Tag: Education

  • WEEKEND READING: Calling for a bold new vision for higher education 

    WEEKEND READING: Calling for a bold new vision for higher education 

    Join HEPI for a webinar on Thursday 29 January from 1.30pm to 2.30pm examining the findings of Student Working Lives (HEPI Report 195), a landmark study on how paid work is reshaping the student experience in UK higher education amid rising living costs and inadequate maintenance support. View our speakers and sign up here.

    This guest blog was kindly authored by Dr Adrian Gonzalez, Senior Lecturer in Sustainability at the University of York, and Richard Heller, Emeritus Professor of Public Health, University of Manchester UK and of Medicine, University of Newcastle Australia.

    Background

    Globally, humanity is grappling with a set of interconnected and intractable wicked problems, from the accelerating climate crisis to widening inequality. These are proving difficult to resolve, and higher educational institutions are needed to respond to them and advance solutions.

    Yet, at the same time, higher education around the world is facing its own structural problems that limit the sector’s ability to respond to societal issues. Our thesis is that a major transformation of higher education is required to allow the sector to respond. We identify the major challenges, offer one set of solutions, and call for interest in further discussion about how to transform higher education for the future.

    Climate hypocrisy

    Despite the current climate crisis, it features little in most universities’ education and research programmes. There are barriers to embedding sustainability into higher education degrees, including disciplinary conflicts over the meaning of sustainability and major institutional barriers. There is also work on greening university campuses, in some cases stimulated by student activists, although care needs to be taken that this does not become another form of higher education greenwashing. Buildings, travel by staff and students (including student field trips), as well as by international students, have a high carbon footprint. Currently, there is no requirement or standardised way of measuring or reporting universities’ carbon footprint. The response by the sector to this threat can therefore be characterised as tinkering rather than undertaking the transformation required to reflect the global climate emergency. 

    Knowledge inequity

    There are global, regional, national and socioeconomic inequities in access to university education, under-representation of populations in the creation of knowledge and global inequity in research publications, as well as silence or tokenism in educational decolonisation agendas. The commodification of knowledge and the commercialisation of the higher education sector hinder attempts to reduce inequity. The higher education system needs to transform to be more open and responsive to societal needs, offering the opportunity to increase knowledge equity. This will create opportunities and have long-term effects on reducing the problems caused by, between and within, national inequalities.

    Governance and management

    Employment precarity and casualised teaching and research work have risen across the international higher education sector. Excessive managerialism reduces academic autonomy. Gender pay gaps remain, and there is a general failure of the market-driven business model. Financial sustainability is lacking and requires overseas student fees to plug funding gaps across many higher education national contexts, while global needs for access to higher education are ignored in favour of those who can pay fees. Funding from fossil fuel and wider petrochemical companies that strengthen climate obstruction are also still embedded within global HE, including through different research funding avenues.

    Research

    As universities have commodified education; academic publishers have commodified the publication of research. A small number of powerful publishers dominate the field and make large profits by charging high fees for library subscriptions, or to authors in article processing charges, while using volunteer academics as reviewers and editors. This is perpetuated by a system which requires academics to ‘publish or perish’ and prioritises the citation of research in ‘high impact’ journals for academic advancement, often in Global North journals written in English. Publish or perish has also helped drive an acceleration in the quantity of articles published, arguably, in some cases, at the expense of quality. While prestige and academic advancement favour research over education within universities (promotion opportunities for those on an academic teaching pathway are fraught with challenges), research funding is precarious and inadequate. Funding for research on climate change is inadequate and inequitable.

    A distributed model of education

    The first step is to acknowledge these problems. There is a need to develop ideas and advocate for a transformation of higher education, and we call on others to join us in developing and working through ideas and potential solutions to help facilitate a progressive learning culture and practice which addresses these major issues.
    The use of a distributed model of education has the potential to address many of the problems outlined. Large campuses are replaced by local hubs, which can be physical or virtual. Education would be largely online and utilises open educational resources, research involves under-represented populations, and publication focuses on Diamond Open Access journals, which are community-driven, academic-led, and academic-owned. The carbon footprint of higher education would be drastically reduced, leadership distributed (hence managerialism reduced), and academic autonomy increased. Collaborative development and sharing of open educational resources reduces the drive to the commodification of education, and open publishing reduces the power of commercial publishers. These various initiatives will increase knowledge equity. The distributed model is consistent with societal moves towards decentralisation of the internet (Web3.0 and 4.0) and federated IT infrastructures (such as the Fediverse for open social media). Decentralised Autonomous Organisations (DAOs) may offer support. The adoption of such a model would encourage new locally driven academic environments and research initiatives responsive to societal needs.

