Tag: decade

  • TheDream.US Celebrates a Decade of Transforming Immigrant Students’ Lives

    TheDream.US Celebrates a Decade of Transforming Immigrant Students’ Lives

    Gaby PachecoTheDream.US, the nation’s largest college and career success program for undocumented immigrant students, has released its 10-year impact report, highlighting remarkable achievements despite significant challenges faced by Dreamers across the United States.

    Since its founding in 2014, the organization has provided more than 11,000 college scholarships to undocumented students attending nearly 80 partner colleges in 20 states and Washington, D.C. The report, titled “From Dreams to Destinations: A Decade of Immigrant Achievements and the Future Ahead,” details how these students have excelled academically and professionally despite facing substantial barriers.

    “In our wildest dreams, we could not have imagined the outcome,” write co-founders Don Graham, Henry Muñoz, and Carlos Gutierrez in the report. “TheDream.US has enrolled 11,000 students in close to 80 Partner Colleges. 76% of those who chose four-year colleges have graduated.”

    The organization’s scholars have consistently outperformed national averages, with a 92% first-year persistence rate and a 76% graduation rate for National Scholarship recipients, compared to the 88% and 72% national averages, respectively. Even more impressive, Opportunity Scholarship recipients, who must relocate to attend one of five partner colleges in states that offer in-state tuition, achieve an 85% graduation rate.

    Most of TheDream.US scholars arrived in the United States at a very young age – the median age of arrival is just 4 years old. They come from more than 120 countries, with 86% from Latin America, and pursue degrees primarily in high-demand fields: 28% in science, math and technology; 23% in business; 19% in social sciences; and 16% in health and medicine.

    The report highlights a concerning shift in the immigration landscape over the past decade. When TheDream.US launched, most scholarship recipients had protection under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Today, 75% of scholars are fully undocumented without work authorization, as court decisions have ended new DACA enrollments.

    Despite these challenges, the organization’s 4,000+ alumni have found ways to thrive. Among those with work authorization, 93% are employed full-time or in graduate school six months after graduation. Many work for major companies including Apple, Microsoft, Bank of America, and JPMorgan Chase, with over half working in business, healthcare, and education.

    Gaby Pacheco, the organization’s President and CEO, embodies the impact of educational opportunity. Once an undocumented student herself who was incorrectly told she couldn’t attend college, Pacheco now leads the organization after a journey that included walking 1,500 miles from Miami to Washington, D.C., spearheading the campaign that paved the way for DACA, and helping pass in-state tuition legislation in Florida.

    “Like the more than 11,000 TheDream.US Scholars we have supported, I grew up in this nation, attended its schools, and received the gift of education thanks to believers in my potential,” Pacheco writes. “Like me, I know our Scholars and our 4,000 Alumni have a lot to offer—if given continued opportunities to help our nation thrive.”

    Looking ahead, TheDream.US plans to continue supporting Dreamers’ access to higher education while also providing immigration and legal resources, preparing scholars for careers as employees or entrepreneurs, and advocating for permanent protections and legal pathways.

    The report concludes with a call for continued support, emphasizing that investment in Dreamers’ education benefits not only the students but also strengthens America’s communities, competitiveness, and economic vitality.

    Source link

  • Legacy admissions tumbled dramatically over past decade

    Legacy admissions tumbled dramatically over past decade

    Dive Brief:

    • The share of four-year colleges that use legacy admissions practices has fallen by roughly half since 2015, from 49% then to 24% by 2025, according to a study from the center-left nonprofit Education Reform Now. 
    • The group counted 420 institutions that give preferential treatment to applicants related to an alum. Meanwhile, 452 have stopped considering legacy ties since 2015. The number and share of institutions are both at their lowest since collection of the information began. 
    • The recent declines are due in part to revamped diversity commitments following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ban on race-conscious admissions, as well as a handful of new state laws prohibiting legacy admissions, the group said. 

    Dive Insight:

    The decline in legacy admissions has been swift, the study found. Just between 2022 and 2023, 92 colleges stopped considering legacy status — an 18% decline in one year. And even more have dropped legacy admissions since then. 

