Tag: Education

What Is Organizational Development? – Archer Education
Applying Principles of Organizational Development in Higher Education

If you work in higher education, you know the industry is constantly evolving. Shifting student demographics, emerging technologies, and market pressures require institutions to be proactive in building a stronger, more adaptable foundation for long-term success.

That’s where organizational development (also known as org dev or OD) comes in.

OD uses a strategic approach that goes beyond surface-level fixes to create lasting, meaningful change. In higher ed, that means optimizing infrastructure, investing in the right people and resources, and fostering the leadership skills necessary to drive sustainable growth. This article breaks down the four essential pillars of organizational development and how they can help your institution navigate change with confidence.

Organizational Development Definition

Organizational development is a strategic, science-backed approach to improving an organization’s effectiveness, adaptability, and culture.

Rather than focusing on quick, short-term fixes, org dev emphasizes long-term, sustainable change through:
- Data-driven decision-making
- Continuous learning and adjustment
- Intentional plans for growth
At its core, org dev is about aligning people, processes, and strategy to create a stronger, more resilient institution.

How Is Org Dev Applied in the Higher Ed Industry?

At higher education institutions, organizational development is used to drive strategic change, improve institutional effectiveness, and enhance the student and faculty experience.

Universities can apply OD to initiatives such as:
- Conducting leadership training and faculty development
- Restructuring academic programs to align with industry demands
- Fostering an inclusive campus culture
- Improving communication across departments
- Streamlining administrative processes
By leveraging data, collaboration, and iterative improvement strategies, org dev helps institutions stay competitive in a volatile educational landscape.

But how can your institution actually execute on these initiatives? Let’s dig into the nuts and bolts of true organizational development.

The Four Pillars of Organizational Development

Organizational development can be distilled into four essential pillars that need to be addressed to create lasting, effective change. From the right technological infrastructure to the competencies that drive leadership, each element plays a critical role in shaping a university’s success.

1. Infrastructure

A strong OD strategy starts with the right tools. A school’s information technology (IT) infrastructure encompasses all the systems and programs that support the institution’s goals by facilitating seamless communication, data management, and student engagement across all departments.

Learning management systems (LMS), customer relationship management (CRM) platforms, and student information systems (SIS) are all essential for effective operations.

Additionally, collaboration tools — like Asana, Trello, Monday.com, Slack, and Microsoft Teams — are critical for project management and internal communications. With a solid tech foundation, faculty, staff, and administrators can more easily work toward common objectives.

2. Resources

People and capital investments drive organizational development forward. Universities need dedicated staff to support their online and on-campus programs, including instructional designers, student success coaches, and faculty development specialists.

Beyond personnel, financial resources play a crucial role in funding curriculum development, marketing initiatives, and partnerships with third-party service providers. The right investments empower institutions by giving them the capacity to scale programs, enhance student support, and maintain a competitive edge.

3. Skills

Skills are the specific, teachable abilities that allow team members to execute org dev initiatives effectively. In higher education, these range from technical expertise — such as search engine optimization (SEO), paid media management, and statistical analysis skills — to operations skills in areas such as course mapping, instructional design, and system administration for LMS, CRM, and SIS platforms.

Providing training and professional development to staff members in these skill areas can help them better implement and manage institutional improvement efforts.

4. Competencies

While skills focus on execution, competencies are the broader abilities needed to apply knowledge and lead meaningful change. Important org dev competencies for university leaders and staff members include being able to align online growth initiatives with institutional goals, make data-driven decisions, and foster a culture of adaptability.

Higher ed leaders also should be able to communicate a clear vision and gain buy-in from stakeholders to navigate transitions with confidence. Without these competencies, even the most well-equipped institutions can struggle to implement lasting transformation.

Benefits of Org Dev for Institutions

Effective organizational development creates lasting improvements in how institutions operate, innovate, and serve students. By investing in OD, colleges and universities can:
- Enhance their efficiency through streamlined processes, better technology, and clear workflows to reduce bottlenecks and improve day-to-day operations
- Improve their student outcomes through strong support systems, streamlined curriculum design, and data-driven decision-making processes
- Increase their adaptability to become better equipped to navigate market shifts, policy changes, and emerging educational trends
- Strengthen their collaboration through communication tools and cross-functional teamwork to break down silos and align departments toward common goals
- Drive their sustainable growth through strategic investments in people, technology, and training to ensure the institution can scale programs without sacrificing quality
Ready to Level Up Your Institution’s Org Dev Strategy?