    Calling for ideas and interest

    This is one set of ideas, but there must be others, large and small, global and local. For example, there are alternative options to increasing student fees, such as a progressive graduate tax, that would offer a fairer and more sustainable financial model. A recent book, Stories of hope – reimagining education, demonstrates that universities contain many committed educators who report exciting educational innovations.  Please express your interest in joining in a discussion about how we can tackle these challenges in a robust and transformational way. If you might be interested, please complete this short form and we will be in touch with further details.

    Source link

  • Export success is not international education success

    Export success is not international education success

    The UK government’s newly published International education strategy opens with a statement few in our sector would dispute – in an “uncertain world, education matters more than ever.”

    That is true. But a closer reading of the document suggests a more specific and narrower interpretation of why education matters.

    This is not, in any meaningful sense, a national international education strategy. It is, instead, an international education export strategy.

    There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Education is one of the UK’s most successful export sectors, supporting jobs, research, soft power, and local economies across the country. At a time of financial constraint, it is understandable that government thinking frames education primarily through the lenses of growth, trade, and global influence.

    But if this is the government’s intent, it should be honest about it. Words matter, because they shape priorities, expectations, and trade-offs.

    Calling this an “international education strategy” implies something broader – a vision for how education helps the nation understand the world, engage with it intelligently, and equip its people to thrive within it. That wider vision is largely absent in this strategy.

    The dominant logic of the strategy is export-led. Success is defined through metrics such as global market share, education exports reaching £40 billion per year by 2030, transnational education expansion, and the recruitment of international students as contributors to economic growth and soft power. Students, staff, and institutions appear primarily as instruments in a national growth and influence agenda.

    What’s missing

    What is missing in this strategy is just as telling.

    First, there is no serious engagement with languages and area studies. At precisely the moment when the UK’s universities are retrenching from modern languages and regional expertise, the strategy is silent on linguistic capability and cultural literacy.

    This is not a marginal issue. If international education is about preparing a country to collaborate, compete, and coexist in a complex world, then understanding other languages, cultures, and political contexts is a basic requirement.

    Second, the strategy underplays the role of internationally mobile academic and professional staff. International researchers and educators are acknowledged, but largely as contributors to research outputs, innovation, and competitiveness.

    There is little sense of them as part of a long-term national knowledge ecosystem, or of the conditions required to attract and retain global talent in an increasingly competitive environment. Trust and partnership are repeatedly mentioned, but these depend on openness, stability, and welcome – not just on visa routes that happen to suit current labour market needs.

    Third, outward mobility for UK students and staff remains peripheral. The return to Erasmus+ and the continuation of the Turing Scheme are positive steps, but they are framed as supporting soft power and employability rather than as core components of a genuinely international education system.

    More than a decade ago, I argued that if we truly value international experience, we should allow UK students make use of UK student loans to travel and study beyond our borders. That argument still has traction and still goes unanswered.

    Nothing new

    None of this is new. When previous international education strategies were published, I raised similar concerns – that international education was being conflated with international student recruitment and export earnings, and that the deeper purposes of education in a global society were being squeezed out.

    More than a decade on from BIS’s International education strategy: global growth and prosperity, the language is more polished and the ambition more coordinated across government, but the underlying philosophy has changed remarkably little.

    The risk is not that the UK pursues education exports. The real risk is that we mistake export success for international education success. A country can generate billions in education revenue while simultaneously hollowing out its own international capabilities – languages, cultural understanding, outward mobility, and academic openness.

    A true international education strategy would start with different questions. What capabilities does the UK need to thrive in a multipolar, unstable world? How does international education contribute to social cohesion at home as well as engagement abroad? How do we ensure that internationalisation benefits domestic students and staff, not just balance sheets and trade statistics?

    The current strategy contains elements that could support such a vision. It talks about partnerships, mobility, values-based education, but they are subordinate to the export narrative rather than driving it.

