student placements.

    • Professor Amelia Hadfield is Associate Vice-President for External Engagement and Founding Director of the Centre for Britain in Europe, and Liz Lynch is International Mobility Manager, both at the University of Surrey.

    In recent years, the UK’s governments have developed new initiatives such as the Turing Scheme, the Taith Scheme in Wales, and the Scottish Government’s Scottish Education Exchange Programme (SEEP). These mobility programmes aim to support students’ global experiences. While they have undoubtedly provided valuable opportunities for students – particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds – what is truly needed is a longer-term commitment from government to sustain and expand these life-changing opportunities.

    At the end of February, the annual Global Mobility conference hosted by Universities UK International (UUKi) brought together higher education professionals and thought leaders to explore the latest developments in global student mobility and what the future looks like. The conference showcased how universities are leveraging these funding opportunities to create meaningful and impactful programmes. However, it also highlighted the significant challenges faced by UK institutions, particularly in the aftermath of Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic, the UK’s withdrawal from Erasmus+ and the ongoing financial pressures on both universities and students. These factors have created a complex landscape, making investment in international mobility more crucial than ever.

    The Impact of Mobility on Student Outcomes: Insights from UUKi Research

    During the conference, UUKi presented early-stage findings from their latest research, Gone International: A New Generation, conducted in collaboration with Jisc and the Northern Consortium. While the data revealed a significant decline in the number of students going abroad, perhaps reflecting the impact of recent global challenges, there remains strong evidence of the benefits to students. Reaffirming 2019 findings, the data continues to show students participating in mobility programmes not only attain higher degrees but are also more likely to earn higher salaries, secure professional-level jobs and experience lower unemployment rates. The research underscores the important role of global mobility in fostering social mobility.

    Nevertheless, while those of us working in the sector already understand the intrinsic value of international experiences, having concrete data to back up these claims strengthens the case for continued support and expansion of such opportunities. The University of Manchester, for example, has been evaluating the impact of its international mobility programmes on student outcomes, and the findings have helped raise the profile and importance of these opportunities across their institution. This kind of evidence-based approach is essential for ensuring that the sector – and governments – remain committed to facilitating global mobility for students.

    The Broader Benefits of International Mobility

    The British Council highlights the broader societal benefits of international student mobility, particularly in fostering cross-cultural understanding and long-term relationships between nations. By participating in mobility programmes, students develop cross-cultural competence, language proficiency, and global perspectives – all vital skills for success in today’s interconnected world. Inbound mobility, in particular, contributes significantly to the UK economy, with international students bringing cultural diversity, innovation, and fresh perspectives to campuses. These exchanges also build cross-cultural networks, which can endure long after students return to their home countries, fostering greater trust and understanding between nations and supporting the UK’s soft power overseas.

    All of this is in addition to the economic benefit that stems from the UK’s ability to attract international students, as discussed recently on the HEPI blog.

    Blended Mobility: Enabling flexibility and accessibility

    Blended mobility programmes represent a forward-thinking solution for making global education more accessible and flexible. Cardiff Metropolitan University, for example, has embraced a hybrid model supported by the Taith funding, combining one week of virtual learning with one week of physical mobility. This approach not only maintains the essence of cultural exchange but also offers students the flexibility to engage in international experiences that might otherwise be logistically or financially out of reach. The combination of virtual, blended, and physical mobility opens doors for students who might not be able to commit to a full-term study abroad programme, making global learning more inclusive and scalable.

    Whilst the Turing Scheme in its current form does not include blended mobility, the recent reduction in minimum duration to 14 days is a positive step towards providing greater accessibility for students. Hopefully, in future years, blended mobilities and shorter 7-day mobilities could be incorporated into future Turing projects, taking the impactful examples from both Taith and Erasmus+ as evidence of the value and enabling engagement from the most disadvantaged and underrepresented groups.  This, along with funding for staff mobility (offered by both Taith and Erasmus+), will only serve to enhance Turing overall.

    Surrey’s Approach: Empowering Students through International Mobility

    At the University of Surrey, we are committed to increasing the participation of our students in a range of international opportunities, whilst simultaneously expanding the international dimension of the student experience at our Guildford campus. In this respect, placement training options, study abroad opportunities, enhanced ‘global and cultural intelligence’ and ‘collaborative online international learning’ (COIL) content in degree pathways, as well as our Global Graduate Awards, ‘international’ is necessarily widely defined, and ‘mobility’ can take place intellectually, culturally, and socially, as well as just physically,

    Mobility also brings together traditional approaches to cross-border opportunities with enhanced approaches to supporting new demographics. A key strategic objective at Surrey, therefore, is focusing on access for underrepresented groups. We target Turing funding and additional grant funds to students who meet Surrey’s widening participation criteria to address inequality amongst underrepresented groups who may wish to experience international mobility but are unable to do so without grants. The portfolio of both longer-term and shorter mobility options we have developed facilitates equal access for all. As previous placements have illustrated, longer-term mobility provides deeper cultural experiences and learning opportunities for those able to commit to a full semester/year abroad. Shorter options can widen access for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and underrepresented groups.