At Archer Education, we take a strategic, structured approach to organizational development, starting with a full assessment of your institution across all four pillars using our Good, Better, Best framework.

From there, we partner with you to implement targeted changes, optimize your processes, and drive your long-term growth.

Our ultimate goal? To make ourselves obsolete. By the time we’re done, your institution will be operating at its best across all dimensions, equipped to sustain growth and innovation without relying on external vendors.

Let’s build a stronger, more resilient future — together. Contact us today to get started.

Subscribe to the Higher Ed Marketing Journal:
Source link
February 27, 2025
Dear Colleague letter is lawless attack on DEI (opinion)

On Valentine’s Day, the Trump administration surprised schools and colleges with its newest attack on DEI and student body diversity. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights released a Dear Colleague letter that warned schools and colleges that they may lose federal funding if they discriminate on the basis of race.

This letter revealed novel, unsupported legal theories regarding the application of federal civil rights laws to schools and colleges. In fact, OCR’s letter sweeps so broadly that it claims to prohibit certain considerations of race that remain perfectly legal under well-established legal doctrine.

While the threat of losing federal funding has been a facet of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act since its passage in 1964, the letter specifically takes aim at DEI programming as well as the use of “race as a factor in admissions, financial aid, hiring, training, and other institutional programming.”

Although the letter includes some correct statements of nondiscrimination law, OCR makes assertions that are troubling and unsupported by sound legal reasoning. As part of the team that wrote OCR’s guidance on this very issue in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, I am disturbed by how politics is driving policy guidance that will hurt educational institutions and students from kindergarten through college.

In describing the scope of SFFA, OCR’s latest guidance attempts to smuggle in a legal standard that appears nowhere in the court’s opinion. The letter states, “Relying on non-racial information as a proxy for race, and making decisions based on that information, violates the law … It would, for instance, be unlawful for an educational institution to eliminate standardized testing to achieve a desired racial balance or to increase racial diversity.”

Here, OCR baselessly claims that not only can colleges not consider race as a factor in admissions, they also cannot make race-neutral changes to admissions policies that help increase student body diversity—such as eliminating standardized testing. That claim falls firmly outside not only the bounds of SFFA but also the decades of Supreme Court case law that precede it.

In Grutter (2003), Justice Sandra Day O’Connor considers whether the University of Michigan Law School could use a lottery system for admissions. In Fisher (2016), Justice Anthony Kennedy implicitly approves of the Texas top 10 percent plan, perhaps the most well-known race-neutral strategy to increase racial diversity. And in SFFA (2023), the plaintiff’s briefs themselves include endorsements of possible race-neutral alternatives Harvard could have legally pursued such as adopting socioeconomic preferences in admissions.

Yet in its most recent letter, OCR attempts quite the head fake in its declaration that SFFA dictates that schools and colleges must abandon race-neutral strategies meant to increase student body diversity. While in reality SFFA says nothing about the permissibility of these race-neutral strategies, a separate line of cases tackles these legal questions head-on—and contradicts the Trump administration’s unfounded guidance.

In Coalition for TJ, Boston Parent Coalition and other recent cases, groups similar to Students for Fair Admissions have challenged changes to admissions policies of prestigious, selective high schools that were adopted in part to increase student body diversity. In some cases, the schools reconfigured weighting for standardized tests; in others, schools guaranteed that each feeding middle school gets a certain number of seats. In all of the cases, the school districts won. The position now advanced by OCR in its recent letter has failed to find footing in two courts of appeal. And just last year, the Supreme Court declined to further review the decisions in TJ and Boston.

What OCR attempts to do with its letter is extraordinary. It tries to advance a legal theory with support from a Supreme Court case that says nothing about the matter. At the same time, OCR ignores recent judicial opinions in cases that directly address this question.

Regardless of how legally infirm OCR’s proclamations are, schools and colleges will likely feel forced to comply. This could mean that the threat alone will lead schools and colleges to cut efforts to legally pursue racially diverse student bodies and racially inclusive campus environments. As a result, our nation’s classrooms and campuses will unfortunately look less like the communities that they sit in and serve, all because of shoddy policymaking and legal sleight of hand.

