The courts have pushed back against much of President Donald Trump’s agenda, but he did win a small victory this week in a dispute with education researchers.
On June 3, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., denied a request by four education research trade associations for a preliminary injunction, which means that the Education Department doesn’t have to temporarily reinstate fired employees and canceled contracts within its research and data arm, the Institute of Education Sciences.
Researchers had hoped to return the research division to its pre-Trump status while the court takes time to decide the overall issue in the case, which is whether the Trump administration exceeded its executive authority in these mass firings and contract terminations. Now, the cuts in the research arm of the department will remain while the case proceeds.
Four education research groups (the Association for Education Finance and Policy (AEFP), the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP), the National Academy of Education (NAEd) and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME)) are suing the Education Department because their federally funded studies, evaluations and surveys have been slashed and their access to data is slated to be curtailed. They also contend that historical data archives are at risk, along with future data quality. Their legal argument is that the cuts were arbitrary and capricious and they say that the Trump administration eliminated many activities that Congress requires by law.
U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden acknowledged that the “upheaval” at the Institute of Education Sciences is “understandably jarring for those who rely on studies and data produced by the Institute.” However, McFadden explained in a written opinion that the law that the researchers are using to sue the executive branch, the Administrative Procedure Act, was “never meant to be a bureaucratic windbreak insulating agencies from political gales.”
“It is not this Court’s place to breathe life back into wide swathes of the Institute’s cancelled programs and then monitor the agency’s day-to-day statutory compliance,” McFadden wrote.
In the opinion, McFadden noted that some of the researchers’ complaints, such as losing remote access to student data for research purposes, may be “ripe for standalone challenges,” but bundling all of their grievances together is a “losing gambit.”
The ruling not only denied researchers the short-term remedy they sought but also cast doubt on the prospects of their overall case. “We are disappointed with and disagree with the Court’s decision, and are evaluating our next steps,” said Adam Pulver, an attorney at Public Citizen, a nonprofit advocacy organization representing two of the research organizations.
A federal judge in Maryland is still considering a similar request to temporarily restore research-related cuts at the Education Department by two other education research groups. That suit, which also accuses the Trump administration of exceeding its executive power, was brought by the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE).
Educators fighting the cuts have had one victory so far, in a separate case filed in federal district court in Boston. On May 22, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun ordered the Trump administration to reinstate 1,300 Education Department employees terminated in March. The Trump administration is challenging the decision, but the court said on June 4 that the Education Department couldn’t postpone rehiring everyone while the appeal works its way through the courts. This case was brought by two Massachusetts school districts, a teachers union and 21 Democratic attorneys general.
This story about education researchers suing the Trump administration was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
Jason KingJason King has been named senior vice president for legal affairs and general counsel at Hofstra University.
King most recently served as associate vice president of strategic risk management and chief legal officer at The University of Texas at San Antonio, a role where he oversaw institutional risk and provided legal counsel to university leadership. Previously, he served as chief compliance and ethics officer for The University of Texas System Administration, where he held various roles from 2012 to 2023, and led the development and execution of a system-wide research compliance strategy that safeguarded a $3.5 billion research portfolio from foreign influence and misconduct.
Earlier in his career, King was an associate at Akers & Boulware-Wells, LLP, and assistant general counsel for the Texas Ethics Commission. King holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and a Juris Doctor from Baylor University School of Law.
Crises are an inevitable part of leadership, challenging the resilience of both leaders and institutions. In these moments, leaders must make tough decisions under immense pressure, and how we respond can shape the outcome of the crisis and the legacy we leave behind. It’s not just about surviving the storm but also about learning from it, adapting and coming out stronger on the other side.
The lessons shared in this essay provide practical guidance to help higher education leaders face crises with clarity and purpose, from fostering open communication to prioritizing the well-being of your team. These insights reflect hard-earned experiences and are grounded in the values that carry us forward, even when the path feels uncertain.
Be the Buffalo
Have you heard the story of the buffalo? When a storm approaches, many animals instinctively run away from the storm. But because storms move swiftly, by running away, they can prolong their exposure when the storm catches up to them. Buffalo, however, face storms head-on, running into them instead of away from them, minimizing their time in adversity.
In crisis leadership, this means confronting the situation directly often resolves it faster and builds resilience. Sometimes, that means intentionally thinking about what is happening, giving yourself time to process it and trying to accept the reality. Avoid the temptation to ignore problems or hope they dissipate on their own. Acknowledge reality, process the pain and release its grip on your focus. Facing a crisis with courage and clarity accelerates recovery and strengthens leadership.
Keep the End in Mind
From the moment the crisis begins, envision what recovery looks like. Protect your institution and team while safeguarding critical relationships. This mindset helps you pivot from managing the immediate challenges to laying the groundwork for a return to normalcy and stability. Avoid impulsive decisions that can have long-term consequences.
Equally important is how you support your team, particularly those who are on the front lines of the crisis, feeling its weight acutely. By keeping the end in mind, you can better prioritize your team’s well-being. For instance, ensure they have the resources, communication and guidance they need to navigate the storm. Protect them from unnecessary fallout by taking on more external pressure when possible. A team that feels supported and valued during a crisis will emerge better and more unified in its aftermath.
Also stay mindful of your future self—the leader who will look back on this period and assess the outcomes and the approach. Treat every interaction carefully, knowing that future collaboration often depends on how you conduct yourself during difficult times.
Do the Next Right Thing
In a crisis, the path forward often feels murky and overwhelming and the pressure to anticipate every possible scenario can be paralyzing. Simplify your focus: Break the challenge into manageable steps and identify the next critical decision. For instance, in a financial crisis, the next right thing might be to prioritize cost-cutting measures. Ask, “What is the next right thing?” and then focus on that.
In other words, break the challenge into manageable steps and identify the next critical decision. Not every decision carries the same weight; some choices will matter more than others in the short term. Taking a moment to identify what requires immediate action versus what can wait is essential. Trust your instincts and lean on your values.
Remember, no single decision will end a crisis, but a series of thoughtful, well-executed actions can. By consistently doing the next right thing, you’ll build momentum, foster confidence and guide your institution toward recovery.
Rise Above the Fray
Crises test your composure. When you’re down and out and your back is against the wall, it is natural to want to fight back—to stand up for yourself or defend your organization. While the instinct to protect or retaliate can be strong, rising above the fray—staying calm, measured and professional—reflects well on you and your organization. Your actions during a crisis set the tone for your team and how external stakeholders perceive your leadership. By maintaining your composure, you can instill a sense of control and confidence in your team and stakeholders.
During a crisis, emotions often run high and others may act in ways that disappoint or frustrate you. These moments are as much a reflection of their character as they are a test of your own. Respond with integrity and intention, ensuring actions align with your values. Anchor yourself fairly and professionally, leading by example. How you act in these moments defines your leadership and shapes your legacy.
Seek Help Early
No leader faces a crisis alone. When a storm comes, take a moment to think, “Who might be able to help me?” Asking for help from legal counsel, crisis communication experts or trusted advisers is essential. These professionals offer critical perspectives and solutions. By involving them early, you give yourself and your team the advantage of informed, strategic guidance.
