Tag: deal

  • Udemy, Coursera to Merge in $2.5B Deal

    Udemy, Coursera to Merge in $2.5B Deal

    Coursera and Udemy both launched during the MOOC boom of the early 2010s.

    Allison Shelley/Complete College Photo Library

    To keep pace with advances in generative artificial intelligence technology, two big online learning companies are planning to merge in a deal valued at $2.5 billion.

    Coursera announced its plans to absorb Udemy in a news release Wednesday; both companies launched during the massive open online course provider boom of the early 2010s. Coursera, which offers a variety of courses, certifications and degrees, expects the all-stock merger to be finalized by the second half of 2026 and to generate more than $1.5 billion in annual revenue.

    Combining the two companies is also estimated to save $115 million in operating costs over the next two years and allow for sustained investment in “AI-driven platform innovation, rapid product development, and durable growth initiatives,” according to Coursera’s statement.

    Since Open AI launched ChatGPT three years ago, nearly every industry has moved to incorporate generative AI into its operations, and higher education is no exception. Although still contentious, students and faculty are increasingly using generative AI to help with research, writing and studying; a number of universities have launched campuswide AI partnerships with technology companies. In addition, learning management systems are touting their new AI capabilities, and employers say they want AI-ready graduates.

    Greg Hart, CEO of Coursera, said the companies are merging to better help learners, instructors, and enterprise, university and government customers keep up with the changes.

    “We’re at a pivotal moment in which AI is rapidly redefining the skills required for every job across every industry. Organizations and individuals around the world need a platform that is as agile as the new and emerging skills learners must master,” he said in the release. “By combining the highly complementary strengths of Coursera and Udemy, we will be in an even stronger position to address the global talent transformation opportunity, unlock a faster pace of innovation, and deliver valuable experiences and outcomes for our learners and customers.”

    Source link

  • Defining quality is a thorny problem, but we shouldn’t shy away from the Government’s intention to make sure every student gets the best deal

    Defining quality is a thorny problem, but we shouldn’t shy away from the Government’s intention to make sure every student gets the best deal

    Join HEPI for a webinar on Thursday 11 December 2025 from 10am to 11am to discuss how universities can strengthen the student voice in governance to mark the launch of our upcoming report, Rethinking the Student Voice. Sign up now to hear our speakers explore the key questions.

    This blog is kindly authored by Meg Haskins, Policy Manager at the Russell Group.

    You can read HEPI’s other blog on the current OfS consultation here and here.

    Quality is one of the most frequently used, yet least clearly defined, concepts in higher education. For decades, debates have rumbled on about how best to measure it, and yet the term continues to be used liberally and often vaguely. From university marketing promising a “high-quality student experience” to political critiques of so-called “Mickey Mouse courses,” the term is everywhere – but its precise meaning remains elusive.

    Quality matters: to students making significant financial and personal investments; to staff who take pride in their teaching and research; to funders and policymakers; and to the UK’s global reputation. If we’re asking students to take out significant loans and trust that higher education will act as a springboard into their futures, we must not only deliver quality but also demonstrate it clearly, transparently and in ways that support ongoing improvement.

    The OfS consultation is the sector’s golden opportunity to define how this is done.

    The Russell Group supports a more integrated and streamlined quality assessment system – one that reduces duplication, improves clarity and actively supports efforts to enhance quality further. But integration must not come at the expense of flexibility within the model. The system needs to make space for narrative contextualisation rather than reductive judgements.

    Heavy reliance on benchmarking is particularly concerning. It risks disadvantaging institutions with a historically strong absolute performance and limiting meaningful differentiation. To ensure fairness, absolute values must carry greater weight, and there should be transparency on benchmark thresholds and definitions of “material” deviation, especially outcomes which will have regulatory and funding consequences.

    So far, ministers have been light on detail about what change they’re actually expecting to see on quality assurance. Ideas of linking quality measures to recruitment numbers or fee levels have caused concern, which is understandable given that the system for measuring quality is untested. But we shouldn’t fear greater scrutiny. Students, taxpayers and the public deserve clarity about what quality looks like in real terms – and reassurance that it is being delivered at a high level and consistently.

    Demonstrating quality is something Russell Group universities have always taken seriously, and is now under increasing public scrutiny in the face of rhetoric from certain political quarters about “rip-off degrees”. As such, our universities have taken steps to measure and robustly evidence the quality of our provision. Beyond regulatory metrics, graduate outcomes surveys, the TEF and professional body accreditations, our universities embed quality assurance through multiple levels of governance, including academic boards and senates, independent audits, annual and periodic module and programme reviews, and student feedback mechanisms. This has led to continuous improvement and enhancement of quality at our universities, reflected in the strength of their outcomes.

    Crucially, high quality is not about selectivity or league tables. The Secretary of State is rightly clear in her ambition for all young people to have a wide range of excellent options across different institutions, levels and qualification types. But this choice needs to go hand-in-hand with quality, which is why we need baseline expectations across all institutions and swift regulatory action where these standards aren’t met.