Ray Li is a civil rights attorney focusing on education policy. He recently left the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights after serving as a career attorney from 2021 to 2025. In that role, he worked on more than a dozen policy documents for OCR, including guidance issued after the Supreme Court’s decision in SFFA. He also served as OCR’s lead staff attorney on appellate and Supreme Court litigation matters, including for the SFFA, Coalition for TJ and Boston Parent Coalition cases. Prior to joining OCR, he advised schools, colleges and universities on legal regulatory issues, including civil rights issues, at Hogan Lovells’ education practice.

Source link

February 27, 2025
New research questions DOGE claims about ED cut savings

New research suggests that the Department of Government Efficiency has been making inaccurate claims about the extent of its savings from cuts to the Department of Education.

DOGE previously posted on X that it ended 89 contracts from the Education Department’s research arm, the Institute of Education Sciences, worth $881 million. But an analysis released Wednesday by the left-wing think tank New America found that these contracts were worth about $676 million—roughly $200 million less than DOGE claimed. DOGE’s “Wall of Receipts” website, where it tracks its cuts, later suggested the savings from 104 Education Department contracts came out to a more modest $500 million.

New America also asserted that DOGE is losing money, given that the government had already spent almost $400 million on the now-terminated Institute of Education Sciences contracts, meaning those funds have gone to waste.

“Research cannot be undone, and statistics cannot be uncollected. Instead, they will likely sit on a computer somewhere untouched,” New America researchers wrote in a blog post about their findings.

In a separate analysis shared last week, the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank, also called into question DOGE’s claims about its Education Department cuts.

Nat Malkus, senior fellow and deputy director of education policy studies at AEI, compared DOGE’s contract values with the department’s listed values and found they “seldom matched” and DOGE’s values were “always higher,” among other problems with DOGE’s data.

“DOGE has an unprecedented opportunity to cut waste and bloat,” Malkus said in a post about his research. “However, the sloppy work shown so far should give pause to even its most sympathetic defenders.”

Source link

February 27, 2025
To make profit, AI companies will have to take your job

Lately, I have been experiencing anger, occasionally edging toward rage (depending on my mood) when I open a new document in MSWord and I see the ghostly prompt urging me to use its Copilot generative AI tool.

I do not want to use this tool. I especially do not want to use this tool to start a draft of a document, because writing the first draft under the power of my own thoughts is the key to ultimately producing something someone else might want to read, and outcome on which my living depends, but it’s also, the point of all writing ever, in any context, as far as I’m concerned.

I am persuaded by Marc Watkins’s framing of “AI is unavoidable, not inevitable” for no other reason than the tech companies will not allow us to avoid their generative AI offerings. We can’t get away from this stuff if we want to, and boy, do I really want to.

But just because it is unavoidable and must be acknowledged and, in its way, dealt with, does not mean we are required to use or experiment with it. Over the period of writing More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI, and now spending a month or so promoting and talking about the book in various venues, I grow more and more convinced that if this technology is to have utility in helping students learn—and I mean learn, not merely do school—this utility is likely to be specialized and narrow and the product of deep thought and careful exploration and step-by-step iteration.

Instead, we’re on the receiving end of a fire hose spraying, This is the future!

Is it, really?

One of the reasons we’re being told it’s the future is because at this time, generative AI has no strong business rationale. Don’t take my word for it. Listen to Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, who admitted in a podcast interview that generative AI applications have had no meaningful effect on GDP, suggesting they are not amazing engines of increased productivity.

Tech watcher Ed Zitron has been saying for months that there is no “AI revolution” and that we’re heading toward the bursting of a bubble that will at least rival the 2008 downturn caused by the subprime mortgage crisis.

So, while there is reason to believe that we are experiencing a bubble that is inevitably going to burst, as we imagine what our institutional and individual relationships should be with this technology, I think it’s useful to see what the people who are—literally—invested in AI envision for our futures. If they are right, and AI is inevitable, what awaits us?

Let’s check in with the people directly funding and developing AI technology what they foresee for the educators of the United States.

