Tag: Education

  • FIU expected to hire Florida lt. governor as president

    FIU expected to hire Florida lt. governor as president

    Another Florida Republican is reportedly destined for a college presidency. 

    Florida International University is expected to name Lieutenant Governor Jeanette Nuñez as interim president at a meeting Friday, The Miami Herald reported. Nuñez, who earned undergraduate and master’s degrees at FIU, is expected to resign from her position Friday to take the job.

    Nuñez, who has served as lieutenant governor since 2018, was previously an adjunct professor at FIU but does not appear to have prior administrative experience in higher education. As a member of Florida’s House of Representatives, Nuñez pushed for legislation to allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition but has backed off on her support for that idea in recent years.

    If hired, it seems Nuñez will step into the job right away.

    One anonymous source told the newspaper that the board is seeking to act quickly on the appointment so Nuñez is in place before the Florida legislative session begins on March 4. The thinking behind the move, that source said, was that she can extract more state dollars for FIU.

    FIU is currently led by Kenneth Jessell, who was named interim in January 2022 after then-president Mark Rosenberg resigned amid allegations of sexual harassment. The interim tag was later lifted, and Jessell is on a three-year contract that is set to expire in November.

    If hired, Nuñez will be one of several Republican former lawmakers tapped to lead a Florida university in recent years. Others include Ben Sasse, a U.S. senator from Nebraska—who briefly served as president of the University of Florida but resigned abruptly last fall and has been dogged by questions about his spending—and former state lawmakers Richard Corcoran at New College of Florida, Fred Hawkins at South Florida State College and Mel Ponder at Northwest Florida State College. Ray Rodrigues, another former lawmaker, was hired as chancellor of the State University System of Florida in 2022 following a search that yielded eight applicants.

    Another Republican former lawmaker, Adam Hasner, was recently named as a finalist for the Florida Atlantic University presidency. That search was scuttled by state officials who raised concerns about “anomalies” after FAU did not hire Republican lawmaker Randy Fine last year.

    Florida International University did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    Source link

  • Hiring freeze cancels internships with federal agencies

    Hiring freeze cancels internships with federal agencies

    Kristin Comrie is set to graduate this semester with a master’s in health informatics from a fully remote program that she balances with a full-time job. But the federal hiring freeze has thrown a wrench into her plans, prompting the Veterans Health Administration to cancel her unpaid internship, which she needed to fulfill a graduation requirement.

    It wasn’t easy to find an opportunity that fit in with her job and schoolwork, but the VHA internship sounded ideal; she could work remotely, and the team at the VHA seemed happy to accommodate her busy schedule. Slated to start Feb. 10, she had just finished her background check and fingerprinting when she received notice that the internship had been canceled.

    “I got a generic email that they were rescinding the offer because of the federal hiring freeze,” Comrie recalled.

    The news left her “scrambling” to find another internship that she could finish in time to graduate in May. Two weeks later, she hasn’t yet found a new position but said she might be able to coordinate with her current employer to take on additional responsibilities in order to fulfill the requirement.

    Comrie isn’t the only student to have had a federal employment opportunity abruptly rescinded. The hiring freeze appears to have forced federal agencies to cancel numerous internships; most prominently, thousands of legal internships and entry-level positions within the Department of Justice and beyond have been impacted, according to reports on social media and in news outlet like Reuters and Law360.

    “We’ve most definitely seen impacts of the federal hiring freeze and subsequent actions related to college recruiting and internships. We’re hearing from colleges that there have been internships that have been canceled and we have heard that federal agencies have pulled out of going onto campuses to recruit,” said Shawn VanDerziel, executive director of the National Association of Colleges and Employers, an advocacy group for campus career centers and the businesses that work with them. “I would hope once the dust settles over the coming weeks and months that we will have many more answers and that the trajectory will be more positive.”

    It represents a stark contrast from just a year ago, when the federal government finalized regulations to expand internship opportunities in an effort to hire younger talent. Government employees skew Gen X and older, with those over 55 making up a third of federal workers and those under 30 composing just 8 percent. To keep the government well staffed as the aging workforce retires, officials vowed to cultivate a younger demographic.

    “Early career programs are critical to recruit the next generation of government leaders,” then–Office of Personnel Management director Kiran Ahuja told Government Executive, a publication focused on the federal government, in a statement. “The updates to the Pathways Programs will increase opportunities and remove barriers to hire interns, fellows, apprentices, recent students and trainees, which will help federal agencies boost their talent pipelines to serve the American people. No matter what your interests are, the federal government offers opportunities in nearly every sector and every industry.”

    Those rules, finalized last April, went into effect in December, meaning they were in place for just over a month before the hiring freeze began on Inauguration Day.