    Of the colleges that nixed the practice, 86% did so via voluntary institutional decision, while 14% were complying with legislation, according to the study.

    The report pulled from the Common Data Set and federal data, which began including legacy admissions policies in 2022. Historically, a clear data picture of an institution’s use of legacy status in admissions has been hard to come by. Colleges have at times also made ambiguous or erroneous entries in the Common Data Set. 

    Education Reform Now identified 12 states that have introduced proposals to ban on legacy admissions, and found that most focused on both public and private institutions. 

    Of the dozen states, five have passed bans, all in recent years: California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland and Virginia. Only Maryland and California addressed private institutions. In several states, bills passed one legislative house but never made it to a vote in both. 

    Legacy admissions policies are concentrated in selective colleges. Among four-year institutions that accepted 25.5% or fewer of their applicants, 56.1% considered legacy status in admissions in the 2023-24 academic year. Nearly a third of colleges with acceptance rates between 25.6% and 50.4% also offered legacy preference, according to the group’s analysis of federal data. 

    Past research has found that legacy status can boost by more than threefold an applicant’s odds of acceptance to highly selective colleges. The practice originated, in part, from an effort in the early 20th century by elite, wealthy universities to keep Jewish applicants out. 

    One scholar in 2019 described legacy admissions as an “affirmative-action policy for rich white students,” which helps “the rich and powerful exploit their position and ensure class domination for the next generation.”

    The practice has come under regulatory scrutiny as well. In 2023, the U.S. Department of Education opened a civil rights investigation into Harvard University’s legacy admissions policy after a group filed a complaint alleging the practice offered de facto preferential treatment to White applicants. 

    Defenders of the practice have pointed to the boost legacy admissions give to fundraising, which in turn can support need-based financial aid that serves to diversify student bodies. 

    Some elite universities, including Yale and Harvard universities, said they were reviewing their legacy policies in the months after the Supreme Court decision. For now, both continue the practice. Some 11% of Yale’s class of 2027 has legacy ties, according to the university’s figures. A survey by The Harvard Crimson found that its share is roughly 32%.

    Source link

  • A decade of debate: Celebrating 10 years of the Chicago principles

    A decade of debate: Celebrating 10 years of the Chicago principles

    In 2014, American colleges faced an existential crisis — campuses erupted over controversial speakers as the heckler’s veto increasingly replaced debate. In response, the University of Chicago drafted a landmark statement reaffirming the school’s commitment to free speech.

    Since then, more than 110 colleges and universities have adopted the “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression,” commonly known as the Chicago Statement or the Chicago principles, transforming the landscape of higher education in the country.

    In a star-studded, all-day symposium last month, the University of Chicago celebrated the 10-year anniversary of the iconic Statement and its famous assertion, “It is not the proper role of the university to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.”


    Watch “The Chicago Canon,” episode 234 of “So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast” with host Nico Perrino.

    The mood was celebratory, reflective, and at times foreboding as panelists shared insights into the drafting and implementation of the principles, debated the future of free speech in academia, and explored the impact of artificial intelligence on expression.

    In his opening remarks, university President Paul Alivisatos reflected on the “crisis” in higher education regarding academic freedom, and that it is nearly “impossible” to have a serious discussion about the topic without mentioning the Chicago Statement. While the causes of this crisis are varied, Alivisatos pointed to the principles as a tonic to cure the ills of higher education. Reflecting on the cultural moment in which the principles were drafted, he reminded the audience of a widely cited line from the statement:

    “Education should not be intended to make people comfortable, it is meant to make them think.”

    He concluded by inviting other universities to join UChicago in its “compelling vision” for the preservation of free expression.

    A longtime leader in the fight for free speech, the university welcomed several members of the original drafting committee to discuss the legacy of the principles. The drafters expressed surprise by how quickly the principles spread to other campuses, but were proud of the impact they’ve had. The real focus of the committee, though, was to codify what Alivisatos described as the institution’s unique “culture built on the wellspring of free expression,” rather than something entirely new.

    The challenge to universities is much greater today than it was 10 years ago.