Equally important is leaning on your network and reaching out to colleagues who have faced similar challenges for their lessons learned, moral support and practical insights to help you navigate the complexity of the crisis. Asking for help is a strength, not a weakness, and ensures you emerge from the crisis with relationships and trust intact.
Rethink Public Relations in the Age of Social Media
There was a time when saying “no comment” or ignoring a media inquiry was the worst kind of public relations. Traditional public relations strategies may not apply in today’s social media–driven world. Not every media inquiry or rumor warrants a response. Prioritize credible sources and local media relationships critical to your institution’s reputation.
Avoid the trap of engaging with nonconstructive voices. Strategic silence can sometimes be the best action, allowing your focus to remain on the broader recovery effort.
Support the Core and Reassure the Whole
Crises often pressure a core team—typically leadership and crisis managers. Support these individuals with clear communication, resources and guidance. A supported core team can act decisively and confidently, which is essential for effective crisis management.
At the same time, safeguard your broader community—your students, employees and other stakeholders—by shielding them from unnecessary distractions, allowing them to stay focused on the institution’s vision and mission. Clear, empathetic communication reassures stakeholders and sustains trust, morale and well-being.
This Too Shall Pass—Find the Lessons
Crises feel all-encompassing at the moment—when you’re in the thick of it, it is easy to think life will never be the same again—but they are temporary. Remind yourself that leadership and life will return to normal.
Once the storm passes, reflect on the experience. Adversity shapes us, often in ways we don’t immediately recognize. What lessons has this crisis taught you about leadership, resilience and institutional dynamics? Growth frequently emerges from adversity, preparing you for future challenges.
Take Care of Yourself
When a crisis hits, dealing with that crisis becomes your sole focus. Self-care during a crisis is both essential and challenging. Your capacity to lead diminishes without rest, nutrition and mental reprieve. Prioritize habits that sustain you while giving yourself grace. Some things—like a full inbox or a missed task—can wait.
Strong habits built before crises ensure you have the reserves needed for long-term endurance. Leadership, like endurance, depends on maintaining your strength for the long haul.
Manage Stakeholders Thoughtfully and Lead With Humility
Crises reshuffle priorities; stakeholder needs will inevitably shift. Identify the most impacted and influential, tailoring communication to meet their needs. Internal stakeholders often need reassurance, while external groups may require clarity, particularly when misinformation or media scrutiny complicates the narrative.
Crises also remind us of our fallibility. Adopt humility and seek diverse perspectives to uncover blind spots and improve decision-making. Leading with humility signals strength, not weakness. It demonstrates that you value thoughtful, intentional leadership over impulsive reactions and earns the trust and respect of those you serve.
Final Thoughts
Crisis leadership is both a test and a teacher. The lessons it imparts— about resilience, humility and strategic focus—are hard-earned but invaluable. By embracing these principles, leaders can survive crises and emerge more self-aware and better prepared for future challenges.
Janet N. Spriggs, Ed.D., is president of Forsyth Technical Community College in North Carolina.Paula Dibley, Ed.D., is chief officer of student success and strategic innovation at Forsyth Technical Community College.
After more than a year of uncertainty, Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer has decided not to remove two Michigan State University trustees as requested by the board, The Lansing State Journal reported.
Michigan State’s Board of Trustees asked the Democratic governor to remove Rema Vassar and Dennis Denno last year after a university investigation found both trustees violated MSU’s code of conduct. The investigation determined that the pair had “created a fear of retaliation amongst administrators and other MSU personnel,” according to the report, which said they encouraged students to call a frequently critical faculty member a racist. Vassar also accepted gifts from donors, including flights and tickets to athletic events, the report said.
The report also found the duo intended to “embarrass and terrify” former interim president Teresa Woodruff. The trustees have refuted most allegations and taken issue with the findings.
Both trustees were stripped of their duties by the board and Vassar stepped down as chair.
While Whitmer called Vassar and Denno’s actions “shameful,” she decided not to remove her fellow Democrats. (Trustees at Michigan State are elected, unlike at most institutions nationally.)
“The denial of the request by no means indicates a condoning of the conduct alleged in the referral,” Whitmer’s deputy legal counsel Amy Lishinski wrote in a letter to the MSU board obtained by the newspaper. “Rather, it only means that other considerations related to the Governor’s removal authority weigh against removal under these circumstances at this time.”
Being arrested by armed riot police on my own campus was not, somehow, the most jarring thing that has happened to me since the spring of 2024. More disturbing was the experience of being canceled by my hometown.
In June 2024, I was supposed to give the second of two lectures in a series entitled “History of the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” at the public library in San Anselmo, Calif., a leafy suburb of San Francisco best known as the longtime home of George Lucas.
I grew up in San Anselmo during the Sept. 11 era and vividly remember how stereotypes and misperceptions of the Middle East were used to justify war in Iraq and discrimination against Arabs and Muslims at home. I was shaped by the commonplace refrains of that moment, especially that Americans needed to learn more about the Middle East. So, I did. I learned Arabic and Farsi and spent years abroad living across the region. I earned a Ph.D. in Middle Eastern history and am now a professor at a public university in Colorado. I see teaching as a means of countering the misrepresentations that generate conflict.
But as the second lecture approached, I began receiving alarmed messages from the San Anselmo town librarian. She told me of a campaign to cancel the lecture so intense that discussions about how to respond involved the town’s elected officials, including the mayor. I was warned that “every word you utter tomorrow night will be scrutinized, dissected and used against you and the library” and that she had become “concerned for everyone’s well-being.” Just hours before it was scheduled to begin, the lecture was canceled.
I later learned more about what had transpired. At a subsequent town council meeting, the librarian described a campaign of harassment and intimidation that included “increasingly aggressive emails” and “coordinated in-person visits” so threatening that she felt that they undermined the safe working environment of library staff.
In Middle Eastern studies, such stories have become routine. A handful have received public attention—the instructor suspended for booking a room on behalf of a pro-Palestinian student organization, or the Jewish scholar of social movements investigated by Harvard University for supposed antisemitism. Professors have lost job offers or been fired. Even tenure is no protection. These well-publicized examples are accompanied by innumerable others which will likely never be known. In recent months, I have heard harrowing stories from colleagues: strangers showing up to classes and sitting menacingly in the back of the room; pressure groups contacting university administrators to demand that they be fired; visits from the FBI; a deluge of racist hate mail and death threats. It is no surprise that a recent survey of faculty in the field of Middle East Studies found that 98 percent of assistant professors self-censor when discussing Israel-Palestine.
Compared to the professors losingtheirjobs and the student demonstrators facing expulsion—and even deportation—my experience is insignificant. It is nothing compared to the scholasticide in Gaza, where Israeli forces have systematically demolished the educational infrastructure and killed untold numbers of academics and students. But the contrast between my anodyne actions and the backlash they have generated illustrates the remarkable breadth of the censorship that permeates American society. The mainstream discourse has been purged not just of Palestinian voices, but of scholarly ones. Most significantly, censorship at home justifies violence abroad. Americans are once again living in an alternate reality—with terribly real consequences.
