Florida state lawmakers have eliminated in-state tuition for undocumented students, reversing a decade-old law that once enjoyed bipartisan support.
Previously, undocumented students in Florida could apply for waivers to pay in-state tuition rates, if they went to high school in the state for at least three consecutive years and enrolled in college within two years of graduating.
Under the new policy, included in a sweeping immigration bill signed by Governor Ron DeSantis last week, only “citizens of the United States” or those “lawfully present in the United States” qualify. Students receiving the waivers need to be “reevaluated for eligibility” by July 1.
“I don’t think you should be admitted to college in Florida if you’re here illegally,” DeSantis said in a press conference Friday, “but to give in-state tuition was just a slap in the face to taxpayers.”
Florida was one of 25 states that offered in-state tuition to undocumented students at public colleges and universities, according to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal, a data hub run by the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration. These reduced tuition prices came as a relief to undocumented students, who can’t access federal financial aid like their peers and often lack work authorization unless they’re part of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. (Of the approximately 400,000 undocumented students enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities, most don’t hold DACA status.)
Policymakers in other states are considering taking similar steps to curb in-state tuition for these students as they embrace President Donald Trump’s national push against undocumented immigration. Since the presidential election in November, state lawmakers in Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas have introduced legislation to remove in-state tuition for undocumented students. As the issue becomes a political lightning rod, politicians in other states are doubling down on financial supports for these students, introducing bills that would expand in-state tuition eligibility, including in Indiana, New Mexico, Oregon and Pennsylvania.
Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance, said advocates “should be prepared and ready” to come out against similar legislation elsewhere in the country.
A Game of ‘Political Football’
In-state tuition for undocumented students has become a “political football” in Florida, said Jared Nordlund, Florida state director at UnidosUS, a Latino civil rights organization. But that wasn’t always the case.
Republican lieutenant governor Jeanette Nuñez—who resigned last week to become interim president of Florida International University—originally advocated for extending in-state tuition to undocumented students, and former Republican governor Rick Scott, now Florida’s senior U.S. senator, signed the bill into law. Nuñez has since pulled back her support for the policy, posting on X in January that the law had “run its course” and needed to be repealed.
The political winds have shifted on what was once a fairly bipartisan issue, Nordlund said. “Ten years ago, the Republican Party wasn’t the party of Trump.”
Ira Mehlman, media director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an organization that promotes more restrictive immigration policies, applauded Republican state lawmakers for “not rewarding people who are in the country illegally.”
“The more you reward people for breaking the laws, even if it’s through their kids, the more likely people are to disobey the laws,” Mehlman said. And “you are filling seats that might otherwise have gone to kids who are equally deserving and whose parents have not violated any laws.”
Now undocumented students are left to pay out-of-state tuition prices, a significant cost difference. During the 2023–24 academic year, average tuition and fees at Florida colleges and universities for out-of-state students was more than triple the cost state residents paid, according to the Florida Policy Institute, an organization that promotes economic mobility in Florida. The state’s in-state tuition waivers benefited an estimated 6,500 undocumented students that year.
The Ripple Effects
An undocumented student at University of Central Florida, who requested anonymity, told Inside Higher Ed that she couldn’t have pursued a bachelor’s degree as a full-time student without in-state tuition. She would’ve gone for an associate degree instead, taking one or two classes at a time, to keep costs down.
Without in-state tuition, “who knows if I’d be graduating right now,” she said.
The student, who was brought to Florida from Mexico at age 4, is graduating this spring, before the policy change takes effect. But she worries about her peers who won’t have the same resources she did. She previously helped and encouraged other undocumented students to apply for the in-state tuition waiver because of how much it helped her.
“I gave them that hope,” she said, “and now it’s being snatched away from them.”
The student argued she and other undocumented students would use their degrees to contribute to the local labor market, a point they’ve made to state lawmakers in the past; her long-term goal is to open a marketing agency and work with small business owners in the state.
“We studied here our whole life, and our goal is to get our degree and be able to contribute to the economy,” she said.
Diego Sánchez, director of policy and strategy at the Presidents’ Alliance, said he scrambled to pay for college in Florida before in-state tuition became available to undocumented students like him.
In 2008, he enrolled at St. Thomas University, a private institution, and joined as many activities as he could that came with university scholarships—student government, choir and cross country, even though he wasn’t a singer or a runner. He couldn’t have afforded college otherwise, which is why he and other activists advocated for in-state tuition for Florida’s undocumented population. He’s “very disappointed” to see that win reversed.
“It’s about scoring political points,” Sánchez said. “And unfortunately, these students who grew up in Florida, went to our public schools, are going to suffer the consequences … The state has already invested in them, and they’re working their way up to contribute to the community, [to] pay taxes.”
Undocumented students and their supporters argue Florida is going to lose out on these students as future skilled workers at a time when the state is challenged by workforce shortages and an aging population.
Feldblum said these students tend to be “tremendously determined” and will likely attend college in other states, taking their talents with them. She also expects some will stop out of higher ed altogether because they can’t afford it or because they don’t know about other resources available to them, like privately funded scholarships.
“When there are obstacles put in front of students, when students are told, ‘You’re not welcome here’ in different ways, that’s really discouraging,” she said. “That’s disincentivizing,” when Florida has a “need for talent, the need for workforce development.”
What’s Next
The fight for in-state tuition in Florida isn’t over, some advocates say.
“Hopefully we can eventually undo the repeal [of in-state tuition] when the time is right,” Nordlund said. For now, he’s focused on educating state lawmakers and the public about the economic benefits of the repealed policy.
Sánchez plans to lobby state lawmakers to at least let undocumented students already in college finish their degrees at in-state tuition prices, a proposed amendment to the law that previously failed. He hopes colleges and universities push state lawmakers on the issue as well.
He continues to worry, however, that these kinds of attacks on students’ in-state tuition “could spread to other parts of the country.”
Mehlman would like to see other states, and even Congress, look to Florida’s example and work to end in-state tuition for noncitizens nationwide.
“Florida and Texas have sort of been leaders in this area,” he said, “and they certainly can show the way for other states that might be considering this as well.”
In a Jan. 14 lecture, Ken Levy, Holt B. Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at Louisiana State University, dropped f-bombs against then–president-elect Donald Trump and Louisiana governor Jeff Landry and told students who like Trump that they need his “political commentary.”
Some students found the apparent attempt at political humor funny, according to an audio recording of the class obtained by Inside Higher Ed from a student who supports Levy.
But at least one student in the administration of criminal justice class who subsequently complained, according to LSU, wasn’t amused—and neither were the university and the governor. An LSU spokesperson said the institution “took immediate action to remove Professor Levy from the classroom after complaints about the professor’s remarks.”
Levy got a lawyer and took immediate action himself, pulling LSU into court instead of waiting for the university to take further steps internally regarding his job.
In the month since that lecture, state district court judges have twice ruled that Levy should return to the classroom, only for a state appeals court to twice overrule that. The back-and-forth nature of the case has attracted attention in Louisiana and in law circles, including via headlines such as “The LSU Law School Professor Free Speech Hot Potato Saga Continues.”
Landry also continues to discuss the case. A Republican governor who’s repeatedly insertedhimself in LSU affairs, Landry used social media in the fall to call on the university to punish one of Levy’s law school colleagues for alleged in-class comments about Trump-supporting students. Landry has now repeatedly posted about Levy, recently saying an alleged exam he gave was incendiary and suggesting that “maybe it’s time to abolish tenure.”
In and Out
In the lecture in question, Levy referenced Landry’s previous criticism of his LSU colleague Nick Bryner, adding that he “would love to become a national celebrity [student laughter drowns out a moment of the recording] based on what I said in this class, like, ‘Fuck the governor!’”
Levy also referenced Trump. “You probably heard I’m a big lefty, I’m a big Democrat, I was devastated by— I couldn’t believe that fucker won, and those of you who like him, I don’t give a shit, you’re already getting ready to say in your evaluations, ‘I don’t need his political commentary,’” Levy told students. “No, you need my political commentary, you above all others.”
A few days after that lecture, LSU notified Levy he was suspended from teaching pending an investigation into student complaints, according to a letter from the university provided by Levy’s attorney, Jill Craft.
On Jan. 28, Craft filed a request for a temporary restraining order against LSU to get Levy back in the classroom. The filing alleged that a student complained to the governor, not LSU, and calls were then made to LSU. A state district court judge granted the restraining order Jan. 30 without a hearing.
In the first reversal, a panel of appellate judges wrote Feb. 4 that the lower court shouldn’t have approved the return-to-teaching part of the temporary restraining order without a full evidentiary hearing. But after the lower court held a two-day hearing last week, a different group of appellate judges overruled Levy’s return to teaching again—without explaining why.
Local journalists who covered last week’s hearing reported that district court judge Tarvald Anthony Smith kicked an LSU deputy general counsel out of the courtroom because the lawyer told the law school dean, who was a scheduled and sequestered witness, about a student witness’s earlier testimony. The testimony was reportedly that the student had recorded a conversation with the dean.
