Tag: Education

  • 3 Questions for Karina Kogan of Education Dynamics

    3 Questions for Karina Kogan of Education Dynamics

    In the small world of higher education, Karina Kogan and I know many of the same people. An introduction from one of these colleagues got Karina and me talking, and out of those conversations came this Q&A. I asked if Karina would be willing to share some thoughts about her company, EducationDynamics; her role (VP of partnership development); and her career advice for other aspiring leaders in her industry.

    Q: How does EducationDynamics work with colleges and universities for online and other academic programs? Where does EducationDynamics fit into the ecosystem of companies that partner with universities?

    A: That’s a great question and one I love answering, because this space is full of players, but not all of them are moving higher education forward. At EducationDynamics, we focus on the institutions that are ready to take bold steps forward. Not just in marketing or enrollment, but in how they grow strategically, strengthen their brand and generate revenue in a way that’s built to last.

    We want to help institutions stop doing what they’ve always done. We need to serve modern learners, which takes a fundamentally different approach. These students are focused on cost, convenience and career outcomes. They’re not influenced by tradition alone and they don’t respond to disconnected efforts that don’t reflect who they are or where they’re headed.

    That’s why we start with research. We don’t push a standard playbook or a prebuilt product. We look at the market, the student behavior, the school’s position, and we use those insights to build strategy that aligns with their enrollment priorities while also reinforcing the institution’s brand and reputation. Because those things are not separate anymore. A school’s ability to grow its revenue is directly connected to how it is perceived in the market. If your brand lacks clarity or credibility, students move on.

    Over the past few years, we’ve seen how much student expectations have changed. They’re more in control of their academic path than ever and they defy outdated categories like traditional or nontraditional. At the same time, reputation has become a major factor in their decision-making. That’s why, in 2024, we brought the RW Jones Agency into the EDDY family. They’ve built a national reputation for helping institutions shape perception, elevate their voice and lead through complexity. Bringing that expertise into our ecosystem has allowed us to connect performance with purpose in a way that’s truly differentiated.

    And we don’t just build the plan. We execute. We run the campaigns, manage enrollment outreach and support student engagement. It’s a full life cycle approach from awareness to enrollment to retention with everything working together and accountable to outcomes. That’s what it takes to grow in today’s market. It’s not about lead volume alone. It’s about attracting the right students, setting the right expectations and making sure the institution delivers on its promise.

    As for where we fit in the ecosystem? Well … honestly, we don’t fit the mold and we’re not trying to and that’s intentional. Most institutions are still working with a handful of disconnected partners, each focused on one piece of the puzzle. That model no longer works. We bring brand, communications, marketing and enrollment strategy together, because when those areas are aligned, the institution grows in a way that’s both measurable and meaningful.

    I’ve been in higher ed for more than 20 years, and this moment feels different. There’s real urgency, but also real openness to change. Our new CEO, Brent Ramdin, has brought a clear and future-facing vision that’s aligned our team and elevated our work. He understands where this sector is headed and what it will take to succeed there.

    Q: Tell us about your role at EducationDynamics. What are your primary responsibilities and accountabilities? What career path brought you to your current leadership position within the company?

    A: I serve as vice president of partnerships at EducationDynamics, and in many ways, it’s the role I’ve spent my entire career building toward. My focus is on developing strong, strategic relationships with colleges and universities across the country where I work closely with institutional leaders and our internal teams to craft unique solutions that help schools not only meet but exceed their enrollment goals.

    It’s a highly collaborative role and one that demands both strategic insight and real operational follow-through. Every institution is different, so the work is never one-size-fits-all. I spend my time listening deeply, understanding the nuances of each partner’s challenges and helping shape the path forward, always with the modern learner in mind.

    My career in higher ed started more than 20 years ago at the University of Phoenix, where I held several leadership roles over the course of more than a decade while simultaneously expanding my leadership development through structured curriculum. That experience gave me a strong foundation in enrollment strategy, team leadership and cross-functional execution. From there, I served as chief partnerships officer at a division of Excelsior University, where I helped institutions launch and scale their first online programs.

    That’s what ultimately led me to EducationDynamics, and the transition from the institutional side to the partner side has been both natural and energizing. I understand what it feels like to be inside an institution navigating change, and that perspective helps me show up as a true partner to the schools we work with today.

    Q: What advice do you have for early and midcareer professionals interested in eventually moving into a leadership role in a for-profit company in the higher education and digital marketing spaces?

