Tag: Education

  • Senate Advances Bill to Ban Corporal Punishment on Disabled Oklahoma Students – The 74

    Senate Advances Bill to Ban Corporal Punishment on Disabled Oklahoma Students – The 74


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

    OKLAHOMA CITY – A bill that would ban schools from using corporal punishment on students with disabilities passed the Senate on Tuesday despite concerns it removes local control and could go against parental wishes.

    The state Department of Education has already prohibited the practice, but Senate Bill 364 seeks to codify into state law a ban against deliberately causing pain by using physical discipline on students with federally protected disabilities.

    “I have never, ever, ever met a parent of a disabled child call for the beating of their child to make them better,” said Sen. Dave Rader, R-Tulsa, the author.

    Rader said some of the protected disabilities include deafness, emotional disturbance, intellectual disability, visual impairment or an orthopedic injury.

    It defines corporal punishment as the deliberate infliction of pain by hitting, paddling, spanking, slapping, or any other physical force used as a means of discipline.

    Rader said corporal punishment could not be used by a school even if a parent agreed to it.

    “Perhaps the parent of the child, in most cases, knows best what that child is going to respond to and how the child is going to perform his or her duties in the classroom,” said Sen. Warren Hamilton, R-McCurtain, who voted against the bill.

    A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1977 allows corporal punishment usage in schools, but leaves it to states to set their own rules.

    Traditionally, Oklahoma lawmakers have left those decisions to local districts, but the state Department of Education quietly barred the practice on children with disabilities starting in the 2020-21 school year. A 2017 law also prohibits the practice on children with the most “significant cognitive disabilities.”

    During the 2017-18 school year, over 20% of  corporal punishments in Oklahoma schools were administered on disabled children, according to federal statistics.

    Other forms of discipline are available, Rader said. The bill does not prohibit parents from using corporal punishment, Rader said.

    Previous efforts to ban the practice have proven controversial. A similar effort last year cleared the state Senate, but died in the House.

    Sen. Shane Jett, R-Shawnee, said Tuesday that banning the practice in schools amounts to “a top down socialist aligned ideological, unilateral divorce between parents’ ability to collaborate with their local schools to establish a disciplined regimen.”

    He also said it “is a violation of scripture,” and cited Proverbs 22:15 which he said says “folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.”

    “There are going to be times when we walk through the valley of the shadow of death, we won’t have to fear evil because your rod and your staff comfort me,” Rader responded.

    Sen. Dusty Deevers, R-Elgin, said there could be negative consequences to removing a partnership between parents and local administrators and forcing the removal of a historically necessary and important disciplinary tool for order.

    “This is not a blanket ban,” Rader said.

    The vote was 31-16.

    The measure moves to the House for possible consideration.

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


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

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer Approaches Half Million Views

    Higher Education Inquirer Approaches Half Million Views


     

    Source link

  • It’s Time for Higher Education Leadership to Embrace ‘Good Trouble’

    It’s Time for Higher Education Leadership to Embrace ‘Good Trouble’

    Dr. Detris AdelabuOn the day of his death in 2020, an op-ed appeared in the New York Times, pre-written by Congressman John Lewis, urging Americans to stand up for justice and what he called “good trouble, necessary trouble.  Even in his death, Congressman Lewis fought for a more equitable America, where every individual recognizes their moral obligation to persist in the struggle for a more just nation.

    The recent Supreme Court decision striking down race-conscious admissions policies, followed by anti-equity legislation across more than 40 states and at the highest level of government, erodes decades of collective efforts to rectify a history of gross social and structural inequities. In higher education, these legislative attacks have led to a decline in Black and Latino student enrollment at selective colleges and universities and have prompted institutions to abandon their commitment to equity.  Universities such as Harvard, Rutgers, Northeastern, the University of Texas, and Louisiana State University are scrubbing their website of all references to diversity, equity, and inclusion, shuttering DEI offices and laying off staff, and scrutinizing the curriculum for any references to DEI.  If ever there was a time for “good trouble” in higher education, that time is now.  But can higher education leadership muster the political will to stand firm for equity?

    Institutional Responsibility and Moral Leadership

    Legislative setbacks to equity beckon colleges and universities to take bold and creative strategies to reaffirm their commitment to equitable access to resources and opportunities in education. Institutions can, for example, place greater emphasis on partnering with under-resourced high schools and expand outreach to marginalized communities to signal their commitment to equity. While such measures are imperfect, they signal a refusal to yield to a regressive interpretation of equity and justice.