Smith ruled Feb. 11 that LSU policy required the university to keep Levy in class during the investigation of his comments, WBRZ reported. But a Feb. 4 statement from university spokesman Todd Woodward to Inside Higher Ed suggested the investigation was already over: “Our investigation found that Professor Levy created a classroom environment that was demeaning to students who do not hold his political view, threatening in terms of their grades and profane.” The university didn’t make anyone available for an interview about the case.
Amid this legal back-and-forth, Landry continues to denounce Levy on social media. Last week, Landry posted on X an alleged exam from Levy that included potential sexual and other crimes committed by various fictitious individuals and asked students at the end to “discuss all potential crimes and defenses.” The narrative included a teen who put his penis into pumpkins on Halloween and was seen by trick-or-treating children, and a powerful Republican and suspected pedophile who invited the children inside to dance for him.
“Disgusting and inexcusable behavior from Ken Levy,” Landry wrote on X regarding what he claimed was Levy’s test. “Deranged behavior like this has no place in our classrooms! If tenure protects a professor from this type of conduct, then maybe it’s time to abolish tenure.” Asked about this document, Craft said she believes the assignment was part of the sex crimes portion of Levy’s criminal law exam years ago, but she did not confirm it.
After the latest appellate ruling in LSU’s favor, Landry wrote on X that “Levy should stay far, far away from any classroom in Louisiana!”
Craft said Levy has received death threats on X due to Landry’s comments there. “This seems to be a situation entirely of the governor’s making,” she said. “He has been active on social media, trying to accuse my client of all kinds of bad things. He’s a lawyer himself. He attacked the courts and the judge.”
Landry’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Craft also said Levy’s roughly 80 students remain with another 80 in another professor’s classroom.
“I’m not sure how he can handle office hours for 160 law students,” Craft said of that second professor. The university says it’s doubled the number of student tutors for the course.
No Longer the U.S.?
Craft said Levy was set to return to the classroom Feb. 13, but Louisiana’s First Circuit Court of Appeal issued its two-sentence order around 9:30 a.m. that appeared to stay the part of the lower court’s order that returned Levy to teaching.
LSU again kept Levy out of the classroom Tuesday, Craft said. But she said the rest of the lower court order remains in place, at least for now, and that prevents LSU from taking further employment action against Levy due to his expression.
“This is a critical issue, and I feel like we have got to, as a nation, understand that there has to be academic freedom, there has to be free speech in this country, and there have to be protections against governmental intrusions without due process,” she said. “We take all that away and we are no longer the United States of America.”
A year after being sued by ex-president Joseph Nyre for alleged breach of contract and retaliation, among other claims, Seton Hall University has hit back with its own legal action against the former leader.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in the Superior Court of New Jersey, the university accused Nyre of “illicitly accessing, downloading, maintaining, and later disseminating confidential and proprietary documents, as well as documents protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges, and information after his departure as President of the University.” Those documents led to critical reports about the university’s current president, Monsignor Joseph Reilly.
Alongside Nyre, the lawsuit also names John Does 1–10, referring to them as “persons who are in possession of documents unlawfully maintained, retrieved, accessed, and/or downloaded.”
In a statement to Inside Higher Ed, a Seton Hall spokesperson wrote that Wednesday’s filing “makes clear that confidential documents were utilized with sections selectively released, causing damage to the University and its leadership and painting a false narrative about Monsignor Reilly.” Reilly has been accused of failing to report allegations of sexual misconduct and thus violating the university’s Title IX policies.
An attorney for Nyre blasted the lawsuit as a “cover-up” by Seton Hall.
The former president later sued Seton Hall, alleging he was pushed out by the Board of Regents amid conflict with then-chair Kevin Marino, whom Nyre accused of micromanagement, improperly involving himself in an embezzlement investigation at the law school and sexually harassing the president’s wife, Kelli Nyre, among other claims. Marino, who is no longer a board member, was not named as a defendant in Nyre’s lawsuit, and an investigation found no evidence of sexual harassment.
While Seton Hall is defending itself against Nyre’s lawsuit, it also threw a legal counterpunch in suing the ex-president. The university alleges that its information technology team confirmed that Nyre had improperly accessed materials after his departure, and in doing so, he violated confidentiality provisions in his employment and separation agreement.
Specifically, Nyre is accused of improperly downloading confidential documents that were later provided to Politico. Those files—some of which were also obtained by Inside Higher Ed—seemed to indicate Reilly, the current president, overlooked instances of sexual harassment while rector and dean of the university’s graduate seminary from 2012 to 2022.
However, one of the leaked documents in question—a letter from a Board of Regents member to Reilly in February 2020 that said he had violated university Title IX policies through his inaction—was an unsent draft, university officials previously told Inside Higher Ed.
Seton Hall officials said in the lawsuit that though the Politico reporter never disclosed who provided him with the documents, “it was clear that [Nyre], directly or indirectly, was responsible” for the leak of confidential information to the news outlet between December and February. Seton Hall accused Nyre of trying to “create a false impression about” Reilly, arguing he acted in “bad faith and malicious intent” by not disclosing that the February 2020 letter was never sent.
The allegations against Reilly have prompted calls for transparency from state lawmakers and Democratic governor Phil Murphy, who called on the university to release an investigative report that allegedly cleared Reilly. Seton Hall has thus far declined to do so, citing the need to protect the confidentiality of participants who voluntarily cooperated with the investigation.
The allegations against Reilly come as the university is only a few years removed from the sprawling sexual abuse scandal involving former cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who sat on both of Seton Hall’s governing boards. Investigators determined in a 2019 university report that McCarrick “created a culture of fear and intimidation” and “used his position of power as then–Archbishop of Newark”—which sponsors Seton Hall—“to sexually harass seminarians” for decades. (McCarrick was defrocked but avoided criminal charges due to a dementia diagnosis.)
As part of the lawsuit, Seton Hall is seeking a temporary restraining order to stop Nyre from allegedly sharing more documents. University officials argued in court filings that Seton Hall stands to “suffer irreparable harm” from further leaks, which “cannot be adequately compensated” monetarily.
“The nature of the harm is such that it affects the university’s ability to maintain the confidentiality of sensitive information, which is crucial for its operations and reputation,” filings read. “Moreover, to the extent that documents to which defendant has access are protected under [the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act] or Title IX, the disclosure of such documents would directly implicate the right of students and their parents to control the disclose [sic] of such confidential educational records as well as the confidentiality rights of university employees.”
Pushback
In a statement to Inside Higher Ed, Nyre attorney Matthew Luber called the lawsuit “a desperate, retaliatory ploy designed to silence a whistleblower and distract from the university’s own corruption and misconduct.”
Luber did not specifically address the allegations that Nyre had inappropriately leaked confidential documents but accused Seton Hall of ignoring red flags in hiring Reilly and overlooking Title IX infractions.
“Let’s be clear: Dr. Nyre was not at Seton Hall when Monsignor Reilly engaged in misconduct, nor when the board knowingly violated its own policies and Title IX to install him as President,” Luber wrote. “But he was the one who warned university officials about Reilly’s disqualifying history during his presidential search—warnings that were deliberately ignored by board leadership. Instead of addressing their own failures, Seton Hall is now attempting to smear and intimidate Dr. Nyre.”
As of publication, a judge has not set to a hearing to consider the request for a restraining order.
Did
you know that Truthout is a nonprofit and independently funded by
readers like you? If you value what we do, please support our work with a donation.
Trump appears bent on ridding schools of dangerous practices like critical thinking and an unsanitized study of history.
In the initial days of his second term, President Donald Trump issued several executive orders “seeking
to control how schools teach about race and gender, direct more tax
dollars to private schools, and deport pro-Palestinian protesters.” On January 29, 2025, he signed the “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling”
executive order, which mandates the elimination of curricula that the
administration deems as promoting “radical, anti-American ideologies.”
This executive order is not just an attack on critical race theory or
teachings about systemic racism — it is a cornerstone of an
authoritarian ideology designed to eliminate critical thought, suppress
historical truth and strip educators of their autonomy. Under the guise
of combating “divisiveness,” it advances a broader war on education as a
democratizing force, turning schools into dead zones of the
imagination. By threatening to strip federal funding from institutions
that refuse to conform, this policy functions as an instrument of
ideological indoctrination, enforcing a sanitized, nationalistic
narrative that erases histories of oppression and resistance while
deepening a culture of ignorance and compliance.
Concurrently, President Trump issued the “Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families”
executive order, aiming to enhance school choice by redirecting federal
funds to support charter schools and voucher programs. This policy
enables parents to use public funds for private and religious school
tuition. While proponents claim that this legislation empowers parents
and fosters competition, in reality, it is a calculated effort to defund
and privatize public education, undermining it as a democratizing
public good. As part of a broader far right assault on education, this
policy redirects essential resources away from public schools, deepening
educational inequality and advancing an agenda that seeks to erode
public investment in a just and equitable society.
In the name of eliminating radical indoctrination in schools, a third executive order,
which purportedly aims at ending antisemitism, threatens to deport
pro-Palestinian student protesters by revoking their visas, warning that even those legally in the country could be targeted
for their political views. In a stark display of authoritarianism,
Trump’s executive order unapologetically stated that free speech would
not be tolerated. Reuters
made this clear in reporting that one fact sheet ominously declared: “I
will … quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on
college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never
before. To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist
protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will
deport you.”