    A: I always tell people to be deliberately curious. So, one of the biggest pieces of advice I can offer is this: Develop a deep understanding of both the mission of higher ed and the mechanics of the business side of institutions. The sweet spot in this space, especially in leadership, is being able to translate institutional goals into scalable, market-responsive strategies. That takes more than just technical skill. It takes empathy, agility and a strong sense of purpose.

    If you’re coming from the university side, spend time learning how businesses that serve higher ed operate—how they measure success, how they use data, how decisions get made. And if you’re coming from the corporate side, take the time to understand the culture, values and pace of higher education. The people who lead effectively in this space are the ones who can bridge those two worlds with credibility and clarity.

    Also, be proactive about expanding your perspective. Step outside your job function. Learn the language of marketing, enrollment, analytics, finance, because in a leadership role, you’ll need to connect all those dots. What’s key for me is I don’t focus on being the expert in the room; I focus on being useful.

    I’ve also found that relationships are everything. Build your network early, nurture it often and don’t be afraid to show up for others before you need anything in return. Platforms like LinkedIn have made that easier than ever, but the real value is in the follow-up, the conversations and the genuine connections.

    And finally: Get close to the work. The best leaders I know are the ones who stay connected to the impact their work has on students, on institutions and on outcomes that actually matter. That connection is what makes the hard work worth it, and it’s what keeps your leadership grounded in purpose.

    So, if I had to sum it up: Keep learning, look for ways to be of service and stay connected. That mindset opens doors, builds trust and prepares you for leadership in any space, especially in one as dynamic as this one.

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : Trump’s Neg Reg to Weaponize Debt Is Here

    Higher Education Inquirer : Trump’s Neg Reg to Weaponize Debt Is Here

    Back in March, President Trump announced an executive order to revoke Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) eligibility from public service workers employed at organizations engaged in work opposed by his administration—a blatantly illegal attempt to use public service workers as pawns in his right-wing political project to destroy civil society.

    Shortly after, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) announced its plans for a Negotiated Rulemaking (Neg Reg) process to put these dangerous policies into the PSLF regulations. Today marked Day 1 of the only 3-day committee session for this Neg Reg—and ED has already doubled down on this campaign to weaponize debt to silence speech that does not align with President Trump’s MAGA playbook:

    • ED’s first draft of regulatory language, to put it bluntly, serves Trump’s fascist agenda. It empowers Secretary McMahon to block all government workers with student debt, including first responders, social workers, and teachers, from receiving PSLF in retaliation if she decides that a local or state government policy conflicts with her extreme, right-wing views on immigration, civil rights, or free speech. More on that here.
    • ED excluded borrowers and key experts from the rulemaking committee.
    • Despite overwhelming public demand for stronger borrower protections, discussions focused on weaponizing and restricting critical relief programs like PSLF.

    Session Summary:

    • The day started off on a bad foot. Abby Shafroth, alternate negotiator for the Consumers, Legal Aid, and Civil Rights seat, requested to add a seat dedicated to civil rights because the proposed changes to PSLF directly affect the ability of marginalized communities to access higher education. Civil rights advocates Chavis Jones and Jaylon Herbin were present and ready to join the table—but ED denied the request.
    • After this inaugural miscarriage of justice, most of the day was spent running through definitions outlined in ED’s proposed language. Does ED actually have the authority to exclude certain groups from PSLF when Congress has already specially outlined some but not others? Hint: they don’t. Who would be excluded from PSLF based on “illegal activities”? Would military members be excluded if the military were found in violation of state tort laws? If a city’s Health Department were specifically found guilty of substantial illegal activity, would all workers employed by that entire city be disqualified?
    • Put plainly: ED did not have sufficient answers for these questions. At times, ED chastised negotiators for asking questions at “inappropriate times.” Other times, ED assured folks that everything would become clear once the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking language was issued. ED also refused to provide any examples of application of, or answer any “hypothetical” questions about their proposal. In our opinion, if you’re going to put forth a prospective rulemaking to decide the fate of millions of people, you should at the very least be able to explain how it would work.

    Missing From the Table:

    ED refused to seat Satra D. Taylor, a student loan borrower, Black woman, and SBPC fellow, who wants to know:

    “Why didn’t ED include anyone who would be most affected by these policy changes to negotiate—not a single public service worker, civil rights advocate, first responder, social worker, or teacher? Also, what is ED’s legal authority to propose these regulations in the first place? Congress defined in law that government and 501(c)(3) non-profit employers are categorically eligible for PSLF, and yet ED’s current proposal would exclude government and non-profit employers that it determines no longer engage in public service. This is a foundational issue for the Neg Reg, and ED refused to provide a clear answer.”