    Geoffrey Stone, the First Amendment scholar and chair of the committee, spoke of the “fundamental challenge” universities face in encouraging students and faculty to speak their minds. Kenneth Warren, professor of English, echoed this by speaking of faculty members “who are taking on the deep responsibility of exploring difficult questions.”

    The conversation was engaging and frank — all faculty members acknowledged challenges and remained open to the possibility that mistakes may be made along the way — sentiments true to the ethos of the principles themselves.

    Adopting the Chicago Statement

    Statements & Policies

    Since 2015, nearly 100 colleges and universities have adopted some version of the Chicago Statement on the principles of free expression.


    Read More

    Columbia University Provost Angela Olinto, another member of the original committee, highlighted the practical value of an institution adhering to a free speech statement and embracing institutional neutrality. She explained how these principles help administrators defend speech by giving them guidelines to reference in response to censorious mobs — a benefit that FIRE has long championed. She then explained that once an institution defends an individual’s right to speak freely, it is important that the speaker in turn seize the opportunity to do so.

    As the panel noted, FIRE has endorsed the Chicago Statement since the very beginning and has maintained the widely referenced list of adoptions nationwide. At a time when free speech and academic freedom face constant threats, we hope to see more institutions join the ever-growing list of those committed to fostering the free exchange of ideas.

    “The challenge to universities is much greater today than it was 10 years ago,” Stone told FIRE in an interview following the panel. “Put simply, speech that one finds offensive and even hurtful in public discourse must be protected, and those who disagree must be given reasonable opportunities to respond.”

    He added, “This can be challenging, but it is essential if we are to preserve the most fundamental values of higher education at this very challenging time.”

    Want to learn more about the Chicago Statement? View FIRE’s resources, including the list of institutions that have adopted the statement, fast facts, and more. If you’d like to work with our team to encourage adoption on your campus, reach out to FIRE’s Policy Reform team at [email protected].

    Source link

  • Politics and international relations has grown over the last decade – but unevenly

    Politics and international relations has grown over the last decade – but unevenly

    The world seems an uncertain place to live in as we begin 2025: growing levels of conflict and instability across the globe, democratic institutions under pressure, and civic infrastructure being tested by the raging unpredictability of the natural world. Has there ever been a more appropriate time for people, young or old, to study politics? Has there ever been a time when we have been more in need of the expertise of political scientists, theorists, and scholars of international relations to help us make sense of this complex and changing world?

    It feels timely, therefore, that we at the British Academy are publishing a report on the provision of politics and international relations in the UK. This report is the latest in a series of state of the discipline reports from our SHAPE Observatory. It aims to take the temperature of the discipline by examining the size and shape of the sector and observing key trends over the past decade or so.

    Going for growth

    One of the key themes that emerged from our report was expansion. Compared to 2011–12, there has been a 20 per cent increase in first degree students and a 41 per cent increase in postgraduate taught students taking politics and international relations. The number of academic staff has also increased by 52 per cent since 2012–13.

    With this expansion has come diversification, both among students and staff. There are now more female students studying this traditionally male-dominated subject and the proportion of first degree students from minoritised ethnic backgrounds has increased by eight percentage points since 2011–12. Over the same period, the number of international students from outside the EU has more than doubled. The workforce is also becoming more international, with notable increases in staff from outside Europe and North America.

    All of this is positive, as it shows there is still strong demand for the discipline in the UK and that both students and scholars want to come here from around the world to work and study. In interviews we conducted with academic staff, there was a strong emphasis on the positive effects of this diversification. It was argued that the learning and research environment is enriched by bringing a range of perspectives and backgrounds onto campus.

    Uneven development

    But when you scratch beneath the surface of the aggregate numbers, another picture starts to emerge. When we looked at student numbers by institution, it became clear that changes have been highly uneven across the sector since 2011–12. A stark difference was observable, for example, between the average change in student numbers at Russell Group institutions and the rest of the sector:

    Number of institutions Mean change in student numbers
    Russell Group 23 320.2
    Pre-92 other 39 -24.7
    Post-92 51 -16.8

    Mean change (FPE) in first degree student numbers, 2011–12 to 2021–22

    So, if this is a story of expansion, it is really a story of a select few institutions that have expanded remarkably, while the rest of the sector has seen its share of politics and international relations students dwindle over the past few years.

