Tag: Colleges

  • Ohio Senate passes bill to ban DEI and faculty strikes at public colleges

    Ohio Senate passes bill to ban DEI and faculty strikes at public colleges

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

    The Ohio Senate on Wednesday passed a far-reaching higher education bill that would ban the state’s public institutions from having diversity, equity and inclusion offices or taking positions on “controversial” topics.

    The bill, known as SB 1, would also establish post-tenure reviews, ban strikes by full-time faculty, and require colleges to publish a syllabus with the instructor’s professional qualifications and contact information for every class.

    Colleges that fail to comply could lose or see reduced state funding.

    The state Senate advanced the legislation in a 21-11 vote largely along party lines — all nine Democrats opposed it, as did two Republicans. The vote came just a day after hundreds of critics spoke out against the proposal during an hourslong hearing Tuesday.

    The second life of SB 83

    Ohio is one of several conservative-controlled states looking to more tightly control their public colleges. But SB 1 is notable for how much it would overhaul the state’s public higher education, including aspects that have traditionally been left to college leaders’ discretion.  

    For example, colleges would be unable to make institutional statements on any topic the bill deems politically controversial, such as “climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion.”

    The bill would create a mandatory U.S. history college course with prescribed readings, like the U.S. Constitution and at least five essays from the Federalist Papers.

    The state Senate advanced a similar 2023 bill, SB 83, from the same lawmaker,  Republican state Sen. Jerry Cirino. Even though Republicans controlled both chambers of the Legislature and the governor’s mansion in Ohio, the legislation never made it to a vote in the House.

    But times have changed. Matt Huffman, the previous Senate president and a strong supporter of the bill, is now the speaker of the House. Gov. Mike DeWine told local news outlets he was likely to sign the bill, pending a final review, should it make it to his desk.

    SB 1 also goes further than its predecessor. The new bill would ban DEI offices and scholarships altogether, while the previous version only sought to prohibit mandatory DEI trainings and offered exemptions. And SB 1 includes a ban on full-time faculty strikes — a provision that was removed from SB 83 in an effort to assuage labor unions and win House approval.

    Faculty reactions

    Faculty groups and free speech advocates have opposed SB 1 just as they did SB 83. They argue it would chill free speech, hurt recruitment and retention of both students and faculty, and interfere with academic freedom.

    The bill calls for colleges to “ensure the fullest degree of intellectual diversity” on campus and cultivate divergent and varied perspectives on public policy issues, including during classroom discussion.

    “Nothing in this section prohibits faculty or students from classroom instruction, discussion, or debate, so long as faculty members allow students to express intellectual diversity,” the bill says.

    The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio lambasted the “intellectual diversity” requirements in a statement Tuesday.

    “At best, this language is the micromanaging of individual courses and instructors by the General Assembly,” said Gary Daniels, the group’s chief lobbyist. At worst, he said, it will require all sides of every issue to be evenly presented by instructors, “ignoring their First Amendment right to academic freedom.”

    Cirino sought to cut off some of those criticisms when he reintroduced the bill as the first measure of Ohio’s new legislative session, which started Jan. 6. 

    Source link

  • Which colleges gained R1 status under the revamped Carnegie Classifications?

    Which colleges gained R1 status under the revamped Carnegie Classifications?

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

    The American Council on Education on Thursday released the latest list of research college designations under the revamped Carnegie Classifications, labeling 187 institutions as Research 1 institutions. 

    The coveted R1 designation is given to universities with the highest levels of research activity. The number of colleges designated as R1 institutions in 2025 rose 28% compared with the last time the list was released, in 2022. 

    The updated list of research institutions is the first that ACE and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching have released since they updated their methodology for the classifications. The new methodology was created in part to simplify a previously complex formula that left institutions fearful about losing their status. 

    “We hope this more modernized version of Carnegie Classifications will answer more questions in a more sophisticated way about institutions and their position in the ecosystem and will allow decisions to be made much more precisely by philanthropists, by governments, and by students and families,” Ted Mitchell, president of ACE, told Higher Ed Dive.

    Thirty-two institutions moved from the second-highest research level in 2022 — commonly called Research 2, or R2 — to the R1 designation. That group includes Howard University, a historically Black college in Washington, D.C. The private college — which announced a record $122 million in research grants and contracts in 2022 — is the only HCBU with the designation. 

    Other colleges that moved from R2 to R1 include public institutions like the University of Idaho, University of North Dakota, University of Rhode Island, University of Vermont and the University of Wyoming, along with private colleges like Lehigh University, in Pennsylvania, and American University, in Washington, D.C. 

    Just one institution dropped from R1 to R2 status — the University of Alabama in Huntsville. 

    For universities to achieve R1 status under the new methodology, they must spend an average of $50 million on research and development each year and award 70 or more research doctorates. 

    R2 institutions need to spend an average of $5 million per year on research and award 20 or more research doctorates. 

    Previously, the methodology was more complex. In order to keep the R1 and R2 groups of equal size, classifiers determined the line between the two designations with each cycle. They also looked at 10 different variables to determine R1 status. 

    “The previous methodology was opaque and I think led institutions to spend more time trying to figure out what the methodology actually was, perhaps distracting them from more important work,” said Timothy Knowles, president of the Carnegie Foundation. “Institutions that are close to the bar will just be much clearer about what they have to do to get over the bar.”

    The latest crop of R1 institutions have each spent $748.4 million on research and development on average annually from fiscal 2021 to fiscal 2023. During that same period, they have annually awarded an average of 297 research doctorates. 

    Texas led the list of states with the most R1 institutions, with 16. California and New York followed closely behind with 14 and 12 institutions, respectively. 

    The 139 R2 institutions on this latest list each spent an average of $55.17 million annually over three years on research and development — just beating the threshold for R1 status. However, they produced an average of only 49 research doctorates per year. 

    This year also marks the first time the classifications have included a new designation: RCU, or research colleges and universities. The new category is meant to recognize institutions that regularly conduct research but don’t confer doctoral degrees. These colleges only need to spend more than an average of $2.5 million annually on research to be recognized as RCUs. 