On Oct. 7, 2023, it was clear that a deadly reprisal was coming. It was equally evident that no amount of force could free Israeli captives, let alone “defeat Hamas.” I contacted my university media office in hopes of providing valuable context. I had never given a TV interview before, so I spent hours preparing for a thoughtful discussion. Instead, I was asked if this was “Israel’s Pearl Harbor.”
Well, no, I explained. It was the tragic and predictable result of a so-called peace process that has, for 30 years and with U.S. complicity, done little more than provide cover for the expansion of Israeli settlements. Violence erupts when negotiation fails. Only by understanding why people turn to violence can we end it. I watched the story after it aired. Nearly the whole interview was cut.
I accepted or passed to colleagues all the interview requests that I received. But they soon dried up. Instead, I began receiving hate mail.
It quickly became clear that I had to take the initiative to engage with the public. I held a series of historical teach-ins on campus. The audience was attentive, but small. I reached out to a local school district where I had previously provided curriculum advice. I never heard back. I contacted my high school alma mater and offered to speak there. They were too afraid of backlash. I was eventually invited to speak at two libraries, including San Anselmo’s. Everyone else turned me down.
In April 2024, the Denver chapter of Students for a Democratic Society organized yet another protest in their campaign to pressure the University of Colorado to divest from companies complicit in the Israeli occupation. This event would be different. As one of the students spoke, others erected tents, launching what would become one of the longest-lasting encampments in the country.
There was no cause for panic. The encampment did not interfere with classes or even block the walkway around the quad. Instead, it became the kind of community space that is all too hard to build on a commuter campus. It hosted speakers, prayer meetings and craft circles. But as I left a faculty meeting the day after the start of the encampment, I sensed that something was wrong. I arrived on the quad to find a phalanx of armed riot police facing down a short row of students standing hand in hand on the lawn.
Fearing what would happen next, two colleagues and I joined the students and sat down, hoping to de-escalate the situation and avoid violence. The police surrounded us, preventing any escape. Then they were themselves surrounded by faculty, students and community members who were clearly outraged by their presence. We sat under the sun for nearly two hours as chaos swirled around us. The protesters cleared away the tents to demonstrate their compliance. It made no difference. Forty of us were arrested, zip-tied and jailed. I was charged with interference and trespassing. Others faced more serious charges. I was detained for more than 12 hours, until 3:00 in the morning.
The arrests backfired. When the police departed, the protesters returned, invigorated by an outpouring of community support. I visited the encampment regularly over the following weeks. When the threat of war with Iran loomed, I gave a talk about Iranian history. When the activists organized their own graduation, they invited me to give a commencement address. I spoke about their accomplishments: that they had taken real risks, made real sacrifices and faced real consequences in order to do what was right. The encampment became the place where I could speak most freely, on campus or off.
While the encampment came to an end in May, the prosecutions did not. The city offered me deferred prosecution, meaning that the matter would be dropped if I did not break the law for six months. I am not, to put it lightly, a seasoned lawbreaker, so the deal would have effectively made everything disappear. I turned it down. Accepting the offer would have prevented me from challenging the legality of the arrests, and I was determined to do what I could to prevent armed riot police from ever again suppressing a peaceful student demonstration. It was a matter of principle and precedent. A civil rights attorney agreed to represent me pro bono. I would fight the charges.
During my pretrial hearings, I learned more about the cancellation of my lecture in San Anselmo. A local ceasefire group served the town with a freedom of information request that yielded hundreds of pages of emails. Two days before the talk was scheduled, one local resident sent an “all hands on deck” email that called for a coordinated campaign against my lecture “in hopes of getting it canceled.” A less technologically savvy recipient forwarded the message on to the library, providing an inside view.
The denunciations presented a version of myself that I did not recognize. The letters relied on innuendo and misrepresentation. Many claimed that I was “pro-Hamas” or accused me of antisemitism, which they invariably conflated with criticism of Israeli policy. Several expressed concern about what I might say, rather than anything I have ever actually said, while others misquoted me. Fodder for the campaign came largely from media reports of my arrest and video of my commencement address, both taken out of context. One claimed that the talk was “a violation of multiple Federal and California Statutes.” Another claimed that I “seemed to promote ongoing violence”—the lawyerly use of the word “seemed” betraying the lack of evidence behind the accusation.
Perhaps the most popular claim was that I am biased, an activist rather than a scholar. My opponents seemed especially offended by my use of the word “genocide.” But genocide is not an epithet—it is an analytical term that represents the consensus in my field. A survey of Middle East studies scholars conducted in the weeks surrounding the talk found that 75 percent viewed Israeli actions in Gaza as either “genocide” or “major war crimes akin to genocide.”
I was most struck by how many people objected to the idea of contextualizing the Oct. 7 attack; one even called it “insulting.” But contextualization is not justification. Placing events in a wider frame is central to the study of history—indeed, it is why history matters. If violence is not explained by the twists and turns of events, it can only be understood as the product of intrinsic qualities—that certain people, or groups of people, are inherently violent or uncivilized. In the absence of context, bigotry reigns.
I did what I could to fight back against the censorship campaign. After reading the library emails, I reached out to journalists at several local news outlets to inform them about the incident. None followed up. The only report ever published was written by an independent journalist on Substack.
In the weeks leading up to my trial, I wrote an op-ed calling for the charges to be dropped. I noted that the protest was entirely peaceful until the police arrived. I asked how our students, especially our undocumented students or students of color, can feel safe on campus when the authorities respond to peaceful demonstrations by calling the police. I sent the article to a local paper. I never heard back. I sent it to a second. Then a third. None responded. It was never published.
In October, prosecutors dropped the charges against me. The official order of dismissal stated that they did not believe that they had a reasonable likelihood of conviction. I have now joined a civil lawsuit against the campus police in the hope that it will make the authorities think twice before turning to the police to arrest student demonstrators.
Scholars of the Middle East are caught in an inescapable bind. Activist spaces are the only ones left open to us, but we are dismissed as biased when we use them. We are invited to share our insights only if they are deemed uncontroversial by the self-appointed gatekeepers of the conventional wisdom. If we condemn—or even just name—the genocide unfolding before our eyes, we are deplatformed and silenced. The logic is circular and impenetrable. It is also poison to the body politic. It rests on a nonsensical conception of objectivity that privileges power over truth. This catch-22 is no novel creation of the new administration. The institutions most complicit in its creation are the pillars of society ostensibly dedicated to the pursuit of justice—the press, the courts and the academy itself. They have constricted the boundaries of respectable discourse until they fit comfortably within the Beltway consensus. Rather than confronting reality, they have become apologists for genocide and architects of the post-truth world. They have learned nothing from Iraq. Nor do they want to. They don’t want to learn about the Middle East.
Alex Boodrookas is an assistant professor of history at Metropolitan State University of Denver. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not represent those of his employer.