    For students, working in government is a rare opportunity to explore certain career specializations that are difficult to study elsewhere, like diplomacy. Federal internships often allow students to experience America’s center of government firsthand—and to get their foot in the door for a dream job.

    “If you got a federal government internship, it means you’re quite capable,” said Brian Swarts, director of Pepperdine University’s D.C. program, one of approximately 40 satellite campuses in the capital dedicated to supporting and educating student interns. “It’s much more advanced than other internships. Generally speaking, students who have acquired a government internship are very excited about those opportunities … they’re seeing this as their one opportunity to move forward with a future role in the government.”

    Inside Higher Ed reached out to a handful of the agencies that have reportedly cut internships—the Department of Justice, the Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Human Services, and Veterans Affairs.

    In response to a series of questions, an EPA spokesperson responded, “There have been no mass cancellations of EPA internships. The EPA is diligently implementing President Trump’s executive orders and associated guidance.”

    The other three offices did not respond to requests for comment.

    Since the hiring freeze went into effect, the administration has carved out some exceptions, saying that agencies are “permitted” to make allowances for internships through the Pathways Programs, centralized programs that install interns, recent graduates and midcareer fellows across various agencies, aiming to convert them into full-time employees.

    But the majority of interns for federal agencies are not part of the Pathways Programs.

    Other exceptions would have to be carved out by the agencies themselves on a case-by-case basis, McLaurine Pinover, a spokesperson for OPM, said in an email.

    Katie Romano, executive director of the Archer Center, which supports students from the University of Texas system in pursuing internships in D.C., told Inside Higher Ed that two current Archer fellows had spring semester internships rescinded—one a full-time and one a part-time position—but both have been able to transition to other opportunities in the city.

    A director of another college’s D.C. program, who asked to remain anonymous, said no students from her institution had lost federal internships this spring. But she said that’s likely because several students backed out of opportunities with federal agencies after Trump was elected because they disagreed with his politics or feared chaos under his administration.

    “My fear from a macro level is we’re going to turn off an entire generation of young people from civil service as they’re watching all of this. If you were 21 and thinking about what you were going to do after graduation and looking for an internship that would set you up for success and you see this going on, you might just choose to pivot your entire plan,” she said.

    ‘It’s Been Very Stressful’

    Law students, in particular, have found themselves struggling to find new opportunities; since most law interns are hired months before their onboarding date, few private firms have spots left, leaving those who lost internships with minimal options for summer work.

    “In the law school world, not working on your summers is not necessarily going to destroy your future career, but a lot of postgrad employers look at that quizzically,” said Dylan Osborne, a second-year Brooklyn Law School student who was slated to work at the Internal Revenue Service this summer until he received an email that the internship had been canceled due to the hiring freeze.

    Moreover, many of the students with federal job offers in hand had already begun making arrangements to live in D.C. for the summer.

    One second-year law student said that while she was fortunate not to have signed a lease in D.C. before her internship offer was rescinded, she’d already told her current landlord she would not be renewing her lease, which expires in May.

    Now, with no job on the horizon, the student, who requested anonymity out of fear of jeopardizing her career, said she is “in limbo,” unsure where she will live or how much money she will earn over the summer.

    Since she received notice that her internship was canceled, she now spends as many as five hours a day applying for positions and talking on the phone with firms.

    “It’s been very stressful, especially because I took on extra responsibilities knowing I didn’t have to worry about the [job] application process,” she said. “It’s like taking on another job in itself.”

    Andrew Nettels, a third-year law student at George Washington University whose permanent job offer from the DOJ was rescinded, has organized a massive group chat of law students and new lawyers whose employment prospects were impacted by the hiring freeze. He said few members of the group—which maintains a document of opportunities and firms taking interns—have had success finding replacement positions.

    “I’m not personally aware of anyone finding anything new. I’m aware of maybe three people who have had interviews,” he said, noting that members of the chat are encouraged to share their successes. “This isn’t to place any blame at all on the private sector—we’re already several months off the recruitment cycle … their hiring committees have been trying to figure out whether they’d be in a financial position as a firm to commit to hiring one or two or however many students for the summer, and even postgraduates—it’s a huge commitment.”

    Professors, administrators and career center specialists are also working diligently to help students secure replacement positions, with some reaching out to their networks on social media in the hopes of finding leads.

    “The old saying ‘it takes a village’ could not be more appropriate right now. I have no doubt my LinkedIn ‘village’ can help not just William & Mary Law School students but also students at other schools who are anxiously and unexpectedly having to pivot as a result of the hiring freeze,” wrote Michael Ende, associate dean for career services at William & Mary Law School, in a LinkedIn post.

    According to an emailed statement from William & Mary Law School dean A. Benjamin Spencer, 13 students lost their summer internships due to the hiring freeze, and others likely would have secured positions at federal agencies in the coming months.