    If government wants an international education export strategy, it should say so clearly. And if it wants a genuinely international education strategy, then this document is only half the story.

    Source link

  • Widely used but barely trusted: understanding student perceptions on the use of generative AI in higher education

    Widely used but barely trusted: understanding student perceptions on the use of generative AI in higher education

    by Carmen Cabrera and Ruth Neville

    Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools are rapidly transforming how university students learn, create and engage with knowledge. Powered by techniques such as neural network algorithms, these tools generate new content, including text, tables, computer code, images, audio and video, by learning patterns from existing data. The outputs are usually characterised by their close resemblance to human-generated content. While GAI shows great promise to improve the learning experience in various disciplines, its growing uptake also raises concerns about misuse, over-reliance and more generally, its impact on the learning process. In response, multiple UK HE institutions have issued guidance outlining acceptable use and warning against breaches of academic integrity. However, discussions about the role of GAI in the HE learning process have been led mostly by educators and institutions, and less attention has been given to how students perceive and use GAI.

    Our recent study, published in Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, helps to address this gap by bringing student perspectives into the discussion. Drawing on a survey conducted in early 2024 with 132 undergraduate students from six UK universities, the study reveals an impactful paradox. Students are using GAI tools widely, and expect their use to increase, yet fewer than 25% regard its outputs as reliable. High levels of use therefore coexist with low levels of trust.

    Using GAI without trusting it

    At first glance, the widespread use of GAI among students might be taken as a sign of growing confidence in these tools. Yet, when students are asked about their perceptions on the reliability of GAI outputs, many express disagreement when asked if GAI could be considered a reliable source of knowledge. This apparent contradiction raises the question of why are students still using tools they do not fully trust? The answer lies in the convenience of GAI. Students are not necessarily using GAI because they believe it is accurate. They are using it because it is fast, accessible and can help them get started or work more efficiently. Our study suggests that perceived usefulness may be outweighing the students’ scepticism towards the reliability of outputs, as this scepticism does not seem to be slowing adoption. Nearly all student groups surveyed reported that they expect to continue using generative AI in the future, indicating that low levels of trust are unlikely to deter ongoing or increased use.

    Not all perceptions are equal

    While the “high use – low trust” paradox is evident across student groups, the study also reveals systematic differences in the adoption and perceptions of GAI by gender and by domicile status (UK v international students). Male and international students tend to report higher levels of both past and anticipated future use of GAI tools, and more permissive attitudes towards AI-assisted learning compared to female and UK-domiciled students. These differences should not necessarily be interpreted as evidence that some students are more ethical, critical or technologically literate than others. What we are likely seeing are responses to different pressures and contexts shaping how students engage with these tools. Particularly for international students, GAI can help navigate language barriers or unfamiliar academic conventions. In those circumstances, GAI may work as a form of academic support rather than a shortcut. Meanwhile, differences in attitudes by gender reflect wider patterns often observed on academic integrity and risk-taking, where female students often report greater concern about following rules and avoiding sanctions. These findings suggest that students’ engagement with GAI is influenced by their positionality within Higher Education, and not just by their individual attitudes.

    Different interpretations of institutional guidance

    Discrepancies by gender and domicile status go beyond patterns of use and trust, extending to how students interpret institutional guidance on generative AI. Most UK universities now publish policies outlining acceptable and unacceptable uses of GAI in relation to assessment and academic integrity, and typically present these rules as applying uniformly to all students. In practice, as evidenced by our study, students interpret these guidelines differently. UK-domiciled students, especially women, tend to adopt more cautious readings, sometimes treating permitted uses, such as using GAI for initial research or topic overviews, as potential misconduct. International students, by contrast, are more likely to express permissive or uncertain views, even in relation to practices that are more clearly prohibited. Shared rules do not guarantee shared understanding, especially if guidance is ambiguous or unevenly communicated. GAI is evolving faster than University policy, so addressing this unevenness in understanding is an urgent challenge for higher education.

    Where does the ‘problem’ lie?

    Students are navigating rapidly evolving technologies within assessment frameworks that were not designed with GAI in mind. At the same time, they are responding to institutional guidance that is frequently high-level, unevenly communicated and difficult to translate into everyday academic practice. Yet there is a tendency to treat GAI misuse as a problem stemming from individual student behaviour. Our findings point instead to structural and systemic issues shaping how students engage with these tools. From this perspective, variation in student behaviour could reflect the uneven inclusivity of current institutional guidelines. Even when policies are identical for all, the evidence indicates that they are not experienced in the same way across student groups, calling for a need to promote fairness and reduce differential risk at the institutional level.