If there is anyone in higher education that you want to work with, that person is Melissa Kane. As director of online program development at Brown University, Melissa leads a talented team doing incredible work at the intersection of learning, technology and institutional change. You can learn more about Melissa and her professional and educational journey here. When I saw on LinkedIn that Melissa is recruiting for a learning designer and a learning technologist, I thought that these roles would be perfect to highlight in this “Featured Gig” series.
If you are also recruiting for an opportunity at the place where learning, technology and organizational change meet, please get in touch.
Q: What is the mandate behind these roles? How do the roles align with and advance the university’s strategic priorities?
A: Both the learning designer and the learning technologist positions are directly tied to Brown University’s strategic priority to diversify the master’s degree portfolio and significantly increase global impact through the expansion of online graduate degree programs. As higher education continues to evolve toward more flexible, human-centered and accessible learning modalities, Brown delivers on its mission by providing a uniquely Brown learning experience to a new demographic of working professionals and international learners who may require more geographical flexibility.
Since this strategic initiative began in 2021, Brown has remained invested in its internal staff resources to partake in constructing and delivering its online master’s programs. Because of this, the learning designer and learning technologist positions are essential infrastructure investments that will enable us to continue delivering the same rigorous and innovative education that defines Brown through the online modality.
The learning designer role advances our mission by ensuring that courses in our online master’s programs maintain Brown’s hallmark of academic excellence while leveraging evidence-based practices in fully asynchronous online learning experience design. Similarly, the learning technologist role has the opportunity to position us at the forefront of educational innovation by pioneering new approaches to implement existing and emerging learning technologies that can influence the ways we advance graduate student education.
Both of these roles will be integral in helping Brown with its goal of enrolling and retaining new markets of graduate students while still maintaining our mission-driven commitment to deliver transformative, high-quality education in this evolving landscape.
Q: Where do the roles sit within the university structure? How will the people in these roles engage with other units and leaders across campus?
A: The learning designer and the learning technologist roles are strategically positioned within the Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning, reporting through the Office of the Provost, which again reflects the university’s commitment to placing pedagogical excellence at the center of its online master’s degree expansion efforts. The Sheridan Center’s integrated approach makes it an ideal location for individuals in these positions to collaborate with other members of the university’s community, including the School of Professional Studies, the library and academic departments and schools. Because of our cross-campus partnerships to help deliver courses within the online graduate degree portfolio, we have the unique opportunity to enable consistent quality and pedagogical coherence across all online programs as we work with academic departments to draw on their unique disciplinary strengths and identities.
Q: What would success look like in one year? Three years? Beyond?
A: Our team’s success stems from deep human connections and the intellectual capital created through collaboration, trust and empathy with each other and our campus partners. In the first year, success is measured by the individual’s openness to creative thinking, empathetic cross-functional collaboration and inclusive practice in both their projects and interpersonal interactions. The learning designer will demonstrate fluency in digital pedagogies that are inclusive of global audiences at scale, while the learning technologist will continue to grow their technical knowledge and skills to meet diverse student learning needs through innovative, ethical and accessible educational technologies as the AI landscape changes.
By year three and beyond, individuals in these roles will have evolved into thought leaders in learning experience innovation that is responsive and relevant to our ever-changing world. They will have established themselves as trusted collaborators with our campus partners, and their work will demonstrate measurable impact on student success and engagement in the graduate degree environment. Ultimately, I see individuals in these roles continuing to forge bridges between academic departments and inclusive online learning environments that reflect Brown’s commitment to academic excellence, innovation and accessibility.
Q: What kinds of future roles would someone who took these positions be prepared for?
A: As members of the integrated Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning, both positions have clearly defined advancement pathways based on the university’s evolving needs, with opportunities to progress to senior learning designer, senior learning technologist or even assistant director roles.
While that’s the formal pathway, what’s exciting to me is that we’ve deliberately designed these positions to foster professional growth, which means an individual’s potential future impact at Brown is really only limited by their own ambitions of expanding their expertise in the field of learning design and technology. This has been my experience at Brown, and between the university’s deep commitment to staff development and remaining responsive to emerging trends in higher education, I imagine the possibilities for future roles extend beyond what I can envision at this moment.
CINNAMINSON, N.J. — Terri Joyce believed that her son belonged in a kindergarten classroom that included students with and without disabilities.
The year before, as a 4-year-old, he happily spent afternoons in a child care program filled with typically developing children, without any extra support. Like other kids his age, her son, who has Down syndrome, was learning about shapes and loved sitting on the rug listening to the teacher read books aloud. His speech delay didn’t prevent him from making friends and playing with children of differing abilities and, during the summer, he attended the same program for full days and would greet her with big smiles at pick up time.
But when Joyce met with school district administrators ahead of her son’s kindergarten year, they told her that he would need to spend all day in a classroom that was only for students with significant disabilities.
“They absolutely refused to even consider it,” Joyce said. “They told us, ‘We move so fast in kindergarten, he needs specialized instruction, he’ll get frustrated.’”
It was the separate classroom that left him frustrated.
Terri Joyce said her son, who has Down syndrome, has thrived after she fought for him to be included in a general education classroom. Credit: Yunuen Bonaparte for The Hechinger Report
Under federal law, students with disabilities — who once faced widespread outright exclusion from public schools — have a right to learn alongside peers without disabilities “to the maximum extent” possible. That includes the right to get accommodations and help, like aides, to allow them to stay in the general education classroom. Schools must report crucial benchmarks, including how many students with disabilities are learning in the general education classroom over 80 percent of the time.
More than anywhere else in the country, New Jersey students with disabilities fail to reach this threshold, according to federal data. Instead, they spend significant portions of the school day in separate classrooms where parents say they have little to no access to the general curriculum — a practice that can violate their civil rights under federal law.
Just 49 percent of 6- and 7-year-olds with disabilities in the state spend the vast majority of their day in a general education classroom, compared with nearly three-quarters nationally. In some New Jersey districts, it was as low as 10 percent for young learners. Only 45 percent of students with disabilities of all ages are predominantly in a general education classroom, compared to 68 percent nationwide.
For over three decades, the state has faced lawsuits and federal monitoring for its continued pattern of unnecessarily segregating students with disabilities and regularly fails to meet the targets it sets for improving inclusion.
Surrounded mostly by children who had trouble communicating, Terri Joyce’s son’s speech development stalled. He wasn’t exposed to what his peers in the general education classroom were learning — like science and social studies.
For Terri Joyce, getting her son included in a general education classroom “was a part-time job” and meant staying on top of, and documenting, his academic and social progress. Credit: Yunuen Bonaparte for The Hechinger Report
Joyce tried mediation with the Cinnaminson district but they refused to budge. In the end, she hired a lawyer, filed a due process claim with the state and succeeded in having her son placed in a classroom that included students with and without disabilities the next year, repeating kindergarten to see if he could regain the skills he had lost. The process cost her family thousands of dollars.
Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our freeweekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education.
The Hechinger Report spoke with more than 80 parents, researchers, lawyers, advocates and school officials across the state who described a widespread failure to devote resources to integrating students with disabilities — and a decentralized system that gives enormous power to district leaders, who have long been able to refuse to prioritize inclusion without facing consequences from the state or federal government.