By gutting federal oversight, he is handing the fate of education to
reactionary state legislatures and corporate interests, ensuring that
knowledge is shaped by a state held captive by billionaires and far
right extremists. This is the logic of authoritarianism: to hollow out
democratic institutions and replace education with white Christian
propaganda and a pedagogy of repression. At issue here is an attempt to
render an entire generation defenseless against the very forces seeking
to dominate them.
What we are witnessing is not just an educational crisis but a
full-scale war on institutions that not only defend democracy but enable
it. What is under siege in this attack is not only the critical
function of education but the very notion that it should be defined
through its vision of creating a central feature of democracy, educating
informed and critically engaged citizens.
These executive actions represent an upgraded and broader version of
McCarthyite and apartheid-era education that seeks to dictate how
schools teach about race and gender, funnel more taxpayer dollars into
private institutions, and deport Palestinian protesters. The irony is
striking: The White House defends these regressive measures of
sanitizing history, stripping away the rights of transgender students
and erasing critical race theory as efforts to “end indoctrination in
American education.” In truth, this is not about the pursuit of freedom
or open inquiry, nor is it about fostering an education that cultivates
informed, critically engaged citizens. At its core, this agenda is a
deliberate attack on education as a public good — one that threatens to
dismantle not only public institutions, but the very essence of public
and higher education and its culture of criticism and democracy. The
urgency of this moment cannot be overstated: The future of education
itself is at stake.
In the raging currents of contemporary political and cultural life,
where fascist ideologies are rising, one of the most insidious and
all-encompassing forces at play is the violence of forgetting — a plague
of historical amnesia. This phenomenon, which I have referred to as “organized forgetting,”
describes the systemic erasure of history and its violent consequences,
particularly in the public sphere. This is especially evident in the
current historical moment, when books are banned in
libraries, public schools and higher education across countries, such
as the United States, Hungary, India, China and Russia. Ignoring past
atrocities, historical injustices and uncomfortable truths about a
society’s foundation is not merely an oversight — it constitutes an
active form of violence that shapes both our collective consciousness
and political realities. What we are witnessing here is an assault by
the far right on memory that is inseparable from what Maximillian
Alvarez describes as a battle over power — over who is remembered, who
is erased, who is cast aside and who is forcibly reduced to something
less than human. This struggle is not just about history; it is about
whose stories are allowed to shape the present and the future. Alvarez captures this reality with striking clarity and is worth quoting at length:
Among the prizes at stake in the endless war of politics is history
itself. The battle for power is always a battle to determine who gets
remembered, how they will be recalled, where and in what forms their
memories will be preserved. In this battle, there is no room for neutral
parties: every history and counter-history must fight and scrap and
claw and spread and lodge itself in the world, lest it be forgotten or
forcibly erased. All history, in this sense, is the history of empire — a
bid for control of that greatest expanse of territory, the past.
Organized forgetting also helped fuel the resurgence of Donald Trump,
as truth and reason are being systematically replaced by lies,
corruption, denial and the weaponization of memory itself. A culture of
questioning, critique and vision is not simply disappearing in the
United States — it is actively maligned, disparaged and replaced by a
darkness that, as Ezra Klein
observes, is “stupefyingly vast, stretching from self-destructive
incompetence to muddling incoherence to authoritarian consolidation.”
This erosion affects institutions of law, civil society and education
— pillars that rely on memory, informed judgment and evidence to foster
historical understanding and civic responsibility. The attack on the
common good goes beyond the distractions of an “attention economy”designed
to distort reality; it reflects a deliberate effort to sever the ties
between history and meaning. Time is reduced to fragmented episodes,
stripped of the shared narratives that connect the past, present and
future.
This crisis embodies a profound collapse of memory, history,
education and democracy itself. A culture of manufactured ignorance —
rooted in the rejection of history, facts and critical thought — erases
accountability for electing a leader who incited insurrection and
branded his opponents as “enemies from within.” Such authoritarian
politics thrive on historical amnesia, lulling society into passivity,
eroding collective memory and subverting civic agency. This is
epitomized by Trump’s declaration
on “Fox & Friends” that he would punish schools that teach students
accurate U.S. history, including about slavery and racism in the
country. The call to silence dangerous memories is inseparable from the
violence of state terrorism — a force that censors and dehumanizes
dissent, escalating to the punishment, torture and imprisonment of
truth-tellers and critics who dare to hold oppressive power accountable.
At its core, the violence of forgetting operates through the denial
and distortion of historical events, particularly those that challenge
the dominant narratives of power. From the colonial atrocities and the
struggles for civil rights to the history of Palestine-Israel relations,
many of the most significant chapters of history are either glossed
over or erased altogether. This strategic omission serves the interests
of those in power, enabling them to maintain control by silencing
inconvenient truths. As the historian Timothy Snyder
reminds us, by refusing to acknowledge the violence of the past,
society makes it far easier to perpetuate injustices in the present. The
politics of organized forgetting, the censoring of history and the
attack on historical consciousness are fundamental to the rise of far
right voices in the U.S. and across the world.
With the rise of regressive memory laws, designed to repress what
authoritarian governments consider dangerous and radical interpretations
of a country’s past, historical consciousness is transformed into a
form of historical amnesia. One vivid example of a regressive memory law
was enacted by Trump during his first term. The 1776 Report,
which right-wingers defended as a “restoration of American education,”
was in fact an attempt to eliminate from the teaching of history any
reference to a legacy of colonialism, slavery and movements which
highlighted elements of American history that were unconscionable,
anti-democratic and morally repugnant. Snyder highlights the emergence
of memory laws in a number of states. He writes in a 2021 New York Times article:
As of this writing, five states (Idaho, Iowa, Tennessee, Texas and
Oklahoma) have passed laws that direct and restrict discussions of
history in classrooms. The Department of Education of a sixth (Florida)
has passed guidelines with the same effect. Another 12 state
legislatures are still considering memory laws. The particulars of these
laws vary. The Idaho law is the most Kafkaesque in its censorship: It
affirms freedom of speech and then bans divisive speech. The Iowa law
executes the same totalitarian pirouette. The Tennessee and Texas laws
go furthest in specifying what teachers may and may not say. In
Tennessee teachers must not teach that the rule of law is “a series of
power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups.”… The
Idaho law mentions Critical Race Theory; the directive from the Florida
school board bans it in classrooms. The Texas law forbids teachers from
requiring students to understand the 1619 Project. It is a perverse
goal: Teachers succeed if students do not understand something.
A major aspect of this forgetting and erasure of historical memory is the role of ignorance,
which has become not just widespread but weaponized in modern times.
Ignorance, particularly in U.S. society, has shifted from being a
passive lack of knowledge to an active refusal to engage with critical
issues. This is amplified by the spectacle-driven nature of contemporary
media and the increasing normalization of a culture of lies and the
embrace of a language of violence, which not only thrives on distraction
rather than reflection, but has become a powerful force for spreading
bigotry, racial hatred and right-wing lies. In addition, the mainstream
media’s obsession with spectacle — be it political drama, celebrity
culture or sensationalist stories — often overshadows the more
important, yet less glamorous, discussions about historical violence and
systemic injustice.
This intellectual neglect allows for a dangerous cycle to persist,
where the erasure of history enables the continuation of violence and
oppression. Systems of power benefit from this amnesia, as it allows
them to maintain the status quo without having to answer for past
wrongs. When society refuses to remember or address past injustices —
whether it’s slavery, imperialism or economic exploitation — those in
power can continue to exploit the present without fear of historical
accountability.
To strip education of its critical power is to rob democracy of its transformative potential.
The cultural impact of this organized forgetting is profound. Not
only does it create a void in public memory, but it also stunts
collective growth. Without the lessons of the past, it becomes nearly
impossible to learn from mistakes and address the root causes of social
inequalities. The failure to remember makes it harder to demand
meaningful change, while reproducing and legitimating ongoing far right
assaults on democracy.
The violence of organized forgetting is not a mere act of neglect; it
is a deliberate cultural and intellectual assault that undercuts the
foundations of any meaningful democracy. By erasing the past, society
implicitly condones the ongoing oppression of marginalized groups and
perpetuates harmful ideologies that thrive in ignorance. This erasure
silences the voices of those who have suffered — denying them the space
to speak their truth and demand justice. It is not limited to historical
injustices alone; it extends to the present, silencing those who
courageously criticize contemporary violence, such as Israel’s
U.S.-backed genocidal war on Gaza, and those brave enough to hold power
accountable.
The act of forgetting is not passive; it actively supports systems of
oppression and censorship, muffling dissent and debate, both of which
are essential for a healthy democracy.