    If the sector embraces greater scrutiny in this way, then metrics must be robust, transparent and fair. Streamlining and clarifying processes should reduce duplication and burden, while maintaining a strong focus on enhancement.

    The regulator has both carrots and sticks at its disposal. While it is positive to see an intention to reward high-quality provision, benchmarking that obscures excellence could inadvertently punish those delivering the strongest outcomes – surely not the government’s intention.

    Particularly worrying is the idea that the OfS could start deriving overall ratings from a lower individual aspect rating. This compresses results and risks obscuring examples of high-quality provision, adding little value for students. Even more concerning is the proposal to reclassify the Bronze ratings as a trigger for regulatory intervention. This could redefine the baseline for compliance as a form of failure in quality, and blur the line between judgements of excellence and regulatory compliance – a muddled message for providers and confusing for students.

    Ultimately, the goal must be a more outward-facing quality model – one that strengthens public and ministerial trust, reinforces the UK’s global credibility, and upholds the reputation for excellence that underpins our higher education sector.

    By positioning higher tuition fees as one side of a “deal,” the Government is challenging the sector to demonstrate, clearly and confidently, that students are receiving both a high-quality experience and high-quality outcomes in return. That deal will only be credible if quality is defined fairly, measured transparently, and assessed in ways that support enhancement as well as accountability.

    Source link

  • Secretive Big Ten Deal Riles Trustees

    Secretive Big Ten Deal Riles Trustees

    Trustees at member institutions across the Big Ten are pushing back on a proposed $2.4 billion private equity deal that some argue has been too rushed, lacking transparency and proper vetting.

    Now, with trustee criticism mounting, the conference appears to be prolonging talks amid a push to finalize a plan to establish a for-profit arm of the Big Ten, which would control its media and sponsorship rights and sell a 10 percent stake of that entity to the investor. The deal would give members an immediate cash infusion, with a minimum $100 million disbursement across the league, while more prominent athletic programs would receive an even higher revenue share. That money is needed, even at wealthy institutions, as universities adjust to a changing world of college athletics, which includes direct payments for players that began earlier this year.

    The proposal would also maintain the current 18 universities as Big Ten members through 2046.

    Dissent among the Big Ten ranks seems to have prompted the potential investor—the University of California pension fund, or UC Investments—to slow down the deal.

    While UC Investments indicated in a Monday statement that it “remains very excited” about the offer, officials wrote they will work with members in the “coming months” to solidify the deal. (Prior reports indicated the conference hoped to put the deal to a league vote by mid-November.)

    “As we have continued to evaluate this opportunity over the past five months, we remain convinced that the unity of the 18 Big Ten university members is key to the success of Big Ten Enterprises,” Chief Investment Officer Jagdeep Singh Bachher wrote in the statement. “We also recognize that some member universities need more time to assess the benefits of their participation. UC Investments likewise requires some additional time to complete our due diligence as recent developments unfold and we continue to engage with the conference.”

    The CIO also lauded Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti and his team.

    “The process they have led has been rigorous, honest and fair—among the best we’ve seen. Recent misinformation has distorted some aspects of its effort,” Bachher wrote in the statement.

    But several trustees at Big Ten member institutions have raised concerns about a lack of transparency into the deal, saying they have received little information about the arrangement and yet been asked to rubber-stamp it on a compressed timeline.

    Trustee Dissent

    UC Investments announced a commitment to a unified process for making a deal just a few days after the American Council of Trustees and Alumni held an online meeting with individual board members representing five Big Ten institutions. The meeting, held Friday, included trustees from the University of Michigan, the University of Minnesota, the University System of Maryland, Pennsylvania State University and the University of Southern California, all of whom had concerns about the deal.

    Tom McMillen, a Maryland regent, said in the recorded meeting that “no trustee has been given a balanced view” of the pros and cons of the proposal, according to his conversations with other governing board members across the conference. He also called for third-party evaluations of the arrangement.

    “It’s shocking to me that a decision of this magnitude, there are no opposing views presented,” McMillen said.

    Michigan regent Sarah Hubbard echoed similar concerns on the ACTA call, arguing that there was a need for more oversight and for trustees to have a formal role in discussing the proposal. She also questioned the need to expedite the process with such limited information available.

    “This lack of transparency and information for the fiduciaries at our universities is unacceptable,” Hubbard said.

    Penn State trustee Jay Paterno questioned the need for secrecy around the potential investment. Given that the Big Ten is about to create “a for-profit company using what are essentially public dollars,” he argued, boards need to know more in order to be able to advise their institutions accordingly. Ultimately, Paterno said, he wanted to see the Big Ten put its cards on the table.

    “If it’s such a great deal, show us the deal and let’s go,” Paterno said.

    Outstanding Concerns

    UC Investments signaled it would work on the deal over the “coming months”—likely signaling a slowdown in the process—but it has offered no information about where things stand.