    Through their international experiences, our students build global academic and professional networks and improve their job prospects. They return to Surrey as confident, resilient, and globally minded individuals, prepared to tackle the challenges of tomorrow’s world. Feedback from students who participated in Surrey’s Turing 2023 project shows the impact mobility has on their personal and professional development. 94% reported an increase in intercultural awareness, and 93% felt the experience enhanced their employability and professional skills.

    Looking Ahead: The Future of Global Mobility

    The global mobility landscape is changing, with rapid technological advancements and a growing emphasis on inclusivity and sustainability. At Surrey, we are embracing technological innovations that will enhance both the student experience and the efficiency of mobility programme management. Process automation, for example, is helping streamline administrative tasks, freeing up resources to better support students. We are also starting to use virtual reality (VR) to promote international opportunities, allowing students to virtually explore campus life abroad. Future opportunities for blended learning, as well as the incorporation of COIL projects within the curriculum, will nurture the skills necessary for students to engage with the world and develop the confidence and curiosity needed to thrive in an interconnected society.

    By incorporating data-driven approaches, we will continue to assess the impact of our mobility programmes, identifying areas for improvement and ensuring that our offerings align with both institutional and student goals. As the sector evolves, collaboration and innovation will be key in ensuring that all students can access transformative international experiences.

    Source link

  • Breaking out of Borgentown – the case for hope in higher education

    Breaking out of Borgentown – the case for hope in higher education

    It started, as so many great conversations do, over coffee.

    On a chilly January day as we swapped tales of small children and shared cultural touchstones, we found ourselves riffing on the Trolls movie (which it turns out we have both seen a painful number of times). In particular, we found ourselves in Borgentown: a drab, grey world of monotony and drudgery, where fleeting joy depends on eating the vibrant, music-loving Trolls.

    There’s an uncomfortable resonance with the current temperature of higher education where we can see the joy and possibility at the heart of education being overshadowed by a grinding sense of the need for survival. The drip-feed of news of more institutions in financial trouble, the dissipation of expectation that the Westminster government would pursue bold action early in its term of office, the existential dread of global geopolitics.

    The sense that the sector desperately needs a fresh vision and plan for the future, combined with unease about whether that vision will ever materialise and where it will materialise from. It’s hardly surprising that even relentless chirpy people like us can sometimes feel a bit…Borgeny.

    Ode to joy

    Mark is an educator and Debbie a policy wonk, but we share the conviction that education should be a joyful act. It is the engineering of possibility, the building of capability, the empowerment of individuals to deliver positive impact in the world. It is an act of creation (and creation by proxy), and any such act is joyous. Done well, policymaking can also be creative and empowering, in the ways it seeks to adjust the conditions for good and desirable outcomes to flourish.

    But the mood in higher education often feels very different. It feels negative and ground down, paralysed, even fatalistic. Educators, long asked to do more with less, feel denied, their good ideas drowned out by demands for managerial efficiency. Meanwhile, leaders are navigating hostile, contradictory, resource-constrained times. The result is a collective energy that’s fraught and disempowered. This is dangerous, because fatalism is a trap.

    Paolo Freire wrote of the ways that fatalism denies people the ability to imagine change. It leaves us believing that what is, is all that ever can be. Education is the opposite of fatalism – it equips us with the power to critically appraise the way things are and to imagine alternatives. Freire said that the primary goal of educators should be to punctuate fatalism with critical hope. And so there is a double tragedy if even educators are deprived of their potential to imagine and enable better futures. Similarly, policymakers at all levels need to take seriously their responsibility to convene, lead, and enable change, lest fatalism set in and undermine the social fabric.

    When we talk to sector colleagues, we see a creeping fatalism that comes with dealing with a proliferation of things that are difficult, not in a stretching or challenging or inspiring way, but in a way that chips away at mental and emotional bandwidth. But we also see lots to get excited about – an underlying energy and continued appetite to engage in imaginative discussion, an empathy for the challenges individuals and teams are facing that is breaking down some of the traditional silos, and a curiosity and openness to finding new ways to solve old problems.

    The higher education sector is going through some tough times. It may not look exactly the same as it does now a decade hence, but it retains an extraordinary capacity to shape its own future. And this is where we think there is scope for some “interdisciplinary” thinking to happen.

    Coming to a website near you

    As Wonkhe’s newest contributing editor, in the months ahead Mark will intentionally explore ideas that seem unachievable on the surface, not to frustrate, but to provoke and to encourage us to see what those ideas tell us about what is possible. We will poke at old orthodoxies – and unsettle some new ones before they sediment fully.

    Are our narratives on how research environments benefit students really compelling (really?)? Is our defensiveness around grade inflation obscuring that classifications are just a really stupid way of signalling talent? And while we’re at that, can assessment be freed from the stranglehold of compliance? Is “belonging” already becoming a hollow buzzword? And what happens if we fully lean into AI rather than mitigating it? We’ll play with the notion of “co-creation” as only currently skimming at the surface of possibility – and explore pedagogy as a device to more authentically deliver civic aspirations.