    “We have met or will be meeting with every student who lost their positions with federal agencies (including graduating 3Ls who lost post-graduation offers). We are helping them to restart their job searches, which includes helping them figure out what types of positions to target and getting them connected to alumni and others in the profession who have been offering their assistance by sharing internship and job openings and expressing a willingness to speak with impacted students to guide them in this time of need,” Spencer wrote.

    Osborne said that he has heard from some law students who are still hoping that their positions might be reinstated after the hiring freeze is slated to end in late April. But it’s a gamble most, including Osborne, aren’t willing to take.

    “There are some people who are hoping to wait the spring out and see if their positions are unfrozen, so to speak,” he said. “But given the attitude the administration has towards the IRS, I don’t think I’m going to be one of those people.”

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer Investigating White House, DOGE Communications

    Higher Education Inquirer Investigating White House, DOGE Communications

     
     
    The Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) is investigating email communications between the White House and DOGE regarding the US Department of Education Federal Student Aid (FSA).  HEI has been using FOIA responses for a number of years to expose corruption in the US higher education business. The White House has 20 days to acknowledge receipt. We will let you know if and when we get any responses from the White House.  

    Source link

  • Higher education postcard: Taxila | Wonkhe

    Higher education postcard: Taxila | Wonkhe

    We’re doing anther historical incursion today – looking at what was an internationally renowned centre of higher learning in the Indus valley.

    We have to wind the clock back a long way. In 535 BCE Persian emperor Cyrus the Great invaded the lands to the east, and by 540 BCE had taken all of the lands to the west of the Indus. A regional capital was established at Taxila, which by then had probably already been a city for about 500 years. It was the obvious choice, having been capital of the ancient kingdom of Gandhāra. We also need to note that in 326 BCE Taxila surrendered to Alexander the Great’s army; that a few years later it became part of the Mauryan empire for over 100 years; then part of the Yavana empire for another hundred years or so; then occupied by Indo-Scythians between 80-ish BCE and 30 CE; and the Kushan empire until about 375 CE.

    The following account draws strongly on Roy Lowe and Yoshihito Yasuhara’s 2016 work, The origins of higher learning. After the Persian conquest, Taxila became a centre for Vedic learning. By the time of Alexander and the early Mauryan emperors, there was a demand for scholars who could speak Greek.

    As well as the Vedic scriptures, medicine was taught at Taxila. Two eminent healers – Charaka and Jivaka – both studied at Taxila, perhaps under the teacher Disapamok Achariya. Other notable people associated with Taxila included Panini (who was neither the inventor of the sandwich nor the inventor of sticker albums, but was in fact a Sanskrit grammarian) and Chanakya, an early political economist.

    Lowe and Yasuhara tell us something about academic life at Taxila. Individual teachers shared a building with their students, and would enrol up to five hundred students. Senior students were used as assistant teachers, as clearly 500 is too many for one person (it’s easy to recognise the doctoral-students-as-teaching-assistants model here).

    The curriculum comprised “the three Vedas and the eighteen accomplishments”. The three Vedas – books of verses – were the Rigveda (knowledge of the verses), the Yajurveda (knowledge of the sacrifice) and the Samaveda (knowledge of the chants). The eighteen accomplishments are not so clearly specified. On the evidence seen by Lowe and Yasuhara they may have included “elephant lore, magic charms, spells for reincarnating the dead, hunting, the study of animals’ cries, archery, the art of prognostication, charms, divining from bodily symptoms, and medicine”; to which was later added “logic, the atomic theory of creation, arithmetic, law, accountancy, agriculture and astronomy.”

    This looks like a cracking degree programme to me. Particularly once I’d realised it was prognostication not procrastination, for which I’d want to submit a claim for accreditation of prior experiential learning. And, if you’re tempted to get sniffy about seriousness, it probably represented a good stab at the frontiers of knowledge at that time. Which is what first and second cycle qualifications of the UK higher education qualifications frameworks are about nowadays. So not so daft really.

    The Kusham empire, in the first century CE, destroyed the city of Taxila to make way for their own city, rebuilt a little to the north. And in the fifth century the Hunas destroyed the rebuilt city. (It is not clear if these Hunas were connected to the Huns who were busy invading Europe at about this time.

    And so there we have it; a very early institution of higher education. It is now a world heritage site, as suggested by the postcard, and a very popular tourist destination in Pakistan.

    A final cultural connection. A favourite of mine from the 1970s TV schedules was Monkey! This was a TV adaptation of an early Chinese novel, the Voyage to the West.

    The song played over the closing credits includes the lines “In Gandhāra, Gandhāra, they say it was in India…” – our heroes were escorting a Buddhist monk, Tripitaka, to being back some holy scrolls to help the emperor restore morality and order to China. It seems likely, I would suggest, that they were heading to Taxila.