New Jersey is known nationally as a leader in public education, but the state’s governance system has led to inclusion rates that vary dramatically between districts. As a result, a child who is placed in a separate classroom for the entire day in one district could be included all day in a general education classroom in a neighboring one.
“Mindset is the biggest barrier,” said Michele Gardner, executive director of All In for Inclusive Education and previously an administrator for 15 years in the Berkeley Heights district. “There are educators, parents, administrators and physicians who truly believe that separate is better for children with and without disabilities. With more than 600 districts, local control makes change harder.”
Experts say integrating students with disabilities in general education should be easiest, and can be the most beneficial, in the early years. Researchers have found students with and without disabilities — particularly the youngest learners — can benefit when inclusion is done with enough staffing and commitment. Young children also learn from watching each other, and parents worry denying students with disabilities this chance can have lasting damage on them academically and emotionally. Worldwide, inclusion is considered a human right helping all children develop empathy and prepare for society after graduation.
Too often, New Jersey parents say, young learners are placed right away in separate classrooms based on a diagnosis — as Joyce’s son was — rather than an assessment of what support they actually need.
Just over a decade ago, New Jersey settled a class-action lawsuit filed by parents and advocacy groups over student placement, which required years of state monitoring, a new stakeholder committee, and training and technical assistance for districts with the lowest rates of inclusion.
But since then, the proportion of young students in the general education classroom the vast majority of the day actually decreased by about 5 percentage points, from 54 percent in the 2013-14 school year. Nationwide, there was no such drop.
“We are certainly seeing a trend that, even at younger ages, students are being shuttled into segregated schooling and never really starting in inclusive experiences,” Syracuse University inclusive special education professor Christine Ashby said of New Jersey and other states.
Ashby, who also runs the university’s Center on Disability and Inclusion, said students then tend to stay in separate — commonly called self-contained — classrooms, where they may receive individualized instruction alongside peers with disabilities but may be less prepared for life after high school.
For Terri Joyce, the opportunity she fought for her son to have proved worth it. It took him time to adjust, but with the help of an aide, he settled in and, now in first grade, is thriving alongside his general education peers once again.
“It was like night and day,” said Joyce. “His speech improved. He loves school. He has friends. He gets invited to birthday parties.”
Terri Joyce is happy with how her son’s writing skills have developed in first grade while learning in a general education classroom. Credit: Yunuen Bonaparte for The Hechinger Report
New Jersey Department of Education officials declined a request for an interview, but said in a statement that the agency is working with schools statewide to improve how often students with disabilities are placed in general education classrooms through training, technical assistance and programs promoting inclusion. A new website provides a detailed look at each district’s data, broken down by grade and type of disability.
“All placement decisions must be made on an individual basis and there is no one-size-fits all standard or outcome that should be applied to every district, school or student,” Laura Fredrick, the department’s communication director, said in the emailed statement.
Fredrick said districts that fail to meet state goals for increasing inclusion may face more intensive monitoring, but there are no direct financial penalties or automatic consequences for failing to improve. She also noted that the state pays for voluntary trainingto increase inclusion in K-12 schools.
That program has helped in some districts, but a limited number of schools have participated so far and space is limited — some that have applied for the training have been turned away.
In Cinnaminson, district officials said they could not comment on specific students but that school officials and parents work together on placement decisions.
“To the fullest extent possible, we strive to place students in general education classrooms for the most inclusive educational experience,” Superintendent Stephen Cappello said in a statement.
Some experts said the data suggests that, unlike other states, New Jersey districts do a good job providing individualized services that students need. Autism New Jersey clinical director Joe Novak said in contrast, “There are certain districts, or states, where the default may simply be to place the child in general education and say, ‘Well, best of luck.’”
Indeed a frequent complaint from some parents is the lack of specialized services in general education classrooms, especially because of staffing shortages or lack of expertise. In those cases a student may be counted as included in a general education classroom but without the support they need, which advocates on both sides of the debate say can be harmful.
“New Jersey is probably doing a lot of things right, because it means we’re probably really customizing what makes sense for the individual,” Novak said
Yet others say the state can improve inclusion rates that are sharply lower than the nation’s.
The federal government doesn’t say how many students should be included or for how much of the school day. States set targets for inclusion rates but typically don’t fine or sanction districts for not meeting them. States can also take other steps like requiring training or administrative changes for districts. Advocates say New Jersey districts have little to lose for repeatedly falling below the state’s own targets for including children with disabilities.
Left out
New Jersey has the nation’s lowest inclusion rates for students with disabilities. The Hechinger Report investigated why — and visited places that show how it doesn’t need to be that way.
Do you have experiences with special education you’d like to share with our journalists?
Oversight from the federal government could also diminish going forward. Although the Trump administration pledges to continue funding special education, advocates warn the planned dismantling of the Department of Education, including its civil rights enforcement arm, will harm students with disabilities.
“It’s sort of petrifying, from my end, for these families,” said Jessica Weinberg, a former New Jersey school district attorney who now runs a special education law firm.
“It could be completely disbanded,” she said of the Education Department. “The uncertainty is really unsettling.”
Federal law says students should be placed in separate classrooms “only if” they can’t learn in the general education classroom with services detailed in IEPs, or individualized education programs — the document that outlines a student’s needs, the services they should receive and where they’ll receive them. Teachers, school officials and parents sit on their child’s IEP team, which is supposed to review placement decisions each year.
And parents across New Jersey say it takes time and money to fight for access to general education classrooms — which means whether a child is included can reflect existing racial disparities and whether families can afford lawyers and advocates. Parents say when a school argues their child must be taught separately, their best way of fighting that decision is lawyers and experts — if they can afford it.
Districts with less poverty and a larger share of white students tend to have higher inclusion rates and test scores, according to The Hechinger Report’s analysis of state data. Overall, just 37 percent of Black students in kindergarten, first or second grade in New Jersey are included in the general education classroom for the vast majority of the school day, compared to half of white students.
It’s challenging to get special education services in urban and lower-income districts in the first place, said Nicole Whitfield, a mother of a child with a disability who founded an advocacy group in Trenton for families fighting for special education services.
Urban “districts are so overloaded with so many kids, they don’t do a good job in managing it,” she said.
In all districts, arguments against including more students often hinge on money. Administrators may say they can’t afford all the services every child needs, like an aide assigned to work with one child, and some parents worry providing comprehensive services could strain budgets or cut services for students without disabilities. As special education costs rise, the federal government has long failed to provide as much special education funding as it pledged.
The way New Jersey funds schools doesn’t consider how many students have disabilities. The governor’s proposed budget for the upcoming school year would take that into account and increase overall special education spending by about $400 million — though some districts will lose money. Lawmakers are debating the governor’s proposal, which has some support from the chair of the state Senate Education Committee, Sen. Vin Gopal.
Yet districts spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year to pay tuition at private schools ($784 million last year statewide) and fight legal battles — money advocates say could boost public special education.
It cost Washington Township school district about $90,000 to send Nicole Lannutti’s daughter, who is non-verbal and has a developmental delay, to a private preschool for a year rather than educate her in one of its schools.