    This year, 215 colleges and universities have reached that status. Many are master’s- and baccalaureate-level institutions. And some are four-year colleges with a “special focus,” such as medical schools and centers. 

    Two tribal colleges have also reached RCU status: Diné College, in Arizona, and Northwest Indian College, in Washington.

    Source link

  • How colleges engage faculty in student career development

    How colleges engage faculty in student career development

    It’s spring semester and a junior-level student just knocked on a professor’s office door. The student has dropped by to talk about summer internships; they’re considering a career in the faculty member’s discipline, but they feel nervous and a little unsure about navigating the internship hunt. They’ve come to the faculty member for insight, advice and a dash of encouragement that they’re on the right track.

    A fall 2023 survey by the National Association for Colleges and Employers found 92 percent of faculty members have experienced this in the past year—a student in their disciplinary area asking for career advice. But only about half of instructors say they’re very comfortable advising students on careers in their discipline, showing a gap between lived experiences and preparation for navigating these interactions.

    Career readiness is a growing undercurrent in higher education—driven in part by outside pressure from families and students to provide a return on investment for the high costs of tuition—but also pushed by an evolving job market and employers who attribute less weight to a college major or degree for early talent hiring.

    With a fraction of students engaging with the career center on campus, delivering career development and professional skills to all students can seem like an impossible task.

    Enter the career champion.

    The career champion is a trained, often full-time, faculty member who has completed professional development that equipped them to guide students through higher education to their first (or even second) role.

    The career champion identifies the enduring skills students will develop in their syllabus and provides opportunities for learners to articulate career readiness in the context of class projects, presentations or experiential learning.

    The career champion also shepherds their peers along the career integration path, creating a discipleship of industry-cognizant professors who freely give internship advice, make networking connections and argue for the role of higher education in student development.

    Over the past decade, college and university leaders have anointed and empowered champions among their faculty, and some institutions have even built layered models of train-the-trainer roles and responsibilities. The work creates a culture of academics who are engaged and responding to workforce demands, no longer shuffling students to career services for support but creating a through line of careers in the classroom.

    The Recipe for Success

    Career champion initiatives serve a three-pronged approach for institutional goals for career readiness.

    First, such efforts provide much-needed professional development for the faculty member. NACE’s survey of faculty members found 38 percent of respondents said they need professional development in careers and career preparation to improve how they counsel students.

    “Historically, faculty are not incentivized to do this work, nor are they trained to do anything really career readiness–related,” says Punita Bhansali, associate professor at Queensborough Community College and a CUNY Career Success Leadership Fellow. “This program was born out of the idea, let’s create a structured model where faculty get rewarded … they get recognized and they receive support for doing this work.”

    Growing attention has been placed on the underpreparation of faculty to talk socio-emotional health with learners. In the same way, faculty are lacking the tools to talk about jobs and life after college. “As they’re thinking about careers in their own work, [faculty] are used to being experts in the field, and being an expert in careers feels daunting,” explains Brenna Gomez, director of career integration at Oregon State University.

    Second, these programs get ahead of student questions about the value of liberal arts or their general education courses by identifying career skills in class early and often. This works in tandem with shifting general education requirements at some institutions, such as the University of Montana, which require faculty members to establish career as a learning outcome for courses.

    “We knew we weren’t going to move [the] career-readiness needle by being the boutique program that you sometimes go to,” says Brian Reed, associate vice provost for student success at Montana. “If we really want to have an inescapable impact, we’ve gotta get into the classroom.”

    A May 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found 92 percent of college students believe professors are at least partly responsible for some form of career development—such as sharing how careers in their field are evolving or helping students find internships—in the classroom. Just 8 percent of respondents selected “none of the above” in the list of career development–related tasks that faculty may be responsible for.

    “It’s getting faculty on board with [and] being very clear about the skills that a student is developing that do have applicability beyond that one class and for their career and their life,” says Richard Hardy, associate dean for undergraduate education of the college of arts and sciences at Indiana University Bloomington. IU Bloomington’s College of Arts and Sciences also requires competencies in the curriculum.

    Third, career champions are exceptionally valuable at changing the culture among their peers. “Champion” becomes a literal title when faculty interact with and influence colleagues.

    “That’s a general best practice if you’re looking to develop faculty in any way: to figure out who your champions are to start, and then let faculty talk to faculty,” says Niesha Taylor, director of career readiness at the National Association of Colleges and Employers. “They have the same interests in hand, they speak the same language and they can really help each other get on board in a more authentic way than sometimes an administrator could,” adds Taylor, a former career champion for the City University of New York system.

    Becoming an Expert

    Each institution takes a slightly different approach to how they mint their faculty champions.

    Oregon State University launched its Career Champion program in 2020 as part of a University Innovation Alliance project to better connect learners with career information in the classroom, explains Gomez.

    The six-week program is led by the Career Development Center and runs every academic term, engaging a cohort of five to 15 faculty members and instructors who belong to various colleges and campuses at OSU. During one session and a few hours of work independently, program participants complete collaborative course redesign projects and education around inequities in career development.

    By the end of the quarter, faculty have built three deliverables for their course: a NACE competency career map, a syllabus statement that includes at least one competency and a new or revamped lecture activity or assignment that highlights career skills.

    After completing the program, professors can join a community of practice and receive a monthly newsletter from the career center to continuously engage in career education through research, events or resources for students.

    IU Bloomington and Virginia Commonwealth University are among institutions that have created workshop series for faculty to identify or embed competencies in their courses, as well.

    Training the Trainer

    Creating change on the academic side of a college is a historically difficult task for an administrator, because it can be like leading a horse to water. Getting faculty engaged across campus is the goal, but starting with the existing cheerleaders is the first step, campus leaders say.

    3 Tips for Launching Faculty Development

    For institutions looking to create a champion program, or something similar, NACE’s Taylor encourages administrators to:

    • Get leadership on board
    • Make the professional development process meaningful through incentives or compensation
    • Provide ways for professors to share their stories after completing the work.