    Higher education institutions can leverage their platforms to articulate their mission and commitment to equity beyond their campuses by working together to:

    1. Form Multi-Institutional Alliances to Challenge Anti-DEI Legislation: Colleges and universities can form alliances on a national scale to amplify their collective advocacy against policies that restrict access to resources and opportunities. Sharing strategies and best practices can strengthen collective efforts to promote equity. Dr. Felicity CrawfordDr. Felicity Crawford
    2. Invest in Community Partnerships: By deepening relationships with K-12 schools, particularly those in strategically under-resourced areas, institutions can create robust pathways for diverse talent. Mentorship programs, financial support, and academic preparation initiatives can help bridge gaps in access and opportunity.
    3. Prioritize Transparency and Accountability: By publishing detailed reports on their equity and diversity metrics, institutions can enhance accountability and demonstrate their progress towards equity.

    Upholding the Educational Mission of Higher Education

    The mission of higher education extends beyond the transmission of knowledge. It encompasses the cultivation of informed, engaged, and socially responsible citizens. Failing to prioritize equity undermines this mission, leaving graduates ill-equipped to navigate the complexities of a global society. Institutions that acquiesce to the erosion of equity risk not only their reputations but also their relevance in a rapidly changing world.

    Resisting harmful laws and policies that oppose equity is not without risks. Institutions may face political backlash, reduced funding, or legal challenges. However, the cost of inaction—both in terms of societal impact and institutional integrity—is far greater. By taking a principled stand, colleges and universities can position themselves on the right side of history, inspiring future generations to do the same. Equity, when implemented with fidelity, fosters diversity.

    The current sociopolitical landscape presents a defining moment for higher education. Gross social and structural inequities will not resolve themselves. Left unattended, they will continue to generate detrimental social and economic consequences for American society, with effects that can span generations. By developing innovative strategies, advocating for systemic change, and upholding their educational missions, institutions can resist attacks on progress and continue to serve as beacons of opportunity and justice. In doing so, they not only honor their moral and societal obligations but also preserve the transformative power of education for generations to come.Dr. Linda Banks-SantilliDr. Linda Banks-Santilli

    This moment calls for moral leadership in higher education that not only resists the immediate consequences of anti-DEI legislation but also envisions a more just and inclusive future. This moment calls for good trouble. To echo the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

    “In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. This is no time for apathy or complacency. This is a time for vigorous and positive action.”

    Dr. Detris Honora Adelabu is a Clinical Professor at the Boston University Wheelock College of Education and Human Development

    Dr. Felicity A. Crawford is a Clinical Associate Professor at the Boston University Wheelock College of Education and Human Development

    Dr. Linda Banks-Santilli is a Clinical Associate Professor at the Boston University Wheelock College of Education and Human Development

    Source link

  • AI in K-12 instruction: Insights from instructional coaches

    AI in K-12 instruction: Insights from instructional coaches

    Key points:

    As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes an integral part of modern education, instructional coaches play a pivotal role in guiding teachers on its implementation, bridging the gap between emerging educational technologies and effective classroom practices.

    As trusted mentors and professional development leaders, they guide teachers in implementing AI tools thoughtfully, ensuring that technology enhances student learning while aligning with pedagogical best practices. This article briefly synthesizes responses from instructional coaches regarding their experiences, challenges, and recommendations for integrating AI into K-12 education.  

    Ten instructional coaches, all with advanced degrees, had the following insights into the instructional use of AI in K12 education. They all have more than 10 years of experience in education and work across all three types of school environments: urban, suburban, and rural.

    The coaches reported that AI is used for various instructional purposes. The most-cited applications included providing feedback on student work, creating professional development materials, supporting writing and content generation, creating course content, and enhancing accessibility for students with special needs. Many coaches note that AI tools assisted in grading assignments, offering real-time feedback, and supporting differentiated instruction. AI-powered feedback helps teachers provide more personalized responses without increasing their workload.  Regarding professional development, AI is being used to generate training content for teachers, ensuring they stay updated on educational trends. Coaches are leveraging AI to curate research, synthesize best practices, and develop instructional strategies tailored to their schools.  They encourage teachers and students to utilize AI for brainstorming, outlining essays, and improving writing mechanics.  

    Perceived impact of AI on instruction 

    The vast majority of instructional coaches expressed positive expectations regarding AI’s potential to reduce educator workload, create personalized learning experiences, and improve access for students with disabilities. However, perspectives on AI’s overall impact on education varied. While most believe AI has positively influenced instruction, a few remain cautious about its potential risks.  One coach suggested that allowing students to utilize the tools in a structured setting and teaching them to use AI as a tool is one of the biggest potentials for generative AI in education. About three-fourths of coaches feel that AI will reduce teacher workload by automating repetitive tasks such as grading and data analysis.