    Public Comment Mic  Drops:

    Our legal director, Winston Berkman-Breen (also excluded from the committee), called out ED during the public comment period:

    “Although this is not a serious proposal, it is a dangerous one. If the Administration has true concerns about whether employers across the country are engaged in unlawful activity, its law enforcement offices could conduct thorough investigations and then allow courts to determine the merits of those allegations. Instead, it has proposed letting the Secretary of Education police American society.”

    Source link

  • Harvard “Indifference” to Jewish Students Violates Law

    Harvard “Indifference” to Jewish Students Violates Law

    The Health and Human Services Department announced Monday that Harvard University’s “deliberate indifference” regarding discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students violates federal law.

    The HHS Office for Civil Rights said Harvard is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on shared ancestry, including antisemitism.

    The finding, similar to one HHS announced against Columbia University in May, adds to the Trump administration’s pressure on both Ivy League institutions to comply with its demands. It has already cut off billions in federal funding.

    HHS’s Notice of Violation says that a report from Harvard’s own Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias, combined with other sources, “present a grim reality of on-campus discrimination that is pervasive, persistent, and effectively unpunished.”

    “Reports of Jewish and Israeli students being spit on in the face for wearing a yarmulke, stalked on campus, and jeered by peers with calls of ‘Heil Hitler’ while waiting for campus transportation went unheeded by Harvard administration,” the Notice of Violation says.

    In a statement, Harvard said it is “far from indifferent on this issue and strongly disagrees with the government’s findings.”

    “In responding to the government’s investigation, Harvard not only shared its comprehensive and retrospective Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias Report but also outlined the ways that it has strengthened policies, disciplined those who violate them, encouraged civil discourse, and promoted open, respectful dialogue,” the statement said.

    In April, the federal government ordered Harvard to audit academic “programs and departments that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture” and report faculty “who discriminated against Jewish or Israeli students or incited students to violate Harvard’s rules” after the Oct. 7, 2023, start of the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. The government also ordered Harvard to, among other things, stop admitting international students “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, including students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism.”

    “HHS stands ready to reengage in productive discussions with Harvard to reach resolution on the corrective action that Harvard can take,” HHS Office for Civil Rights director Paula M. Stannard said in a news release.

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer Surpasses 150,000 Monthly Views in June 2025

    Higher Education Inquirer Surpasses 150,000 Monthly Views in June 2025







    Higher Education Inquirer : Higher Education Inquirer Surpasses 150,000 Monthly Views in June 2025




    Source link

  • College Athletics Enters Uncharted Territory July 1

    College Athletics Enters Uncharted Territory July 1

    After years of court battles, a federal judge ushered in a new era for college athletics earlier this month when she approved a settlement in the House v. NCAA antitrust lawsuit, effectively ending the century-old model of student athletes as amateurs.

    Now students will be able to earn money for their athletic performance at colleges that opt in to the practice known as revenue-sharing, in which institutions share with players the money made off their teams. Former Division I athletes from the recent past will also share a $2.8 billion settlement to compensate for the financial opportunities they were denied due to now-defunct NCAA rules that prevented them from cashing in on name, image, and likeness deals.

    Although the NCAA status quo was undone in an instant, many campus leaders had been planning for months, anticipating the outcome of the ruling.

    The era of paid college athletes officially begins July 1. With it comes questions about how the landscape will evolve and concerns about equity issues, as well as what the fallout of the settlement may mean for nonrevenue sports.

    A State of Transition

    Experts view revenue-sharing as the most consequential part of the settlement.

    Institutions that opt in to revenue sharing will have up to $20.5 million to spread among their athletes. The lion’s share of that is expected to flow to football, the top revenue-earning sport, followed by men’s basketball, with the second-highest distribution amounts. The annual revenue-sharing cap will increase gradually to $32 million over the course of a decade.

    Jason Montgomery, a partner at the law firm Husch Blackwell, said that one commonly discussed formula would see 75 percent of revenue disbursed to an institution’s football team, followed by 15 percent to men’s basketball, 5 percent to women’s basketball, and the remainder spread across all other sports. But he noted institutions can adjust that formula as they see fit.

    At institutions that don’t have a football team, the bulk of the revenue will likely be directed to men’s basketball. And some universities that have top basketball programs are tweaking the formula to direct more money to hoops; the University of Houston, for example, may opt for a formula that directs 23 to 25 percent of revenue to men’s basketball, local media reported.

    The back-pay provision is also heavily tilted toward football, which has already prompted an appeal on Title IX grounds, with plaintiffs alleging women are being shorted on damages. The suit, brought by eight former college athletes who competed in soccer, track and volleyball, argues that female athletes are being deprived of more than $1 billion in past damages.