    And really finally, here’s a jigsaw of the card, in case you feel the need of some pleasant distraction.

    Source link

  • Cancel culture, legal education, and the Supreme Court with Ilya Shapiro

    Cancel culture, legal education, and the Supreme Court with Ilya Shapiro

    Over the years, elite institutions shifted from
    fostering open debate to enforcing ideological conformity. But as
    guest Ilya Shapiro puts it, “the pendulum is swinging back.” He
    shares his firsthand experience with cancel culture and how the
    American Bar Association’s policies influence legal education.
    Shapiro also opines on major free speech cases before the Supreme
    Court, including the TikTok ownership battle and Texas’ age
    verification law for adult content.

    Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of
    constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute. He previously
    (and briefly) served as executive director and senior lecturer at
    the Georgetown Center for the Constitution and as a vice president
    at the Cato Institute. His latest book, “Lawless:
    The Miseducation of America’s Elites    ,” is out now.

    Enjoy listening to our podcast? Donate to FIRE today and
    get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and
    more. If you became a FIRE Member
    through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to
    Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email
    [email protected].


    Read the transcript.

    Timestamps:

    00:00 Intro

    02:58 Shapiro’s Georgetown controversy

    15:07 Free speech on campus

    26:51 Law schools’ decline

    40:47 Legal profession challenges

    42:33 The “vibe shift” away from cancel culture

    56:02 TikTok and age verification at the Supreme
    Court

    01:03:37 Anti-Semitism on campus

    01:09:36 Outro

    Show notes:

    – “The
    illiberal takeover of law schools    ” City Journal (2022)

    – “Poll
    finds sharp partisan divisions on the impact of a Black woman
    justice.    ” ABC News (2022)

    – “Why
    I quit Georgetown.    ” Ilya Shapiro, The Wall Street Journal
    (2022)

    – “Georgetown’s
    investigation of a single tweet taking longer than 12 round-trips
    to the moon.    ” FIRE (2022)

    –
    Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard     (2023)

    –
    Lamont v. Postmaster General     (1965)

    – TikTok Inc
    v. Garland     (2025)

    –
    Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton     (2024)

    – Ginsberg
    v. New York     (1968)


    –
    International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working
    definition of antisemitism     (last updated 2025)

    Source link

  • Alumni-in-residence programs aid student development

    Alumni-in-residence programs aid student development

    Alumni-in-residence programs provide career insight and professional skill-building to students.

    SDI Productions/E+/Getty Images

    A May 2024 Student Voice survey found 29 percent of students believe their college or university should prioritize or focus more on connecting students to alumni and other potential mentors.

    Colleges and universities often have connections to a wide range of successful graduates who can provide insight and support to current students, but creating organic relationships between the two groups can be a challenge.

    One initiative institutions have undertaken is establishing alumni-in-residence programs to offer career development opportunities for current students.

    How it works: Similar to a formal mentoring program, alumni in residence hold one-on-one conversations with learners to address the student’s career goals and answer questions related to work or life after college.

    The alumni-in-residence program, however, asks alums to serve in a variety of functions, including panel presentations, etiquette dinners and a networking reception, as needed.

    What’s the value: Alumni can offer specific insights into career pathways from their alma mater into their current role, helping highlight the student journey in a unique way. Involving former students in career services can also increase funding and support for the institution. A 2024 survey by Gravyty found alumni who have participated in a mentoring program say they are 200 percent more likely to donate in the future.

    Effective career services can also impact a student’s perception of their institution after graduation; 19 percent of alumni reported receiving strong career support from their institution, and those alumni are 2.8 times more likely to say their degree is worth the tuition, according to the 2023 National Alumni Career Mobility Annual Report.

    A 2025 analysis by Gravyty also found 46 percent of alumni rank career support and networking as the most valuable services their alma mater can provide, yet only 40 percent of engagement programs at universities include mentoring opportunities.

    Who’s doing it: Some of the institutions hosting an alumni-in-residence program include:

    Do you have a career prep tip that might help others encourage student success? Tell us about it.

    Source link

  • Lessons for new leaders from longtime marcomm staff

    Lessons for new leaders from longtime marcomm staff

    Over the past five years of conducting organizational capability assessments of higher education marketing and communications departments, my colleagues and I have interviewed hundreds of internal stakeholders. It’s the most fascinating aspect of the work, hearing directly from campus colleagues both inside and outside the department about their perspectives and experiences related to organizational life and departmental effectiveness.

    Through these conversations, valuable insights have emerged thanks to longtime marcomm staff—those team members who have contributed 10 or more years of professional service to their departments. (Note: I use the term “marcomm” to reflect that a blended marketing and communications structure is the typical model in higher education. The nuance and complexity of marketing and communications as distinct but related functions are topics for another post.)