    To launch career champions at the University of Montana, Reed relied on the expertise and support of instructors who had previously demonstrated enthusiasm.

    “We found our biggest champions who always come to the programs that we do, who traditionally invited us into the classroom. When we said, ‘Hey, you’ve been a fantastic partner. Would you want to be part of this inaugural cohort?’ they said, ‘Absolutely.’ And so that’s who we went with,” Reed says.

    Montana’s faculty development in careers has expanded to have three tiers of involvement: a community of practice, career champions and Faculty Career Fellows, who Reed jokes are the Green Beret unit of careers. Fellows collaborate with a curriculum coach to research and implement additional events, training and other projects for instructors.

    After completing the championship program, some returned to continue education and involvement, Reed says. “We had [faculty] that wanted to come back and do it again. They wanted to stay part of the community.”

    The City University of New York selects a handful of Career Success Leadership Fellows annually who drive integration, innovation and research around careers across the system. In addition to training other faculty members, each fellow is charged taking the model to present and share with other campuses, as with their own projects for advancing career development growth.

    With added time and energy comes an added institutional financial investment in career fellows. Montana’s fellows receive a $1,000 stipend for their work, drawn from funds donated by the Dennis and Phyllis Washington Foundation, and CUNY’s fellows receive $2,000 for the academic year.

    The Heart Behind It All

    For some of these engaged professors, their involvement is tied to their experiences as learners. That junior knocking on their office door asking about internships? That was them once upon a time, and they wished their professor had the answers.

    “All of us have gone through undergrad. We know that we’ve taken some courses where it’s like, ‘Why did I take that?’ and the professor is just in their heads,” says Jason Hendrickson, professor of English at LaGuardia Community College, part of the CUNY system, and a Career Success Leadership Fellow.

    “[Career champions] are the people who, when you talk to them, they all say, ‘I wish I had had this in my undergrad experience … I didn’t know this stuff existed, the depth of the programs and services that we offer,’” Reed says.

    Faculty are also starting to feel the heat, particularly those belonging to disciplines under attack in mainstream media or that have historically less strong occupational outcomes for learners.

    “I think over time, what’s happened is faculty have seen how this is actually beneficial … from the point of view of our disciplines and allowing students to see why engaging with the liberal arts is actually hugely beneficial for career and life,” IU Bloomington’s Hardy says.

    “The question that keeps me up at night is how to retain college students,” says Bhansali of CUNY’s Queensborough Community College. “The data is bleak in terms of college retention, and each faculty needs to show how the content and skills covered in their classroom are going to help students in the future, regardless of the job they choose.”

    Sometimes instructors can feel overwhelmed by the programs, trying to incorporate eight competencies into their courses, for example, or feeling as if they have to be an expert in all things career related.

    “They can feel like, ‘How can I do all of this?’ And it’s really not any one faculty [member]’s job or any one class’s job. It has to be systemic in the college,” NACE’s Taylor says.

    The best part of the job is seeing students successfully land that job in their field. Sebastian Alvarado, a biology faculty member at Queens College and CUNY Career Success Leadership Fellow, ran into former students from his genetics class at a specialist’s appointment he had.

    “It feels really rewarding—they were really there as a result of their bio major training,” Alvarado says. “When we see students getting placements in their jobs, it feels like we’re doing what we’re supposed to do.”

    Looking Ahead

    There remain some faculty members who push back against careerism in higher education—and some who remain undersupported or -resourced to take on this work, Alvarado points out—but programs have been growing slowly but surely, driven in part by champions.

    Since launching, IU Bloomington has had over 300 faculty complete the program in the College of Arts and Sciences, Hardy says.

    Montana interacted with 235 faculty members in workshops and events in the past year, which Reed expects to only increase as more faculty members rework curriculum for general education requirements.

    OSU has had 105 participants since 2020, and the College of Liberal Arts established a commitment to train at least two faculty members in each school to be Career Champions in their strategic plan for 2023–2028, Gomez says. Campus leaders are also creating professional development for academic advisers and student-employee supervisors to train other student-facing practitioners in career integration.

    Furthering this work requires additional partnerships and collaboration between faculty members and career services staff, Taylor says, where traditionally there are not relationships due to institutional silos.

    “I’m always—and my career success team, they’re always—scanning for these partnerships, and we use our network of existing people to sort of make referrals,” Reed says. “It’s a benevolent Ponzi scheme.”

    We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our weekday newsletter on Student Success.

    Source link

  • The Common App welcomes community colleges

    The Common App welcomes community colleges

    The Common App allows students to submit applications to more than 1,100 higher ed institutions. But until now, none of its members were community colleges focused on granting associate degrees.

    The organization announced a first-of-its-kind partnership with the Illinois Community College Board last week, adding Sauk Valley Community, Rend Lake, Carl Sandburg and Black Hawk Colleges to its ranks. Three more two-year institutions will join next admissions cycle: Lincoln Land Community, Oakton and Triton Colleges.

    When the Common App launched 50 years ago, it offered high school students a streamlined application path to 15 private institutions. Since then, hundreds of others have signed on, most of them fairly selective four-year colleges and universities. The new move raises a question: What do open-access institutions, which accept all students, stand to gain from joining the application platform?

    Brian Durham, executive director of the Illinois Community College Board, said most importantly, it boosts their visibility.

    Starting this year, the Common App is partnering with the Illinois Board of Higher Education to support its direct admissions program to eight public universities in the state. As a part of the partnership, eligible high school students who apply to any college through the Common App will be notified of their direct admissions offers from these universities. Durham wants those students to receive notice about their local community college choices, too.

    “We want to make sure that community colleges are seen as an option on that list”—even “potentially a first choice for students,” Durham said. “It’s ultimately about exposing them to that as an option.” He added that students who gain admission to universities sometimes realize later that “they can’t afford it, or it’s not right choice for them.” This way, if they come to that conclusion after filling out the Common App, they’ll know which community colleges are “right there” and ready to serve them.