“If you can come up with the money for lawsuits, why can’t you put it into the district right now?” Lannutti said. “That makes no sense.”
Washington Township school district did not respond requests for comment.
Whittier Elementary School in Teaneck, New Jersey, rearranged its classrooms to improve how many students with disabilities are included in classes with their peers. Credit: Meredith Kolodner/The Hechinger Report
In some districts, officials say inclusion doesn’t cost more in the long run, even if there are upfront costs. Administrators in Sparta Township, for example, said improving inclusion rates didn’t require more spending. Its schools got help from the New Jersey Inclusion Project — the state-funded training program that helps districts provide students with the least restrictive learning environment appropriate for them.
“[It] has really changed the way we educate our students,” said Adrienne Castorina, Sparta’s director of special services. Teachers found that they were able to provide specialized instruction in reading inside a general education classroom, for example, instead of pulling children out and teaching them in separate rooms.
In 2024, a special education parent advisory committee in Bernards Township School District asked administrators to apply to the New Jersey Inclusion Project. Parents thought the program would be a no-cost, collaborative path forward.
District officials refused.
Many parents in the wealthy district say Bernards’ classroom staff are committed and skilled, but they also say there’s an unwritten policy of separating children based on their diagnosis — close to three-quarters of children with autism, for example, spend the vast majority of their day without contact with their general education peers.
For years, Trish Sumida pleaded with staff at her daughter’s elementary school in Bernards to allow her to have contact with her non-disabled peers. But every day, starting in kindergarten, she learned only alongside other children with autism. Most years, she was the only girl in the room, and she longed for someone to play with who shared her interests.
“Those early years are so important,” said Sumida, whose daughter is now in fifth grade and still spends most of her time in a separate classroom. “I feel like we’ve missed our window.”
Many Bernards parents are particularly frustrated by the refusal to set up co-taught classrooms, a nationally used approach where a general education and special education teacher work together to educate students with and without disabilities.
Jean O’Connell, Bernards’ director of special services, rejected the idea of co-taught classes in elementary school, saying they made it harder to support individual students, particularly in reading. “We had this model in place for many years and found it ineffective,” she said in an email.
Research suggests even students with significant disabilities can learn alongside general education peers with help from co-teachers or paraprofessionals. And a large body of evidence suggests inclusion doesn’t harm learners with or without disabilities.
Some scholars say inclusion research is flawed because students who appear to benefit may need less support and have fewer academic struggles. Such experts point out that a separate classroom may be the appropriate setting for some children, who could languish without intensive support in a general education classroom. And schools with high inclusion rates on paper may place students with disabilities in general education without needed aides and accommodations — which federal data does not capture.
Even a prominent researcher who has questioned the benefits of inclusion, however, said most children don’t need to be taught separately all day.
“Most students with disabilities do not need very intensive forms of instruction,” said Vanderbilt University special education professor Douglas Fuchs.
O’Connell did not respond to questions about why Bernards refused to participate in the New Jersey Inclusion Project and said only that the district has participated in inclusion workshops. She added that the district has no “blanket district-wide policy on inclusion” and involves parents in all placement decisions.
Yet several Bernards parents said they met intense resistance from administrators. One mom said her child who has autism that requires limited support was in an inclusion classroom for pre-K without any problems, but Bernards administrators insisted he be placed in a self-contained classroom for kindergarten.
“He would cry to me every morning and say he didn’t want to go to school,” said the mom, who asked not to be named, afraid her child could experience discrimination because of his disability if identified. “I just felt heartbroken every day.”
She tried repeatedly to have him moved, eventually turning to mediation and filing a complaint with the state. Ultimately, she felt her child couldn’t wait for a resolution. She moved to another district last fall, where he learns alongside his general education peers all day. She said her child is now happy and doing well academically and socially.
Other districts that have struggled with low levels of inclusion have embraced outside help — including from the Inclusion Project. The program helped Whittier Elementary School in Teaneck create its first co-taught classrooms two years ago. Teachers there said the shift requires a lot of planning and they wish they had more staff to provide support, but they’ve seen their students develop academically and socially.
“When you think about the conversations that kids have — turn to your partner, talk to your table, those opportunities aren’t there in self-contained,” said Janine Lawler, who has been a special education teacher for 18 years, mostly in self-contained classrooms, and is now co-teaching in a first-grade class.
Janine Lawler teaches math to a group of first graders in Teaneck, New Jersey. Her classroom includes students with and without disabilities. Credit: Meredith Kolodner/The Hechinger Report
Educators say they can provide intensive instruction without having to separate children for large portions of the day.
“Do we have to isolate young people to give them a service, or can we include them and provide the same service or greater service?” said André Spencer, superintendent of Teaneck Public Schools. “We believe we can include them.”
For decades, New Jersey education officials have failed to support or pressure districts to improve their inclusion rates. A 2004 report found a lack of consequences — such as financial penalties — for New Jersey districts who repeatedly failed to increase inclusion of students with disabilities despite years of promises to improve.
“There’s a culture in New Jersey, which is that you teach kids with impairments in segregated classes,” said Carol Fleres, a long-time special education administrator in New Jersey who is now a special education professor and department co-chair at New Jersey City University.
A 2018 report by the National Council on Disability, an independent federal agency, found “serious contradictions” in New Jersey’s regulations that lay out how schools have to provide special education services. For example: The state categorizes students as having mild, moderate or severe disabilities and says that students with similar behavioral or academic needs should be grouped together.
Those issues make it easy for New Jersey schools to lump students with disabilities together in violation of federal requirements, according to the report.
A spokesman for New Jersey’s education department defended the regulations as doing the opposite. “This arrangement helps ensure that students who require more individualized instruction, especially those whose needs cannot be met in a general education setting, even with supplementary aids and services, are educated in smaller, more supportive environments,” Michael Yaple said in an email.
Despite settlements and scrutiny, advocates want more accountability: New Jersey’s State Special Education Advisory Council, which advises the state Education Department on special education issues, recommended required training for districts with low inclusion rates.
Special education parent and advocate Amanda Villamar, who works with families throughout New Jersey, said education officials try to educate the state’s over 600 school districts — but those efforts only go so far.
“We have a lot of districts that just say: ‘Well, it’s guidance. We don’t have to do it,’” Villamar said. “They literally just don’t even give it the time of day. Then you have other districts that put a lot of work and thought and effort into it.”
Lawyers representing families said young children with behavioral challenges or intellectual disabilities often wind up in separate classrooms for years, even if behaviors improve. Promises of inclusion in gym class or at lunch don’t always happen, they said.
Many parents said they felt forced to agree to separate classrooms, with the promise of inclusion, eventually. That day never came.
“Once you start restricting them, how are you going to get them back and get them increasingly more time within the classroom?” said Elizabeth Alves, a member of the State Special Education Advisory Council.
For Terri Joyce’s son, learning in the co-taught classroom meant accessing the general education curriculum, including social studies. The lessons on civil rights inspired him.
“He became obsessed with Martin Luther King,” she said. “He still will sit for hours and watch YouTube videos of his speeches.”