    These insights, framed as reflection questions below, are especially relevant for leaders beginning a new senior role, such as a cabinet-level VP, CMCO or an executive director leading the marcomm function for an academic college or school.

    1. Is “restructuring” an end or a means?

    When longtime staff members discuss organizational structure changes, their healthy skepticism is palpable. They invariably associate these changes with leadership transitions. A “re-org” happened because there was a new VP (just as strategic plans often coincide with new presidents). The perceived impetus for change is simply having new leadership rather than any larger strategic purpose. We frequently hear some version of, “The structure changes and then eventually changes back with a different VP.”

    I’d much rather staff members describe those structural changes as enabling their function to fulfill a more strategic role and more meaningfully advance the institution’s highest priorities. It’s a reminder to leaders that structure should follow strategy, so the task is to ensure that the strategy is clear, reinforced and reflected in decision-making.

    Moreover, leaders should move beyond thinking in terms of discrete “restructures” or “re-orgs.” Organizational change isn’t a periodic event; top-performing departments are constantly adapting and evolving to best serve their guiding purpose amidst changing conditions.

    1. What is the real value of institutional knowledge?

    We undervalue institutional knowledge. Your longtime staff members possess deep institutional knowledge, which we unfortunately may dismiss as outdated or irrelevant. Instead, think of institutional knowledge as a source for critical context and sense making to help you navigate the road ahead and lead positive change.

    ​​In The Practice of Adaptive Leadership, Heifetz, Linsky and Grashow emphasize that “successful adaptive changes build on the past rather than jettison it.” The challenge for leaders lies in “distinguishing what is essential to preserve from their organization’s heritage from what is expendable.” Long-tenured staff members’ insights and institutional knowledge are invaluable in building this understanding.

    As the authors note, “Successful adaptations are thus both conservative and progressive. They make the best possible use of previous wisdom and know-how. The most effective leadership anchors change in the values, competencies and strategic orientations that should endure in the organization.” New senior leaders, eager to deliver results or serve as change agents, may overlook this crucial balance.

    1. What does upskilling require of the organization?

    The responsibilities of longtime staff members have likely evolved significantly since their initial hiring. New or different types of work are needed as marcomm’s scope expands, audience preferences shift and technologies emerge. Growing these competencies is a shared responsibility requiring genuine organizational commitment. The onus cannot rest solely on individual staff members. Upskilling or reskilling demands adequate time and resources—even when workloads are heavy and budgets are constrained.

    Professional development funding is often the first casualty of budget reductions. But if the organizational approach to professional development has been mostly reactive, then we shouldn’t be surprised by the lack of budget prioritization. This ad hoc approach to professional development points to a larger issue: the absence of formalized talent management practices in marketing and communications.

    Where can you build more intentionality into your organization’s efforts to recruit, develop, support and retain staff? Look to your central human resources team for guidance and learn from your colleagues in advancement, where larger and more mature advancement operations have dedicated talent management functions. Start small by operationalizing your department’s practices in a specific area such as orientation and onboarding. These focused efforts can create momentum for broader talent management initiatives.

    Long-serving staff members serve as both historians and bridges to the future, stewarding institutional values while helping new executives thoughtfully evolve their organizations. When properly engaged and supported, these veteran team members can be catalysts in your efforts to build—or further build—a high-performing department that drives lasting institutional progress. I hope these reflection questions prompt ideas that help your marketing and communications department be people centered and future ready.

    Rob Zinkan is vice president for marketing leadership at RHB, a division of Strata Information Group. He joined RHB in 2019 after more than 20 years in higher education administration with senior positions in marketing and advancement. He also teaches graduate courses as an adjunct in strategic communications and higher education leadership.

    Source link

  • The left should reclaim free speech mantle (opinion)

    The left should reclaim free speech mantle (opinion)

    If progressive or even not-so-progressive Jewish students invited comedian Sacha Baron Cohen to their university to perform his riotous parody “In My Country There Is Problem,” with its call-and-pogrom chorus “throw the Jew down the well / so my country can be free,” would Cohen be allowed on campus? If the song were indeed sung, and a few humorless, unthinking listeners were distressed by the lyrics, or at least claimed to be, would the Jewish students face discrimination and harassment charges under the university’s disciplinary code?

    Today, probably. Would they be found responsible for discrimination and harassment based on national origin? Again, probably. And what if a student band wished to parody the parody with a song titled something like, “Throw Chris Rufo Down the Well So My University Can Be Free”? Could the song be sung against the backdrop of students’ sensitivities and the reciprocated rage of today’s young conservative white men?