@elonmusk/X

That is the man who is apparently running—and running roughshod over—the United States government suggesting that AI-assisted education is superior to what teachers deliver. Now, we know this is not true. We know it will never be true—that is, unless what counts as outcomes is defined down to what AI-assisted education can deliver.

At her “Second Breakfast” newsletter, Audrey Watters puts it plainly, and we should be prepared to accept these truths:

“But to be clear, the ‘better outcomes’ that Silicon Valley shit-posters Palmer Luckey and Elon Musk fantasize about in the image above do not involve the quality of education—of learning or teaching or schooling. (You’re not fooled that they do, right?) They aren’t talking about improved test scores or stronger college admissions or nicer job prospects for graduates or well-compensated teachers or happier, healthier kids or any such metric. Rather, this is a call for AI to facilitate the destruction of the teaching profession, one that is, at the K-12 level comprised predominantly of women (and, in the U.S., is the largest union) and at the university level—in their imaginations, at least—is comprised predominantly of ‘woke.’”

It is hard to know what to do about a technology that some intend to leverage to destroy your profession and harm the constituents your profession is meant to serve. More Than Words is not a book that argues we must resist this technology at all costs, but again, these people want to destroy me, you, us.

ChatGPT and its ilk haven’t even been around for all that long, and we already see the consequences of voluntary deskilling. Futurism reports, “Young coders are using AI for everything, giving ‘blank stares’ when asked how programs actually work.”

Namanyay Goel, a veteran coder who has been observing the AI-wielding coders who can’t actually code, says, “The foundational knowledge that used to come from struggling through problems is just … missing.” This is output divorced from process, a pattern that is already endemic to our transactional model of schooling, but which AI now supercharges.

There is no role for educational institutions in the world where we allow this sort of thing to substitute for knowledge and learning. That may be the least of our problems should the full deskilling result. (See the film Idiocracy for that particular flavor of dystopia.)

When Microsoft shoves its AI tools in the face of a student with less time, less freedom, less confidence and more incentive to use it, what are we giving them to make them want to resist, to commit to their learning, to become something other than a meat puppet plugging syntax into a machine with the machine spewing more syntax out?

At this point, where is the evidence the companies do not wish us harm?

Source link

February 27, 2025
Your alumni magazine is a source of marketing gold

In a time of skyrocketing paper and postage costs, alumni magazines are paradoxically enjoying a renaissance. After cutting back—or cutting down—print issues during the pandemic, many institutions are now pushing for expanded page counts, more copies, better photography, multimedia extras and more institutional support.

Why?

Because audiences appreciate the thought-provoking content and the tangible, premium reminder of the enduring connection with their alma mater. In a 2024 CASE readership survey, 68 percent of TCU Magazine’s readers reported spending 30 minutes or more with every issue. Almost half reported that the magazine was a go-to source for continuing education.

Journalists are pouring their passion and experience into institutional magazines because higher education shines glimmers of hope into an increasingly dark world. They highlight purpose-driven students who will tackle the problems of the future and brilliant faculty whose research is providing innovative solutions to the planet’s most pressing challenges.

Our readership analytics at TCU Magazine have long shown a strong audience appetite for well-researched and carefully written and edited feature stories about forward momentum and its relationship to education. Since 2015, our overall page views have experienced an astounding 1,300 percent growth. That number sounds outlandish, but I can assure you it is accurate.

Our alumni, parents, donors and internal stakeholders are and always have been the primary audiences. But they aren’t the only people who want to know about the students, faculty, staff and initiatives that thrive on our campus. TCU Magazine’s stories are crafted to be relevant far beyond our campus community and long after the initial date of publication.

In 2021, when all the rules were being rewritten, we proposed a partnership with our colleagues in marketing. We suggested a trial run of using existing magazine stories as peer marketing material, promoting those features to internet users who live in the proximity of the country’s top 150 colleges and universities. The goal was for other professionals in higher education to learn about TCU beyond our exceptional student experience and athletic success.

TCU’s marketing director agreed that long-form content could run alongside more traditional digital marketing materials. Why not? Serving stories about improving teacher retirement plans; developing free, open-source digital mapping tools; or better understanding mutations in the BRCA gene benefit us and all manner of readers.

Audiences learn something new and interesting about how research is shaping the future, and we achieve our goal of enhancing TCU’s academic reputation.

Win-win.