    These findings also have clear implications for assessment and teaching. Since students are already using GAI widely, assessment design needs to avoid reactive attempts to exclude GAI. A more effective and equitable approach may involve acknowledging GAI use where appropriate, supporting students to engage with it critically and designing learning activities that continue to cultivate critical thinking, judgement and communication skills. In some cases, this may also mean emphasising in-person, discussion-based or applied forms of assessment where GAI offers limited advantage. Equally, digital literacy initiatives need to go beyond technical competence. Students require clearer and more concrete examples of what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable use of GAI in specific assessment contexts, as well as opportunities to discuss why these boundaries exist. Without this, institutions risk creating environments in which some students become too cautious in using GAI, while others cross lines they do not fully understand.

    More broadly, policymakers and institutional leaders should avoid assuming a single student response to GAI. As this study shows, engagement with these tools is shaped by gender, educational background, language and structural pressures. Treating the student body as homogeneous risks reinforcing existing inequalities rather than addressing them. Public debate about GAI in HE frequently swings between optimism and alarm. This research points to a more grounded reality where students are not blindly trusting AI, but their use of it is increasing, sometimes pragmatically, sometimes under pressure. As GAI systems continue evolving, understanding how students navigate these tools in practice is essential to developing policies, assessments and teaching approaches that are both effective and fair.

    You can find more information in our full research paper: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13603108.2025.2595453

    Dr Carmen Cabrera is a Lecturer in Geographic Data Science at the Geographic Data Science Lab, within the University of Liverpool’s Department of Geography and Planning. Her areas of expertise are geographic data science, human mobility, network analysis and mathematical modelling. Carmen’s research focuses on developing quantitative frameworks to model and predict human mobility patterns across spatiotemporal scales and population groups, ranging from intraurban commutes to migratory movements. She is particularly interested in establishing methodologies to facilitate the efficient and reliable use of new forms of digital trace data in the study of human movement. Prior to her position as a Lecturer, Carmen completed a BSc and MSc in Physics and Applied Mathematics, specialising in Network Analysis. She then did a PhD at University College London (UCL), focussing on the development of mathematical models of social behaviours in urban areas, against the theoretical backdrop of agglomeration economies. After graduating from her PhD in 2021, she was a Research Fellow in Urban Mobility at the Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (CASA), at UCL, where she currently holds a honorary position.

    Dr Ruth Neville is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (CASA), UCL, working at the intersection of Spatial Data Science, Population Geography and Demography. Her PhD research considers the driving forces behind international student mobility into the UK, the susceptibility of student applications to external shocks, and forecasting future trends in applications using machine learning. Ruth has also worked on projects related to human mobility in Latin America during the COVID-19 pandemic, the relationship between internal displacement and climate change in the East and Horn of Africa, and displacement of Ukrainian refugees. She has a background in Political Science, Economics and Philosophy, with a particular interest in electoral behaviour.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • AI in English language education: has the discourse changed?

    AI in English language education: has the discourse changed?

    It can feel like the rhetoric around AI is shifting as fast as its ability to generate content. In the English language education sector, we only need look to the recent past to recall how searching questions like “will we need humans in the future?” and “is it game over for teachers?” were the focus of every conference agenda, leadership summit and coffee room discussion.

    These types of questions resonate in all sectors of industry, and it was no surprise to see a recent episode of Dispatches on Channel 4 ask: “will AI take my job?”

    More focus on practical and ethical considerations

    But recently, something’s changed. We are becoming more comfortable with the idea that we can meaningfully coexist with this technology. And, with this change, industry leaders and policymakers in English language education are becoming more focussed on the practical and ethical questions around delivering AI in education, such as: how and when AI should be used and, in in some cases, should it even be used at all?

    This marks a welcome shift in perspective, one where people accept that this technology is here to stay but are genuinely engaging with how we can take sensible steps to get the best out of it. It’s critical to remember that ethical considerations for AI shouldn’t just be a simple box ticking exercise, as pointed out by UNESCO UK in their 2025 anthology – which says ethical AI in education is about building fair, human-centred systems that truly support meaningful learning.