    In her recently published opinion essay for Inside Higher Ed, Joan W. Scott skewered the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and its vice president for campus advocacy, Alex Morey, for condemning the American Association of University Professors. Scott’s criticism of Morey’s criticism goes like this: Morey lambasted AAUP president Todd Wolfson’s expression of “disappointment” over Donald Trump’s re-election, arguing that Wolfson’s explicit partisanship betrays the AAUP’s purported commitment to academic freedom. Scott countered that FIRE is a libertarian wolf donning academic freedom drag. FIRE, explains Scott, is “dedicated to the absolutist principle of individual free speech,” a principle that is “not,” Scott italicizes, synonymous with academic freedom. In turn, Scott elaborates on academic freedom as “individual and collective rights of faculty as they pursue the mission of higher education in a democracy.”

    We agree with Scott that FIRE—with its many right-wing funding sources as Scott lists them—is unlikely to have our backs if and when the federal government comes to shut down diversity, equity and inclusion programs and cultural studies departments on campus (i.e., queer and Black studies). We respect, too, that Scott knows more about the history and purpose of academic freedom than we do.

    And yet, we worry that the line she draws between free speech and academic freedom—the former ideological and libertarian, the latter true and good—cedes too much. Indeed, her distinction hands “free speech” over to the conservative groups championing their anti-educational causes under its banner, and her dismissal of free speech defenses as apologia for racism lets stand, unnuanced, the left-originating but now right-appropriated proposition that combative, controversial speech is necessarily harmful in an egalitarian university environment. It is the quick conversion of (at times highly provocative) political speech into hate speech that allows “from the river to the sea” to be branded as categorically harassing antisemitism—a conversion that would so quickly ban Jews from sending up antisemitism (“throw the Jew down the well”), ban musicians from joking about drowning Rufo or prohibit, for that matter, marginalized groups from reappropriating slurs to divest them of their injurious force.

    In short, we think there is still good reason—several good reasons—for the academic left to defend speech, both as elemental to academic freedom and as a democratic value unto itself.

    We and nearly every colleague we know have stories of students hastily claiming talk—talk of sex, Israel, Palestine and criticism of affirmative action—as intimidating, harassing or discriminating. It seems to us that a robust defense of academic freedom must include healthy skepticism, but not outright cynicism, of the proposition that words injure. Skepticism, not cynicism, because words may hurt people, further subordinate marginalized groups and erode democratic ideals. David Beaver’s and Jason Stanley’s recently published The Politics of Language draws on critical race and feminist theory to show how some speech acts—affective, nondeliberative and/or racist dog whistles—function to polarize and degrade.

    But we also know, especially in the wake of spurious discrimination claims against campus activists and academics protesting Israel’s military campaigns, that conservative stakeholders are weaponizing the idea of words as weapons, alleging atmospheres of harassment to chill political speech—a project, we must concede, that the left paved the way for.

    Indeed, around 2013, as trigger warnings gained traction on college campuses, the right repackaged “free speech” as the inalienable freedom of anyone to speak on any topic without consequence, especially if that consequence is the loss of a platform. Instead of drawing on the left’s history of free speech advocacy, scholars of “identity knowledges” centered attention on the moral wrongness of offensive speech and the intolerability of feeling unsafe. This shift left progressives defending feelings rather than ideas, collapsing political discord with dehumanization—or, as Sarah Schulman argues, conflict with abuse. Now, with free speech reduced to melodrama, even the Christian right claims to protect its constituents against “harm”—whether from critical race theory or drag shows—rendering the issue a conceit of the culture wars.

    In his much-ridiculed op-ed for The New York Times published last year, linguist John McWhorter lamented that he and his students were unable to listen to John Cage’s silent “4:33” during class, as the silence would have been interrupted by the sound of student protests. The irony that McWhorter chided the protesters for impeding his students from appreciating Cage’s invitation to listen to “the surrounding noise” of the environs was not lost on McWhorter’s critics.

    What was not commented on, though, was McWhorter’s contention that if a group of students had been shouting “DEI has got to die” with the same fervor with which they were shouting for Palestine’s self-determination, then the protests “would have lasted roughly five minutes before masses of students shouted them down and drove them off the campus. Chants like that would have been condemned as a grave rupture of civilized exchange, heralded as threatening resegregation and branded as a form of violence.”

    Whether correct or not, McWhorter’s speculation is not baseless. We want to insist, though, that there are left, not just libertarian, grounds to defend, for example, a student protest against DEI initiatives. They include: respecting and celebrating the university as a space of open dialogue and debate; the possibility that you might learn something from someone with whom you disagree; the opportunity to lampoon, parody or otherwise countermand whatever worse-than-foolish statement the opposition is making; the opportunity, as John Stuart Mill taught us, to strengthen your own ideas and arguments alongside and against the ideas of others; and finally, avoiding the inevitable backlash of “the cancel,” whereby censored conservatives rebrand themselves as truth-telling victims of the “woke.”