    In that spirit, we will also have one eye on policy, and the changes that would be needed to policy to help bring new ideas and thinking into being. Imagining different possibilities has to include tackling questions of what concepts like “quality” and “access” mean in the changing higher education landscape, and what they can or ought to mean in the future, what accountabilities and enabling relationships educators, professionals, and institutions should have and how/the extent to which these can be mediated through policy.

    This is not an exercise in naive utopianism, nor is it an attempt to attack the sector. Rather it is an affirmation of the sector’s talent, creativity, and intellectual energy. We want to rally the dreamers, the thinkers, and the doers in education – those who are already innovating, those waiting for permission to dream, and those who believe another world is possible – to prise open the Overton window of what is politically acceptable, and push at the boundaries that various sector sacred cows make appear as if they are set in stone.

    If you share our optimism that there is still plenty of creative energy out there that has yet to be tapped, please bring us your own ideas and imagined futures to contribute to the conversation. As the Borgens learn at the end of Trolls, their potential for joy was inside them all along.

    Source link

  • #ShoutOutForGerman – A case for language learning and German at British Universities

    #ShoutOutForGerman – A case for language learning and German at British Universities

    This HEPI blog was kindly authored by colleagues at the German Embassy in London and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).

     #ShoutOutForGerman this is the title of a week-long campaign from 17 to 21 March to showcase all things German across the entire UK and inspire learning German. The German Embassy London and the German Academic Exchange Service are only two of the organisations behind this campaign. Why are we shouting out for German? Because the steady decline of German learners in the UK, of students pursuing German at the university level, the closure of language departments and the ongoing threat of further closures is a cause for concern.

    The benefits of learning German are clear: it provides students with communication skills and enhances career opportunities, but it also fosters closer economic and cultural ties between the UK and Germany. The German Embassy in London and the German Academic Exchange Service both work to strengthen language learning in general and German in particular at British universities.

    To raise awareness of German as a foreign language and to give credit to all those who learn, speak or like it, we are launching the #ShoutOutForGerman campaign from 17 to 21 March, to showcase all things German across the entire country and inspire learning German.

    Why German Matters

    There are countless reasons for studying German. Just like learning any foreign language, it equips people with critical communication and transferable skills, opens the door to other ways of thinking, and strengthens personal connections across borders. The case for German is even stronger, as it is the most sought-after foreign language among UK employers and a key language in fields such as science, engineering, finance, and international relations. Germany remains the UK’s second-largest goods trading partner, and a strong command of the language provides a competitive advantage in the job market. German is the language of influential philosophers, writers, and scientists, offering access to a rich intellectual and cultural heritage.

    Beyond the economic advantages, language learning plays a crucial role in diplomacy and international relations. The ability to speak each other’s language fosters trust, facilitates collaboration, and strengthens bilateral ties. As John le Carré once said, “The decision to learn a foreign language is an act of friendship.” Looking at the events unfolding in today’s world, it would be a gross understatement to say that the European continent is facing a multitude of challenges. To navigate the new realities, to preserve our safety, our hard-fought liberties, our prosperity and place in the world, the links between the UK and its European neighbours will be of pivotal importance – and key among them is the German-British partnership. Learning each other’s language can be understood as a commitment to strengthen and future-proof this partnership from the ground up.

    A Declining Trend in German Studies

    And yet, demand for studying languages at universities has been in a downtrend, and courses offered have been declining in parallel. According to HESA, the numbers of full-time students enrolled in German or German studies at British universities decreased from 1,780 in 2019 to 1,330 in 2023, marking a 25% decrease in just four years. This highlights an alarming trend that could lead to further erosion of German language education in higher education institutions. In lockstep, several universities have closed their language departments entirely in recent years in response to budget constraints. Language centres can only, in part, make up for the loss that is generated by the lack of language degree courses – even though their existence is proof of the value and necessity universities attribute to language skills.

    This development is, among others, a consequence of various decisions which have shaped the nature of educational politics in the UK as we know them today. It is thus more important than ever, that languages are given their due place in England’s Curriculum and Assessment Review – where the German Ambassador has made the plea for consistent language instruction over the entire educational journey. The assessment represents an important fork in the road and opportunity for a firm push towards stopping and gradually reversing the downtrend in language learning, lest it have long-term consequences for Britain’s position in global academia, diplomacy, and business.

    The German Embassy and DAAD’s Commitment to German in the UK

    The DAAD London has been around for over 70 years, as the DAAD’s oldest branch in the world. The German Embassy, the DAAD, and the Goethe-Institut London have been actively engaged in promoting German across all sectors in the UK for years. From providing scholarships and funding for students to supporting language teaching and teacher training at universities, we have consistently worked to strengthen German language education.

    Each year, the DAAD funds many UK students to spend part of their summer at German universities, where they have the chance to learn German alongside young people from around the world. The annual German Language Competition, in collaboration with the Institute for Languages, Cultures, and Societies and other partners, encourages German learners to explore creative themes such as But Don’t Mention the War, Roads Not Taken and Love Letters between Victoria and Albert. The DAAD’s mission to promote the German language dates back to 1952, when the first DAAD Lecturer was placed at Aberystwyth University. At the time, no one could have predicted that this would lead to thousands more coming to the UK, teaching German language, literature, and culture to young Britons across UK universities. Our latest push comes in the form of our “Making the Case for German” initiative, which the German Ambassador Miguel Berger launched in late 2023 in partnership with the DAAD and the Goethe-Institut London. It serves as a comprehensive platform open to all who promote German in every sector, including schools, universities, and cultural organisations. Launched as a nationwide alliance, the initiative fosters collaboration through events, forums, and partnerships.