    Financial Models

    For those opting in to revenue-sharing, a major question looms: Where will the money come from?

    Sean Frazier, athletic director at Northern Illinois University and president of the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics, said financial models will vary by institution.

    “You’re going to see a lot more of that innovative way to revenue-share by getting this money from external sources that are not specific to the universities themselves,” Frazier said.

    Some colleges are leaning on boosters and TV deals to bankroll revenue-sharing, while others are taking different approaches. Earlier this month, the Florida Board of Governors approved the use of auxiliary funds to pay student athletes, which could flow from college bookstores, student housing, dining, parking fees and other income streams. (That measure is intended to be temporary as colleges develop long-term plans.)

    In addition to increasing revenues, colleges are looking for ways to cut costs. Montgomery said one way colleges can do that is by eliminating non-revenue-earning sports—such as swimming and track and field—which some institutions have done, though that move has also been accompanied by other financial challenges for the sector.

    Colleges that opt in to the revenue-sharing model don’t have to pay the maximum amount unless they choose to. That could yield scenarios where less resourced institutions pay much less than the $20.5 million cap.

    While experts say there is no firm data point yet on how many colleges have opted in to revenue sharing, those numbers are likely to be just a fraction of the NCAA’s member institutions. As of last summer, that number stood at 1,085 institutions, with 355 at the Division I level.

    “The vast majority of colleges are not going to be part of this revenue-share,” said Michael McCann, a professor at the University of New Hampshire’s Franklin Pierce School of Law.

    Opportunities for Innovation

    Frazier compared college athletics in the aftermath of the House settlement to flying a plane while building it. He expects colleges will adjust their approaches as they go.

    “It is clunky right now because of the fact that we do not have certain guardrails yet finalized as we go into this. That’s why it’s going to be a little bit of a wait-and-see on some things,” he said.

    He urged patience for those trying to navigate the new landscape.

    “I would caution [college] leaders to not jump to trends, to not jump to any situation as a quick fix,” Frazier said. “There’s no silver bullet to be able to manage this. We’re going to have to go through a cycle to really understand what the impacts of the House settlement mean.”

    McCann expects that colleges will largely pay football players, as they have signaled. Where the money flows, he said, will depend on institutional priorities. If an athletic department is focused on keeping up with rival football teams and landing on television, revenue-sharing money will be invested in football. But he thinks leaders should consider investing in other areas, including women’s sports—which have boomed in recent years, judging from the record viewership for women’s basketball.

    “I see an opportunity for schools that opt in to revenue-share to not follow the script of spending most of the money on football players,” McCann said. “I could see some presidents being innovative and saying, ‘Let’s use that money primarily on women’s basketball; let’s try to create a top women’s basketball team, or softball.’ There are opportunities to distribute money in ways that I think are a lot more innovative than simply trying to catch up with all the other football schools.”

    The Professional Era

    To many experts, this moment amounts to the professionalization of college athletics.

    “If this isn’t pay to play, I don’t know what is,” Montgomery said.

    To Montgomery’s point, some colleges have hired general managers and other personnel with professional sports experience. Last year Stanford University tapped former star quarterback Andrew Luck, who spent seven years in the NFL, to return to his alma mater as general manager of the football program. Similarly, in March the University of California, Berkeley, hired former NFL player and head coach Ron Rivera as general manager of its football program.

    Noting that trend, McCann suggested such programs are “operating as quasi pro teams.”

    Federal Legislation?

    For years, observers have speculated that Congress might get involved in college athletics. President Donald Trump has raised the possibility of his own involvement as well; in May, he proposed establishing a presidential commission on college sports before backing off the idea.

    However, many experts don’t expect federal legislation to emerge.

    “It’s a long shot that Congress intervenes,” Montgomery said, arguing that college athletics is not a priority for lawmakers at the moment. At most, he said Congress might codify the House settlement through federal legislation.

    McCann agrees. While he believes “there will be bills introduced, and there will be press conferences and a lot of media coverage,” he doesn’t think such efforts will be fruitful.

    But Frazier, who describes himself as an optimist by nature, is hopeful that federal legislation could come to pass in the near future, and he stressed the importance of being part of those talks.

    “I think at the end of the day, we need to help [Trump], we need to help the federal government understand what will work,” he said. “Because we have a perception issue that college athletics can’t govern itself. We’ve created that perception as an industry, and what we need to do is take it back. What we need to do is to show the folks that have doubted us, that [think] we’ve lost control, that there is control, and the only way you can do that is with experience, leadership and execution.”