    ‘Why’ is the biggest question of all!

    When it comes to AI in education, ‘why’ is perhaps the biggest question we need to ask ourselves. The short answer to this is: ‘if it adds value.’ We also need to ask: ‘does it make sense’. Ethical concerns come in many shapes and sizes, but one we cannot ignore is the sustainability challenges surrounding this energy hungry technology.

    Whether you’re using AI to teach or assess English, at the heart of this must be a human in control

    So, before embarking on any AI related project in our sector, it’s critical to ask whether we in fact need it, or if there are more sustainable options available. In other words: do we need to build a new large language model (LLM), or does an existing method, or simpler alternative, work just as well and have a far smaller carbon footprint?

    How should we use AI?

    In terms of how we should use AI, again there are lots of practical and ethical considerations. Whether you’re using AI to teach or assess English, at the heart of this must be a human in control. The need for maintaining a ‘human in the loop’ is for several reasons, but mainly because learning a language is a very human-centred process and, while AI can bring enormous benefits, it cannot replicate the uniquely human experience of acquiring and using language. And, of course, there are practical reasons too – especially when it comes to quality control in assessment, where we need humans to sometimes step in and offer oversight and clarity.

    What about high stakes assessment?

    This need for a ‘human in the loop’ is particularly pertinent in high-stakes assessment. It’s essential that in these cases, we do not prioritise convenience over quality, and we continue to develop robust solutions. If we use the technology to cut corners, this ultimately does a disservice to students and runs the risk of them not developing the English skills they need for success.

    The ingredients for trustworthy AI

    If we are serious about delivering ethical AI, another area to consider is fairness and ensuring that systems are free from bias. To achieve this, it’s critical that AI-based language learning and assessment systems are trained on diverse and inclusive data and are constantly monitored for bias. And of course, we have to consider data privacy and consent which in practice means all parties must be clearly informed about what data is collected, how it’s stored, and how it is going to be used.

    A week is a long time in AI!

    The extraordinary pace of change when it comes to AI reminds me of the famous quote about how a week is a long time in politics. One thing is certain: we’re at a significant moment for language education. As we continue to shift towards a future where human-led AI can deliver high quality education, it is more critical than ever to ensure that ethical use matters. Fairness, transparency, and sustainability must remain non‑negotiable. Without this, AI will fast lose credibility in English language learning and assessment – to the detriment of both innovation and our students.

    Ultimately, our collective goal as education leaders is simple: to deliver meaningful AI that meets robust ethical standards and adds true value for learners.

    To find out more, read our paper Ethical AI for Language Learning and Assessment, by my colleagues Dr Carla Pastorino-Campos and Dr Nick Saville.

    About the author: Francesca Woodward is global managing director for English at Cambridge University Press & Assessment.

    Source link

  • Dr. TB

    Dr. TB

    Dr. TB

    Sara Brady

    Fri, 01/23/2026 – 03:00 AM

    The Boy has been accepted to medical school!

    Byline(s)
    Matt Reed

    Source link

  • 4 Campuses Targeted in Latest Rash of Swatting Calls

    4 Campuses Targeted in Latest Rash of Swatting Calls

    Bishop State Community College in Mobile, Ala., evacuated its campus and moved classes online Thursday morning due to a threatening email.

    At least four campuses on Thursday received swatting calls—false reports of active or impending threats intended to disrupt operations and whip up a significant police response. 

    Early Thursday morning, officials at Villanova University outside Philadelphia received a “threat of violence targeted at an academic building” and quickly closed their campus and canceled all activities. University officials issued an all clear at 1:36 p.m. on Thursday and noted that the FBI and local law enforcement were continuing their investigation. 

    Alcorn State University in Mississippi initiated a campus lockdown Thursday morning due to a “safety threat,” which officials cleared several hours later. Wiley University in Texas also locked down its campus due to a “threat via email” and lifted the lockdown at noon Thursday. 

    Bishop State Community College in Mobile, Ala., evacuated its campus and moved classes online Thursday morning due to a “threatening” email, college officials said. A nearby elementary school also entered lockdown due to the same threat, AL.com reported. 

    K–12 schools across the country have also seen an uptick in swatting calls in recent days. Four schools in the San Diego Unified School District were the target of swatting calls Tuesday. Several Maine schools also received threats on Wednesday.