Equally dangerous is the form of historical amnesia that has come to
dominate our contemporary political and cultural landscape. This
organized forgetting feeds into a pedagogy of manufactured ignorance
that prioritizes emotion over reason and spectacle over truth. In this
process, history is fragmented and distorted, making it nearly
impossible to construct a coherent understanding of the past. As a
result, public institutions — particularly education — are undermined,
as critical thinking and social responsibility give way to shallow,
sensationalized narratives. Higher education, once a bastion for the
development of civic literacy and the moral imperative of understanding
our role as both individuals and social agents, is now attacked by
forces seeking to cleanse public memory of past social and political
progress. Figures like Trump embody this threat, working to erase the
memory of strides made in the name of equality, justice and human
decency. This organized assault on historical memory and intellectual
rigor strikes at the heart of democracy itself. When we allow the
erasure of history and the undermining of critical thought, we risk
suffocating the ideals that democracy promises: justice, equality and
accountability.
A democracy cannot thrive in the absence of informed and engaged
agents that are capable of questioning, challenging and reimagining a
future different from the present. Without such citizens, the very
notion of democracy becomes a hollow, disembodied ideal — an illusion of
freedom without the substance of truth or responsibility. Education, in
this context, is not merely a tool for transmitting knowledge; it is
the foundation and bedrock of political consciousness. To be educated,
to be a citizen, is not a neutral or passive state — it is a vital,
active political and moral engagement with the world, grounded in
critical thinking and democratic possibility. It is a recognition that
the act of learning and the act of being a citizen are inextricable from
each other. To strip education of its critical power is to rob
democracy of its transformative potential.
Confronting the violence of forgetting requires a shift in how we
engage with history. Intellectuals, educators and activists must take up
the responsibility of reintroducing the painful truths of the past into
public discourse. This is not about dwelling in the past for its own
sake, but about understanding its relevance to the present and future.
To break the cycles of violence, society must commit to remembering, not
just for the sake of memory, but as a critical tool for progress.
Moreover, engaging with history honestly requires recognizing that
the violence of forgetting is not a one-time event but a continual
process. Systems of power don’t simply forget; they actively work to
erase, rewrite and sanitize historical narratives. This means that the
fight to remember is ongoing and requires constant vigilance. It’s not
enough to simply uncover historical truths; society must work to ensure
that these truths are not forgotten again, buried under the weight of
media spectacles, ideological repression and political theater.
Ultimately, the violence of forgetting is an obstacle to genuine
social change. Without confronting the past — acknowledging the violence
and injustices that have shaped our world — we cannot hope to build a
more just and informed future. To move forward, any viable democratic
social order must reckon with its past, break free from the bonds of
ignorance, and commit to creating a future based on knowledge, justice
and accountability.
The task of confronting and dismantling the violent structures shaped
by the power of forgetting is immense, yet the urgency has never been
more pronounced. In an era where the scope and power of new pedagogical
apparatuses such as social media and AI dominate our cultural and
intellectual landscapes, the challenge becomes even more complex. While
they hold potential for education and connection, these technologies are
controlled by a reactionary ruling class of financial elite and
billionaires, and they are increasingly wielded to perpetuate
disinformation, fragment history and manipulate public discourse. The
authoritarian algorithms that drive these platforms increasingly
prioritize sensationalism over substance, lies over truth, the
appropriation of power over social responsibility, and in doing so,
reinforce modes of civic illiteracy, while attacking those fundamental
institutions which enable critical perspectives and a culture of
questioning.
The vital need for collective action and intellectual engagement to
reclaim and restore historical truth, critical thinking and social
responsibility is urgent. The present historical moment, both
unprecedented and alarming, resonates with Antonio Gramsci’s reflection
on an earlier era marked by the rise of fascism: “The old world is
dying, and the new world struggles to be born; now is the time of
monsters.”
In the face of a deepening crisis of history, memory and agency, any
meaningful resistance must be collective, disruptive and
unapologetically unsettling — challenging entrenched orthodoxies and
dismantling the forces that perpetuate ignorance and injustice. This
struggle needs to be both radical in its essence and uncompromising in
its demands for social change, recognizing education as inseparable from
politics and the tangible challenges people face in their everyday
lives. In this collective effort lies the power to dismantle the
barriers to truth, rebuild the foundations of critical thought, and
shape a future rooted in knowledge, justice and a profound commitment to
make power accountable. Central to this vision is the capacity to learn
from history, to nurture a historical consciousness that informs our
present and to reimagine agency as an essential force in the enduring
struggle for democracy. This call for a radical imagination cannot be
confined to classrooms but must emerge as a transformative force
embedded in a united, multiracial, working-class movement. Only then can
we confront the urgent crises of our time.
We’re resisting Trump’s authoritarian pressure.
As
the Trump administration moves a mile-a-minute to implement right-wing
policies and sow confusion, reliable news is an absolute must.
Truthout
is working diligently to combat the fear and chaos that pervades the
political moment. We’re requesting your support at this moment because
we need it – your monthly gift allows us to publish uncensored,
nonprofit news that speaks with clarity and truth in a moment when
confusion and misinformation are rampant. As well, we’re looking with
hope at the material action community activists are taking. We’re
uplifting mutual aid projects, the life-sustaining work of immigrant and
labor organizers, and other shows of solidarity that resist the
authoritarian pressure of the Trump administration.
As we work to dispel the atmosphere of political despair, we ask that you contribute to our journalism. Over 80 percent of Truthout’s
funding comes from small individual donations from our community of
readers, and over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring
monthly donors.
8
days remain in our fundraiser, and you can help by giving today.
Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.
This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.
Founded in 1957, Cabrini University, a small, tuition-driven Roman Catholic liberal arts institution located outside of Philadelphia, closed last June after providing a year’s notice of its impending closure. One of at least 14 nonprofit four-year colleges that announced closures in 2023, Cabrini announced a memorandum of understanding with Villanova University in June 2023, signed a definitive agreement in November 2023 and closed the transaction in June 2024.
Through this transaction, Cabrini was afforded a final year of operation prior to closure. Villanova acquired Cabrini’s assets, including a 112-acre property, and committed to preserving the legacy of Cabrini through commitments like naming its new campus Villanova University Cabrini Campus, providing Cabrini representatives two seats on the Villanova board for up to two successive five-year terms, stewarding the Mother Cabrini special collections and planning events for Cabrini alumni.
In this three-part essay, we—Cabrini’s former interim president, Helen Drinan, and former members of the academic leadership team—describe our decision to seek a strategic partner, the planning that went into a dignified closure and the ways we supported employees and students through a mission-driven plan to help them transition in terms of their careers and academic studies.
High acceptance rate: It increased from 72 percent in 2018 to 79 percent in 2022.
Low yield on offers of admission: It declined from 17 percent in 2018 to 11 percent in 2022.
Falling enrollment: 29.3 percent decline between 2018 (2,283) and 2022 (1,613).
Rising institutional aid: Institutional aid awards increased by about 38 percent from 2018 to 2022 ($10,595 per student in 2018 to $14,638 per student in 2022), outpacing small increases in tuition. In 2022–23, 39 percent of Cabrini’s undergraduate students were receiving Pell Grants and 99 percent received institutional grant or scholarship aid.
Persistent operating losses: Eight years of operating losses from 2015 to 2022, ranging between $1.9 million and $10 million, topped off by a fiscal year 2023 budget awaiting approval that included its highest-ever multimillion-dollar operating loss.
Enrollment and financial operating data of course tell only part of the story of a troubled institution. Many leadership decisions made over time cumulatively result in these kinds of outcomes. At least three common practices have emerged as critical leadership traps in higher education: nonstrategic launches of initiatives intended to increase revenues or decrease costs, consistent drawdowns of the endowment to cover annual losses and accumulation of deferred maintenance. All three of these institution-threatening practices were occurring at Cabrini over the eight years leading to the summer of 2022, when we realized time was running out.
The Road to Closure
Sound strategic planning for a tuition-dependent, modestly endowed, indebted institution like Cabrini depends on choosing opportunities that expand on existing expertise, require minimal capital outlays and are tested for success within a three-year time frame. At Cabrini, too many new initiatives, well beyond historic areas of expertise, were launched in the eight years prior to closure, resulting in a laundry list of only loosely related activities: a targeted international student recruitment program, graduate online education, revived adult degree completion offerings, new doctoral programs, a new residence hall and parking garage, efforts to qualify as a Hispanic-serving institution, and the start-up of a new undergraduate nursing program. All this occurred while the university took on additional debt for construction activity and used federal pandemic relief funding to fill revenue gaps, pushing the institution to the point where it faced its largest-ever annual deficit and rapidly declining cash on hand going into fiscal year 2023.
In summer 2022, Cabrini’s Board of Trustees approved a four-month budget delay, and the senior leadership team sought to identify $10 million in revenue and expense improvements. In September, the senior leadership team presented the board with two alternative paths: 1) a plan to operate for three-plus years to assess the financial feasibility of staying independent or 2) a plan to find the best possible partner to help support the institution financially. Past strategies such as voluntary separation programs, involuntary separations and the hiring of external consultants all yielded unsuccessful results and negatively impacted employee morale. The best opportunities for maintaining independence involved growing revenues, reducing costs (with the understanding that previous attempts to do so were insufficient), capitalizing on real estate and seeking nontraditional revenue streams.