    Such an alliance is necessary as this is a challenge we must address collectively. The Embassy, the DAAD, the Goethe-Institut and our partners will continue to support German in the UK through strategic initiatives, funding opportunities, and advocacy, but in order to reverse the trend, a national effort is needed. Universities, educators, policymakers, and businesses must work together to ensure that future generations have access to quality language education, and a communicative effort is necessary for people to recognize its immense value.

    Giving a Collective #ShoutOutForGerman from 17 to 21 March

    This is the reason why we came up with the idea for a #shoutoutforGerman campaign. In the week of 17 to 21 March dubbed German Week, we will celebrate all teachers and schools, university lecturers and German or Modern Languages departments, parents and pupils, students and civil society organisations such as town twinning associations as well as any individuals out there in the UK who are working very hard to keep German alive. Each and every one can take part, sharing what they like about German language, literature or culture. By sharing positive stories under the hashtag #ShoutOutForGerman, we will collectively give a huge shout out for all things German in the UK and hopefully convince some to dip their toes into the language of Klopp and Tuchel. The DAAD and the Goethe-Institut have further strengthened this campaign by offering a range of offerings to universities and schools alike.

    Looking ahead

    We firmly believe that multilingualism is not a luxury but a necessity in today’s world and that quality language education should be available to everybody. The Embassy, together with the Goethe-Institut, the DAAD and its partners will continue to make the case for German all across the country, by building alliances and supporting individual efforts to the best of our abilities. In this vein, the Embassy will soon start to officially recognise individuals and organisations who have shown particular dedication in promoting German in the UK. If Britain is to remain globally competitive, culturally enriched, and diplomatically agile, the decline in language learning has to be reversed. And German, as one of the most widely spoken languages in Europe and a key language of business and diplomacy, should be at the heart of that effort.

    Source link

  • Why Boycott? Maya Wind on the Case Against Israeli Universities

    Why Boycott? Maya Wind on the Case Against Israeli Universities

    Over the past few years, calls for the boycott of Israeli universities have grown louder. This discourse generally entwines two different sets of arguments. The first is an argument about the effectiveness or validity of academic boycotts.  The second, because it’s Israel, is about whether Israeli universities are being unfairly targeted due to anti-Semitism. Curiously, what Israeli universities themselves might have specifically done to deserve is often relegated to an afterthought.

    My guest today is Maya Wind. She is an Israeli citizen, and a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California Riverside. She is also the author of Towers of Ivory and Steel, How Israeli Universities Deny Palestinian Freedom, published last year by Verso press. Her book is a direct answer to that last question.  The charge sheet that she brings against Israeli universities is a long one. And it should give people pause before thinking that Israeli universities are unproblematic.

    Some of you are not going to like this interview. I suspect some will not enjoy the platform given to these opinions. But given the tenor of the times, I very much think it is worth a listen. I think there are two points in particular that are worth thinking about. The first is whether the boycott is about the universities themselves, or about Israel in general. The second is the standard for boycott. Wind makes it clear that she doesn’t see an absolute standard here other than that some oppressed group requests. So, for her, the relative level of complicity of Israeli universities in the dispossession of Palestinians and, say, that of Chinese universities in the repression of Uyghurs is irrelevant because the key factor is that one group asked for the boycott and the other didn’t. It’s about consistent allyship rather than relative guilt.  That wasn’t something I had understood beforehand, and I’m guessing it might be new for many of you as well. But maybe it’s best if I let my guest explain things on her own. Over to Maya.


    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.22 | Why Boycott? Maya Wind on the Case Against Israeli Universities 

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Maya, your book lays out the case for sanctions against Israeli universities and for boycotting them. But before we get to that, I want to ask about something you don’t really cover in the book: What’s the evidence that boycotts or academic sanctions are an effective strategy for forcing political change?

    Maya Wind (MW): That’s a really crucial question. First, for listeners who may not be as familiar with the context, the movement for boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) was first called for by Palestinian civil society organizations in 2005—so, 20 years ago now. The BDS movement, including the call for an academic boycott of Israeli universities, was heavily inspired by the movement against apartheid in South Africa. In that case, the isolation of many apartheid institutions, including universities, played a key role in bringing an end to the apartheid system.

    Of course, as academics and students, we are all students of history. If we take seriously the idea that Israel is a settler state and that Israelis are colonizers, then history tells us that colonizers have never initiated the process of decolonization on their own. In every case of settler colonialism, external pressure has been necessary to compel colonizers to participate in that process. The BDS movement is specifically seeking to create that external pressure by building a grassroots international movement to hold the Israeli state—and its universities—accountable.