    It’s unclear whether any of these threats are related. In August, colleges and universities across the country experienced a wave of swatting incidents that were later claimed by an extremist group. About a month later, seven historically Black colleges and universities received false bomb threats. 

    Source link

  • Cornell Receives $371.5M Pledge From Alumnus Entrepreneur

    Cornell Receives $371.5M Pledge From Alumnus Entrepreneur

    Cornell University has received a pledge of $371.5 million from alumnus and software entrepreneur David Duffield, marking the largest single gift in the institution’s history.

    Combined with previous gifts from Duffield—which now total $550 million—the new contribution will establish the Cornell David A. Duffield College of Engineering. Cornell is already home to Duffield Hall, which was completed in 2004 and houses research and teaching facilities for nanoscale science and engineering. Last year Duffield pledged $100 million—at the time, the largest gift in Cornell’s history—to update and expand the eponymous building.

    The new pledge will be used primarily for endowment funds, including $250 million for the Duffield Legacy Fund, which will support the university’s ongoing strategic pursuits, and $50 million to advance key priorities related to educational excellence. The remainder will create the Duffield Launch Fund, which will support updating the college’s physical infrastructure, strengthening research facilities, supporting teaching and learning, and advancing research excellence.

    “I welcome the opportunity to help advance technological research, innovation and leadership at Cornell,” Duffield said in news release. “I’ve worked closely with many Cornellians over the years, and they consistently demonstrate exceptional leadership, creativity and problem-solving abilities. It’s a privilege to give back to my alma mater in ways that strengthen the university’s commitment to excellence.”

    Duffield has credited his Cornell professors for setting him on the path to success. He went on to become the founding CEO of two companies— PeopleSoft and Workday—that were each valued at $1 billion or more at their initial public offerings.

    “Many Cornell graduates have gone on to make incredible contributions to society through their innovations,” Cornell president Michael I. Kotlikoff said in a statement. “Among this esteemed group, Dave Duffield stands out for his transformational accomplishments and his determination to do the greatest good. We are tremendously grateful for Dave’s generous previous support of the College of Engineering and the Veterinary College. And Dave’s new gift and naming of the College of Engineering will impact Cornellians for generations and is an extraordinary tribute to the college and to Cornell.”

    Source link

  • Higher Ed Spent Millions on Lobbying in 2025

    Higher Ed Spent Millions on Lobbying in 2025

    Several research universities ratcheted up spending on lobbying last year.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Feverpitched/iStock/Getty Images

    Major research universities spent more than $37 million on federal lobbying efforts in 2025 as the sector was beset by a flurry of policy changes during the first year of Donald Trump’s second term. That’s up significantly from 2024, when those same institutions spent $28.1 million.

    Fourth-quarter lobbying expenditures, which were reported by most universities earlier this week, show that spending dropped toward the end of the year after it peaked in the spring. While college presidents have been criticized for failing to push back publicly on Trump administration initiatives seen as damaging to higher education and/or the social fabric, lobbying numbers show that institutions have been heavily engaged behind the scenes.

    The Inside Higher Ed analysis of lobbying expenses focused primary on the Association of American Universities, which is made up of 71 research institutions in the U.S. and Canada. Throughout the last year, the representatives of these universities headed to Capitol Hill to fight for research funding and push back against plans in the sweeping One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed over the summer and ushered in a new era of higher ed accountability and student loan policy.

    AAU members spent the most in the second quarter of 2025 at $10.7 million, when talks over OBBBA were at their peak. In the other quarters, spending ranged from $7.9 million to just over $9 million. However, data for the fourth quarter of the year is an undercount, as not all universities complied with federal lobbying disclosure deadlines, which required them to submit reports on such activities and expenditures by Tuesday.

    Although the numbers only reflect spending by AAU members, the Inside Higher Ed review indicates research institutions were among the highest spenders last year. The one exception was the University of Phoenix, which is not part of AAU.

    In terms of total spending, the University of Phoenix racked up the highest lobbying costs, spending $480,000 in each quarter for a total of $1.9 million. Disclosure forms show Phoenix lobbied on OBBBA and student veteran benefits and engaged in “general discussions covering change of control, and related regulatory requirements.” (Phoenix filed for an initial public offering last year after a sale to the University of Idaho fell through amid skepticism from state lawmakers over acquiring the for-profit college.)