    This pattern will be familiar to some at the institutional level, particularly in England and Wales, where caps on student numbers have been removed. Yet the overall institutional picture can mask ups and downs in recruitment within the same university, along with any restructuring of departments and course portfolios. Isolating changes in student numbers for a single disciplinary area is therefore very revealing.

    Growing pains

    So what are the implications of these changes? More students are engaging with the discipline, and in England and Wales more are able to attend their first-choice destination. Those working within departments at research-intensive universities may argue that the expansion of their department has preserved a degree of pluralism in research activity and practice. The UK has a proud history of political theory, for example, and this sub-field continues to carve out a notable space in the disciplinary landscape – something not mirrored in other leading research nations.

    However, the divergence in recruitment has clearly had a destabilising impact on some politics departments. The redistribution of students across the UK has real-world consequences, leading in some instances to internal restructuring and even departmental closures. Amid gloomy forecasts for the sector, mounting financial pressures, and announcements of course closures in all manner of disciplines, the risk of an uneven balance of course provision has come into sharp focus.

    Mind the gap(s)

    It is in this context that the British Academy recently launched a new map showing changing SHAPE provision in UK higher education over a decade. The picture for politics and international relations is broadly positive, with good coverage across the country at least at the regional level. However, when you exclude students with prior qualifications above the average tariff for the discipline, there is a notable absence of people studying single honours degrees in politics and international relations in the central belt of Scotland.

    The question of access to the discipline is an important one that deserves more detailed exploration at a local level. Many of the institutions that have seen a drop in their student intake are the same universities that would argue they are most adept at reaching local communities where access to higher education is lowest. Moreover, they would likely contend that they are best placed to support these students to succeed at university.

    In an era where more of the learning experience is being digitised and moved online, and where the numbers of commuter students are increasing, perhaps the concentration of politics and international relations students at fewer universities is less of an issue. Institutions are being asked to do more with less, and from a technocratic perspective, this can create economies of scale. Whether this is in the long-term interest of students is questionable. Moreover, ever-concentrating provision does seem antithetical to the notion of addressing regional inequalities, and it runs counter to the government’s ambitions to boost local R&D.

    A question of sustainability

    The question that emerges is not whether this is a problem, but whether it is sustainable.

    There is a great deal of discussion about how current disruption in higher education will spill over into the research base. When we interviewed those working in the field, the diversity of the politics and international relations sector was identified as a key strength, and as one of the elements that contributes to its enviable reputation around the globe. Once a department is gone, it is very hard to reestablish.

    In these volatile times, facing global challenges, politics and international relations has so much to offer both students and wider society. Let’s hope the discipline continues to thrive here in the UK for many years to come.

    Source link

  • A decade after ‘Charlie Hebdo’ killings, we are still failing blasphemers

    A decade after ‘Charlie Hebdo’ killings, we are still failing blasphemers

    One decade ago this week, two gunmen entered the offices of satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo and opened fire, killing cartoonists, journalists, and security personnel as part of coordinated terror attacks that would ultimately claim 17 lives. The attack on the magazine — which is now commemorating the 10th anniversary with a God cartoon contest — was likely due to its cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

    In the immediate aftermath, proverbial battle lines were drawn around the contentious magazine and the legal and social rules around what we can, without punishment or retribution, say about religious symbols, holy figures, and their believers. 

    Some quickly marched under the banner of “Je suis Charlie,” while others staked out more censorial ground, arguing that Charlie Hebdo’s staff shared some of the blame for the tragedy they suffered. Mocking people’s most deeply held beliefs rarely comes without a cost, the argument went, and there is a balancing act between preserving the right to speak and protecting the feelings of religious believers. 