    Granted, some of these grounds for defending speech tilt more liberal or libertarian than pure left, whatever that means, but we nonetheless maintain that it is self-defeating for us to carry the banner for “academic freedom” while consigning “free speech” to the province of white grievance. This is especially true for those of us teaching queer and critical sexuality studies, where classrooms and related spaces of activism and dialogue are increasingly circumscribed, the harm principle ever more unprincipled. Consider the case of Aneil Rallin, who in 2022 was accused by Soka University of America of teaching “triggering” sexual materials to his students in a course called Writing the Body, and whose case—while taken up by FIRE—was met with little alarm from the academic left.

    It also applies to those of us who still recognize satire, irony and social commentary in an age of breathtaking literalism. In 2011, the Dire Straits song “Money for Nothing” (1985) was temporarily banned from Canadian radio for its use of the f-slur, even though the term was intended as a commentary on working-class homophobia. The drive to censor and demonize without regard for social context has arguably gotten stronger in the years since.

    From the recent historical record, it seems to us that the enforcement of bureaucratic speech restrictions often damages campus culture and democratic norms more than the speech acts themselves. Indeed, the better question than is X speech act harmful is, to crib from Wendy Brown, when—if ever and at what costs—are speech restrictions the remedy for injury?

    Debating DEI programs, myths of meritocracy and so on is the stuff of academic freedom. A speech act like “DEI must die” is provocative, abrasive and worth publicly disparaging, but it is not the same as hate speech. Song parodies will not save us from the dark years ahead for public education, academic freedom and egalitarian pedagogies of all kinds. But our battle preparations demand standing up for, not surrendering, free speech.

    Joseph J. Fischel is an associate professor of women’s, gender and sexuality studies at Yale University.

    Kyler Chittick is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Alberta.

    Source link

  • West Point disbands student groups for women and minorities

    West Point disbands student groups for women and minorities

    The United States Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., has shut down a dozen student affinity clubs to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive orders to eliminate federal funding for diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and ensure that no member of the military “be preferred or disadvantaged on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, color, or creed,” The Washington Post reported.

    The Asian-Pacific Forum Club, the National Society of Black Engineers Club and the Latin Cultural Club are among the campus groups ordered to shut down, according to a memo sent Tuesday from Chad Foster, deputy commandant at West Point, to the Directorate of Cadet Activities.

    The memo orders all the identified clubs to “permanently cease all activities” and “unpublish, deactivate, archive or otherwise remove all public facing content.” It also orders the dozens of other clubs at West Point to “cease all activity” until they have been reviewed to ensure compliance with Trump’s executive orders and guidance from the Army and the Department of Defense. 

    Below is the full list of disbanded clubs, including some with decades-long histories at West Point, according to the Post:

    • The Asian-Pacific Forum Club
    • The Contemporary Cultural Affairs Seminar Club
    • The Corbin Forum
    • The Japanese Forum Club
    • The Korean-American Relations Seminar
    • The Latin Cultural Club
    • The Native American Heritage Forum
    • The National Society of Black Engineers (West Point chapter)
    • The Society for Hispanic Professional Engineers (West Point chapter)
    • The Society of Women Engineers (West Point chapter)
    • Spectrum
    • The Vietnamese-American Cadet Association

    Source link

  • College presidents’ survey finds alarm over Trump

    College presidents’ survey finds alarm over Trump

    Even before President Donald Trump unleashed a flurry of executive orders involving higher education, college and university presidents expressed serious concerns about his possible impact on the sector and on their own institutions. That’s according to findings released today from Inside Higher Ed’s forthcoming 2025 Survey of College and University Presidents with Hanover Research.

    More than half of presidents surveyed in December and early January—51 percent—at that point believed Trump’s second administration would have a somewhat or significant negative impact on the regulatory environment for higher education. Some 38 percent of respondents said they believed Trump would have a somewhat or significant positive impact on the regulatory environment, while the remainder expected his administration to have no impact. Male presidents were more likely than their female counterparts to express confidence in the Trump administration, with 42 percent of men responding that they expected an at least somewhat positive regulatory environment for the sector compared to 30 percent of women.

    Drilling down into specific concerns, the vast majority of presidents—80 percent—indicated Trump would have a negative impact on DEI across higher education. On an institutional level, 60 percent said he would negatively impact DEI efforts at their own colleges and universities.

    Presidents also expressed concerns about what Trump 2.0 would mean for public perceptions of higher education’s value, the climate for campus speech and the financial outlook for colleges and universities.

    The latest edition of the annual survey of presidents, now in its 15th year, includes responses from 298 leaders from a mix of two- and four-year institutions, public and private nonprofit. It was administered after Trump was elected but before he took office. The findings below are focused exclusively on his new administration and the broader political environment. The full survey, covering a broad range of issues relevant to college leaders, is forthcoming.