    Concerns about AI in education 

    While AI presents numerous benefits, instructional coaches also raised concerns about its potential drawbacks, including ethical dilemmas, student engagement challenges, and equity issues. Despite its advantages, instructional coaches identified several challenges and ethical concerns. They worry some students will use AI tools without critically engaging with the material, leading to passive learning and an overreliance on generative tools. Some had concerns that AI-generated content could reduce the need for creativity and independent thought. Coaches worry that AI makes it easier for students to plagiarize or rely on generated answers without truly understanding concepts which can negatively impact academic integrity. Coaches cite technical challenges as well. Educators face issues with AI tool reliability, compatibility with existing learning management systems (LMS), and steep learning curves. The coaches mentioned that some schools lack the infrastructure to support meaningful widespread AI integration. 

    Several ethical and privacy concerns were mentioned. AI tools collect and store student data, raising concerns about data privacy and security–particularly with younger students who may be less aware or concerned about revealing personally identifiable information (PII). They mention the need for clear guidelines on responsible AI use to prevent bias and misinformation.

    Coaches emphasize the importance of verifying AI-generated materials for accuracy. They suggest teachers be encouraged to cross-check AI-produced responses before using them in instruction. They recommend robust integrating discussions on digital literacy, AI biases, and the ethical implications of generative AI into classroom conversations. Schools need to train educators and students on responsible AI usage. Some schools restrict AI for creative writing, critical thinking exercises, and certain assessments to ensure students develop their own ideas–an idea that coaches recommend. Coaches suggest embedding AI literacy into existing courses, ensuring students understand how AI works, its limitations, and its ethical implications. 

    Equity concerns are a serious issue for instructional coaches. Schools should ensure all students have equal access to AI tools. AI should be leveraged to bridge learning gaps, not widen them. Making sure all students have access to the same suite of tools is essential to create a level playing field for all learners. Instructional coaches generally agree that AI is not just a passing trend, but an integral part of the future of education. There is a concern that generative AI tools will reduce the human interaction of the teaching and learning process. For instance, interpersonal relationships are not developed with AI-based tutoring systems in the same way they can be developed and encouraged with traditional tutoring processes.

    The integration of AI in K-12 education presents both opportunities and challenges. Instructional coaches largely recognize AI’s potential to enhance learning, improve efficiency, academic integrity, and maintain human-centered learning experiences. As AI continues to evolve, educators must be proactive in shaping how it is used, ensuring it serves as a tool for empowerment rather than dependency. Future efforts should focus on professional development for educators, AI literacy training for students, and policies ensuring equitable AI access across diverse school settings.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • UK-Egypt mission sparks new era of higher education partnerships

    UK-Egypt mission sparks new era of higher education partnerships

    From 16-18 February 2025, a high-level delegation from the UK visited Egyptian universities: Ain Shams University, and European Universities in Egypt (EUE); with a planned visit to New Cairo Technological University, to explore possible collaborations between the two countries.

    “Over the course of three enriching days, the education team in Egypt led a higher education mission that was launched in the New Administrative Capital, under the patronage of the Minister of Higher Education through the Supreme Council of Universities and the Egyptian Bureau for Cultural and Educational Affairs in London in collaboration with the British Council in Egypt, and the support of the British Embassy,” Heba ElZein, director of education at the British Council in Egypt told The PIE.

    The delegation comprised representatives from prestigious UK universities, including Sheffield Hallam University, Loughborough University, the University of Essex, the University of East Anglia, the University of Exeter, and the University of Chester.

    Universities UK International representatives were also in attendance, with Anouf El-Daher, policy officer for Africa and Middle East at UUKi, presenting at the British Embassy in Cairo and British Council Egypt, highlighting the value of international collaboration and the potential for long-term, mutually beneficial, EU-Egypt education relationships.

    “Over three days, we visited higher education institutions across Egypt, gaining valuable insights into the local landscape and exploring opportunities for deeper collaboration. This mission allowed us to engage with key stakeholders, understand the evolving higher education landscape in Egypt, and witness the impact of UK-Egypt partnerships firsthand,” a LinkedIn post from UUKi read.

    Over the course of three enriching days, the education team in Egypt led a higher education mission that was launched in the New Administrative Capital
    Heba ElZein, British Council

    The mission offered numerous networking opportunities, as well as joint meetings for Egyptian universities wishing to cooperate and discuss opportunities with their British counterparts.

    The delegation’s primary focus was to foster academic exchange, establish international university branch campus opportunities, and strengthen research collaborations. One of the most significant outcomes of the visit was the signing of multiple Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) between UK and Egyptian universities.

    During that high-profile participation, three MoUs were signed between the University of Essex and Ain Shams University, the University of East Anglia and Ain Shams University, and the University of Sheffield Hallam and the British University in Egypt.

    These agreements are expected to facilitate joint programs, faculty exchanges, and shared research initiatives in the coming years.