    Source link

  • A Framework for Moving Up or Moving On (opinion)

    A Framework for Moving Up or Moving On (opinion)

    Over my 16-plus years in higher education, mostly in administration, I’ve had many colleagues reach out and ask a version of the same question:

    “How do I know if I should stay or move on?”

    They are leaders in their field. Most are excelling on paper, teaching, mentoring, leading committees, serving on task forces and writing grants. But they’re tired, stuck or sense that something in the role, or the institution, no longer fits.

    Lately, I’m finding that we don’t talk enough about what to do when we’ve outgrown a role but aren’t sure what comes next. In academic culture, staying where we are is often seen as loyalty, moving up is luck and leaving can feel like defeat. But I’ve learned that career momentum doesn’t always mean climbing a ladder. Sometimes it means building a bridge or choosing a new path entirely.

    So, what do you do when you hit a fork in the road? I recently saw a post on LinkedIn that outlined a relatively simplistic framework, aligned with the business world, which can help if you find yourself questioning your next move: assess, align, act. I’ve taken the liberty to modify it, without losing the concept: reflect, revise, recommit.

    Reflect: Where Are You?

    Before planning your next move, take an honest look at your current professional state. Start by asking yourself the following:

    • Have I grown in the past year, or am I mostly going through the motions?
    • Am I viewed as a contributor or an afterthought?
    • How do I feel at the end of the day, mostly energized or mostly depleted?
    • Are my ideas welcomed or tolerated?
    • Do I see myself staying here for five more years?

    These questions aren’t about job satisfaction alone. They’re about where you are professionally. Assess your responses to the questions above. If you feel stuck where you are and don’t see changes or opportunities for professional growth in the future, it may be time to shift.

    Revise: Is This Still the Right Place for You?

    Consider how your values and contributions align (or don’t) with your work environment.

    In one of the classes I teach, we spend a considerable amount of time discussing values, both personal and professional. Keeping this in mind, ask yourself whether the following statements are true for you:

    • I can ask difficult questions or present unconventional ideas.
    • I feel heard and my input is valued.
    • I can contribute in ways that reflect my strengths.
    • My work is recognized, and not just when it’s convenient.
    • I feel hopeful about my professional future here.

    If you answer “no” more times than “yes,” it’s not a failure on your part. Instead, look at it as an opportunity to implement changes strategically.

    Recommit: Move Up, Move Over or Move On

    Once you’ve assessed your growth and alignment, you’re ready to make a deliberate decision to go deeper, shift roles or step toward something new. Here are three potential paths, each with concrete next steps:

    1. Move Up (Internal Advancement)

    If you still believe in the institution and want more responsibility:

    • Build your case: Document leadership wins, pilot programs or change initiatives—things that show you’re already operating at the next level.
    • Get visible: Let your supervisor or mentor know you’re open to advancement. Ambition isn’t arrogance; it’s clarity.
    • Ask for expanded roles: Volunteer to chair a new initiative or represent your unit on a strategic planning team.
    • Find advocates: You need more than mentors. Advocates promote and back you behind closed doors.
    1. Move Over (Lateral Change)

    If you like the institution but not the role:

    • Explore cross-campus opportunities in centers, institutes or new initiatives.
    • Consider a hybrid position that merges your skills (e.g., combining research and student success).
    • Talk with human resources or a trusted senior leader about other opportunities within your organization—professionally, quietly and strategically.

    Remember: lateral doesn’t mean lesser. Sometimes a lateral move can be the smartest option for long-term impact (and sanity).

    1. Move On (External Transition)

    If the position and the institution don’t fit your needs anymore:

    • Name what you want next: More autonomy? More responsibility? A different kind of leadership role?
    • Update your materials: Be sure to identify transferable skills. If you’ve led change, managed crises or built programs, remember these skills are valued in most industries.
    • Use your network: Former students, collaborators and conference contacts might hold the key to your next chapter.
    • Leave well: Give your employer sufficient notice. Offer to train your successor. Write a transition plan. Protect your reputation and exit with grace and gratitude.

    A Final Note: You’re Not Alone

    I recently spoke with a colleague who worried her career had stalled over the last several years and that she hadn’t grown in her position. When we discussed her accomplishments, we saw that she’d proposed several new initiatives, launched a new program, mentored students and staff, and learned to navigate the complexity of higher education with professionalism and courage. In short, she hadn’t wasted any time; she’d built resilience and capacity. She also realized she was more ready for change and leadership opportunities.