    Among AAU members, the University of Florida emerged as the top spender, a fact that went unnoticed last year because UF did not comply with federal lobbying disclosure deadlines and filed reports late for each quarter. For example, UF filed its Q1 report for 2025 on May 29, well past the April 20 deadline. UF officials posted Q4 results Thursday morning, two days after the deadline, and one day after Inside Higher Ed reached out to inquire about previously missed filing deadlines.

    UF officials did not respond to a request for comment.

    The top spenders engaged on a wide range of issues, according to details in lobbying disclosures. (The list does not include systems that lobby on behalf of individual members.)

    UF lobbying reports show the university engaged Congress on topics such as research funding, artificial intelligence, federal spending bills, student visas, international education programs, graduate student loans, the endowment excise tax and cybersecurity, among other issues.

    Most other universities that ranked in the top 10 lobbied on the same or related issues, often lobbying around specific legislation, such as OBBBA. A rare few, such as Johns Hopkins University, took on highly charged topics such as gender-affirming care and efforts to expand gun access.

    While some universities sustained a steady lobbying effort throughout the year, maintaining similar spending levels across each quarter, others made a strong push at the end of 2025, such as the University of Pennsylvania, which doubled spending.

    In a fourth-quarter push, most institutions focused on many of the same issues as they had in the earlier part of the year. However, in the last two quarters, especially Q4, some top spenders increased lobbying efforts around graduate medical education and nursing, back-room conversations that coincided with federal changes to that will cap federal loans for graduate and professional programs.

    Source link

  • Blending Culture and Safety at Fort Lewis

    Blending Culture and Safety at Fort Lewis

    After the death of a student at Fort Lewis College, Kendra Gallegos knew the institution’s response had to do more than make space for grief—it also had to honor the cultural traditions of the college’s largely Native student body.

    Fort Lewis, a public four-year college in Durango, Colo., invited an Indigenous healer to lead a traditional blessing of the residence hall where the student had lived.

    That kind of healing ceremony reflects how campus leaders like Gallegos, the interim vice president of diversity affairs, approach student wellness programs: by grounding efforts in cultural practices that resonate with students.

    “We’re always asking students what they need and recognizing that there are many different tribes, each with its own traditions and ways of responding when someone passes away,” Gallegos said.

    With about 40 percent of its students identifying as Native, Fort Lewis offers a wide range of support services—from counseling rooted in Indigenous cultural identity to vending machines that provide anonymous access to Narcan, fentanyl test strips and emergency contraception—giving students multiple ways to seek help and protect themselves.

    “We’re looking at a lot of different approaches and building partnerships across the state,” Gallegos said. “We want to look beyond our campus and ask, ‘How can we best serve our students’ needs and help them get access to care?’”

    On the ground: Fort Lewis students have access to free, unlimited mental health and counseling services through the campus counseling center, including individual and group therapy, crisis support, and drop-in consultations.

    But Gallegos said counseling alone is not “one-size-fits-all.” Students can also tap into Indigenous ways of knowing and healing, including through connections to traditional healers.

    “We have a diverse group of students coming from all walks of life,” Gallegos said. “We get them connected with counselors who may be Indigenous, who may be from their tribe.”

    Gallegos said traditional counseling is not always the most appropriate way to meet students’ needs.

    “Maybe they need to go home and have a ceremony with their families, with their communities,” she said. “Or maybe they need a medicine man, or it’s herbal, like sage that we’re burning here in the campus community.”

    Beyond clinical and cultural support, Fort Lewis’s peer support office offers confidential, peer-led assistance and help navigating campus resources. 

    “We’re trying to be more specialized, knowing that [peer supporters] aren’t counselors and don’t have advanced degrees,” Gallegos said. “They’re not doing counseling—they’re saying, ‘I have some knowledge in this area or lived experience, and I’m willing to talk with you.’”

    Students rely on peer support for guidance on substance use, Indigenous identity, sexuality and gender, and student-athlete challenges, among other topics, she added.

    In 2024, the college also launched a harm-reduction vending machine that provides free, anonymous access to health and wellness supplies such as Narcan, fentanyl test strips, emergency contraception, menstrual products and condoms.