    A UC Investments spokesperson referred questions about trustee concerns to the Big Ten, which did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    But outside analysts echo many of the concerns raised by trustees. Armand Alacbay, chief of staff and senior vice president of strategy at ACTA, said the organization has no position on the proposal itself but got involved because of concerns about trustees being shut out of the deal.

    “Anyone we’ve heard from on this has said it’s not enough time, not enough information, not enough of anything to make this decision. Some have been told that it’s a nonvoting decision for them, that they don’t even have a right to make a decision because it’s the conference,” Alacbay said. “Well, I would say that the intellectual property and media rights of your athletic department are a significantly large asset of the institution and justify a level of board oversight.”

    Karen Weaver, an adjunct assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education, told Inside Higher Ed that while private equity has seeped into numerous areas of college athletics in recent years, the investment in a conference is a new approach. And what happens with the Big Ten will likely set the stage for other conferences.

    She said if the Big Ten can successfully navigate a maze of thorny legal and political concerns, then other athletic conferences will be more likely to follow in their footsteps. “But if they constantly get land mines and roadblocks thrown in the way,” others will be more hesitant, she said.

    Weaver also pointed to concerns lawmakers raised that could upend or complicate the deal.

    Last week U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat, issued warnings about the proposal in a statement and individual letters to both university and conference leadership. She argued that such a deal “may be counter to your university’s academic goals, may require the sale of university assets to a private investor, and may affect the tax-exempt purpose of those assets.”

    Cantwell also emphasized the different priorities of universities and private equity investors.

    “The primary goal of these companies is to make money for the firm, which is unlikely to align with the academic goals of your university or its obligations as a not-for-profit organization,” Cantwell wrote. “These investors will be focused on maximizing their investment, not on preserving and growing athletic and academic opportunities for student athletes.”

    Source link

  • Cornell inks $60M deal with Trump administration to restore funding

    Cornell inks $60M deal with Trump administration to restore funding

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Cornell University on Friday struck a deal with the Trump administration, agreeing to pay $60 million and adhere to strict reporting conditions in exchange for having more than $250 million in federal funding reinstated. 
    • In addition to the financial payments, the Ivy League institution will submit expanded undergraduate admissions data to the federal government, and include the U.S. Department of Justice’s July guidance against diversity, equity and inclusion efforts as “a training resource” for employees. Cornell’s president will provide regular compliance reports to the administration.
    • In turn, three federal agencies — the DOJ and U.S. departments of Education and Health and Human Services — agreed to close their civil rights investigations into the New York university. Cornell is the fifth university to publicly strike a deal with the Trump administration to restore federal funding.

    Dive Insight:

    Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff on Friday said the deal reverses costly federal funding cuts that caused significant disruption to the university.

    “The months of stop-work orders, grant terminations, and funding freezes have stalled cutting-edge research, upended lives and careers, and threatened the future of academic programs at Cornell,” he said in a statement. 

    Under the deal, Cornell will pay the federal government $30 million over three years. 

    It will pay an additional $30 million over the same period toward agriculture research programs that “directly benefit U.S. farmers through lower costs of production and enhanced efficiency.” Both the agreement and Kotlikoff’s statement emphasized Cornell’s history as a land-grant university.

    Kotlikoff noted that the bargain does not require Cornell to admit wrongdoing, and he said it does not turn over the university’s academic freedoms to the federal government. 

    As part of the deal, the university will report additional admissions data to the Education Department. Once a quarter through 2028, the university will submit undergraduate admissions disaggregated by students’ race, GPA, performance on standardized tests, and major. Much of the criteria align with a Trump administration proposal to dramatically expand the type of admissions data colleges must report.

    The university will also use the DOJ’s wide-ranging anti-DEI guidance as a training resource for faculty and staff. The document labels race-based scholarships and student resources dedicated to specific racial or ethnic groups as illegal and warns colleges they could lose federal grant funding over such practices.  

    Colleges could similarly lose funding if the DOJ decides they are using “facially neutral” criteria as proxies for federally protected characteristics, such as asking job applicants to demonstrate “cultural competence” as a means of assessing someone’s racial or ethnic background.

    The U.S. Department of Education released a similar document in February threatening federal funding over DEI practices. At the time, Kotlikoff called diversity a driver of Cornell’s excellence. The Education Department’s guidance has since been struck down as unconstitutional in federal court.

    On Friday, Cornell said it will continue to conduct an annual campus climate survey, including on the experience of students with shared Jewish ancestry. Questions will include whether students feel welcome on campus and safe to report antisemitism.

    Kotlikoff agreed to provide the Trump administration with quarterly reports demonstrating Cornell’s compliance.

    Cornell’s agreement shares some elements with that signed by the University of Virginia last month. The public flagship similarly agreed to comply with the DOJ’s anti-DEI guidance and provide quarterly compliance reports to the Trump administration. 

    And like Brown University, Cornell agreed to pay money into a cause seemingly unrelated to the charges the Trump administration levied against it — in Brown’s case, $50 million to workforce development organizations in Rhode Island.