    Research suggests the move could offer community colleges an enrollment bump. The National Bureau of Economic Research published a paper in 2019 that found that institutions that joined the Common App enjoyed on average a 12 percent increase in admissions compared to the years before they joined, according to an analysis of Common App data from 1990 to 2015.

    Durham hopes that eventually all 45 of the state’s public two-year colleges offer a Common App application route in addition to their in-house application systems.

    A Decade-Long Effort

    Jenny Rickard, president and CEO of the Common App, said that the organization has been working toward representing a broader swath of higher ed institutions for a decade.

    In 2014, the organization stopped requiring member colleges to use a “holistic admissions” process—assessing students beyond test scores—in order to open up the platform to more institutions. The Common App also got rid of its requirement that applications include essays and recommendations. Then, in 2018, the organization launched a new application for transfer students applying to four-year universities.

    All those moves “opened the door for us to be able to welcome two-year and four-year public institutions into the membership,” Rickard said. She noted that, as of the 2022–23 application cycle, 77 percent of current Common App members admitted over 50 percent of their fall first-year applicants, a sign that the organization has moved away from serving only more selective institutions.

    The Common App also set a “moonshot” goal in 2023 to substantially increase its applicants from low- and middle-income communities, Rickard said. The organization aims to bring in 650,000 additional applicants from those backgrounds by 2030.

    Rickard said teaming up with community colleges is the organization’s most recent step toward diversifying both its member institutions and its applicant pool.

    “Bringing a greater diversity of college and university members into the Common App helps us pursue that mission, and it also helps students from all different backgrounds be able to see the great diversity of institutions in the United States and the world,” she said. “Most students go to more open-access and less selective institutions,” yet too often “we focus on the places that nobody can get into.”

    Durham agreed that the move could expand the Common App’s “footprint,” given applicants to community colleges are disproportionately low-income and first-generation students.

    “More underserved students are naturally going to go to community college for all the reasons we know: affordability, location,” he said. So, working with community colleges offers the Common App a new “opportunity to reach those students.”

    Steps for the Future

    As much as Durham would like to see more community colleges join the Common App’s ranks, he believes the platform will need to change to serve community colleges at a larger scale.

    Currently the platform is designed for high school students, he said, but many community college applicants are adult learners or attend college part-time. Those types of students are more likely to enroll directly at a college rather than find themselves on the Common App platform like high school seniors applying to multiple institutions with guidance from college counselors.

    “How do you get a 34-year-old guy who wants to go into welding to go through that application?” Durham said. For now, he expects participating Illinois community colleges will maintain their own “parallel” application systems “until we can work that out down the road.”

    Rickard acknowledged the organization has work to do to optimize its platform for a more diverse set of institutions. She hopes that onboarding this initial cohort of community colleges will help the Common App figure out its blind spots.

    “We know that we need to learn more about how our platform can continue to evolve to meet their needs more effectively,” she said.

    Source link

  • After FIRE lawsuit, California community colleges will not enforce DEI mandate in classroom

    After FIRE lawsuit, California community colleges will not enforce DEI mandate in classroom

    FRESNO, Feb. 10, 2025 — After a lawsuit from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression challenged regulations mandating the evaluation of professors based on their commitment to “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA), the California Community Colleges system and a community college district attested in court that the regulations do not require community college professors to teach and endorse the state’s pro-DEIA views in the classroom.

    In March 2023, the California Community College system amended its tenure and employee review guidelines to “include diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility standards in the evaluation and tenure review of district employees.” The new regulations stated that faculty members “shall employ teaching, learning, and professional practices that reflect DEIA and anti-racist principles” and mandated they “promote and incorporate culturally affirming DEIA and anti-racist principles.”

    That August, FIRE filed suit against California Community Colleges and the State Center Community College District on behalf of six Fresno-area community college professors who oppose the highly politicized concepts of “DEIA” (more often called “DEI”) and “anti-racism” and thus did not want to incorporate them into their teaching.

    Forced to defend the regulations in court, the state chancellor and district quickly disclaimed any intention to use the state guidelines or the district’s faculty contract to police what professors teach in the classroom or to punish them for their criticism of DEI. 

    Specifically, the Chancellor’s Office “disavowed any intent or ability to take any action against Plaintiffs” for their classroom teaching. The district likewise confirmed that none of the plaintiffs’ “proposed future actions” for their courses violate the rules or the faculty contract. It added that plaintiffs are not “prohibited from presenting” their “viewpoints or perspectives in the classrooms” and will not “be disciplined, terminated, or otherwise punished for doing so.” 

    In particular, the Defendants denied they would punish Plaintiffs for any of their proposed speech, including “assigning certain literary works, such as Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letters from Birmingham Jail,” using “methodologies and course materials in their classroom” intended to encourage debate and discussion about the merits of DEI viewpoints, criticizing concepts like “anti-racism,” or supporting a color-blind approach to race in their self-evaluations. 

    On Jan. 28, U.S. District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff relied on those assurances to hold as a legal matter that because of the college officials’ disavowals, the professors had not suffered a harm sufficient to challenge the regulations’ constitutionality. In dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Sherriff emphasized that neither the DEI Rules nor the faculty contract “mandate what professors teach or how any DEIA principles should be implemented.”

    “FIRE filed suit to prevent California’s community colleges from evaluating our faculty clients on the basis of their classroom commitment to a political ideology, and that’s exactly the result we’ve achieved,” said FIRE attorney Daniel Ortner. “As a result of our suit, the state and the district promised a federal judge they won’t interfere with our clients’ academic freedom and free speech rights. The classroom is for discussion and exploration, not a top-down mandate about what ideas must take priority. We’ll make sure it stays that way.”

    “FIRE will be watching like a hawk to ensure that the state chancellor and district live up to their word,” said FIRE attorney Zach Silver. “If they force any professors to parrot the state’s DEI views, or punish them for criticizing the state’s position, we’ll be ready to stand up for their rights.”