    If you’re at that fork in the road, know this: Moving on isn’t quitting; it’s choosing. Moving up isn’t selling out; it’s stepping in. And staying where you are is perfectly valid if it still serves your purpose, your values and your professional goals.

    Ask yourself this question: “Am I building a future here or am I just getting by?”

    Either way, you get to choose your next steps.

    Laura Kuizin is director of the master of applied professional studies in the Graduate School at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Laura is a member of the Graduate Career Consortium, an organization providing an international voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders. Laura dedicates this article to Sadie-dog, who was by her side as she navigated her professional path over the last 16 years.

    Source link

  • Trump’s Department of Education Continues to Drag Feet on Borrower Defense

    Trump’s Department of Education Continues to Drag Feet on Borrower Defense

    On June 26th, the US Department of Education was brought to the Ninth District Court (and Judge Alsup) to show how many the Borrower Defense to Repayment cases that have been resolved per court order.  While we wait for a transcript of the latest episode of Sweet v McMahon, what we can tell you is that the Trump government continues to drag its feet in paying back debtors who have been defrauded.  

    Source link

  • University of Virginia President Resigns After Trump’s Demands

    University of Virginia President Resigns After Trump’s Demands

    This is a developing story and will be updated.

    The University of Virginia president James Ryan said Friday he was resigning after the Justice Department demanded he step down.

    “To make a long story short, I am inclined to fight for what I believe in, and I believe deeply in this university,” Ryan wrote in a letter to the campus community. “But I cannot make a unilateral decision to fight the federal government in order to save my own job. To do so would not only be quixotic but appear selfish and self-centered to the hundreds of employees who would lose their jobs, the researchers who would lose their funding, and the hundreds of students who could lose financial aid or have their visas withheld.”

    The Justice Department has for months been quietly investigating whether the Virginia flagship complied with President Donald Trump’s order banning diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The university’s Board of Visitors voted to dissolve its DEI office in March, but multiple conservative alumni groups and legal entities complained that Ryan failed to eliminate DEI from all corners of campus. In many cases, critics argue that the university simply changed the names of programs but maintained their core function. 

    The New York Times first reported on the resignation and the Justice Department’s demand Thursday evening.

    Ryan wrote that he had planned to step down next spring for reasons separate from the investigation; he didn’t say when his resignation would take effect.

    “While there are very important principles at play here, I would at a very practical level be fighting to keep my job for one more year while knowingly and willingly sacrificing others in this community,” he wrote.

    Ryan took over at UVA in August 2018, steering the institution through the aftermath of the deadly white supremacist rally in August 2017, the pandemic and the racial reckoning in 2020. He also cracked down on pro-Palestinian protesters last spring—a move that Republicans in the state backed but students and faculty condemned. Ryan also embraced institutional neutrality and sought to make UVA a leader in the study of democracy.

    Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in a statement Friday that the Justice Department welcomes “leadership changes in higher education that signal institutional commitment to our nation’s venerable federal civil rights laws.”

    DOJ hasn’t said publicly what laws UVA allegedly violated, though Dhillon’s statement noted that the agency “has a zero-tolerance policy toward illegal discrimination in publicly-funded universities.”

    From the early days of his second term, Trump has made a point of dragging elite, largely Ivy League institutions like Columbia and Harvard Universities into the national spotlight and berating them for their supposed liberal ideologies and alleged antisemitism. But this investigation of UVA, a public institution in a state led by a Republican, represents a new front in the administration’s  war against higher education—and so far Trump is succeeding.

    Brendan Cantwell, a higher education professor at Michigan State University, said Ryan’s resignation is a “major blow” to the independence of American institutions. 

    “It is a sign that major public research universities are substantially controlled by a political party whose primary goal is to further its partisan agenda and will stop at nothing to bring the independence of higher education to heel,” he told Inside Higher Ed. “It undercuts both the integrity of academic communities as self-governing based on the judgment of expert professionals and the traditional accountability that public universities have to their states via formal and established governance mechanisms.”

    Legal experts who spoke with the Times struggled to recall other instances when the federal government has demanded a university board fire the chief official, saying it has only been done in the past when concerning corporate criminal cases.

    Robert Kelchen, an education policy professor at the University of Tennessee, noted that Ryan’s resignation portends a future in which all public university presidents must conform to the political views of their state’s leadership or be kicked out of office.

    “Trump pushing James Ryan to resign at UVA is important, but it happened in part because VA’s governor is also Republican,” Kelchen wrote on BlueSky. 

    Virginia’s two senators, who are both Democrats, said in a joint statement that the demand for Ryan to resign “is a mistake that hurts Virginia’s future.”