Like other students with disabilities, her son’s IEP is subject to an annual review, which means that inclusion in the general education classroom isn’t guaranteed in the years to come. Joyce says that means constant vigilance in a process that feels like a part-time job.
But her efforts to have her son included are about more than academics. He’s on the flag football team. He rides the school bus. Other kids recognize him and say hello in the grocery store.
“It’s much bigger than just his education and being included in the classroom,” she said. “Being included in school means he’s more included in life, and he’s more included in our community, and he’s more valued.”
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
The Employment Rights Bill received its third and final reading in the House of Commons in April and is due to complete its committee stage in the House of Lords next month.
Following extensive amendments in the Commons, the current version of the Bill (at over 300 pages) is nearly twice as long as the original version published a year ago.
Although the Bill is likely to be added to the statute book in the next few months, most of the measures will not be commenced until 2026 at the earliest.
Unfair dismissal
The Bill abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal but introduces a new framework for a lighter touch unfair dismissal regime during an “initial period of employment”. In previous government statements, this has been described as an exception for probationary periods, though it may turn out to be wider than that.
It means that employees must have started work to benefit from the day one right. Existing provisions on automatically unfair dismissals will be retained and will continue to apply from the point the employment relationship starts.
To come within this more relaxed regime during the initial period of employment, an employer will need to demonstrate a potentially fair reason for dismissal which relates to the individual employee. This means that dismissals on redundancy grounds during the initial period of employment will not fall within these new rules.
Yet to be made regulations will define the length of the initial period of employment and how it is calculated. This is understood to be a minimum of six months and could be as long as a year: currently, the government supports a compromise of nine months. Regulations may also specify that a dismissal will be regarded as fair if certain procedural steps have been followed. These might include, for example, holding a meeting with the employee before reaching a decision to dismiss and confirming the reasons for the decision in writing.
On the face of it, protecting all employees from unfair dismissal from day one will have a broadly equal impact on all employers. However, complex organisations like universities will need to invest more time reviewing their existing procedures than most other businesses. If they want to take advantage of the new “light touch” unfair dismissal regime, they will need to align their procedures on probationary periods with the new statutory framework. Again, this may not be straightforward, particularly for academic staff.
Zero hours contracts
Universities have taken a lot of criticism for using zero hours contracts in certain circumstances. As of 2023–24 there are around 4,000 academics on a zero hour contract. Although we don’t have the data, it is likely that the numbers are higher for other staff.
As it stands there are three groups of measures to protect zero-hours workers:
The right to guaranteed hours after the end of every reference period, which reflects the hours worked during that period;
The right to reasonable notice of shifts (including change and cancellation); and
The right to payment for cancelled, moved and curtailed shifts where sufficient notice has not been given
Similar rights will be extended to agency workers via a new schedule, which was inserted in the Bill at report stage in the House of Commons. The government introduced provisions at this stage which would make it possible for employers and workers to modify the application of these provisions via a collective agreement.
Regulations will define the reference period for guaranteed hours and other conditions of entitlement, as well as the procedural requirements around the offer of a new contract. They will also specify the minimum notice period for the cancellation of shifts, the compensation due and when it must be paid.
According to the Bill’s impact assessment, the education sector as a whole has a higher-than-average user of variable hours contracts, an assessment that reflects our experience advising higher education clients. What may raise eyebrows in the sector is the potential for significant direct and indirect costs in complying with these measures, which are among the most complex in the Bill. They will need to wait for the regulations before making detailed plans, but at this stage, providers should establish which workers and agency staff are likely to be covered by these provisions.
It would also be worth exploring the possibility of entering into a collective agreement to create tailor-made arrangements to protect variable hours workers in place of the statutory regime. However, with a caution that we are still awaiting details of any restrictions on “contracting out” in this way.
The use of fixed-term contracts with fixed hours is not targeted by these measures, although there may be some anti-avoidance measures to prevent abuse. This is encouraging news for higher education institutions, which had been concerned about measures in the Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023. This Act will no longer be brought into effect.
Collective redundancies
You don’t have to have read much about higher education recently to be aware that the majority of universities now have some kind of redundancy scheme in place. There are three interlocking groups of measures in the Bill concerning collective redundancies.
The rules on the numerical threshold that triggers the collective consultation requirements will be changed by introducing a new rule for multiple site redundancies. Though the threshold for single-site redundancies will stay at twenty, an alternative method of calculation will be applied when the workers involved are spread across different sites – once again, the details will be set out in regulations still to be published.
It will become automatically unfair to dismiss an employee for not agreeing to a variation to their contract, or if the employer dismisses the employee to replace or to re-engage them on varied contractual terms (so called “fire and rehire”, something which some universities have been called out for).
However, there is an exception to these rules if the employer can show the reason for the variation was to “eliminate, prevent, significantly reduce or significantly mitigate the effects of financial difficulties which, at the time of the dismissal, were affecting the employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern” and could not reasonably have avoided the need to make the variation.
While this new rule also applies to one-off dismissals, it is most likely to be engaged where an employer is seeking to restructure, where the obligation to consult collectively will usually apply too.
These new rules create a new category of “automatically unfair” dismissal – ie an unfair dismissal claim to which the employer will have no defence – will make it very difficult for employers to restructure without paying the employees involved significant compensation.
This is because the defence that dismissal was to mitigate “financial difficulties” is so narrowly drawn. We had been expecting amendments to this provision to be put forward in the House of Lords, but there is no sign of these so far.
The maximum period covered by a protective award for breach of collective consultation requirements will be increased from 90 to 180 days. However, proposals to introduce a new right to claim interim relief where they have been breached have been dropped.
Fire and rehire
As highly unionised organisations, universities will be acutely aware of the increased penalties for failing to comply with collective redundancy consultation. Consequently, breaches of these requirements are rare in the sector. To maintain this record employers will need to quickly get across the new rules.
Likewise, fire-and-rehire is rare (though reports are growing), but universities should be aware that the Bill’s provisions to target this practice could also be engaged when negotiating with their unions about changes to terms and conditions, if dismissal and re-engagement are being considered as a last resort.
There are other measures in the Bill relating to trade unions and industrial action, which are outside the scope of this article. These include the repeal of almost all of the last government’s trade union legislation, which is likely to take effect later this year. There is an overview of these measures in our briefing here.
The combination of good HR practices and very vocal union opposition to any breaches means that higher education providers, while far from perfect, are pretty good employers overall.
The Bill is targeted elsewhere, but with the rules changing (and likely to continue changing with subsequent legislations), employment rights compliance cannot be taken as a given and universities will need to make active efforts to stay up to date.
The Department of Education has publicly called on Columbia University’s accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, to take action against the university’s alleged noncompliance with federal nondiscrimination laws.
In a Wednesday news release, officials wrote that Columbia was found to have acted “with deliberate indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students, thereby violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Officials said, “Columbia failed to meaningfully protect Jewish students against severe and pervasive harassment on Columbia’s campus and consequently denied these students’ equal access to educational opportunities to which they are entitled under the law.” As a result of that finding, ED called on MSCHE to take action on the matter.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon accused the university of failing to protect Jewish students on campus in the wake of Hamas’s Oct. 7 terrorist attacks against Israel, arguing that such a lapse “is not only immoral, but also unlawful.”