    PACBI, the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, actually predates the broader BDS call by a year. It was formed in 2004 and, even then—21 years ago now—identified Israeli universities as pillars of the system of racial rule and apartheid. As academics, particularly those in the West, we have an obligation to respond to this call by severing our ties to Israeli universities. Otherwise, we remain directly complicit.

    AU: Your charge sheet, if I can put it that way, against Israeli institutions is really threefold. The first major charge—using your words from the epilogue—is that they need to stop denying that their campuses stand on expropriated Palestinian lands and cease to serve as engines of Judaization, colonization, and Palestinian dispossession. What exactly do Israeli institutions do in this regard, and why does it matter so much?

    MW: Right. Here, I’m following not only Palestinian civil society and Palestinian scholars but also Indigenous scholars around the world—particularly in settler states—who have long examined the role of the settler university. These scholars have highlighted how universities have often functioned as pillars of ongoing Indigenous dispossession, built on stolen lands that were cleared through genocide. This is part of a broader, global movement, and there is extensive critical scholarship on this issue in other settler states as well.

    In the context of the Israeli settler state, “Judaization” is actually the official terminology used by the Israeli government. It refers to a process seen in many settler states: the twin projects of continual removal and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, the transfer of Palestinian land ownership to Jewish Israelis, and the ongoing expansion of Israeli frontiers—redistributing the Jewish population across what was historic Palestine.

    If we trace the history of Israeli universities, this pattern becomes clear. It starts with Hebrew University, the first university of the Zionist movement, and continues with all the universities established by the Israeli state since then. For example, the University of Haifa is in the Galilee, the region with the highest Palestinian population. Ben-Gurion University is in the Negev, an arid southern region where Jewish Israelis were historically less likely to settle. The most recent university to be accredited, Ariel University, is located in the illegal settlement of Ariel, deep in the occupied West Bank.

    For over a century, Israeli universities have been physically designed, built, and strategically located to support the state’s project of Palestinian dispossession, particularly in regions of strategic concern to the Israeli government. Any reckoning with Israeli universities—or settler universities more broadly—must begin with the question of land itself. This is one of the central issues I explore in the book.

    AU: Before I go into the other elements of the charge sheet, you’ve used the term “settler” and “settler colonialism” a couple of times. What distinction, if any, do you draw between the need to boycott Israeli universities, as you argue, and the historical case that could be made for boycotting institutions in Canada or the United States? Why sanction one and not the other?

    MW: That’s a really important question. The first and primary answer is that the Indigenous population most directly impacted by the violence of these settler universities—in this case, Palestinians—have explicitly called for a boycott. A boycott is not a value; it is a tactic. Indigenous movements around the world have used different tactics to advance decolonization, and these tactics change over time and depend on the specific context.

    In this case, more than 20 years ago, the overwhelming majority of Palestinian civil society came together to advance their liberation struggle and issued a call for boycott. They outlined a theory of change, arguing that Western governments—particularly those heavily invested in the Israeli settler state—not only provide arms but also offer diplomatic and legal immunity that allows Israel to continue committing war crimes, including, most recently, the crime of genocide. Given this, they have made it clear that those of us in the international community have an obligation to rise up and pressure our own governments to sever ties and isolate the Israeli regime until the process of decolonization begins and the system of apartheid is dismantled.

    This is a grassroots movement, and we do not need to wait for our governments to act.

    AU: That’s a useful clarification. The second area where you’re most critical is the cooperation between universities on one hand and the military, Shin Bet, and other security services on the other. You write about how the connection between university research and the military in Israel is somewhat different from how it operates in the United States or other countries, partly because research institutes in Israel cooperate so directly with the security sector. What does this military cooperation look like in practice? And is it just about research, or is there also an academic programming element?

    MW: Right. This is a very important question because the collaboration between Israeli universities, the security state, and the military industry is incredibly deep and comprehensive. We see this in several ways.

    First, Israeli universities function as military bases by designing and operating specialized, degree-granting programs tailored for security state personnel, including the Israeli Security Agency (Shin Bet), Israeli police forces, and soldiers. These are the same forces that have engaged in decades of daily violations of Palestinian rights and international law. This is well documented, and these academic programs actively train soldiers and security personnel to refine their operations.

    One example is Hebrew University, where the Department of Islamic and Middle East Studies trains soldiers in the Intelligence Corps, providing them with linguistic and regional expertise to improve their surveillance of the Palestinian population. This training directly contributes to the creation of target banks for airstrikes in Gaza, as we have seen over the past 16 months. That is just one of many examples.

    Another form of cooperation is research and institutional collaborations. The Institute for Criminology at Hebrew University and the Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University work closely with military and security state experts to produce scholarship that advances security operations. Their research informs policy recommendations for the Israeli security establishment.

    A third example is the close ties between universities and military industries. It is not widely known that major arms manufacturers like Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, Israel Aerospace Industries, and Elbit Systems—the largest suppliers to the Israeli military and major global exporters of weapons—were actually founded on Israeli university campuses. These companies develop and refine their technologies by testing them in occupied Palestinian territories, violating international and human rights law daily. They then market these products globally as “battle-proven.” To this day, Israeli universities serve as critical laboratories for these industries.