Together, we built a partnership with a digital marketing agency based in Fort Worth. With their expert guidance, we got a crash course in the differences between Google Display Network and SEM keywords, Demand Gen ad placements, bidding strategies, and the wisdom of narrowing ad placements in social media feeds.

We launched our first joint academic content campaign in April 2021 with a modest investment. The results were promising: In two months, we got the TCU initials in front of more than six million people around the country and enticed 87,000 of those people to click on the ad and come to the website to read the story.

Best of all, these were what we refer to as quality clicks, because the average reader spent almost two minutes on one of our stories, far above the internet’s long-form content average of less than 40 seconds. That small trial convinced our divisional leaders that magazine material could be marketing gold.

We didn’t need to reinvent the wheel or invest in outside development of marketing-specific content because we had a treasure trove already flowing from a steady creative stream inside our office.

We expanded the efforts in 2022, sharing new stories with 10.5 million pairs of eyes and bringing 116,000 more people to our site to learn about TCU research. That year, we got an email from Puerto Rico about French professor Benjamin Ireland’s research reuniting families torn apart during forced internment during World War II. “I am not sure why Facebook ‘promoted’ your article to me this morning,” the effusive author shared, “but something made me click to read more.”

We’ve continued to grow these campaigns. Though our mission at the magazine is and always will be to serve the TCU community first, we now factor in whether a proposed story might have a broader impact or might help us tell a more expansive tale about how the type of ethical leadership that flourishes here and makes the world a better place.

My opinion is that these campaigns have worked because they’re a perfect merger of marketing and communication. We’re doing what magazine writers and editors have always done—telling authentic stories about real people doing purpose-driven work.

What’s not to like?

Caroline Collier is director of editorial services at Texas Christian University and editor of TCU Magazine.

Source link

February 27, 2025
Local lawmakers press Penn to uphold DEI

Local lawmakers walked out of a meeting with University of Pennsylvania officials on Tuesday due to what they said was insufficient support for diversity, equity and inclusion, WHYY reported.

Pennsylvania state senator Art Haywood and state representative Napoleon Nelson, both Democrats, reportedly walked out of the meeting after a Penn official referred to diversity as a “lightning rod.”

The meeting, which included several elected state and city officials, became contentious, with lawmakers pressing Penn to hold its ground against the Trump administration’s executive actions on DEI, according to WHYY.

Penn has since removed webpages about its DEI initiatives and updated its nondiscrimination policies, despite swirling legal questions and a nationwide injunction handed down last week that blocked the Trump administration’s plans to crack down on college DEI efforts.

University officials denied backtracking on Penn’s commitment to DEI, according to lawmakers’ accounts of the meeting.

A university spokesperson told the Philadelphia radio station that Penn remains “committed to nondiscrimination in all of our operations and policies” and said the institution appreciated the concerns raised.

Lawmakers indicated that they would continue to press Penn on its commitment to DEI; several provided fiery statements to WHYY casting the university’s response as weak.

“Penn has made a cowardly move, rushing to heed dog-whistle demands from a feckless federal leadership and dismantle their programs that welcome students and workers from an expansive range of backgrounds,” state senator Nikil Saval, a Democrat, told the radio station.

Source link

February 27, 2025
Stanford drops plan to buy Bay Area campus

Stanford University backed off a plan, almost four years in the making, to buy the Notre Dame de Namur University campus in nearby Belmont, Calif., the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

“The university arrived at this decision after evaluating many factors, some of which could not be anticipated when Stanford first entered into an option purchase agreement with NDNU almost four years ago,” Stanford officials wrote in a Tuesday statement announcing the decision.

Officials added that as the university was “exploring possible academic uses for a Stanford Belmont campus,” it became clear “that identifying and establishing those uses for a potential Belmont campus will take significantly longer than we initially planned.”

Administrators also seemed to hint at potential financial concerns, as President Donald Trump has sought—unsuccessfully, so far—to cap reimbursements for indirect research costs funded by the National Institutes of Health, which experts have warned will harm research universities.

“The landscape for research universities has changed considerably since Stanford entered into the option purchase agreement with NDNU,” Stanford officials wrote. “These changes are resulting in greater uncertainties and a different set of institutional and financial challenges for Stanford.”