McMahon added that accreditors are obligated to ensure members abide by their standards and called on MSCHE to inform the department of compliance actions taken against Columbia. ED indicated that MSCHE should require Columbia to develop a plan to ensure compliance.
“We are aware of the press release issued today by the United States Department of Education (USDE) regarding Columbia University and can confirm that we received a letter regarding this matter this afternoon,” MSCHE president Heather Perfetti said in a statement. “This letter is part of the commitment reflected within the Executive Order to promptly provide to accreditors any noncompliance findings relating to member institutions issued after an investigation conducted by the Office of [sic] Civil Rights. Consistent with our Commission’s management of investigative findings, we will process these in accordance with our policies and procedures.”
The call for MSCHE to take action on Columbia is the latest effort by the Trump administration to force further changes at an institution that has been in its crosshairs over how it handled a pro-Palestinian student encampment and related demonstrations in the aftermath of Oct. 7.
Columbia has already yielded to the Trump administration’s call for sweeping changes, agreeing in March to revise disciplinary processes, hire campus police officers with the authority to make arrests and appoint a new senior vice provost to oversee academic programs focused on the Middle East, among other changes—despite concerns around academic freedom. However, university officials appear to have rejected the administration’s desire for a consent decree.
The Trump administration has also frozen hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research funding, an effort that has continued even after university officials agreed to various demands.
Columbia officials acknowledged the exchange between ED and MSCHE in a statement.
“Columbia is aware of the concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights today to our accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, and we have addressed those concerns directly with Middle States. Columbia is deeply committed to combatting antisemitism on our campus. We take this issue seriously and are continuing to work with the federal government to address it,” university officials wrote in a statement posted online.
Wednesday’s news sparked confusion (and celebrations from some critics) online, as many social media users incorrectly interpreted the news to mean Columbia had lost accreditation. However, the federal government does not have the power to strip accreditation. Only accreditors can determine if universities are out of compliance, as experts have previously noted.
(This article has been updated to add statements from MSCHE and Columbia.)
We’re entering what would normally be the long-awaited reprieve of summer—a time to write, think, travel, to escape the demands of the academic year. But this will not be a normal summer.
Faculty may long for a break, but the government is actively operationalizing Project 2025, a blueprint for remaking every public institution, with higher education being the crown jewel of its antidemocratic agenda. At his 100-day rally in Michigan, Donald Trump declared, “We’ve just gotten started. You haven’t even seen anything yet.” Christopher Rufo, architect of the right-wing culture war, promises to plunge higher education still further into “an existential terror.”
We recommend mobilizing on two simultaneous fronts this summer: by operationalizing mutual academic defense compacts (MADCs), and through direct activism. We must forge powerful alliances for mass protest. We suggest one often-overlooked but deeply strategic constituency— veterans.
Recent opinion polls show that most Americans oppose the Trump administration’s approach to higher education. This public sentiment gives us a crucial opening—and we must seize the momentum as we move into summer.
Mobilize and Form Unlikely Alliances
Faculty can take simple, student-centered actions this summer—sharing stories of student impact over social media using #DegreesForDemocracy, or highlighting the real-world outcomes of their teaching and research with #WhatWeBuild—to demonstrate the value of higher education and help galvanize public support. Op-eds and blog posts that highlight how higher ed strengthens local communities, drives economic growth and improves American public health and well-being are also powerful tools.
In addition, faculty must begin to mobilize on the streets for mass peaceful protest. This will require reaching beyond our usual circles and forming big-tent coalitions. Now is not the time for ideological purity or partisan hesitation. The threat we face at this point goes beyond conventional liberal-versus-conservative disagreement; it is an attack on democratic institutions, civil liberties and public education itself.
One particularly powerful, and perhaps surprising, potential partner in this moment is the veteran community. As a start, we urge faculty to consider aligning with veterans this Friday for the June 6 D-Day anniversary protest: Veterans Stand Against Fascism Nationwide at the National Mall, as well as at more than 100 other venues across the country. This is a great way for higher ed to show up in the lead-up to the June 14 No Kings Day protests.
Why Join With Veterans?
The shared legacy of the GI Bill links veterans and higher education. A public alliance with veterans has the potential to lend more political credibility to faculty and foster broader public empathy that will disrupt the Trump administration’s strategy of divide and conquer.
From Black WWII veterans who catalyzed the civil rights movement to anti–Vietnam War resistance, veterans have consistently served on the front lines of social change. Today, they are standing up to deep cuts to the Department of Veterans Affairs; the elimination of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives; and dangerous reductions to the veteran workforce—issues that mirror the assaults on higher education.
Professors and veterans are natural allies in more ways than many realize. Since the passage of the GI Bill in 1944, millions of veterans have earned college degrees and experienced upward mobility through higher education. Veterans are a protected class under antidiscrimination law and recipients of DEI programming. The veterans’ centers and services we have created to support them are now under threat from the Trump administration’s ideological dismantling of DEI. While trust in most American institutions—including higher education—has declined, polling shows that the military remains one of the few institutions still trusted by a majority of Americans. This trust is rooted in the military’s demographic breadth: Its members come from every region, ethnicity, income bracket and political background.
In contrast, higher education suffers from an image problem—often caricatured as elite, out of touch and overly partisan. Yet many of the most trusted professionals in society—nurses, teachers, first responders, small business owners and veterans themselves—were trained and mentored in our classrooms. Building visible alliances with veterans can help reshape public perceptions of academia, challenging the dominant narratives that seek to isolate and delegitimize higher education.
Operationalize Mutual Academic Defense Compacts
While public protest builds pressure, cross-institutional coalition building creates networks for effective resistance. Faculty and university senates across the country are approving mutual academic defense compact resolutions, which call for universities to join in shared defense of any participating institution that comes under government attack. But this is just the beginning. We need more, and these resolutions need to be operationalized through the creation of MADC task forces of administrators and faculty on as many campuses as possible. Presidents and chancellors need to endorse both the compacts and the task forces.
We must use this summer to refine model MADC resolution language to align with institutional legal and financial requirements, to prepare for the passage of resolutions and creation of MADC task forces in the early fall, and to build the infrastructure that will allow these coalitions to function as coordinated networks of protection, resistance and shared strategy.
We’ve been struck by how many faculty members lack formal structures for self-governance on their campuses. Shared governance is a foundational pillar of academic freedom—though often overshadowed by the more visible right to pursue scholarship free from interference. We’re working with campuses to strengthen existing faculty governance organizations with the establishment of Stand Together groups, and where none exist, we’re helping to establish American Association of University Professors and other advocacy chapters to fill that crucial gap.
This summer, we must think strategically—and expansively. This summer calls for alliance building across our sister institutions of higher ed and across diverse nonacademic interest groups. The stakes are nothing less than the future of democracy.
Jennifer Lundquist is a professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.Kathy Roberts Forde is a professor of journalism at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.Together, the authors co-foundedStand Together for Higher Ed.