    “It is outrageous that officials in the Trump Department of Justice demanded the Commonwealth’s globally recognized university remove President Ryan—a strong leader who has served UVA honorably and moved the university forward—over ridiculous ‘culture war’ traps,” said Sens. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner. “Decisions about UVA’s leadership belong solely to its Board of Visitors, in keeping with Virginia’s well-established and respected system of higher education governance.”

    Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin thanked Ryan for his service to UVA in a statement Friday afternoon. Youngkin, a Republican, has appointed a majority of the university’s board members.

    “The Board of Visitors has my complete confidence as they swiftly appoint a strong interim steward, and undertake the national search for a transformational leader that can take Mr. Jefferson’s university into the next decade and beyond,” he said in the statement.

    A Quiet Inquiry

    While the administration’s campaign against Harvard and Columbia mostly played out in public, the UVA investigation was more quiet. The DOJ didn’t send press releases about UVA or make public hay about its demands. Instead it sent letters to the university about its inquiry and findings.

    On April 28, DOJ cited complaints about how the university was handling its DEI programs, according to the Times and the Charlottesville Daily Progress. Initially the letter set a compliance deadline of May 2. That was then extended to May 30.

    After that, the DOJ received multiple complaint letters from groups like American First Legal, a legal advocacy group founded by Trump’s deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, suggesting the university had yet to comply.

    In a final letter, dated June 17, the department laid out its demands yet again, this time noting the complaints it had received from groups like AFL and saying that the university needed to make swift changes or pay the price, the Times reported. The government’s lawyers, which include several UVA alumni, found that UVA considered race in its admissions and in deciding other student benefits, according to the Times.

    “Time is running short, and the department’s patience is wearing thin,” the letter said. 

    Neither the White House nor the DOJ have released a public statement about their demands of UVA or Ryan’s resignation. 

    The university said in a statement Friday morning that it is “committed to complying with all federal laws and has been cooperating with the Department of Justice in the ongoing inquiries.” But it has not said anything further since Ryan announced his departure.

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : Remembering Bill Moyers (1934-2025)

    Higher Education Inquirer : Remembering Bill Moyers (1934-2025)

    In a media landscape often dominated by soundbites, spin, and sensationalism, Bill Moyers was a rare voice of clarity, compassion, and conscience. With his passing, America has lost not only a gifted journalist and public intellectual but also one of its most courageous truth-tellers.

    For more than half a century, Moyers stood at the intersection of journalism, politics, and public education—unyielding in his pursuit of justice and understanding. From his early days as White House Press Secretary under President Lyndon Johnson to his groundbreaking work with PBS, Moyers embodied the spirit of democratic inquiry: probing deeply, listening intently, and speaking boldly. He held the powerful to account, but always with the dignity and decency that defined his Texan roots and Baptist upbringing.

    Bill Moyers never saw journalism as a career; he saw it as a calling. His programs—Now with Bill Moyers, Bill Moyers Journal, and Moyers & Company—were sanctuaries for critical thought and inconvenient truths. He gave voice to the voiceless: whistleblowers, teachers, laborers, poets, and prophets. In a time when the corporate capture of media narrowed the spectrum of acceptable opinion, Moyers stretched it wide—amplifying progressive theologians, investigative reporters, civil rights leaders, and scholars ignored by commercial networks.

    His love of learning, and his belief in public education as a democratic cornerstone, made him a champion of educators and lifelong learners. He understood that education is not merely about credentials or career preparation, but about cultivating the moral imagination. That insight animated his long relationship with public broadcasting, where he insisted that television could—and should—educate, illuminate, and elevate.

    Bill Moyers also saw through the fog of power. He knew how elite institutions—government, media, universities, and corporations—could align to manufacture consent and mystify the public. And yet he maintained hope. Not a naive optimism, but a deep belief in people’s capacity to awaken, organize, and transform society. As he once said, “Democracy is not a lie, it is a leap of faith. But you need to keep leaping.”

    In a moment when American higher education faces crises of affordability, access, and meaning—when trust in journalism is frayed, and when truth itself feels embattled—Bill Moyers’ legacy reminds us that integrity matters. So does context, complexity, and compassion.

    His loss is personal for those of us at the Higher Education Inquirer. Many of us were shaped by his work, inspired by his commitment to investigative rigor and human dignity. His interviews with thinkers like Howard Zinn, Cornel West, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Joseph Campbell helped expand the public’s moral and intellectual horizons—precisely what higher education should strive to do.

    In remembering Bill Moyers, we are called to do more than mourn. We are called to follow his example: to ask harder questions, to listen more deeply, to speak more clearly, and to stand, always, with the people who are too often ignored or maligned.