    “Today’s deal is a positive outcome that illustrates the value of universities working with this administration,” Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a Friday statement.

    U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said the Cornell deal is an example of the Trump administration forcing colleges to refocus “their attention on merit, rigor, and truth seeking — not ideology.”

    Kotlikoff instead called the deal a reaffirmation of “principles to which we have already independently and publicly committed” and noted that the university already conducts annual campus climate surveys.

    Cornell, he said, “looks forward to resuming the long and fruitful partnership with the federal government.”

    Source link

  • Virginia lawmakers call for audit of UVA’s Justice Department deal

    Virginia lawmakers call for audit of UVA’s Justice Department deal

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Two Democratic leaders in the Virginia Legislature are questioning the legality of the University of Virginia’s recent deal with the U.S. Department of Justice and calling for an independent review of its constitutionality.
    • In an eight-page letter this week, state Sens. Scott Surovell and L. Louise Lucas said the agreement “directly conflicts with state law, commits the University to eliminate legislatively mandated programs, subjects the University President to personal certification requirements and potentially places UVA in violation of its statutory obligations.”
    • The pair requested UVA Interim President Paul Mahoney and Rachel Sheridan, the head of UVA’s board, to formally respond by Nov. 7. UVA did not immediately respond to questions Thursday.

    Dive Insight:

    On Oct. 22, Mahoney signed a four-page agreement with the DOJ to eventually close five investigations into UVA. In exchange, the public university agreed to adhere to the DOJ’s sweeping July guidance against diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and provide the agency with quarterly compliance reports.

    In their letter, Surovell and Lucas lambasted Mahoney and Sheridan for “a fundamental breach of the governance relationship” between the university and the state.

    “This agreement was disturbingly executed with zero consultation with the General Assembly, despite the fact that the General Assembly controls the University and provides the bulk of its government funding,” they said, arguing the lack of legislative involvement could violate state statute.

    When announcing the deal, UVA said Mahoney struck the deal with input from the university’s governing board, whose members were “kept apprised of the negotiations and briefed on the final terms before signature.” Since the agreement doesn’t include a financial penalty, it did not require a formal vote from the board, the university said in an FAQ.

    Along with the board, Mahoney has said he struck the deal with input from the university’s leadership and internal and external legal counsel.

    Surovell and Lucas questioned if Jason Miyares, Virginia’s Republican Attorney General and an ally of President Donald Trump, had counseled the university about the deal. 

    Miyares — who fired UVA’s longtime legal counsel upon taking office in 2022 — is up for reelection in November with Trump’s endorsement, a backing Lucas and Surovell cast as an “inherent conflict of interest.” 

    It is unclear, they said, if Virginia’s top lawyer is “competent and capable of providing truly independent legal advice to Virginia’s public universities in this area of the law.”

    Virginia public colleges “need legal counsel who will zealously defend state sovereignty and institutional autonomy — not counsel whose political fortunes are tied to the very administration applying the pressure,” they said.

    The two lawmakers, along with Democratic state Sen. Mamie Locke, previously threatened UVA’s state funding if the university agreed to the Trump administration’s separate higher education compact, which offered preferential access to grant funding in exchange for unprecedented federal oversight. UVA turned it down five days before announcing its deal with the DOJ.

    Lucas and Surovell aren’t the only Virginia legislators to question the integrity of the UVA-DOJ deal. State Del. Katrina Callsen and Sen. R. Creigh Deeds, Democrats who represent UVA’s district, condemned it as subjecting the university “to unprecedented federal control.”

    In an Oct. 23 letter, the pair told Mahoney and the board that their approval of the agreement calls “into grave question your ability to adequately protect the interests and resources entrusted to you by the Virginia General Assembly.”

    “Your actions fail to leave the University free and unafraid to combat that which is untrue or in error,” they said. “By agreeing to these terms, UVA risks betraying the very principles you espouse in your letter: academic freedom, ideological diversity, and free expression.”

    Callsen and Deeds called on UVA leadership to reverse the deal and “reject further federal interference.”

    When asked on Thursday if Mahoney or the board had responded, Deed’s office referred to a story published by The Cavalier Daily, the university’s independent student newspaper.

    In a letter shared with The Daily, Mahoney and Sheridan said that they “respectfully disagree” with Deeds and Callsen’s assessment, adding that the deal is the “culmination of months of engagement” with the DOJ and other federal agencies over multiple civil rights investigations.

    They also said the institution’s deal with the federal government differs significantly from the “lengthy lists of specific obligations” agreed to by Columbia and Brown universities.

    “Our agreement is different — if the United States believes we are not in compliance, its only remedy is to terminate the agreement,” they said.

    Source link

  • Miami Dade Fights Hearing on Trump Library Land Deal

    Miami Dade Fights Hearing on Trump Library Land Deal

    Ever since Miami Dade College announced last month that it was donating land for the construction of Donald J. Trump’s presidential library, the community college has faced criticism. Now it is fighting in court to prevent a public hearing on the deal, which would resolve a lawsuit brought by a citizen who has argued the move is illegal.