The Penultimate Year
Prior to the decision to close, while institutional leaders remained focused on staying viable, senior leadership offered an exclusive interview to ThePhiladelphia Inquirer in the spirit of transparency, announcing very aggressive organizational changes and plans for new programs and publicly expressing an interest in partnerships. Such an approach, we realized, would raise further questions about the future of the institution: The truth is that once an institution acknowledges difficulties, questions will proliferate, and it is best to be transparent and open when responding.
As fall 2022 moved into winter, our leadership team became aware of three negative trends: 1) efforts to recruit the new first-year class were falling short of enrollment targets, 2) new program launches took longer than expected, creating a lag in new revenue, attributable in large part to reduced marketing resources, and 3) partnership conversations yielded few opportunities serious enough to pursue. Two institutions were seriously considering partnering with us, allowing for academic and possibly athletic continuity. However, in both cases, potential partner boards determined they were “unable to buy Cabrini’s problems” because of its declining cash and indebtedness.
Given the direction of these conversations, we concluded that the institution was not financially viable. We determined that the best opportunity to preserve Cabrini’s legacy and ensure students, faculty and staff would experience a full academic year prior to closure was to readily agree to the MOU with Villanova, the initial step toward an asset purchase agreement and a graceful closure.
Villanova’s strategic direction proved key to the partnership decision. Villanova’s strength as an Augustinian institution in the Catholic tradition aligned beautifully with Cabrini’s heritage, and the missions of both institutions made for wonderful integration opportunities in such areas as immigration, leadership and services for marginalized populations. Cabrini’s real estate offered the expansion opportunities Villanova desired in close proximity to its beautifully built-out campus. And Villanova’s financial resources enabled Cabrini to deliver a robust final year to all its students, faculty and staff, the value of which is beyond measure.
The university graduated a senior class in May 2024, offered placements to every student interested in continuing their education and supported its workforce with a combination of job-seeking resources, retention payments and severance, none of which would have been possible without Villanova’s remarkable engagement. (Part 2 of this series provides further detail about Cabrini’s final year and transition planning.)
Part of why we think the partnership worked was because we, as the institutional leadership team, effectively checked our egos at the door. We knew our focus had to be on what was best for the institution, not our own personal outcomes, to credibly lead the university through closure. A key lesson for other institutions exploring acquisitions or mergers is that the future expectations of the sitting president as well as of board members in a new organization should be clarified early in partner conversations; otherwise, personal expectations could present an obstacle to the transaction’s success.
Another lesson for any struggling institution is to think critically about the kinds of partner institutions that would find you attractive, how much leverage you might have and how much you can do to minimize your downsides. This is not typically work you can do as you face the threat of immediate closure. For institutions that may be financially stable but are experiencing some of the indicators of risk and stress mentioned at the start of this essay, the task of thoughtfully identifying potential partners could be an important activity for trustees and senior leadership teams to pursue.
Editor’s note: The second and third installments of the series will be published on the next two Wednesdays.
Helen Drinan served as interim president of Cabrini University. Previously, she served as president of Simmons University.
Michelle Filling-Brown is associate vice provost for integrated student experience and a teaching professor in the Department of English at Villanova University. She formerly served as chief academic officer/dean for academic affairs at Cabrini University, where she also served as a faculty member for 16 years.
Richie Gebauer is dean of student success at Bryn Mawr College. He formerly served as assistant dean of retention and student success at Cabrini University.
Erin McLaughlin is the interim dean of the College of Arts, Education and Humanities at DeSales University. She formerly served as associate dean for the School of Business, Education and Professional Studies at Cabrini University, where she also served as a faculty member for 16 years.
Kimberly Boyd is assistant professor of biology and anatomy and physiology at Delaware County Community College. She formerly served as dean of retention and student success at Cabrini University, where she also served as a faculty member for 25 years.
Missy Terlecki is dean of the School of Professional and Applied Psychology at Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine. She formerly served as associate dean for the School of Arts and Sciences at Cabrini University, where she also served as a faculty member for 19 years.
Lynda Buzzard is associate vice president and controller at Villanova University. Previously, she served as the vice president of finance and administration at Cabrini University in its final year.
I had the pleasure recently to participate in a lifelong learning session with a group of mostly current or retired educators at my nearby Lincoln Land Community College. The topic was AI in education. It became clear to me that many in our field are challenged to keep up with the rapidly emerging developments in AI.
The audience was eager to learn, however, many were unaware of the current models and capabilities of AI available to them. I had mentioned in the previous edition of “Online: Trending Now” that we are now in the third of a five-step development of AI as envisioned by the CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman:
Level 1: Chat bots, AI with conversational language
Level 2: Reasoners, human-level problem solving
Level 3: Agents, systems that can take actions
Level 4: Innovators, AI that can aid in invention
Level 5: Organizations, AI that can do the work of an organization
Most Popular
Level 1, chat bots, are the question (prompt) and answer version that many users still think of as generative AI. Famously, on Nov. 30, 2022, OpenAI released GPT-3.5 featuring ChatGPT, an interactive, conversational AI trained with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and fine-tuned safety measures, derived from the GPT-3.5 model. That became the inflection point for this technology that has rapidly spread around the world:
“ChatGPT stands out as the undisputed leader of this boom, capturing over 82.5% of the total traffic, with over two billion global visits and 500 million users each month. The pace of adoption is particularly noteworthy. ChatGPT set a record as the fastest-growing consumer software in history, reaching 100 million users just 64 days after the release of the updated ChatGPT3.5 in May 2023. It’s not alone in this surge; Baidu’s AI chatbot, ‘Ernie Bot,’ surpassed 200 million users within just eight months of its launch.”
Yet, this technology has, importantly, developed beyond earlier versions to stage 2, which Sam Altman called “reasoners,” such as the more recently released OpenAI o1 and OpenAI o3-mini. Every version of GPT engages in some form of text-based pattern recognition that can look like reasoning. The newer versions exhibit markedly stronger logical consistency, better multistep problem-solving and better handling of extended context. This is why Altman calls the latest iterations “reasoner” models: They integrate more advanced techniques, larger context windows and improved training methods to produce answers that seem more logically sound. Ultimately, these “reasoner” capabilities reflect the evolution of large language models toward more complex forms of textual analysis and response.
The newer model OpenAI o3-mini is available to all users (paid and unpaid). I encourage you test out this reasoner model. You are welcome to use the GPT I trained for higher education emphasis, Ray’s eduAI Advisor, or the general ChatGPT site. In either case, try running a deep, questioning prompt that requires interpretation and significant research in its response. You will be able to briefly view the thought process that o3 is taking flash onto the top of your screen. The model shares this thought process with you as it assesses your question and context, then gathers data and ultimately responds to your question. What is unique about this level of AI is that you can see how the application is thinking about your inquiry. This will give you hints as to how you might craft follow-up prompts to add insights and perspectives to your inquiry.
On Feb. 2, 2025, OpenAI announced a highly advanced application built upon 03-mini named “Deep Research,” saying:
“Today we are launching our next agent capable of doing work for you independently—deep research. Give it a prompt and ChatGPT will find, analyze & synthesize hundreds of online sources to create a comprehensive report in tens of minutes vs what would take a human many hours … Powered by a version of OpenAI o3 optimized for web browsing and python analysis, deep research uses reasoning to intelligently and extensively browse text, images, and PDFs across the internet. Deep Research is built for people who do intensive knowledge work in areas like finance, science, policy & engineering and need thorough & reliable research.”
While Deep Research is not available to the general public at this time, online demonstrations show that this very powerful tool conducts both reasoning and far-reaching analysis. In her podcast of Feb. 9, AI expert Julia McCoy reports that the release of Deep Research puts us on the cusp of artificial general intelligence (summarized by Gemini 2.0 Flash):
“The podcast talks about OpenAI’s new deep learning models, 03 mini and Deep Research. 03 mini is a groundbreaking reasoning Powerhouse that fundamentally changes how AI approaches problems. Unlike previous models, 03 mini actually thinks before it speaks, methodically working through complex tasks with unprecedented precision. Deep Research is an autonomous research assistant that can spend up to 30 minutes deeply analyzing information, something previously unheard of in AI systems. What makes Deep Research truly special is its ability to dynamically adapt its research path, combining multiple sources and presenting its findings in fully cited comprehensive reports in seconds. The podcast discusses how Deep Research can be used to provide medical diagnoses and treatment recommendations. It can also be used for other knowledge work, such as market research and product development. The podcast concludes by discussing the implications of these new models for the future of AI. The host believes that we will see AGI [Artificial General Intelligence] this year and ASI [Artificial Super Intelligence] possibly as soon as 2027.”
“We will next ship GPT-4.5, the model we called Orion internally, as our last non-chain-of-thought model. After that, a top goal for us is to unify o-series models and GPT-series models by creating systems that can use all our tools, know when to think for a long time or not, and generally be useful for a very wide range of tasks. In both ChatGPT and our API, we will release GPT-5 as a system that integrates a lot of our technology, including o3. We will no longer ship o3 as a standalone model. The free tier of ChatGPT will get unlimited chat access to GPT-5 at the standard intelligence setting (!!), subject to abuse thresholds. Plus subscribers will be able to run GPT-5 at a higher level of intelligence, and Pro subscribers will be able to run GPT-5 at an even higher level of intelligence. These models will incorporate voice, canvas, search, deep research, and more.”