    Students in Egypt show a strong interest in TNE as the UK-affiliated programs offer tuition fees from £800 to £13,500, depending on the partnership model. And due to economic and currency challenges, Egyptians are increasingly likely to opt to study in Egypt on a TNE model, as well as inbound students to the country, primarily from Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Nigeria, and Iraq.

    Thus, with a population of around 111 million, and a youthful median age of 24.3, Egypt leads the MENA region in TNE enrolments with 27,865 students in 2022-2023, making it the 5th largest UK TNE host country globally.

    Egypt has emerged as a leading host of UK transnational education students in the MENA region, and the UK remains Egypt’s largest partner in higher education.

    This delegation’s visit is part of a broader initiative to further deepen these ties and provide Egyptian students with greater access to high-quality British education.

    Source link

  • Top female district leaders share do’s and don’ts of climbing the professional ladder in 2025

    Top female district leaders share do’s and don’ts of climbing the professional ladder in 2025

    Key points:

    Professional growth is often at the top of New Year’s Resolution lists. As educators and education leaders plan for the year ahead, we asked some of the nation’s top female school district leaders to give fellow women educators the do’s and don’ts of climbing the professional ladder. Here’s what they said.

    Do: Believe in yourself.

    Though women make up 76 percent of teachers in K-12 school settings, just a small percentage of women hold the most senior role in a district. But the climb to leadership isn’t an easy one; women in educational leadership report a range of biases–from interpersonal slights to structural inequities–that make it difficult to attain and persist in top positions.

    Professional groups like Women Leading Ed are working to change that by highlighting long standing gender gaps and calling for policies and practices to improve conditions at all levels. Female education leaders are also working to rewrite the narrative around what’s possible for women educators and encouraging their peers.

    Among those education leaders is Shanie Keelean, deputy superintendent of Rush-Henrietta Central School District in New York. When asked to share advice to her peers, she said, “You just have to continually push yourself forward and believe in yourself. So very often women, if they don’t check all the boxes, they decide not to go for something. And you don’t have to check all the boxes. Nobody knows everything in every job. You learn things as you go. Passion and energy go a long way in being really committed.”

    Nerlande Anselme, superintendent of Rome City School District in New York, agreed: “We have directors in this field, we have coordinators in this field, we have psychologists who are doing amazing work, but they will dim themselves and figure that they cannot get to the top. Don’t dim your light.”

    Don’t: Keep your career goals a secret.

    When you decide to pursue a leadership position, don’t keep it a secret. While it may feel “taboo” to announce your intentions or desires, it’s actually an important first step to achieving a leadership role, said Kathleen Skeals, superintendent of North Colonie Central School District in New York.

    “Once people know you’re interested, then people start to mentor you and help you grow into the next step in your career,” Skeals said.

    Kyla Johnson-Trammell, superintendent of Oakland Unified School District in California, echoed: “Make your curiosity and your ambition known. You’ll be pleasantly surprised how that will be received by many of the folks that you work for.”

    Do: Find a strong mentor.

    A strong mentor can make all the difference in the climb to the top, leaders agreed.

    “Seek out a leader you respect and ask for a time where you could have a conversation about exploring some possibilities and what the future might bring to you,” said Mary-Anne Sheppard, executive director of leadership development for Norwalk Public Schools in Connecticut.

    It’s especially helpful to connect with someone in a position that you want to be in, said Melanie Kay-Wyatt, superintendent of Alexandria City Public Schools in Virginia. “Find someone who’s in the role you want to be in, who has a similar work ethic and a life that you have, so they can help you,” she said.

    Don’t: Be afraid to ask questions.

    “Start asking a lot of questions,” said Keelean. She suggested shadowing a mentor for a day or asking for their help in creating a career map or plan.

    And don’t be afraid to take risks, added Johnson-Trammell. “Could you get me 15 minutes with the superintendent or the chief academic officer?”

    Do: Build your skill set and network.

    “Increase your impact by developing relational skills and leadership skills,” said Rachel Alex, executive director of leadership development of Aldine Independent School District in Texas.

    And cultivate a network, said Heather Sanchez, chief of schools for Bellevue School District in Washington. “We can’t do it alone. Find that network, cultivate that network.”

    Don’t: Give up.

    “People are always going to tell you no, but that does not stop you,” said Kimberley James. “Continue to live beyond the noise and the distractions and stay focused on what it is that you want to accomplish for our students.”

    “I would say to any woman aspiring to any level of leadership that first of all, never sell yourself short,” said Sanchez. “You have it in you.”

    Interviews were conducted as part of the Visionary Voices video series. Responses have been edited for clarity and brevity.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Cheating matters but redrawing assessment “matters most”

    Cheating matters but redrawing assessment “matters most”

    Conversations over students using artificial intelligence to cheat on their exams are masking wider discussions about how to improve assessment, a leading professor has argued.