    COURTESY PHOTOS OF PLAINTIFFS FOR MEDIA USE

    Despite unobjectionable-sounding labels, “diversity, equity, and inclusion” and “anti-racism” frameworks often encompass political topics and ideology that are contested and controversial. The glossary of DEI terms put out by California Community Colleges, for example, stated that “persons that say they are ‘not a racist’ are in denial,” while denouncing “colorblindness” as a concept for “perpetuat[ing] existing racial inequities.”

    DEI requirements are also highly controversial within academia. FIRE’s most recent faculty survey indicated that half of faculty think it is “rarely” or “never” justifiable for universities to make faculty candidates submit statements pledging commitment to DEI before being considered for a job (50%) or to be considered for tenure or promotion (52%).

    Since FIRE filed its lawsuit in 2023, many top universities and university systems have voluntarily moved away from mandatory DEI, including Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Arizona system. Most recently, the University of Michigan dropped the use of diversity statements in hiring and firing in December 2024 following a viral New York Times article that detailed how the school’s DEI practices stifled academic freedom and discourse at the school.

    FIRE sued on behalf of six professors, James Druley, David Richardson, Linda de Morales, and Loren Palsgaard of Madera Community College, Bill Blanken of Reedley College, and Michael Stannard of Clovis Community College. (Professors Stannard and Druley withdrew from the case in 2024 upon retiring from teaching.)

    “Wherever you stand on the debate over DEI, the important thing is there is a debate in the first place,” said Palsgaard. “I’m happy that thanks to our lawsuit, we know that debate will continue in California, both inside and outside the classroom.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • Legacy Admissions Hit Historic Low as More States Ban Practice at U.S. Colleges

    Legacy Admissions Hit Historic Low as More States Ban Practice at U.S. Colleges

    Legacy preferences in college admissions have plummeted to their lowest recorded level, with just 24% of four-year colleges still considering family alumni status in admissions decisions, according to a comprehensive new report from Education Reform Now. The dramatic decline signals a potential end to a controversial practice that critics have long condemned as perpetuating inequality in higher education.

    The report, authored by James Murphy, director of Career Pathways and Postsecondary Policy, found that 420 institutions continue to provide admissions advantages to children of alumni, marking a sharp decline from previous years. The practice has seen particularly steep drops since 2015, when nearly half of all four-year colleges considered legacy status. Between 2022 and 2023 alone, 92 colleges abandoned legacy preferences, representing an 18% decrease that coincided with the Supreme Court’s landmark decision to ban race-conscious admissions.

    This decline stems from both voluntary institutional decisions and new state legislation. In 2024, California, Illinois, Maryland and Virginia joined Colorado in restricting legacy admissions through state laws. The report indicates that 86% of colleges that ended legacy consideration did so voluntarily, while 14% were required by state legislation. Several more states are expected to introduce similar legislation in 2025.

    Legacy preferences remain most entrenched at selective private institutions, particularly in the Northeast. More than half of colleges that admit 25% or fewer applicants still provide advantages to alumni children. The practice is now rare at public institutions, with just 11% still considering legacy status. In 24 states, no public colleges provide legacy preferences at all. New York stands out as having the highest concentration of colleges maintaining legacy admissions, with one in seven U.S. institutions still using the practice located in the Empire State.

    The report challenges several common defenses of legacy admissions, including arguments that they help build campus community or are necessary for fundraising. It cites evidence that 76% of colleges successfully foster campus communities without legacy preferences, and questions whether wealthy institutions with multi-billion dollar endowments truly need to “trade admissions advantages for money.”

    The analysis also addresses claims that ending legacy admissions could hurt diversity, particularly following the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling. The report argues that legacy preferences disproportionately benefit white and wealthy applicants, citing research showing that Asian American applicants face significantly lower odds of admission compared to white applicants with similar qualifications at selective institutions. According to one study, Asian American applicants had 28% lower odds of attending elite schools than white applicants with similar academic and extracurricular qualifications.

    The report suggests that Congress could potentially impose additional endowment taxes on universities that maintain legacy preferences while offering reduced penalties to institutions that increase enrollment of Pell Grant recipients, community college transfers, and veterans. This approach would create financial incentives for institutions to abandon the practice.

    “The shame of belonging to this group of colleges that think children of alumni have somehow earned an extra advantage in admissions is likely to push more colleges to drop the practice,” Murphy writes. “This is not a club that most colleges belong to or will want to belong to.”

    The report also criticizes the Common Application for potentially enabling legacy admissions by requiring all applicants to identify where their parents earned bachelor’s degrees, even though this information is irrelevant for more than three-quarters of colleges. The report suggests that removing this question would be a significant step toward making college admissions more equitable.

    “Ultimately, the reason to eliminate legacy preferences is not to achieve some other goal,” the report concludes. “The reason to get rid of them is that they are profoundly unfair and make a mockery of merit. Legacy preferences award some of the most advantaged students an additional advantage in the college admissions process on the basis of ancestry alone.”

    Source link

  • N.C. community colleges launch program modeled on CUNY ASAP

    N.C. community colleges launch program modeled on CUNY ASAP

    The North Carolina Community College System is launching NC Community Colleges Boost, a new program to move students into high-demand careers in the state. The program is modeled after the City University of New York’s Accelerated Study in Associate Programs, or CUNY ASAP, known for offering extensive wraparound supports for low-income students to increase their completion rates, including personalized academic advising and covering various college costs.

    The program will launch at eight community colleges across the state in 2025 and at seven more colleges the following year, with the help of the CUNY ASAP National Replication Collaborative, which has helped other institutions create their own versions of the heavily studied and rapidly spreading program. Participating North Carolina students will have to be in fields of study that lead to high-demand careers in the state, among other eligibility criteria.

    The CUNY ASAP model is “the gold standard for increasing completion in higher education,” North Carolina Community College System president Jeff Cox said in an announcement Wednesday. “In the NC Community Colleges Boost implementation, we have taken that model and aligned it with North Carolina’s workforce development goals as specified in the PropelNC initiative,” the system’s new funding model intended to better align funding with workforce needs.

    The effort is supported by a grant of about $35.6 million from the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, the largest private grant ever received by the North Carolina Community College System.