    In all of these ways, it is impossible to understand the Israeli security state and military-industrial complex without examining the role of the Israeli university system.

    AU: The third charge you discuss is that Israeli universities are not academically neutral—that they do not provide all staff and students with equal opportunities to be protected from outside influence or to thrive academically. We often hear that Israeli universities do not discriminate, but you have a different perspective.

    MW: Yes. One of the things that really struck me while researching and writing this book was the extensive scholarly work that already exists on this issue. I conducted an ethnography of Israeli universities, spending significant time across Israel’s eight major public universities. I spoke with and accompanied Palestinian student organizers, and I interviewed both Palestinian and Jewish Israeli faculty and staff.

    What stood out to me—both in my fieldwork and in my background research—was just how much has already been written about this. There is a rich body of scholarship, not only in Hebrew and Arabic but also in English, often published in leading peer-reviewed journals in Europe and North America. Palestinian scholars, both in Palestinian and Israeli universities, have extensively documented the constraints on knowledge production, the marginalization of Palestinian critical epistemology, and the challenges of producing anti-colonial scholarship within the confines of the Zionist university system. They have also written in detail about the systematic discrimination Palestinian students face and their experiences within these institutions.

    Yet, despite this extensive scholarship, I find that it is largely unread in Western academic communities. This raises important questions about why we, in the West, have failed to engage with this work and why we have instead accepted the narratives presented by Jewish Israeli university administrators and scholars, who often portray Israeli universities as beacons of democracy. In reality, this has never been the case, and Palestinians have been documenting and writing about these inequalities for a very long time. I cite much of this work in my book, and I also corroborated it through my own interviews.

    What I found was not only that Israeli universities are embedded within and implicated in a broader system of apartheid, but also that Palestinian student organizing and political activism on campuses are violently suppressed. This suppression has intensified over the past 16 months, as Palestinian scholars and students speak out against the genocide and mobilize for Palestinian liberation on Israeli campuses.

    Advertisement: Student success, at scale, with a proven ROI of 4.4 times return for universities and colleges. Studiosity’s AI-for-Learning is designed specifically for post-secondary students to develop real skills, critical thinking, agency, belonging, and retention; to empower educators with reporting and insight into learning progress; and to build human connection – made possible with Studiosity’s strictly help-not-answers formative feedback and integrated Humans in the Loop design. In partnership with post-secondary institutions in Canada and around the world, Studiosity is for future-ready graduates and future-ready institutions. With over 200 post-secondary partners and more than 2 million student users, Studiosity is grounded in an academically-driven evidence base, leading the way to increasing life chances for students everywhere. Learn more about the world’s leading, ethical, AI student support at studiosity.com.

    AU: Maya, you’ve discussed issues at several institutions across Israel. You’ve specifically singled out Ariel University for its role in normalizing the occupation and Hebrew University for its failure to protect academic freedom. Are there any institutions that stand out to you as having a better record than others? Is there one that you might say should not be subject to a boycott?

    MW: The call for an academic boycott was laid out by Palestinian civil society and Palestinian scholars. Just last year, in 2023, this call was reiterated by not only the Union of Palestinian Faculty and Employees but also by every single Palestinian student union at every Palestinian university. They reaffirmed their call for us to enact the academic boycott.

    This is a call coming from Palestinian civil society, and as it is worded, it applies to all complicit Israeli universities. In the course of my research, I found that every single Israeli university is deeply implicated in the structures of occupation and apartheid. Not one is exempt.

    At this time, the call remains for a boycott of all Israeli universities, and I hope my book helps to substantiate why that is necessary.

    AU: It sounds to me like the Palestinian call is really about Israel as a whole, rather than specifically about Israeli universities, right? And I have to say, when I read the chapter on the relationship between universities and the military, I thought to myselfI can’t imagine a university in any country—let alone one as highly militarized as Israel—saying no to providing academic training for military officers.

    Universities are instrumental to the state, right? So when we talk about disapproving of university policies, aren’t we really talking about disapproving of Israeli state priorities? Is there any way an individual Israeli institution could change this if it wanted to?

    MW: I think that’s a really critical question. We have to understand—and take seriously—that settler states, systems of violence, and even genocide do not reproduce themselves automatically. These are systems of violence that are upheld by a vast network of institutions, including many in civil society. It is not just the military, not just the security state, and not just military industries. A whole host of public institutions—what we often think of as civil society institutions—lend themselves to this violence of elimination. This case is no different.

    But what we also have to recognize is that it is not just the institutions—it is the people within them who sustain and reproduce these structures. There is the active labor of thousands of Israelis, across hundreds of institutions, including universities, who are making this violence possible.

    What I want to emphasize here is that Israeli academics have tried very hard to have it both ways. The call for an academic boycott has been underway for more than two decades, and one of the main arguments used by Israeli university administrators and academics who oppose it is that they cannot possibly be held accountable for the crimes of the Israeli state—if such crimes even exist, as is still debated within Israeli universities. They claim that it is unjust to hold them responsible for what the state is doing.