In their own statement, NDNU officials noted the university would continue to seek a buyer and expressed disappointment that the sale had fallen through.

Notre Dame de Namur has sought to sell the Belmont campus near Palo Alto since it shrank its offerings and moved a number of its programs online in 2021 amid financial challenges that pushed it to the brink of closure. Now the private Roman Catholic institution is focused on graduate education and offers a mix of in-person, hybrid and online programs.

Officials had expected the sale of the Belmont campus to provide a financial boon.

“Our focus remains on finding a buyer who will preserve and honor the historical significance of this beautiful campus and continue to serve the community-oriented mission that has long been a cornerstone of Notre Dame de Namur University,” NDNU president Beth Martin wrote.

Source link

February 27, 2025
Report finds racial disparities in STEMM degree persistence

A new report from the Common App found major racial disparities in persistence rates for students who enter college pursuing degrees in science, technology, engineering, mathematics or medicine.

Just over half of all college applicants express interest in a STEMM field before entering college—except for Asian American students, 72 percent of whom are interested in STEMM. But while more than half of white and Asian students pursuing STEMM obtain a degree in their chosen field within six years, only one-third of first-generation and Latino students who pursue STEMM, and 28 percent of Black or African American students, persist to earn a degree.

The disparities go beyond race. While 54 percent of continuing-generation STEMM students earn a degree in their chosen field, only 34 percent of first-gen students do so. And 51 percent of STEMM-interested students from above the median household income earn a degree in their field, compared to 38 percent of students from below median income levels.

“Our research finds many more talented STEMM aspirants from underrepresented backgrounds applying for college than completing it,” the report concludes.

The study also found that more female STEMM students switch their degree paths (18 percent) than male students (14 percent), though they complete STEMM degrees at similar rates.

Source link

February 27, 2025
Gov. Hochul orders CUNY to remove Palestine scholar job post

New York governor Kathy Hochul took an unusual interest in the hiring practices of the City University of New York on Tuesday when she ordered the public system to take down a job posting for a professorship in Palestinian studies at Hunter College.

CUNY quickly complied, and faculty at Hunter are up in arms over what they call a brazen intrusion into academic affairs from a powerful state lawmaker.

The job posting was for “a historically grounded scholar who takes a critical lens to issues pertaining to Palestine including but not limited to: settler colonialism, genocide, human rights, apartheid, migration, climate and infrastructure devastation, health, race, gender, and sexuality.”

“We are open to diverse theoretical and methodological approaches,” the posting continued.

In a statement Tuesday night, Hochul said the posting’s use of the words “settler colonialism,” “genocide” and “apartheid” amounted to antisemitic attacks and ordered CUNY to “immediately remove” the posting.

A few hours later, CUNY complied, and system chancellor Félix Matos Rodríguez echoed Hochul’s criticisms of the posting.

“We find this language divisive, polarizing and inappropriate and strongly agree with Governor Hochul’s direction to remove this posting, which we have ensured Hunter College has since done,” he wrote in a statement.

Hochul also directed the university system to launch an investigation at Hunter “to ensure that antisemitic theories are not promoted in the classroom.” Matos Rodríguez appeared to imply the system would follow that order as well, saying, “CUNY will continue working with the Governor and other stakeholders to tackle antisemitism on our campuses.”

A CUNY spokesperson declined to say whether the system would launch a probe into the posting at Hunter but wrote in an email that “each college is responsible for its own faculty job posting.”

Hochul’s order came after pro-Israel activists, including a former CUNY trustee and current professor, publicly voiced concerns about the posting.

“To make a Palestinian Studies course completely about alleged Jewish crimes is akin to courses offered in the Nazi era which ascribed all the world’s crimes to the Jews,” Jeffrey Weisenfeld, who served as a CUNY trustee for 15 years, told The New York Post.

Faculty at Hunter are livid about the decision, according to multiple professors who spoke with Inside Higher Ed both on the record and on background. They say it’s a concerning capitulation to political pressure from an institution they long believed to be staunchly independent.

One longtime Hunter and CUNY Graduate Center professor, who spoke with Inside Higher Ed on the condition of anonymity out of fear for their job, said faculty across the system were “outraged at this craven act by our governor and our chancellor.”