    “This program has increased graduation rates, reduced time to graduation, and lowered the cost per graduate across many individual colleges in several states,” Cox said of CUNY ASAP. “Here in North Carolina, we have every reason to expect similar results.”

    Source link

  • Colleges promote media literacy skills for students

    Colleges promote media literacy skills for students

    Young people today spend a large amount of time online, with a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report noting teens ages 12 to 17 had four or more hours of daily screen time during July 2021 to December 2023.

    This digital exposure can impact teens’ mental health, according to Pew Research, with four in 10 young people saying they’re anxious when they don’t have their smartphones and 39 percent saying they have cut back their time on social media. But online presences can also impact how individuals process information, as well as their ability to distinguish between news, advertisement, opinion and entertainment.

    A December Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found seven out of 10 of college students would rate their current level of media literacy as somewhat or very high, but they consider their college peers’ literacy less highly, with only 32 percent rating students as a whole as somewhat or very highly media literate.

    A majority of students (62 percent) also indicate they are at least moderately concerned about the spread of misinformation among their college peers, with 26 percent saying their concern was very high.

    To address students’ digital literacy, colleges and universities can provide education and support in a variety of ways. The greatest share of Student Voice respondents (35 percent) say colleges and universities should create digital resources to learn about media literacy. But few institutions offer this kind of service or refer students to relevant resources for self-education.

    Methodology

    Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab polled 1,026 students at 181 two- and four-year institutions from Dec. 19 to 23. The margin of error is 3 percent. Explore the findings yourself  here, here and here.

    What is media literacy? Media literacy, as defined in the survey, is the ability or skills to critically analyze for accuracy, credibility or evidence of bias in the content created and consumed in sources including radio, television, the internet and social media.

    A majority of survey respondents indicate they use at least one measure regularly to check the accuracy of information they’re receiving, including thinking critically about the message delivered, analyzing the source’s perspective or bias, verifying information with other sources, or pausing to check information before sharing with others.

    A missing resource: While there are many groups that offer digital resources or online curriculum for teachers, particularly in the K-12 space, less common are self-guided digital resources tailored to young people in higher education.

    “Create digital resources for students” was the No. 1 response across respondent groups and characteristics and was even more popular among community college respondents (38 percent) and adult learners (42 percent), which may highlight students’ preferences for learning outside the classroom, particularly for those who may be employed or caregivers.

    Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism offers a free self-directed media literacy course that includes webinars with journalism and media experts, as well as exercises for reflection. Similarly, Baylor University’s library offers a microcourse, lasting 10 minutes, that can be embedded into Canvas and that awards students a badge upon completion.

    The University of North Carolina at Charlotte provides a collection of resources on a Respectful Conversation website that includes information on free expression, media literacy, constructive dialogue and critical thinking. On this website, users can also identify online classes, many of which are free, that provide an overview or a deeper level look at additional topics such as misinformation and deepfakes.

    The American Library Association has a project, Media Literacy Education in Libraries for Adult Audiences, that is designed to assist libraries in their work to improve media literacy skills among adults in the community. The project includes webinars, a resource guide for practitioners.

    Does your college or university have a self-guided digital resource for students to engage in media literacy education? Tell us more.

    Source link

  • Too many communities lack broad-access colleges

    Too many communities lack broad-access colleges

    Most American college students attend broad-access institutions, or public colleges and universities that admit at least 80 percent of applicants. Yet millions of people live in communities without one of these institutions nearby—and millions more live in areas with only one option, according to a new report from the Institute for College Access and Success.

    The report, released today, shows stark disparities in higher ed access based on students’ geography and how some broad-access institutions are single-handedly serving whole regions. It also highlights communities with nearby colleges located across state lines, an understudied college-access issue, higher ed leaders say.

    Researchers analyzed different “commuting zones,” or clusters of counties workers commute between, to see which communities have broad-access institutions within a reasonable commuting distance.

    Nicholas Hillman, an education professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and co-author of the report, believes it’s critical to understand students’ geographical contexts.

    He said conversations about higher ed access often revolve around “informational problems”—whether students know about different college options and understand the college admissions process. But his previous research shows most students, even if well-informed, choose to stay close to home for college. That’s why he wanted to take a deeper look at where residents do or don’t have broad-access institutions within reach.

    “Maybe some of the problems in college access and opportunity are that there aren’t colleges nearby, or that there are not appropriate transportation infrastructures in place for students to access colleges … or that there are cost-prohibitive options nearby,” said Hillman, who also directs the university’s Student Success Through Applied Research Lab. When studying college access through a geographic lens, “you see problems differently. You might come up with a very different set of policy solutions.”

    He also sees the report as a “love letter” to broad-access institutions, especially those that are the only ones in their communities.

    “They’re doing the lion’s share of the work,” Hillman said. “They’re the blue-collar colleges out there, doing the heavy lifting in higher education, serving the most students and doing so oftentimes with the least amount of financial resources and under some of the most pressure.”

    The Findings

    To identify broad-access institutions, the report drew on data from the U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, with the caveat that IPEDS doesn’t account for all branch campuses.

    And then researchers used data from Pennsylvania State University’s Labor-sheds for Regional Analysis tool to measure commuting zones around the colleges. Finally, the report looked at how nearby these institutions were in “large-population commuting zones,” like urban or metropolitan areas, and “small-population commuting zones,” less populous areas, like rural communities.

    The report found that more than 831,000 people living in more populous commuting zones don’t have a local broad-access institution, and another 9.7 million had only one of these colleges nearby. That means about one in 16 people don’t have a broad-access institution nearby or just one, even in the country’s largest local labor markets.

    The issue was even more stark in less populous or rural local labor economies, where 2.8 million people don’t have a single broad-access institution in their area. Another 5.9 million live in areas with only one such institution. Meanwhile, among students who go to college in these less populous areas, 70 percent attend broad-access institutions, meaning these colleges “play an outsized role in creating opportunities and meeting local educational needs” in these communities, the report says.