The funneling of all of the capabilities of OpenAI technologies into the GPT-5 track shows a maturing of the technology. The three levels of intelligence most likely point to true AGI in the higher levels that will be released with GPT-5 later this year! Clearly, advancements are taking place very rapidly.
In addition, with the advent of new competitors both here and abroad, we are seeing new options for open-source models and alternative approaches. As these become more efficient and reliable, prices are headed lower while features continue to expand. McCoy’s vision of AGI seems only months, not years, away.
How are these highly advanced tools being used by your university to enhance teaching, learning, research and other mission-centric tasks? Are most of your faculty, staff and administrators well versed on the recent developments and potential of AI? Are they prepared for the full release of GPT-5? What can you do to help your institution remain efficient, effective and competitive?
Having successful career outcomes is important for colleges and also for students, but getting students to engage in career services can feel like an uphill battle.
A May 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Edfound just about one-third of college students had no experience with or no opinions on their career center staff. Research from the National Association of Colleges and Employers shows a correlation between students who utilize their career center and the number of job offers a student receives.
Lebanon Valley College in Pennsylvania decided to bring careers to students with an event called the LVC Success Expo. On the day of the expo, LVC cancels classes so students can engage in an all-day career fair or meet with academic support staff to ensure their success in and after college.
In this episode of Voices of Student Success, host Ashley Mowreader spoke with Tomomi “T” Horning, vice president of college partnerships and strategic initiatives, and Jasmine Bucher, senior director of the Breen Center for Career and Professional Development, to learn more about the event and campus partnerships and how it contributes to a larger institutional mission.
An edited version of the podcast appears below.
Inside Higher Ed: Give me the 30,000-foot view of the Success Expo. Where did this idea come from?
Tomomi “T” Horning, vice president of college partnerships and strategic initiatives
Horning: This is our third year undertaking this initiative, and we’re so pleased at how it’s developed and changed and improved over that time period.
The original genesis was we wanted to make sure that students had dedicated time to develop a success plan, whether it involved academic advising, career and professional development services. So [staff at] the provost office and the Breen Center for Career and Professional Development got our brains together and said, “What if we canceled classes on a day in the spring and really dedicated, marshaled all of our resources together to make this happen?”
This includes a whole variety of programming, events, presentations, interactive workshops, some fun, but mostly on that adulting 101 idea around making sure that our graduates are as optimally prepared to enter the workforce as possible.
Jasmine Bucher, senior director of the Breen Center for Career and Professional Development
Bucher: One of the things that I think is so extraordinary, not only is it that we do have this dedication of truly not having classes that day, and our students know that is worked right into their academic schedule, but also that the career and success expo really reaches beyond just our doors here on campus as well.
Not only inviting our community members, [but] K-12 leaders in those different areas as well as high school students come with those leaders to really see what [college] could be [like]—even the questions to ask when starting your career plan. But also our alumni and our faculty, who are a huge part of this day.
Not only do our faculty come to support our students in their advising and what comes next in their career exploration, but they’re really reminded about the resources that we have, the services we provide and how that weaves in and out of not only the time that students are here at Lebanon Valley College, but also beyond … graduation. We have alumni who are welcome—they come back and they learn so many incredible things, as well as make connections with potential employers.
Inside Higher Ed: A lot of colleges and universities will have career fairs throughout the academic year—I’m thinking about new student orientation, where there’s club fairs and different ways to get plugged in on campus. But I love the timing of this event, and that it’s in the spring term, and maybe when students already have questions, or they’re thinking about internships.
I wonder if you can talk about how the timing is strategic and making sure that all students are captured and those different interests or questions that may be coming up during that point in their academic experience?
Horning: I would say it’s not only strategic in terms of in the calendar year, helping maybe graduating seniors prepare for that entry into the workforce, but as you indicated, preparing for summer internships, which is a very popular time for students to be out in the field.
But also it operationally manages some opportunities we have in the fall and then making sure that those same opportunities are spread out in the spring. So sometimes, based on student schedules, they just can’t get around to it in the fall, and some of our fall events are more dedicated to specific lines of career or specific industries.
This pathways to professions, all-majors career fair—which is part of the larger success expo event itself—gives that opportunity for everyone at the key time that they need to be thinking about these things, to have access to the resources and as well as the employers through specifically the career fair itself. It’s an opportune time for those students to make those connections.
The Success Expo takes place each spring, allowing students to devote a day not to attending classes but to considering their future academic and career plans.
Bucher: And it really helps our students be well prepared for it. They’ve been working throughout the year on résumés, cover letters, even mock interviewing skills and knowing what that is like, having their elevator speeches ready so that they can really speak about the skills that they’re learning, not only in the classroom, but also through our services here in the Breen Center. I really like this time of year. I think it fits well with where the student brain is, but I think it also works really well so that we can help support them in the success of that day.
Inside Higher Ed: Totally. I think about lower-level students who might still be career exploring and trying to understand how their major ties into that first job after college. By the spring, they might have figured it out by March, or at least have an idea of where they’re going, versus that first week of first semester, where it’s like, “What is happening right now?”
Bucher: Or at least have an idea at that point of sort of the fields they would like to continue to explore. It’s not at all about finding the end of a journey. It’s about the next steps on that journey. So this day provides wherever that is—if they’re going off into the employment world, we have information in sessions that help them with decisions around insurance and the next steps of what comes in repayment of loans and all of the things that is that adulting 101 piece.
But also, if it’s students who are just getting into [career thinking], what would it be like to have a meal with future employers? We have an etiquette dinner that day where we can help to teach those skills as well. It’s really hitting up all of wherever they are in their career journey and whatever that is, really trying to make sure that we are thinking about how they’re best prepared to take that as well. Because nothing is worse than when you’re getting all this information thrown at you and you’re not ready for it, right?That’s why we want to be there, making sure they’re well prepared.
Inside Higher Ed: You bring up an interesting point in that sometimes these events can be overwhelming for students. A career fair, I know as a college student, was a very scary experience. You never know how to dress or how to prepare, and obviously your career center is there to guide you in that experience and prep you for that.
But at the success expo, how do you make sure that students know how to navigate these situations? What are some of those forward-looking messages that you’re giving to students to make sure that this is something that they are taking advantage of and are getting the most out of?
Bucher: Absolutely, as someone who spends a great deal of time figuring out how we communicate that to students who are in all different places, and alumni and all of the different pieces—making sure that we have a schedule that can be broken down very well. Making sure our communication is very much around providing those opportunities for wherever you are.
If you’re looking for sessions that help support and prepare you, those are there. If you’re ready to jump in and meet future employers, we have all of these wonderful employers. We make sure that we are communicating to the students who [the employers are] are ahead of time, so they’re not coming in blindly.
We have a robust website that has information on it; our social media campaign will be very robust this year to help with that messaging as well. So that may be, instead of it being overwhelming, because they [feel they] have to incorporate the entire day on all those pieces, but really being able to see where they can make the most of their time.
They’re busy, and even a day without classes, they could be studying, they could be preparing for finals, they could be doing a lot of things, so making sure that they know the choices.
And also making sure we’ve got some fun in there. We’ve got some great speakers. We have Tunji [Adebayo] who’s coming in, talking about picking yourself up from failure. Where you are anywhere on the journey, we all need to know how to be resilient and do that. So some things that aren’t so much about, “this is what you do in the career,” but “this is what you do in life.”
Jack Hubley is coming in and is going to speak not only about what it’s like to work with the birds that he has trained all this time. He’s such a celebrity in this area, people are pretty familiar with he does. But also, how do you do that and stay on brand? If you’re working with live animals and you’re in environments that are not always predictable?
So trying to make sure that we have this clear idea of skills beyond just what you see as career is also an area where we think would help students to not be as overwhelmed and know that we’re there to help them through this process.
Throughout the Success Expo, students can participate in workshops or informational sessions about topics like resiliency and financial literacy.
Inside Higher Ed: You’re going into year three of this event. When it comes to logistics, or how the event has scaled up, can you talk a little bit about those partners that are involved in this work? We’ve mentioned a few different groups and stakeholders on and off campus, but who’s going to be there in the spring?
Horning: We do extend an invitation to K-12 partners, and mostly it’s going to be high school students who are interested in a field trip opportunity to get to understand what higher ed is like. But also, some of the sessions that Jasmine mentioned, those we purposefully choose to make sure that it’s a broad-reaching topic that any of our K-12 partners would benefit from hearing, not only the educators that bring the students as chaperones, but also the students themselves, right? Picking yourself up from failure is one of those life lessons that anybody can benefit from.
We also try to make sure that the concept of career development is woven into the day as well. Some of our high school students will get exposure to how internships themselves may help direct someone deeper into the trajectory of what they had hoped to achieve upon graduation, and sometimes completely flip it, 180 degrees through an internship experience. They learn those life lessons that, through experiential learning and high-impact opportunities, they may want to readjust what their career outlook is like.