    But at the same time, when they are confronted—particularly over the last year—by thousands of students, faculty, and staff participating in the boycott, pointing out that they are directly complicit in apartheid and now genocide, these same university administrators and Israeli academics respond in exactly the opposite way. They say precisely what you just said: Of course, we are embedded in the state. Many of our students are soldiers. Why wouldn’t we cooperate with the state we are a part of?

    They often go even further, offering justifications for genocide and apartheid. So they cannot have it both ways. Either they defend themselves by claiming they are not at all accountable and cannot be implicated in what the state is doing, or they admit that they are, in fact, part of the state—at which point they must also take responsibility for their role in sustaining its system of oppression.

    AU: One argument that emerged in Canada over the last few months—particularly around the end of the encampment at the University of Windsor, if I’m not mistaken—was that the university agreed to boycott Israeli universities as part of a resolution. In response, some argued—I can’t remember if it was Michael Geist or Anthony Housefather in the House of Commons—that if you boycott Israeli institutions but not universities in other countries guilty of similar actions, then that is antisemitic.

    For instance, many of the same criticisms you make about Israeli universities—such as failing to uphold free debate and cooperating with the military—could likely be made about Chinese universities in relation to the government’s policies in Xinjiang or Tibet. What do you make of that argument? Should we also be boycotting Chinese universities? And if not, why not?

    MW: Boycotts—whether organized by unions or any other group—are always made in response to a call. It is not up to us to unilaterally decide to boycott a university system. That decision belongs to the communities directly impacted by the violence of that university system. When such a call is made, it is then up to the international community to assess whether the institutions in question are, in fact, complicit—and to decide whether to participate in the boycott.

    To my knowledge, there has been no such call from other Indigenous communities in similar contexts. There could be, and if there were, I think many of us would absolutely consider participating. But this argument is ultimately a distraction—one that is often pushed by Israel and its Zionist supporters to divert attention from the central issue at hand. The reality is that Palestinians have called for a boycott. Now, it is up to us to assess whether that call is justified and whether we will comply

    AU: You wrote this book prior to October 7, 2023. What has changed since then, both in terms of how Israeli universities behave and in terms of the boycott movement?

    MW: Over the past 16 months, we have seen a devastating acceleration of a project that has spanned over a hundred years. Genocide is structural to the Israeli state, just as it is to settler states elsewhere. For two decades, Palestinian civil society has been telling us that various institutions in Israeli society have long served as part of the infrastructure laying the groundwork for the genocide we have witnessed unfold over the last 16 months—part of the Israeli state’s long-term project to ethnically cleanse Palestine of the Palestinian people.

    My book, which I submitted to the press shortly before this latest acceleration of the genocide began, details many of the ways in which universities are implicated. But it should come as no surprise that this is a structural problem. Israeli universities have continuously worked in service of the state, uninterrupted and ongoing, from before the state’s founding to the present moment—including this phase of the genocide.

    Over the last 16 months, Israeli universities have continued to develop weapons and technologies used against Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. They have continued training soldiers and producing Hasbara—Israeli state propaganda—to shield Israel from international criticism. In fact, Israeli universities have actively intervened to prevent academic boycotts from being implemented on Western campuses, smearing student, faculty, and staff organizers, and in some cases, calling for them to be forcibly dispersed. They have also played a direct role in producing legal scholarship to aid the Israeli state in resisting the genocide case brought by South Africa at the International Court of Justice.

    Beyond this, universities have provided tangible benefits to soldiers, offering course credit, scholarships, and special privileges for those returning from Gaza. In countless ways, Israeli universities remain embedded in the infrastructure of violence that sustains the Israeli state, even as that state now stands on trial in the highest courts in the world for genocide.

    If you’re asking what has changed, I think the biggest shift is that more people have now come to recognize what Palestinians have been calling for over the past 20 years: the urgency of intervention. There is an increasing recognition that international civil society must take action and stand with the Palestinian people in their struggle for liberation—and participate in the broader project of decolonization. That is a significant development in the global movement for Palestinian liberation, and we will continue to build on it.

    There is no going back.

    AU: Maya, thanks so much for joining us today.

    MW: Thank you.

    AU: And that just leaves me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, as well as you—our viewers, listeners, and readers—for tuning in. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please don’t hesitate to contact us at [email protected]. Folks, please subscribe to our YouTube channel so you never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education.

    Join us again next week when I’ll be joined by Hilligje van’t Land. She’s the Secretary General of the International Association of Universities, located in Paris, and she’ll be talking about the joys of running the world’s oldest transnational university organization. Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    This episode is sponsored by Studiosity. Student success, at scale – with an evidence-based ROI of 4.4x return for universities and colleges. Because Studiosity is AI for Learning — not corrections – to develop critical thinking, agency, and retention — empowering educators with learning insight. For future-ready graduates — and for future-ready institutions. Learn more at studiosity.com.

    Source link

  • The case against impartial university teaching

    The case against impartial university teaching

    “I don’t share my political or religious perspectives at work; I never have”, asserted my experienced professorial colleague over an informal coffee. “A bit of shame, but kind of admirable, right?”, I thought.

    I recalled a politics lecturer during my time as an undergraduate, who, like seemingly most of that generation of academics (1990s-00s), believed in impartiality and explicitly stated his liberal neutrality when presenting challenging topics: may the best arguments win. The problem was that through reading his online bio and finding his works in the library, one could very quickly discern his political and philosophical leanings!