    At a Sept. 23 board meeting, Miami Dade College transferred land to the state of Florida to be used for Trump’s presidential library. Critics alleged that the meeting was rushed, failed to offer adequate public notice on the specifics of the deal and lacked any discussion or debate; a public notice referenced only a “potential real estate transaction” as the reason for the meeting.

    Some estimates have put the value of the 2.6-acre site in downtown Miami at $250 million to $300 million, though others say it is worth $67 million. But regardless of the dollar amount, Miami Dade College is giving the land away for free.

    Marvin Dunn, a local historian, sued to block the transfer, alleging in his lawsuit that the Board of Trustees “unquestionably violated” state anticorruption laws. Dunn argued in a court filing that “depriving the public of reasonable notice of this proposed decision was a plain violation of the Sunshine Act and of the Florida Constitution” and asked for an injunction to block the transfer.

    Judge Mavel Ruiz of Florida’s 11th Judicial Circuit granted Dunn a temporary injunction earlier this month, noting that he is likely to prove his claims about sunshine law violations, but she did not altogether block the land transfer. She also left the door open for the Board of Trustees to redo the deal.

    “It is understood that the board can provide the reasonable disclosure and convey this property as they see fit,” Ruiz said. “That’s why this is not a case, at least for this court, rooted in politics.”

    Jesus Suarez, an attorney for Continental Strategy (founded in 2022 by former Republican lawmaker Richard Corcoran, who was later tapped to lead New College of Florida), which is representing Miami Dade College, has contended that the deal is completely aboveboard.

    “The law doesn’t require that there be any specificity in the notice,” Suarez has argued. College lawyers also said they would appeal the ruling to temporarily block the transfer.

    State officials have bristled at Ruiz’s temporary injunction. Florida attorney general James Uthmeier, who has assigned members of his staff to assist the college in its legal battle, told The Miami Herald the temporary injunction is not technically in place because it was not issued as a written order.

    Dunn, meanwhile, is seeking to expedite legal proceedings, aiming for a trial to begin by January.

    While Ruiz emphasized that the case is not about politics, the MDC board, which is appointed by Republican governor Ron DeSantis, is overwhelmingly comprised of Republican donors. Board chair Michael Bileca and trustee Jose Felix Diaz are also former GOP lawmakers.

    Of the seven trustees, six have donated to Republican candidates and causes. Miami Dade College president Madeline Pumariega, who has defended the way the board handled the transfer, has also donated to GOP candidates, though she has given to Democrats in the past as well. (Most of the presidents at Florida’s 40 public institutions have either Republican ties or past donations.)

    Miami Dade College officials did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    Source link

  • ‘A fair deal’ or a ‘surrender’? Stakeholders weigh in on Trump-UVA agreement

    ‘A fair deal’ or a ‘surrender’? Stakeholders weigh in on Trump-UVA agreement

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

    In the hours and days following the University of Virginia’s deal with the U.S. Department of Justice, the state’s governor cheered the agreement while some faculty and Democratic lawmakers have accused the public flagship of submitting to the Trump administration and enabling it to exert further pressure on other colleges.

    Under the four-page agreement, the DOJ will pause on five investigations in exchange for UVA’s adoption of the agency’s July guidance against diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. The public research institution, which had made DEI work a tentpole of its institutional mission in recent years, will also provide the DOJ with quarterly reports demonstrating its compliance.

    The deal — the first the Trump administration has struck with a public college — could serve as a template moving forward, as the federal government takes other steps to exert control over the higher education sector.  

    ‘A sad day for UVA’ 

    UVA Interim President Paul Mahoney, who signed the bargain with the Trump administration, said that it came about “after months of discussions with DOJ” and input from the university’s leadership, governing board and internal and external legal counsel.

    The deal, he said in his late Wednesday announcement, is “the best available path forward” for UVA.

    The university will review its practices and policies to make sure they comply with federal law, Mahoney said, adding that “some work remains to be done to satisfy fully the terms of this agreement.”

    “We will also redouble our commitment to the principles of academic freedom, ideological diversity, free expression, and the unyielding pursuit of ‘truth, wherever it may lead,’” he said, quoting UVA founder Thomas Jefferson.

    If UVA “completes its planned reforms prohibiting DEI” through Dec. 31, 2028, the DOJ will formally close its investigations, the agency said in a Wednesday press release.

    Much of Mahoney’s announcement focused on what the deal does not include, noting it doesn’t require the university to pay the federal government or involve external monitoring. The deal also does not require UVA to admit wrongdoing, according to a university FAQ.

    But some faculty quickly voiced concerns.

    Kimberly Acquaviva, a nursing professor at UVA, shamed Mahoney and the university’s governing board “for trading UVA’s independence for federal favor.”

    “It’s a sad day for UVA,” she said on social media.

    Another UVA professor, Walter Heinecke, called the deal “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” that will “increase the likelihood that there’s a climate of fear.”