    Phillip Dawson, co-director of the Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning at Deakin University in Australia, argued that “validity matters more than cheating,” adding that “cheating and AI have really taken over the assessment debate.”

    Speaking at the conference of the U.K.’s Quality Assurance Agency, he said, “Cheating and all that matters. But assessing what we mean to assess is the thing that matters the most. That’s really what validity is … We need to address it, but cheating is not necessarily the most useful frame.”

    Dawson was speaking shortly after the publication of a survey conducted by the Higher Education Policy Institute, which found that 88 percent of U.K. undergraduates said they had used AI tools in some form when completing assessments.

    But the HEPI report argued that universities should “adopt a nuanced policy which reflects the fact that student use of AI is inevitable,” recognizing that chat bots and other tools “can genuinely aid learning and productivity.”

    Dawson agreed, arguing that “assessment needs to change … in a world where AI can do the things that we used to assess,” he said.

    Referencing—citing sources—may be a good example of something that can be offloaded to AI, he said. “I don’t know how to do referencing by hand, and I don’t care … We need to take that same sort of lens to what we do now and really be honest with ourselves: What’s busywork? Can we allow students to use AI for their busywork to do the cognitive offloading? Let’s not allow them to do it for what’s intrinsic, though.”

    It was a “fantasy land” to introduce what he called “discursive” measures to limit AI use, where lecturers give instructions on how AI use may or may not be permitted. Instead, he argued that “structural changes” were needed for assessments.

    “Discursive changes are not the way to go. You can’t address this problem of AI purely through talk. You need action. You need structural changes to assessment [and not just a] traffic light system that tells students, ‘This is an orange task, so you can use AI to edit but not to write.”

    “We have no way of stopping people from using AI if we aren’t in some way supervising them; we need to accept that. We can’t pretend some sort of guidance to students is going to be effective at securing assessments. Because if you aren’t supervising, you can’t be sure how AI was or wasn’t used.”

    He said there are three potential outcomes for the impact on grades as AI develops: grade inflation, where people are going to be able to do “so much more against our current standards, so things are just going to grow and grow”; and norm referencing, where students are graded on how they perform compared to other students.

    The final option, which he said was preferable, was “standards inflation,” “where we just have to keep raising the standards over time, because what AI plus a student can do gets better and better.”

    Over all, the impact of AI on assessments is fundamental, he said, adding, “The times of assessing what people know are gone.”

    Source link

  • A letter to NEH on compliance with Trump orders (opinion)

    A letter to NEH on compliance with Trump orders (opinion)

    On Feb. 11, the National Endowment for the Humanities announced on its website that it had modified its funding criteria for eligible humanities projects in compliance with three recent executive orders. According to the announcement, “NEH awards may not be used for the following purposes:

    • promotion of gender ideology;
    • promotion of discriminatory equity ideology;
    • support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives or activities; or
    • environmental justice initiatives or activities.”

    These prohibitions impose the terminology of Executive Orders 14151, 14168 and 14190 onto future applicants for NEH funding, whether individual scholars, museums, nonprofit organizations or colleges (including historically Black colleges and universities and tribal colleges). Published well within the stipulated 60-day window for government agency compliance with the order to terminate all “equity-related” initiatives, grants or contracts, these prohibitions represent a swift implementation of the Trump administration’s point-by-point mandate for “Ending Radical Indoctrination.”

    I can only begin to conjecture here about what the consequences of the NEH’s new criteria might be for the humanities, the domain of cultural and intellectual inquiry the NEH was created to foster. To cite the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965, “While no government can call a great artist or scholar into existence, it is necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to help create and sustain not only a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry but also the material conditions facilitating the release of this creative talent.”

    To uphold conditions defined by prohibition rather than freedom—and with prohibitions explicitly targeting the right to existence of queer and transgender people (“gender ideology”), the ability in any way to offset egregious structural inequalities in educational and cultural access (“DEI”), and even the very right to advocate on behalf of anyone’s rights (“discriminatory equity ideology”)—is to betray the very terms under which the NEH was created. In revising its Notice of Funding Opportunities, the NEH is in violation of its public mission.

    Presumably, as a government agency perpetually under threat of budget cuts, the NEH hastened to implement Trump’s executive orders in order to fend off wholesale elimination. The NEH is a federal agency and is thus directly implicated in the executive orders, provided those orders are constitutional. By complying with Trump’s ideology, the National Endowment may perhaps live to see another day, thereby preserving the careers of at least some of its approximately 185 employees and its ability—to do what?