    When I began teaching philosophy at the same university a few years later, I too attempted to feign neutrality; neither sharing my political nor religious leanings, nor ethnic or cultural heritage. It wasn’t the done thing. Autobiography and self-disclosure had no place in the philosophy seminar room.

    I’ve since thawed. I’m now leaning far more towards disclosure than when I started teaching. I long held neutral impartiality as the gold standard of instruction, whereby challenging – and perhaps controversial – topics were discussed, but the educator held the space for students to explore perspectives, without sharing their own. This, while often the received wisdom, and certainly well-intentioned, is, I now reflect, limited.

    For an academic to be teaching on a module, especially if they’ve created it, means they’re very likely to be published in that field of inquiry. Engaged students will find such materials, understand their lecturer’s perspectives, and recognise when they’re playing devil’s advocate in sessions. Furthermore, given that we teach face to face, and not in confession booths, the visibility of us as lecturers often speaks volumes; students will make an array of assumptions. For example, if in a session led by the university’s chaplain, it’s safe for students to assume that they’re a member of the Church of England.

    Kelly’s heuristic quartet

    There is a case to be argued for “committed impartiality” as per Social Scientist Thomas Kelly’s (1986) heuristic quartet:

    • Exclusive neutrality: The educator takes a neutral position and eschews any potentially controversial issues; i.e. appropriate in a school context, but too reductive for HE.
    • Exclusive partiality: The educator takes a biased position; i.e. traditionally a big no no. Think here of educators who use their classes to enact their activism.
    • Neutral impartiality: The educator is impartial and neutral, encouraging students to explore controversial issues; i.e. the gold standard of HE instruction based on received wisdom.
    • Committed impartiality: The educator takes a biased position while also being impartial; i.e. seen with scepticism by those who practise neutral impartiality. This is a potentially slippery slope into exclusive partiality.

    While referring principally to the teaching of “controversial” topics in school education, I think the quartet can be helpfully adapted to fit the context of contemporary HE teaching in the social sciences and humanities. Kelly claimed that owing to its contradictory position, “committed impartiality” is the most defensible course of action for educators to engage in teaching controversial issues. This is because it requires the educator to put their cards on the table and encourage debate without claiming an unbiased standpoint.

    Wading

    When discussing loaded issues such as race, sexuality and religious perspectives, perhaps this is where the received wisdom about steadfastly refusing to disclose shines through and avoids the – especially contemporary – quagmire of a shallow form of identity politics and virtue signalling that can sometimes turn into a form of oppression Olympics? The “disclosure dilemma” is, of course, ultimately a personal, context bound one.

    In the context of schools, the issue of disclosure is much more vexed, given that teachers are effectively agents of the state who have a moral duty to avoid prosletysing given the power dynamic of the classroom (I recall the example during COvid-19 of a teacher in Nottinghamshire getting national attention for encouraging students to write letters of frustration to the then PM).

    While school curricula are obviously created by groups of individuals with political agendas, in HE we too have areas of expertise, interest, and passion. In an increasingly regulatory framework, the dissemination of our darlings is bound by legislation such as the Equality Act (2010), and The Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act (2023). Furthermore, to adhere to these acts within a localised context, my employer has a university dignity policy, mission statements, and, within my department, enacts the Chatham House Rule. We also provide trigger warnings to create inclusive learning environments.

    Tightrope

    This discussion has implications for those in the social sciences, especially those who deal, like I do, with explicitly political content (I recognise that the personal is also the political). Of course, navigating the tightrope between committed impartiality and exclusive partiality is tricky. The received wisdom is valuable insofar as it helps the educator to avoid this balancing act. But when the educator has a specialism that speaks to a political issue of the day, it is arguably upon them to do so. For example, in March 2023 I was teaching a session for final year UG students on migration in the context of international education when the Gary Lineker “issue” kicked off. I had a well-informed perspective on that issue, and it linked neatly to the scheduled taught content that day. It’s fair to say that I teetered on that tightrope between committed impartiality and exclusive partiality!

    The challenge is not about self-censorship in the service of an apparently noble ideal of neutral impartiality, but enacting personal commitment and setting the groundwork for civic debate. Deciding to disclose may have the intended learning outcome of rapport building, modelling particular behaviours or perspectives, humanising oneself, normalising situations, or problematising a set of affairs; it’s about practising the messy craft of educating, and being open to self-transformation.

    Risk aversion

    I’m sure others could make equally compelling cases for different positions within, and outside of, Kelly’s heuristic quartet. I think a primary driver behind neutrality is, rather than a noble but impossible quest for untainted discourse, perhaps one of nervousness; nervousness of being seen as doctrinaire or unduly influencing students’ perspectives?

    Overall, the disclosing instructor must consider their visibility in terms of gender, age, physical presence, professional titles etc. that starkly reinforce a power imbalance between student and academic, aka judge, jury and executioner in terms of grades and longer-term prospects. Where the stakes are high boldness of speech, disclosing personal leanings in a learning environment are worth the risk.

    Source link