    Unpacking the Findings

    Given the timing of the survey and the rapid-fire executive orders and other actions that have followed, which included a temporary freeze on federal funding that created uncertainty and alarm across the sector, some experts believe presidents would respond even more negatively now.

    “I don’t think there’s any question that had this survey been done after Jan. 20, the numbers would be more negative than they were, with what we have seen since: the executive orders flowing out of the White House and funding freezes and just the chaos and uncertainty,” Michael Harris, a professor of higher education at Southern Methodist University, told Inside Higher Ed.

    “The survey indicates that presidents had some sense of what was coming,” Harris said. But he noted their “failure of imagination” to realize how quickly Trump would act.

    Already higher education is feeling the pressure on DEI, an area presidents anticipated would come under fire by the new administration.

    One of Trump’s first executive orders, issued on Jan. 21, called on federal agencies “to enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws and to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.” It also tasked Trump’s attorney general and the education secretary with crafting guidance for universities on how to comply with the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that banned the consideration of race in admissions policies.

    Universities have reacted in myriad ways to Trump’s attack on DEI. Last month the Rutgers University Center for Minority Serving Institutions canceled a virtual conference on apprenticeships at historically Black colleges and universities, and Michigan State University called off a lunch to celebrate Lunar New Year (but allowed other related events to go on).

    According to the survey, 71 percent of respondents believe that Trump will have a negative impact on the climate for free inquiry and civil dialogue across higher education. But only 52 percent said their own institution would suffer those negative effects.

    The majority of respondents—71 percent—also said Trump would have a negative financial impact on the sector. But at the institutional level, only 45 percent believe the same is true at their institution. And nearly a quarter of respondents believe he’ll positively affect their finances.

    Harris views with skepticism the belief among many presidents that their institutions will fare better than the rest of the sector. He argues that presidents can be “blinded” by proximity to their institution, which makes them overconfident in its strength.

    “I tend to believe the response around the industry more than the individual institution,” he said.

    But Anne Harris, president of Grinnell College—and no relation to Michael—believes that presidents have a firm grasp on their community “and all of its complexity,” which helps them better understand how a situation may play out on campus. She said that the “direct impact of a federal policy is always going to be negotiated, diffused and maybe absorbed by the multiplicity of constituencies on a campus.”

    While the new Republican president was the cause of concern for many respondents, presidents also expressed dissatisfaction with his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, last year.

    In Inside Higher Ed’s 2024 survey of College and University Presidents, only 33 percent of respondents indicated satisfaction with the Biden administration’s record on higher education. Last year’s survey found that 41 percent of respondents were completely or somewhat dissatisfied with Biden, who left behind a mixed legacy on higher education. He was accused of leaving some promises unfulfilled while overreaching in other areas, such as student loan forgiveness.

    Killing the Education Department

    One of Trump’s campaign promises was to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, a process that he has already taken steps toward but that will likely face an uphill battle given that he would need congressional approval to shut it down, which Democrats have made clear they are unwilling to provide. Even with a Republican majority in the Senate, the move faces highly unlikely odds.

    The majority of presidents surveyed disapprove of shutting down the department: 72 percent opposed the idea and 21 percent indicated uncertainty, while 8 percent voiced support for the effort. Presidents of private, nonprofit institutions were most likely to support the move.

    Harris, the Grinnell College president, questions what role last year’s botched launch of the new Free Application for Federal Student Aid played in draining support from the Department of Education, given the financial pressures felt by countless students, families and institutions.

    “There are going to be very few presidents who are going to cheer what happened with FAFSA,” she said. “So maybe this is some FAFSA lack of confidence saying the Department of Education did not serve higher ed well with the FAFSA debacle last year. So why not try something else?”

    Brad Mortensen, president of Weber State University, offered a similar perspective.

    “It wouldn’t have surprised me if [that number] was higher, just given how rough of a time the Department of Education had in rolling out the new FAFSA,” Mortensen told Inside Higher Ed. “That had real impacts on all types of institutions across the country.”

    Both presidents indicated that the programs housed in ED are more important than the department itself. They are more concerned about the continued flow of federal financial aid, for example, than where it comes from—whether that’s ED or the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

    Ongoing Optimism

    Concerns about Trump notwithstanding, other findings in the forthcoming full survey were positive—including the financial outlook at the institutional level, despite clear signs of strain across the sector. (Financial findings will be covered in depth as part of the full survey release.)

    Some presidents believe that optimism comes with the job.

    “College and university presidents are a funny lot. As I was applying for this job, I had a past president tell me, ‘Brad, you have to be smart enough to get the job and dumb enough to take it.’ I think by nature, we tend to be naïve optimists because it’s a job with a lot of challenges,” Mortensen said.

    Source link