    “It saddles the next president with expectations of monitoring that are highly problematic,” Heinecke told WVIR. “Which will in turn affect the way that faculty, students, staff think about what they can and cannot do.”

    UVA did not respond to questions Friday.

    Lawmakers weigh in

    Reactions from prominent lawmakers in Virginia — a contentious purple state with an election next month that could alter party control — have fallen along party lines.

    Virginia Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, a Democrat, called the deal a “surrender” on UVA’s part that has “significant constitutional problems.”

    The agreement “represents a huge expansion of federal power that Republicans have would have never tolerated in the past,” he said Wednesday. “We have the right to run our universities.”

    Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin — who faces a fight with a Democrat-controlled Senate committee over his picks for UVA’s governing board — praised the agreement as “common sense and a fair deal” and said it embraces academic freedom and protects free speech.

    All UVA must do, he said in a social media post, is “fully comply with federal civil rights law.”

    Under the deal, the university will also operate under the DOJ’s wide-ranging DEI guidance. In addition to condemning race-focused scholarships and resources dedicated to specific racial or ethnic groups, the nine-page document warned colleges against using “facially neutral” criteria the agency deems to be proxies for federally protected characteristics, such as cultural competence. 

    Colleges or other institutions that violate the guidance, DOJ said, could lose federal funding.

    Source link

  • New Jersey City University and Kean University sign official deal to merge

    New Jersey City University and Kean University sign official deal to merge

    Dive Brief:

    • New Jersey City University has signed a definitive agreement to become part of nearby Kean University, the institutions announced in a joint press release Wednesday. 
    • The agreement — approved unanimously by both universities’ governing boards — is subject to accreditor approval by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education as well as by state and federal regulators. Officials expect the merger to be completed by July. 
    • Once complete, NJCU will become “Kean Jersey City.” The two public institutions signed a letter of intent to merge in May after recent years of financial and governance turmoil at NJCU.

    Dive Insight:

    The agreement marks a major milestone for NJCU, which a state-appointed monitor directed to find a financial partner early in 2024. 

    Under the merger terms, Kean will take on NJCU’s assets and liabilities. It will also honor NJCU students’ academic credits, need-based financial aid commitments and merit scholarships if they transition to Kean. Once they do, students will pay Kean’s tuition and fee prices, which amounted to $15,300 for full-time undergraduate students in the 2025-26 academic year.

    A steering committee will oversee the next steps of the merger, including the complicated work of academic and operational integration, as well as navigating regulatory and governmental reviews. 

    As part of the agreement, NJCU students will gain access to Kean’s student services, clubs and organizations after the merger. 

    As for student sports, the agreement establishes a separate advisory committee to look at athletic programming at NJCU post-merger. The university currently competes in more than a dozen NCAA Division III sports, including men’s basketball, women’s softball, and men’s and women’s volleyball and track and field. The committee is expected to make its final report to Kean’s president in December.

    As part of the fiscal 2026 state budget, New Jersey lawmakers lined up $10 million for Kean to help fund its merger with NJCU. The money is to help with feasibility studies, planning and legal work as the two institutions integrate. 

    NJCU’s board voted in March to pursue a merger with Kean. The move came after years of financial distress followed by recovery and turnaround work led by Andrés Acebo, who joined NJCU as interim president in January 2023 before being named permanent president this September. 

    About six months prior to his appointment, NJCU had declared a financial emergency.  Declining enrollment and funding shortfalls led the university to increase scholarships, add academic programs, and spend more on student services and real estate expansions. Those moves failed to turn enrollment around and “instead served to dramatically increase NJCU’s expenses,” New Jersey’s comptroller said in 2023. 

    But by fall 2024, Fitch Ratings lifted the NJCU’s outlook from negative to stable, with analysts citing “significant progress toward achieving fiscal balance despite continued pressure on student enrollment.” The improvements were the product of both state aid and cost cutting at the institution. 

    In fall 2023, NJCU’s student headcount stood at 5,833 students, down 27% from 2018 levels, according to federal data. By fall 2024, the university’s total enrollment fell another 6% year over year, though first-year, full-time students grew by 3% and transfers surged 28%,  NJ.com reported.

    In a statement Wednesday, Acebo said the merger with Kean represents “a significant milestone in a process designed to secure the future of our institution and the communities we have proudly served for nearly a century.”

    Source link

  • Before you click on that incredible deal…

    Before you click on that incredible deal…

    Scammers are everywhere on the internet, masquerading to obtain your personal information. Many social media users or website creators pose as government entities or other authorities to offer you things that seem too good to be true or use scare tactics, like fake warnings about things like late fines or missed court dates, to prompt online users into sharing personal information. 

    In an era of misinformation, how do we know when a website is real? 

    One way is to research a website’s domain. A domain name is the part of a website address preceded by .com, .net or other popular suffixes. It’s essentially just the base website name without the “https://” and “www.”

    “Measuring a website’s credibility might take time,” said Jordan Lyle, a senior reporter for Snopes.com. “Young journalists should know their stuff when it comes to domains and redirects.” 