    The NEH has not yet fully overhauled its website to reflect its compliance. Of its current listings of Great Projects Past and Present, perhaps “The Papers of George Washington,” “Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition,” and “The Real Buffalo Bill” might manage to squeeze through under the new stipulations, but would the Created Equal documentary film project be so lucky? Would a biography of union organizer César Chavez manage to qualify as a fundable project, or a documentary about “A Black Surgeon in the Age of Jim Crow”? How about the Transatlantic Slave Trade Database? The NEH has leveraged its own institutional survival on the forfeit of future such projects.

    The problem is a far deeper one, however. In what universe should it be too much to ask that a state-sponsored institution created to uphold the “material conditions” for freedom of thought, imagination and inquiry put up even the slightest resistance to the inhumane, reactionary and repressive edicts issued by the Trump regime? Even today, the NEH website champions its past support for projects that uphold justice in the face of oppression, that resist totalitarian erasure. Yet the NEH itself has mustered no such resistance. Instead, it has announced that any such projects are now ineligible for consideration.

    Of one thing I am certain: The National Endowment for the Humanities has forfeited its claim to the word “humanities.” The humanities do not designate a prohibitive sphere of capitulation to ruling forces. The humanities are not furthered by a governmental agency that serves, willingly or unwillingly, as an ideological extension of a political party. The humanities are a domain of inquiry, of questioning and investigation, not of unquestioning acquiescence.

    As a literature professor and an educator in the humanities for more than a quarter century, I have assured my students that the study of cultural, artistic and intellectual production is continuous with its practice. This not only means that humanistic inquiry involves creativity, creation and a commitment to thinking freely, but it also means that humanistic inquiry necessarily upholds the same responsibility to questions of ethics, value and meaning with which any other historical action must reckon. Humanists cannot, and do not, stand meekly aside while the “real” agents of historical change make big decisions.

    In posting a recent message to the frequently asked questions web form on the NEH website, I wrote that in light of the NEH’s silent capitulation to Trump’s executive orders, I was ashamed to call myself a humanist. I hereby recant that statement. I am not ashamed to call myself a humanist. It is the National Endowment for the Humanities that should be ashamed. Or, better yet, I call on the NEH and all its 185 employees, including and especially NEH chair Shelly C. Lowe, to recant their compliance with Executive Orders 14151, 14168 and 14190 and join other national and international agencies, organizations and individuals in resisting the inhumane and unconstitutional decrees of the Trump administration.

    Jonathan P. Eburne is a professor of comparative literature, English and French and Francophone studies at Pennsylvania State University and director of undergraduate studies in comparative literature.

    Source link

  • Final “Intellectual Affairs” column by Scott McLemee (opinion)

    Final “Intellectual Affairs” column by Scott McLemee (opinion)

    The historian and political analyst Garry Wills once described writing for magazines and newspapers as a way to continue his education while getting paid to do it. The thought made a lasting impression on me and has been a driving force since well before I started writing “Intellectual Affairs” in 2005.

    Twenty years is a sizable portion of anyone’s life; a kind of record of it exists in the form of something short of a thousand columns. I am a slow writer (my wonderful and long-suffering editors at IHE can confirm this), and quantifying the amount of time invested in each piece would probably make me feel older, even, than I look.

    The launch of the column came after a decade of covering scholarly books and debates, first as a contributing editor at Lingua Franca and then as a senior writer at The Chronicle of Higher Education. The founders of Inside Higher Ed approached me with an offer of far less money but complete freedom in what and how I wrote. The decision was easy to make. The offer seemed as close to tenure as a perpetual student could hope to get.

    The shift from writing for dead-tree publications to an online-only venue was not an obvious choice to make, but IHE’s audience and reputation grew rapidly. Getting review copies of new books was not always straightforward or quick. Confusion with other publications having similar names was also a problem. But “Intellectual Affairs” began to draw a certain amount of attention—whether enthusiastic, contemptuous or trollish—in the academic blogosphere of the day.

    The work itself, while grueling at times, was for the most part gratifying. Scholars would write to express astonishment that I’d actually read their books, and even understood them. It seemed best to regard that as a compliment.

    I tend to forget about a column as soon as it’s finished and rarely look at it again. To explain this it is impossible to improve upon Samuel Johnson, who was a columnist of sorts even though the term had not yet been coined. In 1752 he wrote,

    “He that condemns himself to compose on a stated day will often bring to his task attention dissipated, a memory embarrassed, an imagination overwhelmed, a mind distracted with anxieties, a body languishing with disease: he will labour on a barren topic till it is too late to change it; or, in the ardour of invention, diffuse his thoughts into wild exuberance, which the pressing hour of publication cannot suffer judgment to examine or reduce.”

    It’s not always that bad, but the experience he describes is familiar and typically yields the resolution to start earlier next time. But there is no next time with this column.