Through the community, we also connect with the Chamber of Commerce to make sure that if there are things like venture capital or even some of the entrepreneurship opportunities. That if there are businesses with young people, or maybe recently just graduated college—maybe the alumni want to start their own business—that they have access to some of these workshops where they can talk to experts or talk to students who want to get into that business, maybe to do some idea sharing, networking.
We all know that professional networking is just one of those great benefits of bringing people together.
The college community, and even within Annville, it’s a small little quaint town here, but we make sure that our employer partners know about our restaurant and eateries that are in town. We make sure that those venues and opportunities of connection [are known] to make sure that we’re pushing business to make our local community thrive as well.
Inside Higher Ed: I don’t want to get too high-level here, because this is obviously focused on a specific event, but it seems like this is really fulfilling a lot of those goals of higher education, right? Helping students navigate their pathways to and through college, helping students thrive while they’re enrolled but also beyond college. But then continuing to invest in your local community with that socioeconomic development and those community partnerships. This is one day, but it seems like it’s connecting a lot of these bigger pieces of the puzzle to the institutional vision, which is really exciting.
Bucher: It’s very true to the Lebanon Valley College mission and method of what has always been very true and practical and hands-on and community-oriented, and so it stays very true to who we are. There are so many incredible initiatives that T has in mind and has been brainstorming for years. Me, as a new person on this staff, I’m incredibly excited for all those things, but we always bring them back to the mission, exactly what you’re saying, which is that they have to be true to the mission, otherwise we would be spinning our wheels in 100 directions that don’t make sense.
Inside Higher Ed: One group that we have alluded to but haven’t talked about a lot is faculty on campus. I wonder if you can talk about their role in this event and how they’re incorporated.
Bucher: We work very closely with our faculty to incorporate curriculum directly into their classroom, and we are as helpful as possible. Several of us on the staff here are educators ourselves; we teach courses.
Some of the specific ways are students who need to come [to the event] and interview specific employers and then provide reflections and pieces like that. So we help to provide the structure to that to faculty members who are very happy to partner with us.
But then we even have exciting things going on, like we are piloting an app this year for wayfinding through [the event]. So we’ve partnered with a marketing professor who is going to have a portion of her class use the app, a portion of the class use nothing and a portion of the class explore other items.
We’ve really taken the opportunity to not just do sort of the traditional, yes, you can come and attend and reflect and do it, which is wonderful, of course, but also to really integrate into the curriculum in meaningful ways and in ways that give the students experience on that day for true, real-life experience. Our faculty are very keen on this. They’re thrilled for the partnership, and so are we. It’s one of the things that a school this size and energy of Lebanon Valley College really allows you to do.
Horning: Something else that I would add, too, is some of our specific academic programs are able to incorporate opportunities to marry not only their academic program, but also employers and create opportunities for the collaboration.
For example, we have the Pennsylvania State Department of Environmental Protection coming, so [the faculty member is] weaving that into environmental sciences, the academic curriculum. Also as an employer, they’re looking to recruit interns and potential future employees. So really connecting all of those dots to make sure that we’re optimizing the program time that we have on this day.
Specifically because classes are canceled, we know that that also puts a hardship on some of the faculty to make sure that they’re covering all of their academic points. So finding creative ways to incorporate that, just like Jasmine said, with marketing, there are definitely ways that faculty are creatively making sure that they’re driving participation also to our events. We’re very appreciative of, just generally, the partnership that happens across campus.
And of course, a lot of the sessions, like I said, are relevant to any audience. So if they wanted to do some sort of professional development, we have something on customer service, and that’s something that we’re rolling out as an institution that could be relevant for any staff person or faculty.
Inside Higher Ed: What kind of feedback have you heard from students over the past few years as you’ve created and led the event, and how has that driven decision-making, if at all?
Horning: Wealways try to keep our surveying or feedback assessment from students to the point: “Would you recommend coming to this event? Why or why not?” Or “Did you have any recommendations for changes? Why are you making those recommendations?”
And I think over all, the feedback has been very positive. Mostly all of the suggestions are logistical in nature, which can be easily addressed. I think students are hungry for it. This is our third year doing it, so I think there is now a knowledge and an understanding of what students can expect. So maybe coming in future years, they’ll have more substantive feedback, like, “I would like a session on fill-in-the-blank,” but we try to hit those high-level adulting 101 topics as best as possible with the input from our student workers.
Some of our student workers will actually go upstairs [on campus] and survey some of the students: “Hey, if it was a choice between this session and this session, what would you prefer?” We try to [work in] real time as we’re developing programming and workshop ideas, make sure that that student voice is incorporated from the get-go.
Inside Higher Ed: When you talk about adulting 101, can you give a few examples of what those subject matters are?
Bucher: Some of the items that we have going on: understanding your student loans and repayments. Pieces like that obviously are in the forefront of our students’ minds. They work hard. Every dollar means something and how that repayment is, and really understanding it afterwards, is not easy.
Some of the other things I mentioned before, discussions around insurance, so in their next stages of life, they’re going to be having to choose [insurance coverage], and I was saying to T this morning, it doesn’t get any easier. I’ve been doing it for 20 years now, and it changes all the time, our choices in insurance, whether that’s health insurance and the other pieces of that. I was just talking about pet insurance yesterday. So there’s so many decisions to be making, and what’s worthwhile and not.
In many ways I think the etiquette dinner really calls into that as well. Once you’re outside of the walls of school, expectations change, and you expect something different of yourself, [but] just having that confidence and knowing what comes next. That has been an event that has been around the college for quite some time, and I really appreciate that it’s been incorporated into this day, remembering that it’s part of the next steps. So sort of from morning to night, it’s woven into all of our many, many events throughout the day.
Horning: I would just add there are other things that, you know, the event happens in April, and so we’re still going through the process of adding some additional workshops.
Some things that we have brought back from year one are things like credit cards, car loans and common-sense investing. So just a primer; we’re not trying to overwhelm students, but present to them what options and what type of decisions they will have to make as an adult.
And along with that, Jasmine mentioned about insurances, and we actually have a senior who is going to go into personal financial planning as a career track; he will be employed by a wealth management firm. And we thought, “Hey, why don’t we pair entrepreneurship with a hands-on workshop?” So he’ll be providing consultations. It helps him practice his skill set becoming an entrepreneur and providing those professional services along with the students, so they get an understanding of, “Gee, when I’m out there, these are the types of questions I will be asked if I have an appointment with a personal financial planner.”
A lot of just realistically making sure that students understand the variety of adulting 101 decisions they will have to make, and then hopefully educating them to be better prepared.
Inside Higher Ed: I love that idea of a peer who can support in those ways, because it’s a little less intimidating than asking somebody you’ve never met before, somebody who’s decades older than you. There’re no silly questions when it’s a classmate.
Bucher: And then they tend to continue that conversation, then with other peers, which is really what we want, right? We want to put this out there in a nonscary way, so that it can infuse out to the student body.
Horning: You really bring up a strong point there. We have recognized that the peer-to-peer learning and education is really important. Whether it’s mentoring, trying to identify peers with common experiences that you can start a conversation with the comfort of knowing, “Oh, you had my professor. You lived in my dorm.” Those types of connections are so invaluable.
Even the program about credit cards and car loans, we specifically tap into one of our corporate sponsors that runs a management trainee program so it’s employment at that particular place of business. And we ask those individuals so they’re like, one to three years out from graduating college, they’re the ones that present on those topics because those are also the decisions they recently made, and now, with the backing of their employer, which is a financial institution, they’re able to speak a little bit more eloquently about what those options might be.
Inside Higher Ed: If you had to give advice to a colleague at a different institution or someone else who wanted to model this on their campus, what’s something that you’ve learned or advice that you would give?
Horning: I think the biggest piece of advice is make sure that the communication and the collaboration across campus is set at the highest levels of leadership. Without the support of the entire community, people are going to wonder what the benefit is or what the return is for their areas. But this truly is a multistakeholder, an entire-campus event, and it has to be treated with that level of engagement. So leadership and just making sure the communication and the coordination, also that everything is moving without a hitch, occurs.
Bucher: I completely agree. This was an initiative started before I worked in this office, and I remember being incredibly impressed knowing that the institution was fully behind it, and that was clear because it was from the top down.
I think really remembering the audiences that it’s serving has also served us really well. I think I would just remind people to really keep in mind who those audiences are, making sure you know that that pairing of young alumni with students, so that they’re not feeling fearful of what’s coming next or intimidated—all of those pieces really lead to success.
Inside Higher Ed: The event is looming; it’s in the next few months. What is something that you’re excited for or something that you would like to tease our audience with as you’re preparing for the event in April?
Bucher: I’m extremely excited for the wide variety of items that are offered here and scheduled, if I could say so, in a really smart manner, so that students can sort of pick and choose throughout the day what creates the best journey for them on that day.
I’m really excited for the communication that’s coming to say, you want to work on your personal brand? Here you go. Looking for an internship? Come and hear how interns have been successful and what has led to that.
I’m just really excited for sort of that audience-speak that really gets to offering to people the really nice variety of pieces that are making up this exciting day.