    Snopes.com is one of the internet’s oldest fact-checking websites. He has more than 25 years of experience in managing websites and knows how to determine whether a site is legit. 

    Investigating internet sites

    Alex Kasprak, a former investigative journalist at Snopes.com, has conducted numerous investigations using information gleaned from Domain Name Server (DNS) registers. DNS registers contain information about a particular website, its URL and IP address — a unique number on every tech device you might use. 

    With the information he found, Kasprak has been able to uncover unreported connections between news websites and their funders and between scammers and their beneficiaries. 

    “DNS tools are a great first step into any investigation that involves the identity of people behind websites or possible undisclosed connections between them,” Kasprak said.

    Taking the expertise from these two investigative reporters, News Decoder has compiled the toolkit below to help perform a credible and comprehensive examination for publishing. 

    Are there red flags?

    Scam websites have certain red flags. They might lack legal documentation, for example, including terms of service and privacy policies. 

    Another sign is sloppiness and mistakes. Try skimming through various pages on the site to look for typos, glaringly incorrect information, vague contact information, skewed formatting and other things that seem unprofessional. 

    Lyle said that a website that promotes a specific giveaway might lack any biographical or contact information about the people promoting the product or offer.

    “Sometimes, scammers will include a mailing address that, upon searching for it, turns out to be a fulfillment center or a business that allows LLCs to anonymously register with that business’ physical office as a virtual address, shielding the scam’s operators from being identified,” Lyle said. 

    Conduct a website domain search.

    Kasprak said that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) operates as a phonebook for the internet.

    “In this analogy, the phone numbers are Internet Protocol (IP) addresses  — a string of numbers formatted like 0.0.0.0 — and the ‘names’ are the actual domain names [e.g. news-decoder.com] to which those IP addresses are associated,” Kasprak said. “Like a human with a phone, domain names can change IP addresses several times.”

    The first step for tracing the origins of a website involves what’s known as a “WHOIS” search — a specific type of domain search listing information about the creation of a domain. 

    WHOIS is a public database that lists several contact numbers, names or organisations associated with a given IP address or domain name. Many people these days use services that allow one to register a website anonymously, making the results have limited value. Older records, or those from some non-Western nations, often include actual names or corporate contacts, explained Kasprak. 

    A WHOIS search, which can be conducted at godaddy.com/whois, queries the public WHOIS database. 

    Lyle said he often looks at the date a person officially purchased and registered a domain name.. “For example, in the case of researching potential scams, if a domain name was recently registered, that’s a red flag indicating the website might be untrustworthy and could confirm the potential scam as legitimate,” he said.

    Look at the site history.

    Another great tool to pair with “WHOIS” searches is the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. When performing a “WHOIS” search on godaddy.com/whois, check to see when the domain was created. That year should match the Wayback Machine’s records of creation date, as well as show if the website had other owners with completely different websites. 

    “Also, know that the domain information listed in a WHOIS search might be the most recent data, but not the original data,” Lyle said. “Check the Wayback Machine to see if the website existed long ago in another form.”

    Scammers might also create fake domains to pretend to be a legitimate business, adjusting the URL link slightly to trick users. A fake Home Depot ad on Facebook, for example, didn’t lead to homedepot.com when clicked through, but instead to “h0medepott.com”; an “o” was changed to a zero and a second “t” was added to the end of the URL. 

    “Scammers have created fake domains almost matching the genuine business domain for banks, as well as for USPS, for example,” Lyle said. “Sometimes, scammers won’t even bother to create similar domain names and instead simply rely on people not looking at the URL.” 

    Some scammers go so far as to copy the web design of a company — logo and all — to trick consumers. These types of scam websites often offer giveaways that seem too good to be true, such as free money, super inexpensive offers for goods or services or non-existent programs for student loan forgiveness.

    “Of course, the biggest red flag would be an offer that seems too good to be true,” Lyle said. “If an offer seems too good to be true, it probably is. And I will go a step further: In 2025, if an offer seems too good to be true, it is. Avoid it.”

    For journalists all this should becoming standard practice when using information off the internet in news stories. 

    “Basically, you want to make sure you did everything you could with your research before publishing your article,” Lyle said. “And that you attempted to go above and beyond expectations other publishers might have for their articles’ comprehensive credibility.”

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. What are some common red flags that a website might be fake or trying to scam you?

    2. What is a DNS register and how is it useful to identify a potential scam?

    3. If a friend sent you an unknown link, what steps would you take before clicking? How would you explain your choice to click or not?

     

    Source link

  • Why Revenue Sharing Is a Bad Deal (opinion)

    Why Revenue Sharing Is a Bad Deal (opinion)

    For many decades, the National Collegiate Athletic Association preserved student athletes’ amateur status by prohibiting their ability to profit off their name, image or likeness (NIL). As a former Division I compliance coordinator, I often felt the NCAA’s amateurism policies went too far—denying student athletes the right to earn money like other college students, such as by running their own sports camps.