    Riley Acton, an assistant professor of economics at Miami University in Ohio, said it’s important to differentiate between college access issues in the two types of regions, as the report did, because “what it means to have access, to have something nearby, can be really different in rural and urban environments.” In a rural area, a college might be miles away but easy to travel to by car, while in an urban area, a college could be close by but hard to reach via public transportation, she said, so the report opens up a conversation about those distinctions.

    Hillman added that a granular look at the data might surprise people. For example, some large metropolitan areas, like Chicago, are known for prominent private universities but have relatively few broad-access institutions for residents.

    “Local markets are just very different, depending on where you live, and I think that it’s important to put that out there, just to help remind ourselves that there’s no typical place or experience or market that every student experiences,” Hillman said.

    The report also highlights that some regions have broad-access institutions nearby but they’re across state borders, meaning they may not provide in-state tuition or could be harder to reach. There are 63 small-population commuting zones that cross state borders, which collectively have 77 broad-access institutions and serve about 190,000 students. The report also found 65 large-population zones that cross state lines with a total of 249 broad-access institutions enrolling roughly 1.3 million students.

    Acton said broad-access institutions that draw students from multiple states are an “understudied angle” in understanding students’ geographical contexts and what barriers could be getting in the way of their going to college.

    The Policy Implications

    To expand students’ access to these colleges, the report recommends that states offer nearby out-of-state students tuition discounts and that local leaders explore ways to improve transportation infrastructure, among other policy suggestions.

    Hillman emphasized that it’s also important to ensure broad-access institutions that are the only ones in their communities are well resourced. He suggested these colleges have a special federal or state designation that comes with extra financial support.

    “Sometimes a college is … serving a great need and is really an anchor for that community,” he said.

    Particularly in rural areas, broad-access institutions often do so much more for their communities than confer degrees, said Cecilia Orphan, associate professor of higher education at the University of Denver and founding co-director of the Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges. In some cases, these campuses provide local internet access and serve as major employers, among other services. Western Carolina University, for example, is home to its community’s power plant and has police officers that serve its surrounding area.

    “It’s very tempting for policymakers to simply look at enrollment numbers … and to ask themselves whether or not that institution is needed,” Orphan said. “But if you think about the broader services that institution likely provides a local community, closing it could be catastrophic.”

    Acton noted that limited access to broad-access institutions can especially hurt some of the most vulnerable students.

    She previously conducted research with a team of economists focused on how community college proximity affected Texas high school students’ college-going decisions. They found that Black, Hispanic and lower-income students without a community college nearby were less likely to pursue higher ed, while white, Asian and upper-income students were more likely to travel to go to college.

    She agrees higher ed decision-makers need to think carefully about what a college means to particular communities when they make policy choices.

    “Where do we open new colleges? Where do we close colleges? Where do we merge colleges?” she said. If an institution closes, “what are the other options for the people in this area? Are the people who are in this area ones who would be able to travel and go to something further away? … Those are conversations for state policymakers and institutional leaders to be having.”

    Source link

  • Trump’s federal funding freeze concerns colleges

    Trump’s federal funding freeze concerns colleges

    President Trump’s plan to temporarily freeze federal grants and loans set off a wave of confusion and concerns across higher ed Tuesday. But just minutes before it was set to take effect, a federal judge blocked the order.

    It is now on hold until next Monday, at least.

    College leaders worried they would lose access to a wide variety of federal funds, though the specific programs affected by the pause remained in flux throughout the day. Education Department officials said Pell Grants, student loans and Federal Work-Study would not be subject to the pause. But critical STEM research and student success initiatives were among the thousands of programs whose funding would have been paused until at least Feb. 10, according to the original White House directive released late Monday night.

    University lobbyists and administrators predicted earlier Tuesday that the president’s unprecedented action would be blocked in the courts, but they warned of significant consequences as they worked to gather more information about the order. Comparable to a government shutdown, they said, the impact of a freeze, if it ever comes to pass, would largely depend on how long it lasts. 

    “Obviously it’s of great concern,” said Patricia McGuire, president of Trinity Washington University in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday morning. “Most of us are finding the memo to be so broad and so incomprehensible that we don’t even quite know what the long-term impact is … But it makes no sense. Rather than helping ‘make America great again,’ it absolutely debilitates America.”

    Conservative policy experts say Trump’s actions are necessary to combat years of misguided spending and argue that institutions shouldn’t run budgets so razor-thin that a short-term loss of federal funds empties their coffers. But McGuire and other higher ed representatives say the proposed freeze along with other executive actions raises questions about whether they can count on stable federal funding in the long run.

    Universities have already seen some disruptions to research funding since Trump took office eight days ago, as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation canceled meetings to review grant applications last week. Before the federal court released its ruling, the proposed extension of that freeze had only further fueled academics’ initial concerns.

    The White House Office of Management and Budget had directed all federal agencies to pause any grants and loans they supervised in order to ensure that federal spending aligns with the president’s priorities, such as cracking down on diversity, equity and inclusion programs and illegal immigration. OMB specifically said it is aiming to cease any funding to activities that “may be implicated by the executive orders, including but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal,” according to the memo.

    The two-page directive specifically exempted Social Security, Medicare and other programs that provide direct financial assistance to individuals. But colleges and universities would still lose access to grants that are targeted at minority-serving institutions, college preparation programs, childcare for student parents, food banks, student retention and graduation initiatives, campus hospital systems, and more. Over all, more than 2,600 grant programs are up for consideration across dozens of agencies, Bloomberg reported.

    A follow-up memo was published Tuesday in an attempt to help clarify the president’s orders, but higher ed stakeholders said much uncertainty remains.

    White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said early Tuesday afternoon that the freeze would not be “a blanket pause on federal assistance and grant programs,” and she repeatedly said that direct federal assistance to individuals wouldn’t be affected. But she didn’t have a clear answer about what would happen to federal money that goes to states, organizations or colleges that support individuals. She also pushed back on questions about the legality of the pause and said the move was aimed at ensuring that federal spending aligns with the president’s priorities.