    Rest in power, Bill Moyers. Your words lit candles in the darkness. May we carry that light forward.

    Source link

  • Harvard Has a Role to Protect Democracy

    Harvard Has a Role to Protect Democracy

    When it comes to politics, most of us have only two outlets: a voice and a vote.

    Votes come, at best, once a year, the most consequential votes for national office every two and four years. We all only have one voice, though some of us also have the additional power of a megaphone to amplify that voice.

    This column is my megaphone. It ain’t huge, but it’s something.

    Because the Supreme Court has declared that money is speech, if you are fabulously wealthy, perhaps the CEO of a car company, a space company, a company that tortures monkeys by implanting stuff in their brains and the owner of a social media platform, your voice can get very loud indeed, drowning out the voices of others.

    Some have genuine political power. Elected officials have political power. People with voices big enough to resonate with larger groups, or with enough money to purchase access to the levers of government, have political power. This is a fairly narrow class of people and organizations, and one of the things that has distressed me as of late is the refusal of some with genuine political power to use that political power in order to resist what I think is undeniable: that there is an ongoing attempt at an authoritarian takeover of our democracy.

    I understand that there are differing minds around the likelihood of success of this attempted takeover, as well as the manner in which it is best resisted, but I’m reasonably certain that if you were to feed even a wee dram of truth serum to those attempting this takeover, they would admit that this is the case. They pretty much already have.

    Voices are by no means meaningless. The recent “No Kings” protests, which brought out millions of people distributed all across the country to object to this takeover, demonstrated the capacity for collective voices to aggregate into something like political power.

    But in this moment, when we are still more than a year away from our next consequential national election, the immediate power of resistance rests elsewhere, which is why the authoritarian threat has been busy trying to undermine and destroy democratic institutions like the free press and higher education.

    This is why they have targeted Harvard. No one should seriously believe this is a principled dispute. The Trump administration does not care about genuinely fighting antisemitism, nor are they concerned about lax record-keeping regarding foreign students. The cancellation of NIH grants was done on a sweeping, ad hoc basis—pure destruction, no deliberation.

    This is also why I declared that “We are all Harvard” now, a recognition that in this moment, we must express total solidarity in the fight against the authoritarian forces. Up to now, Harvard has been fighting admirably in both the courts and the world of public opinion, winning on both of these fronts. For example, just this week a judge ruled for Harvard in its motion to allow international students to continue to enroll.

    But there are reasons to worry. A New York Times article clearly sourced to people inside Harvard—and (here I’m speculating) being used as a trial balloon to gauge public sentiment—ran under the headline “Behind Closed Doors, Harvard Officials Debate a Risky Truce With Trump.”

    The article frames Harvard’s present dilemma this way: “Despite a series of legal wins against the administration, though, Harvard officials concluded in recent weeks that those victories alone might be insufficient to protect the university.”

    It is clear that Harvard is suffering from these attacks. It is causing harm on all kinds of fronts, and the damage is real and probably lasting. It must be tempting if relief is promised to explore what it might take to realize that relief.

    All this being true, and me obviously not being privy to any inside knowledge of Harvard, I still don’t think it is a difficult call to not engage in any kind of settlement with Trump.

    There are two obvious reasons not to take the deal:

    1. Trump won’t stick to it. My evidence is 50 years of Trump’s modus operandi.
    2. Public opinion will turn against Harvard, causing possible lasting reputational damage (see: Columbia University).

    But there is an even bigger reason: Doing a deal with Trump legitimizes the authoritarian approach to government of using illegal intimidation to validate the power of the authoritarian. Long term, Harvard does not survive in an authoritarian state, because independent higher education institutions are not part of authoritarian states.

    Maybe it’s unfair that Harvard, by virtue of its wealth and status, has become one of the levers of democracy by which authoritarianism can be resisted, but this is where we find ourselves. In better times, Harvard arguably disproportionately benefits from our system; now it is being disproportionately harmed. It should very much want to return as much as possible to the previous status quo, rather than attempting to reach an accommodation that may keep it atop a significantly diminished and consistently eroding pile.

    If you merely see Trump and Trumpism as a temporary phenomenon that could be dispatched at the ballot box in three years, giving Trump a symbolic victory over Harvard (assuming anything Harvard gives in on will truly not be substantive) perhaps make sense.

    How certain are we of this? How much of Harvard’s (and the country’s) future are we willing to gamble?

    Because I still believe we are all Harvard, I hope it does the right thing and uses the power it possesses to defend our democracy.

    Source link