    I’ve revisited the digital archive in recent days to assemble the selection below. If “Intellectual Affairs” has served as the notebook of an intellectual vagabond, here are a few pages from a long, strange trip.

    Among the earlier columns was one considering the practice of annotating texts while you are reading—specifically, ones printed on paper with ink. A few people found my account of an improvised method useful. These days I mark up PDFs along much the same lines.

    Much Sturm und Drang over e-publishing was underway during the column’s first decade—not least in scholarly circles. A column from 2014 surveys some of the trends predicted, emergent and/or collapsing at the time. Another piece described efforts to rethink literary history with an eye to the prevailing energy sources at the time a text was written.

    More offbeat (and a personal favorite) was this exposé of the unspeakable secret behind Miskatonic University’s financial stability. Another piece brought together the purported psychic powers of Edgar Cayce, a.k.a. “the sleeping prophet,” with news of a technological advance permitting someone to “read” a closed book, or its first few pages, at any rate.

    Early in the last decade, the New York Public Library prepared to offload a sizable portion of its holdings to locations outside the city—freeing up space for more computer terminals. Scholars and citizens spoke up in protest. A second column was necessary to correct the record after an official spun his way through a response to the first one.

    Compulsive and compulsory technological change was at issue in this column suggesting that the Pixar film WALL-E owed a lot to the dystopian satire presented in the cultural theorist Kenneth Burke’s “Helhaven” essays. It was a bit of a stretch, sure, but the point was to honor their “margin of overlap,” as KB would say.

    Many interviews ran in “Intellectual Affairs” over the years. Two in particular stand out. The earliest was with Barbara Ehrenreich on the occasion of her 2005 book about white-collar labor. I also reviewed two of her later books, here and here.

    The other interview was with George Scialabba—a public intellectual working at a certain distance from the tenure track—on the occasion of his first book. His collected essays appeared not too long ago.

    I stand by this assessment of Cornel West’s self-portrait. It caused a ruckus for a few days, but nothing changed in its wake, which is disappointing.

    While by no means prescient, a column on the scholarly study of ignorance from 2008 still feels topical. The subject remained far too relevant 15 years later. Someone will eventually start an Institute for Applied Agnotology; it won’t have trouble finding financial backing.

    Also distressingly perennial is a column considering social-scientific analysis of American demagogues of the 1930s and ’40s. A sequel of sorts, at least in hindsight, was this look into the stagnant depths of a spree killer’s worldview. And I was at work on a column about Ku Klux Klan historiography when Charlottesville broke into the news.

    Less connected to the news cycle but likewise bloody was an item filed after attending a seldom-performed Shakespeare play in 2009. A year earlier, I looked into the far-fetched legend that The Tempest was inspired by a small island near New Bedford, Mass. (Copies of this column were available for a while in pamphlet form at the local historical society.)

    Finally—and a matter of bragging rights— there’s this piece on the first volume of a biography of the long-forgotten Hubert Harrison, a Caribbean-born African American polymath and pan-African activist from the early 20th century. On more than one occasion the author told me that nothing generated more interest in the book than the column.

    George Orwell characterized the professional book reviewer as someone “pouring his immortal spirit down the drain, half a pint at a time.” I once considered this amusing; now it makes me wince. (It’s not even a whole pint, mind you.) The rewards of non-celebrity-oriented cultural journalism tend to be meager and infrequent, but writing this column for Inside Higher Ed has provided more than my share. Thanks in particular to Scott Jaschik, Sarah Bray and Elizabeth Redden for their patience and keen eyes.

    Scott McLemee is Inside Higher Ed’s “Intellectual Affairs” columnist. He was a contributing editor at Lingua Franca magazine and a senior writer at The Chronicle of Higher Education before joining Inside Higher Ed in 2005.

    Source link

  • How cuts at U.S. aid agency hinder university research

    How cuts at U.S. aid agency hinder university research

    Peter Goldsmith knows there’s a lot to love about soybeans. Although the crop is perhaps best known in America for its part in the stereotypically bougie soy milk latte, it plays an entirely different role on the global stage. Inexpensive to grow and chock-full of nutrients, it’s considered a potential solution to hunger and malnutrition.

    For the past 12 years, Goldsmith has worked toward that end. In 2013, he founded the Soybean Innovation Lab at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and every day since then, the lab’s scientists have worked to help farmers and businesses solve problems related to soybeans, from how to speed up threshing—the arduous process of separating the bean from the pod—to addressing a lack of available soybean seeds and varieties.

    The SIL, which now encompasses a network of 17 laboratories, has completed work across 31 countries, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa. But now, all that work is on hold, and Goldsmith is preparing to shut down the Soybean Innovation Lab in April, thanks to massive cuts to the federal foreign aid funds that support the labs.