“It shows that [Matos Rodríguez] has no commitment to academic freedom or moral compass that would allow him to stand up at this moment of political repression,” they said.

CUNY’s Professional Staff Congress, the union representing more than 30,000 faculty and staff members across the system’s 25 campuses, wrote a letter to Matos Rodriguez on Wednesday evening condemning the posting removal and calling on leadership to reverse their decision.

“An elected official dictating what topics may be taught at a public college is a line that should not be crossed,” the letter reads. “The ‘divisive concepts’ standard for universities is something devised in Florida that shouldn’t be exported to New York. What’s needed are inclusive ways of teaching, not canceling concepts and areas of study.”

It was unclear Wednesday whether the job posting would be edited and reposted or if the opening would be eliminated. A CUNY spokesperson declined to respond to questions about the job’s future, but the anonymous faculty member said they believed Hunter officials were revising the post, intending to relist it.

The anonymous professor said they were worried that Hunter president Nancy Cantor, who took on the role last August after leading Rutgers University–Newark for a decade, could face severe scrutiny after the posting.

“We fully support this initiative by our president to make this Palestinian studies cluster hire,” the anonymous professor said. “I’m very worried about Nancy Cantor’s tenure at Hunter. I think this is part of a campaign by the far right to get rid of Félix [Matos Rodríguez], and it would not surprise me in the least if he threw Nancy Cantor under the bus to save his own skin.”

Heba Gowayed, an associate professor of sociology at Hunter, said she was shocked that Hochul had made the job posting a priority, especially as threats to academic freedom and attacks on higher education from Republicans are intensifying.

“This is an unprecedented overstep in authority, but instead of coming from Republicans, it’s coming from a Democrat in one of the bluest states in the country,” she said. “They’re the ones that are supposed to be fighting to protect academic freedom. This is a tremendous abdication of that responsibility.”

‘A Climate of Fear’

The anonymous professor said their colleagues are grappling with contending emotions: rage and fear. There’s a great appetite to speak up, they said, but they also feel it’s more dangerous than ever, even for tenured faculty.

“People are worried across the board,” they said. “That is the kind of climate of fear that this sort of action creates.”

It’s not the first time CUNY has responded to pressure from pro-Israel activist groups in faculty workforce decisions. Since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks, CUNY institutions have declined to renew contracts for two vocally pro-Palestinian professors: Danny Shaw at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, who says he was the target of a pro-Israel pressure campaign to get him fired after 18 years of teaching, and lecturer Lisa Hofman-Kuroda at Hunter, who was reported for pro-Palestinian social media posts.

Shaw, who is currently suing CUNY for breach of contract, told Inside Higher Ed that the decision to remove the job posting did not surprise him.

“This is McCarthyism 2.0,” he said. “Administrators won’t protect us. It’s been made pretty clear that at the end of the day, it’s either their necks on the chopping block or ours.”

Last spring, when the student-led pro-Palestinian encampment protests spread from Columbia University across town to the City College of New York, CUNY leadership drew criticism for calling the New York Police Department to disperse students. Gowayed said that decision shocked faculty across the system, who took pride in their institution’s progressive reputation and history of academic integrity.

Even then, she said she was “disturbed that they have let it get to this higher level of censoring faculty for a completely legitimate job posting.”

The Palestinian studies position was one of two Hunter planned to hire, and Gowayed said faculty and leadership at Hunter had been supportive of the plans to expand their research and teaching capacity in an area of growing interest.

“Whatever your feelings on Palestine, this is a research area in a widely recognized field of scholarship on genocide and apartheid,” Gowayed said. “These are well-established fields, whether you’re studying the Belgian Congo or Rwanda or Palestine, and the posting wasn’t even saying what approach the faculty should take … The reaction to this posting is so discrepant from the actual academic integrity of the job search.”

Source link

February 26, 2025
Fighting for science, research—and cures (AFT Higher Education)

Hands off our research! Hands off our healthcare! Hands off our jobs! The message rang out loud and clear at the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C., Feb. 25, where scientists, researchers and other higher education workers rallied against the cuts the Trump administration has been making to medical research. It’s just one way AFT members are pushing back against attacks that harm not just researchers but the millions of Americans who rely on their work for cures and treatments for everything from cancer to diabetes and Alzheimer’s.

Source link

February 26, 2025