Horning: Because this is our third year, I’m just excited that it feels like we have found our groove, and people are anticipating this event. People are excited and they want to get in on the action. And I think that is exciting to us in the Breen Center, because we do this because we want it to be of value to the community, and the fact that people are eagerly waiting for this and asking about it, talking about it, just builds the energy, builds the enthusiasm.
I’m looking forward to a great third year and making sure that, again, we’re delivering on the promise of making sure our graduates are really well prepared and that we are behind them 100 percent.
Edward Blum isn’t quite a household name. But at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., he’s a minor celebrity.
The conservative think tank has played host to an array of high-profile politicos, pundits, journalists and businesspeople over the years: Bill Gates, Mike Pence, Jordan Peterson, the Dalai Lama. Blum, who took affirmative action to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 and won, spoke at the institute earlier this month about his decades of legal activism.
It was something of a homecoming for the president of Students for Fair Admissions, who lives in Florida but has been a visiting fellow at AEI since 2005. It was also, in many ways, a victory lap.
Since the court ruled in his favor in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and the University of North Carolina, Blum’s vision of what he calls a “colorblind covenant in public policy” has been ascendant, and in the new Trump administration, Blum’s zealous opposition to race-conscious programs has become a domineering force driving education policy.
Over the weekend, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights issued a letter outlining an expansive interpretation of the SFFA ruling and its plans to enforce a ban on all race-conscious programming in higher ed; colleges that don’t comply in 14 days could lose their federal funding. During her confirmation hearing Thursday, Education Secretary nominee Linda McMahon said ending “race-based programming” would be a priority if she were confirmed.
Blum, who spoke with Inside Higher Ed before the OCR letter was published, believes that affirmative action has long been unpopular—winning the public relations battle, he said, was “the easiest part of my job.” Still, he said the political, legal and cultural backlash against affirmative action and DEI over the past few years was affirming. In Trump’s Washington, Blum, who fought the courts unsuccessfully for decades, feels like an insider at last.
“It’s gratifying for those of us who have labored in this movement to see that now, rather than these policies being whispered about as unfair and illegal, there’s a full-throated cry against them,” he said.
The Trump administration’s adoption of Blum’s views on race in higher ed has also prompted another wave of backlash from Blum’s many critics, who say his work is undoing decades of progress toward racial equality and integration.
During his AEI session, Blum was asked about his own views on racial diversity on college campuses, constitutional law notwithstanding. He rejected the premise outright.
“The question implies that someone’s skin color is going to tell me something very fundamental about who they are as an individual. I don’t believe that’s the case,” Blum said. “Your skin color, the shape of your eyes, the texture of your hair tells me nothing about who you are. For some people, being on a campus with racial diversity is important … There are others that don’t seem to care about that.”
From Outsider to Agenda Setter
Blum has railed against race-conscious admissions for two decades. A former businessman in Houston, Blum, who has no law degree, founded the legal defense fund Project on Fair Representation in the mid-2000s. He challenged Texas’s reinstatement of race-based admissions in the second Fisher v. the University of Texas case; the case went to the Supreme Court but was ultimately defeated in 2016 when justices ruled that the university’s admission practices were constitutional.
Now, he’s not alone. A corps of public interest law groups has sprung up to litigate the SFFA decision in higher ed at prestigious law firms, on Wall Street and beyond. This month, a brand-new public interest legal group filed a lawsuit against the University of California system accusing it of secretly using racial preferences in admissions, citing increases in Black and Hispanic enrollment at its most selective colleges.
Blum said SFFA isn’t passing the buck and is committed to challenging universities on their compliance with the law, but a groundswell of efforts has lightened his load.
“The SFFA decision has energized the public interest law apparatus,” Blum said. He predicted that under Trump, the Education Department will also play a bigger role in investigating institutions for their compliance with the affirmative action ban. That forecast appears to be coming true with Friday’s Dear Colleague letter, though the agency still has to enforce the directive, a complicated prospect considering its broad scope.
Edward Blum (left) at the American Enterprise Institute on Feb. 5, with moderator Frederick Hess.
Blum supports the intensifying attacks on DEI and said that with more state laws forbidding spending on diversity and equity programs, there’s room for legal work to ensure colleges aren’t spending on “DEI by another name.”
But despite the high-profile political implications of his work, he doesn’t see himself as a political actor. In the late 1990s, he ran a failed congressional campaign in Houston, but the thought of running for office now evokes “overwhelming negative emotions.” And he’s careful to draw a line between his legal advocacy work and the anti-DEI crusades of conservative lawmakers.
“There is a 20-foot wall between the political people in the movement and the public interest groups,” he said.
‘A Forever Endeavor’
Blum is not finished suing colleges over affirmative action, or at least those he believes could be flouting the law. He’s particularly interested in selective colleges that reported similar or higher rates of Black and Hispanic enrollment this year, such as Yale, Duke and Princeton—a sure sign, he believes, that they’ve been “cheating.” SFFA has a “vibrant role to play,” he added, in holding them to account.
“So many of us are befuddled and concerned that in the first admissions cycle post-SFFA, schools that said getting rid of affirmative action would cause their minority admissions to plummet didn’t see that happen,” he said.
When asked if recent expansions to financial aid offerings at these universities could account for the change, Blum was circumspect. He’s not opposed to economically progressive admissions initiatives; he calls Rick Kahlenberg, a liberal proponent of “class-based affirmative action,” a like-minded friend. But he said the onus was on colleges to prove that’s the source of their continued racial diversity. He also said that geographic diversity initiatives would be unconstitutional if they only applied to “Harlem and the South Side of Chicago, and not also rural Missouri and northern Maine.”
Since the Supreme Court ruling, experts, college administrators and lawyers have debated whether the SFFA decision applies to race-conscious scholarships, internships and precollege programs as well as admissions. In the months after the ruling, attorneys general in Ohio and Missouri issued orders saying it did, and some colleges have begun to revise racial eligibility requirements on scholarships. At the same time, scholars and lawyers said implementing changes to nonadmissions programs amounted to overreach from state lawmakers and institutions alike.
Blum doesn’t actually believe the decision itself extends to those programs. He does think they’re illegal—there just hasn’t been a successful case challenging them yet.
“I haven’t really made myself clear on this, which is my fault, but the SFFA opinion didn’t change the law for those policies” in internships and scholarships, he said. “But those policies have always been, in my opinion, outside of the scope of our civil rights law and actionable in court.”
He’s still looking for a case that could enshrine his view in the law—two weeks ago McDonald’s settled a lawsuit he filed against their Latino scholarship program, putting that one out of contention. But he said that for the most part, in the wake of the SFFA decision, colleges have proactively altered or ended those programs themselves.
“Even if the ruling didn’t apply directly, it’s had this cascading effect,” he said.
That effect, Blum said, has spread to cultural and corporate institutions as well as higher ed, contributing to a general chilling effect on what he views as unconstitutional racial preferences in American society. It’s a major turnaround, he acknowledged, from the ubiquity of DEI initiatives and racial reckoning just five years ago after the murder of George Floyd.
While he’s relishing in the legal, political and cultural victory of his crusade, he’s not resting on his laurels.
“There are no permanent victories in politics,” Blum said, loosely quoting Winston Churchill. “The same applies to legal advocacy. This is a forever endeavor.”
The U.S. Naval Academy’s provost told faculty last week not to use course readings “or other materials that promote” critical race theory, “gender ideology” and other topics targeted by the Trump administration, The Baltimore Banner reported.
The institution pointed to Trump’s multiple executive orders, which include one specifically restricting the curricula of military academies.
Provost Samara Firebaugh told faculty in the email to search materials for “diversity,” “minority” and other words and forbade them from using “materials that can be interpreted to assign blame to generalized groups for enduring social conditions, particularly discrimination or inequality,” the Banner reported. The Naval Academy confirmed the email to Inside Higher Ed but declined to provide a copy, saying it doesn’t share internal emails.
“That was a leak,” a representative from the institution’s public affairs office said.
In an email to Inside Higher Ed, the Naval Academy’s media relations arm said the provost’s message “provided more detailed guidance and clarity to ensure course materials and assignments are in alignment with all executive orders.” Commander Ashley Hockycko, public affairs officer at the Naval Academy, said the provost’s letter wasn’t meant to further restrict curriculum and coursework beyond the presidential executive orders—it’s just meant to provide “amplifying guidance and clarification.”
A Jan. 27 executive order titled “Restoring America’s Fighting Force” said educational institutions operated or controlled by the Defense Department and military “are prohibited from promoting, advancing or otherwise inculcating the following un-American, divisive, discriminatory, radical, extremist and irrational theories.” It then went on to list “gender ideology,” “divisive concepts,” “race or sex stereotyping,” “race or sex scapegoating” and the idea “that America’s founding documents are racist or sexist.”
On Jan. 29, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sent a memo saying, “No element within DoD will provide instruction on critical race theory, DEI or gender ideology as part of a curriculum or for purposes of workforce training“ and that military academies “shall teach that America and its founding documents remain the most powerful force for good in human history.”
The U.S. Air Force Academy and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point didn’t respond to requests for comment Tuesday about whether they’ve released similar guidance.