    “No more funding for illegal DEI programs,” she said. “No more funding for transgenderism and wokeness.”

    Leavitt was asked about funding for minority-serving institutions and said she hadn’t “seen the entire list” of programs either affected or exempted from the pause.

    Sarah Spreitzer, vice president and chief of staff for government relations at the American Council on Education, said concerns remain despite the legal injunction.

    In the initial memo, OMB instructed agencies to conduct a comprehensive review by Feb. 7 of federal programs to ensure they comply with Trump’s executive orders. White House officials offered more guidance Tuesday about what that would entail. Agencies will have to answer a series of questions for each program listed on the 52-page document by Feb. 7. Those questions include whether the programs fund DEI or support “illegal aliens,” the promotion of “gender ideology” or “activities overseas.”

    It’s just going to cause a lot of chaos when it comes to planning. It is definitely a developing story.”

    —Sarah Spreitzer, American Council on Education

    It’s unclear whether the judge’s order affects the broader review.

    To Spreitzer and others, that broader review could threaten more federal programs, as those considered unaligned with the president’s agenda could be altered or cut back entirely.

    “If there’s an injunction within a week and everything can start up again, I think that the impact is minimal,” Spreitzer said. But “there’s so much in that [memo] about the examination of all grants going forward … that go beyond just the pause that I think I’d have to see the further implementation instructions to understand the complete impact on the scientific and education enterprise.”

    ‘Unnecessary and Damaging’

    Higher ed officials and student advocacy groups warned throughout the day that the pause, in addition to a recent flurry of executive orders, would cause unnecessary disruption to the primary goals and functions of American colleges and universities and could jeopardize crucial scientific research. The National Association of College and University Business Officers said in a statement that the pause could cause “unnecessary disruption to the lives of tens of thousands of students and families at colleges and universities across the country.”

    “The overall impact to programs … could be both significant and chaotic,” NACUBO president Kara D. Freeman said. “College and university chief business officers will be front and center with their presidents, boards, and executive leadership in developing plans to mitigate immediate exposure and impacts. We urge the Trump administration to reconsider and rescind this misguided policy.”

    Mark Becker, president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, called the memo’s orders “unnecessary and damaging.”

    “While we understand the Trump administration wants to review programs to ensure consistency with its priorities, it is imperative that the reviews not interfere with American innovation and competitiveness,” Becker said. “It will have far-reaching impacts in every corner of the country and hamper American innovation at a moment when it’s being fiercely challenged on a global stage.”

    Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said in a statement that she hopes Trump and Republicans on Capitol Hill will see how the pause could hurt American citizens and address the gap by resuming grant distribution.

    “Federal programs need to be more efficient, but no one voted for a president to halt their services—services that were appropriated, authorized and extended by Congress,” she said in a statement. “Americans need a federal government that works for them, not against them.”

    Democratic lawmakers have also raised the red flag, responding with outrage and “extreme alarm,” warning that the pause would undermine Congress’s authority and have “devastating consequences across the country.”

    Reactions from professors and student advocacy groups were swift late Monday and early Tuesday.

    “I don’t see how any Democrat can get away with voting to confirm Linda McMahon after this memo. The entire hearing should be focused on how the U.S. government is tearing apart everyday life for regular people,” Mike Pierce, executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, wrote on X.

    Jody Freedman, a professor at Harvard Law School, took to BlueSky. “What is going on here?” she wrote. “I think what’s going on here is that Russell Vought (perhaps others in the administration too, but certainly him) … are testing the Republicans in Congress on this issue to see if they spring to life.”

    “It’s like Hey, the door’s open, no one’s home, let’s rob the place. And by rob I mean, let’s take all the power Congress thinks it has over the appropriations,” she added.

    ‘Extremely Widespread’ Abuse

    Congressional Republicans have said little in response to the pause, and conservative policy experts say the freeze is a necessary step to address years of “illegal spending” by Democrats to advance their political motives.

    Inside Higher Ed reached out to both Senator Dr. Bill Cassidy and Representative Tim Walberg, chairs of the congressional committees that handle education policy, but neither responded with comment.

    Michael Brickman, an adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank, said that the Trump administration’s actions—though “aggressive”—are justified decisions aimed to restore the rule of law and ensure that government money “isn’t being set on fire at every turn.”

    “What you’re seeing overall across the administration is an attempt to get a handle on the waste and the abuse of taxpayer dollars,” Brickman said.

    He went on to say that though it would be ideal to only freeze certain programs and limit the consequences of stalled grants, breadth was a necessity in this scenario.

    “We saw during the Biden administration, brazen attempts again and again to ignore the law” when utilizing federal funds, Brickman said. “Why let good money continue to go out the door when we know for the last four years that so much of it has been wasted … I wish it were narrow and targeted, but unfortunately, the abuse is extremely widespread.”

    And if colleges don’t have a contingency plan in place for any kind of budgetary disruption, “that’s malpractice on their part,” he added.

    ‘Plan for the Worst’

    McGuire, from Trinity, said the pause would likely affect grants for predominantly Black institutions, which her university uses to provide student advising, new lab materials and certification programs in high-demand areas of the workforce.

    Trinity has already received its $250,000 in such grants for the current academic year, so no programs will have to shut down immediately if the freeze is reinstated, she said. But she worries about the reliability of federal funds moving forward. She explained that uncertainty about grants could mean cuts and amendments to the budget for fiscal year 2026. 

    “We hope for the best but plan for the worst,” she said. “We’re going into budget season right now, so we will probably have to plan alternative support for the programs funded through the PBI [grants].”

    Spreitzer, from ACE, echoed the future impact but also noted that certain colleges could pay the price more immediately. Many large research universities require billions of dollars in federal grants to keep their labs and hospitals running every day, she said, and there’s variation in when grant funds are dispersed, so many may have yet to receive the dollars needed to keep the lights on.

    “It’s going to depend on whether institutions have existing grants and whether they’re waiting for disbursements. It’s just going to cause a lot of chaos when it comes to planning,” she said. “It is definitely a developing story.” 

    Source link