    This is a deeply dangerous and misguided attitude but, amidst the shifting legal and moral boundaries since 2015, the advocates of limiting our right to religious dissent are gaining ground. As the months and years have passed since the killings, countries around the world have veered perilously closer to torching hard fought victories for the freedom of conscience and the right to criticize, even harshly or crudely, the religious powers who preside over our prayers and, sometimes, our politics.


    WATCH VIDEO: Don’t bring a knife to a word fight!

    Dozens of countries, from Poland to Italy to Saudi Arabia to Bangladesh, maintain blasphemy laws, and six of them still threaten accused blasphemers with the death penalty. Even if the state is not willing to kill, its subjects may be. In places like Pakistan or Nigeria, an accusation alone can inspire deadly mob violence. Police in Pakistan sometimes even assign themselves the role of executioner without waiting for a judge or jury. 

    While the situation remains grim in nations that have long enforced these laws, it’s also worsened in countries and institutions that generally promise better protections for free expression. 

    Some responsibility rests at the feet of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which took a distinctly anti-human rights position in 2023 in response to a series of controversial Quran burnings earlier that year. In a 28-12 vote, the council passed a resolution encouraging nations to “address, prevent and prosecute acts and advocacy of religious hatred” (emphasis added). The 57-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation followed that with a resolution urging punishment of online speech lambasting religious “institutions, holy books and religious symbols” and “the immediate cessation, and criminalization” of Quran desecrations. 

    If the higher powers wish to punish their mortal critics and needlers, so be it. The powers-that-be here on earth don’t need to carry out the sentence for them.

    Months after these resolutions, blasphemy law supporters notched a surprising victory: Denmark’s parliament, weary of the controversy caused by Quran burnings in the region, passed a law criminalizing the public desecration of “a writing with significant religious significance for a religious community or an object that appears as such.” And just weeks ago, UK Member of Parliament Tahir Ali pressed Prime Minister Keir Starmer to introduce “measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions.” 

    These initiatives are usually cloaked with flowery language about the need to protect feelings, minimize harm, and better society, but make no mistake: These are blasphemy laws that allow governments to set the terms of how politely and civilly their citizens are allowed to express disagreement with beliefs that carry immense philosophical and often direct political power.

    Even here in the United States, with our strong protections for the right to believe or not, we are still plagued by these challenges. A handful of states still keep blasphemy laws on the books, even if they go unenforced. Michigan’s criminal code, for example, warns that people who “blaspheme the holy name of God, by cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” The Satanic Temple regularly faces efforts by local officials to censor their displays. And when they do manage to obtain permission to express themselves alongside other groups’ religious symbols, their displays are vandalized. 

    We’ve seen these questions bloom on American college campuses, too. Within months after the almost-deadly attack on Salman Rushdie, Minnesota’s Hamline College rid itself of an instructor who respectfully, and with advance warning, displayed a medieval portrait of the Prophet Muhammad in class. Then at nearby Macalester College, administrators covered up an Iranian-American artist’s feminist art exhibition about gender, politics, and religion “to prevent unintentional or non-consensual viewing.”

    From Denmark to the United Nations to the UK, we are forgetting the lessons from the Charlie Hebdo attacks — if we ever really learned them at all.

    Police killings worsen crisis of mob violence against Pakistan’s blasphemers

    Blog

    Plenty of free speech news out of Europe, the sedition crackdown in Hong Kong, efforts to control discussion of foreign governments in Canada and the U.S.


    Read More

    It is not the role of the government to set civility rules for the way we express our opinions about the major faiths that, in some parts of the world, are as much political powers as religious ones. 

    You cannot act against the holy book burner or the impertinent cartoonist without also targeting vocal victims of abuse in the Catholic Church, protesters against forced hijab laws, or critics of the secretive Church of Scientology. But in our eagerness to expediently paper over discomfort, anger, and occasional high-profile controversies provoked by blasphemous expression, we’re sacrificing the rights of dissenters around the world who speak out against very real religious and political oppression. 

    The feelings of religious believers cannot be used as a shield to protect religious and political authorities from their dissenters. If the higher powers wish to punish their mortal critics and needlers, so be it. The powers-that-be here on earth don’t need to carry out the sentence for them.

    Source link