    A week into the current presidential administration, Goldsmith received notice that the Soybean Innovation Lab, which is headquartered at the University of Illinois, had to pause operations, cease external communications and minimize costs, pending a federal government review.

    Goldsmith told his team—about 30 individuals on UIUC’s campus that he described as being like family to one another—that, though they were ordered to stop work, they could continue working on internal projects, like refining their software. But days later, he learned the university could no longer access the lab’s funds in Washington, meaning there was no way to continue paying employees.

    After talking with university administrators, he set a date for the Illinois lab to close: April 15, unless the freeze ended after the government review. But no review materialized; on Feb. 26, the SIL received notice its grant had been terminated, along with about 90 percent of the U.S. Agency for International Development’s programs.

    “The University of Illinois is a very kind, caring sort of culture; [they] wanted to give employees—because it was completely an act of God, out of the blue—give them time to find jobs,” he said. “I mean, up until [Jan. 27], we were full throttle, we were very successful, phones ringing off the hook.”

    The other 16 labs will likely also close, though some are currently scrambling to try to secure other funding.

    Federal funding made up 99 percent of the Illinois lab’s funding, according to Goldsmith. In 2022, the lab received a $10 million grant intended to last through 2027.

    Dismantling an Agency

    The SIL is among the numerous university laboratories impacted by the federal freeze on U.S. Agency for International Development funds—an initial step in what’s become President Donald Trump’s crusade to curtail supposedly wasteful government spending—and the subsequent termination of thousands of grants.

    Trump and Elon Musk, the richest man on Earth and a senior aide to the president, have baselessly claimed that USAID is run by left-wing extremists and say they hope to shutter the agency entirely. USAID’s advocates, meanwhile, have countered that the agency instead is responsible for vital, lifesaving work abroad and that the funding freeze is sure to lead to disease, famine and death.

    A federal judge, Amir H. Ali, seemed to agree, ruling earlier this month that the funding freeze is doing irreparable harm to humanitarian organizations that have had to cut staff and halt projects, NPR and other outlets reported. On Tuesday, Ali reiterated his order that the administration resume funding USAID, giving them until the end of the day Wednesday to do so.

    But the administration appealed the ruling, and the Supreme Court subsequently paused the deadline until the justices can weigh in. Now, officials appear to be moving forward with plans to fire all but a small number of the agency’s employees, directing employees to empty their offices and giving them only 15 minutes each to gather their things.

    About $350 million of the agency’s funds were appropriated to universities, according to the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, including $72 million for the Feed the Future Innovation Labs, which are aimed at researching solutions to end hunger and food insecurity worldwide. (The SIL is funded primarily by Feed the Future.)

    It’s a small amount compared to the funding universities receive from other agencies, like the National Institutes of Health, also the subject of deep cuts by Trump and Musk. But USAID-funded research is a long-standing and important part of the nation’s foreign policy, as well as a resource for the international community, advocates say. The work also has broad, bipartisan support; in fiscal year 2024, Congress increased funding for the Feed the Future Initiative labs by 16 percent, according to Craig Lindwarm, senior vice president for government affairs at the APLU, even in what he characterized as an extremely challenging budgetary environment.

    Potential Long-Term Harms

    Universities “have long been a partner with USAID … to help accomplish foreign policy and diplomatic goals of the United States,” said Lindwarm. “This can often but not exclusively come in the form of extending assistance as it relates to our agricultural institutions, and land-grant institutions have a long history of advancing science in agriculture that boosts yields and productivity in the United States and also partner countries, and we’ve found that this is a great benefit not just to our country, but also partner nations. Stable food systems lead to stable regions and greater market access for producers in the United States and furthers diplomatic objectives in establishing stronger connections with partner countries.”

    Stopping that research has negatively impacted “critical relationships and productivity,” with the potential for long-term harms, Lindwarm said.

    At the SIL, numerous projects have now been canceled, including a planned trip to Africa to beta test a pull-behind combine, a technology that is not commonly used anymore in the U.S.—most combines are now self-propelled rather than pulled by tractor—but that would be useful to farmers in Africa. A U.S. company was slated to license the technology to farmers in Africa, Goldsmith said, but now, “that’s dead. The agribusiness firm, the U.S. firm, won’t be licensing in Africa,” he said. “A good example of market entry just completely shut off.”

    He also noted that the lab closures won’t just impact clients abroad and U.S. companies; they will also be detrimental to UIUC, which did not respond to a request for comment.

    “In our space, we’re well-known. We’re really relevant. It makes the university extremely relevant,” he said. “We’re not an ivory tower. We’re in the dirt, literally, with our partners, with our clients, making a difference, and [that] makes the university an active contributor to solving real problems.”

    Source link