    But now the courts have turned the NCAA’s concept of amateurism on its head with the approval in June of a $2.8 billion athlete compensation settlement, which will be shared by student athletes who previously missed out on the opportunity to make money from their NIL. This historic deal between Division I athletes, the NCAA and the Division I Power 5 conferences—the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC—has also made revenue sharing with current student athletes a reality.

    Athletes at top football and basketball programs may be celebrating this financial victory, which allows institutions to share up to $20.5 million each year with student athletes—money generated from media, tickets, concessions and donations.

    But many coaches who recruit them—along with professors like me, who teach them—believe that paying college athletes for their athletic ability will hurt college sports. That’s because doing so professionalizes college athletes in a way that hurts other students and sports over all and compromises the institution’s academic mission.

    And while some student athletes stand to benefit from the new system, most won’t. Many universities will use the 75-15-5-5 model, meaning that 75 percent of the revenue would be distributed to football, 15 percent to men’s basketball, 5 percent to women’s basketball and 5 percent to all other sports.

    Paying players will also change the spirit of college sports. Although the concept of amateurism has been a joke in college athletics for a long time—particularly in revenue-generating sports—a pay-for-play system would further move the emphasis away from educational goals and toward commercial ones. As one big-time head football coach described it to me, “As soon as you start paying a player, they become in some ways their [university’s] employees. It’s not amateurism anymore.”

    On many campuses, a separation already exists between student athletes and nonathletes, which some believe is due to student athletes’ perceived privilege. According to one Division I women’s basketball coach I spoke to, implementing revenue sharing will only increase that divide. Student athletes receiving five- or six-figure salaries to play for their institutions will be incentivized to devote more time to their sport, leaving less time to engage in the campus community and further diluting the purpose of college as an incubator for personal and intellectual growth.

    There’s also a possibility, one coach told me, that colleges will shrink staff and “avoid facility upgrades in order to fund revenue share,” putting off improvements to gyms or playing fields, for instance. At some institutions, funding the revenue-sharing plan will undoubtedly lead to cuts in Olympic and nonrevenue sports like swimming and track.

    What’s more, it remains unclear how revenue-sharing plans will impact gender equity, because revenue distribution may not count as financial aid for Title IX purposes. Since 1972, Title IX has ensured equal opportunities for female student athletes that includes proportionate funding for their college athletic programs. If NIL payments from colleges are not subject to Title IX scrutiny, athletic departments will be allowed to direct all revenue generated from media rights, tickets and donations to their football and men’s basketball programs. As one Division I women’s basketball coach put it to me, “We are widening the gap between men and women athletes.”

    To be sure, the college sports system is problematic; as scholars have pointed out, it exploits student athletes for their athletic talent while coaches and athletic leaders reap the benefits. But creating professional athletes within educational institutions is not the answer.

    Instead, I propose that all student athletes participate in collective bargaining before being required to sign employment-type contracts that waive their NIL rights in exchange for a share of the revenue.

    Collective bargaining would ensure that student athletes are guaranteed specific commitments by their institutions to safeguard their academic success, holistic development and well-being. These could include approved time off from their sport to participate in beneficial, high-impact practices like internships and undergraduate research, and academic support to help them excel in a program of their choosing—not one effectively chosen for them to accommodate their athletic schedule.

    The graduation rates of student athletes—particularly Black male football and basketball players at the top Power 5 institutions—are dismal. A 2018 study by Shaun R. Harper found that, across the 65 institutions that then comprised the Power 5 conferences, only 55.2 percent of Black male athletes graduated in six years, a figure that was lower than for all student athletes (69.3 percent), all Black undergraduate men (60.1 percent) and all undergraduates (76.3 percent). Under collective bargaining, student athletes could retain their scholarships, regardless of injury or exhausted eligibility, to help finish their degrees. Such financial support would encourage athletes to stay in college after their athletic careers end.

    They could also negotiate better mental health support consistent with the NCAA’s best practices, including annual mental health screenings and access to culturally inclusive mental health providers trained to work with athletes. Coaches would learn to recognize mental health symptoms, which is crucial; as one former women’s basketball coach told me, she didn’t “have the right language” to help her athletes.

    Presently, the NCAA’s posteligibility injury insurance provides student athletes only two years of health care following injury. Collective bargaining could provide long-term health care and disability insurance for those sustaining injuries during college. This matters because football players risk their lives every day to make money for their institutions—doubling their chances to develop chronic traumatic encephalopathy with each 2.6 years they play and likely significantly increasing their chances of developing Parkinson’s disease relative to other nonfootball athletes.

    As one football coach mentioned to me, it may be too late to put the proverbial genie back in the bottle when it comes to pay for play, but it’s not too late for colleges to prioritize their academic mission in their athletic programs, care for students’ well-being and restore the spirit of college sports.

    Debbie Hogan works and teaches at Boston College. Her research focuses on holistic coaching, student athlete development and sense of belonging of Black student athletes.

    Source link