    So far, the vending machine has dispensed more than 2,600 items—including more than 100 boxes of Narcan and nearly 700 fentanyl test strips, Gallegos said—underscoring student engagement as well as need.

    Gallegos said the goal of the vending machine is to keep students in school by removing barriers to getting help.

    “We don’t actually get to know who they are or what their stories are,” she said. “But we know it’s making a difference.”

    Most recently, Fort Lewis began piloting a substance-free housing option for students in recovery or those who choose to live sober. The plan is to create an eight-resident living community designed to provide a supportive environment for students focused on sobriety.

    The college has hired two recent Fort Lewis graduates to help lead the initiative.

    “They’ll be part-time and really grow the community and the purpose in the sober living community and nurture those who are there,” Gallegos said.

    Signs of progress: For Gallegos, supporting students starts with making clear that conversations about substance use and mental health are welcome at Fort Lewis.

    “We don’t want there to be a wrong door for support,” she said. “We’ve seen that students are ready to talk to us about these things—they’re less willing to brush them under the rug until the last minute.”

    That openness doesn’t mean abandoning boundaries, Gallegos added.

    “We still follow our conduct code and policies,” she said. “But we’ve learned there can be a warmer handoff and an opportunity for growth and education.”

    Ultimately, Gallegos said, she’s proud to have helped build what she calls a “community of care” on campus.

    “Please don’t shut the door on a student who’s struggling,” she said. “Help them get the resources they need.”

    Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.

    Source link

  • Higher Ed Urged to “Stand Up” to Government Attacks

    Higher Ed Urged to “Stand Up” to Government Attacks

    A free expression lawyer, a university system leader and a civil rights activist were unified in their call to higher ed leaders to “stand up” against violations of First Amendment rights and the stifling of free speech on campuses at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges and Universities in Washington, D.C., on Thursday.

    At the opening plenary, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Will Creeley, joined John King, chancellor of the State University of New York, and Maya Wiley, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, in condemning institutions that have bent to political pressure. They warned that threats to constitutional rights are no longer a red-state problem.

    “I never thought I’d live in a country where you’d be snatched off the street for writing an op-ed, but that is most definitely our country now,” Creeley said, referring to the 2025 arrest and detention of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish international student studying at Tufts University.

    Without naming the University of Arkansas or the professor directly, Creeley said it was “galling” that an institution “rolled over” when conservative politicians pressured it to rescind an offer to a law school dean—presumably Emily Suski—after discovering she signed an amicus brief in support of transgender athletes.

    “Too often that kind of expedient capitulation, that kind of quiet cowardice, is seen as the easiest way to get through it,” he said. “Folks, I don’t think that’s going to work. We’ve got a serious challenge here. The time is now for institutions to stand up and fight.”

    King acknowledged his “place of privilege” heading a public institution system under a Democratic governor, but he urged leaders in Republican-led states not to compromise their values.

    “I have to say, in my view, some folks in leadership roles across the higher education sector have lost their sense of where the line is, and they are complicit in a dismantling, not only of core values in higher education, but frankly of our democracy,” he said.

    King also warned against the “chilling effect” the attacks on speech are having on college campuses. “For people thinking, ‘I could teach this book but I don’t want to deal with the headache’ or ‘I could ask students to debate this question, but I think it could get out of hand and I don’t want to do it’—that day-to-day creeping fear is diminishing the quality of discourse on campuses,” he said. “And that is not just a red-state issue. That is a purple-state, blue-state issue that’s happening all over, and it’s very dangerous.”

    Wiley, who has also served as a faculty member and senior vice president for social justice at the New School, suggested institutions take inspiration from the strategic planning behind the civil rights protests of the 1960s by creating courses and syllabi that would provoke “conflict-based constructive engagement,” including litigation.

    “There’s an opportunity to understand our power where we’re willing to figure out a play and relationships to have the conflict-based constructive engagement because, in this period, there is no winning without conflict,” she said.

    Both Wiley and Creeley called for greater coalition-building across colleges to respond to the attacks on the entire sector. For his part, King praised what he saw as greater cross-institutional collaboration to rebuild trust in higher ed, but he said institutions should be careful to avoid the “unforced errors” they made after the Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

    “That handed opponents of higher education the ability to structure this attack,” he said, calling for clear, content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions for student protests. “Those kinds of reasonable things were not necessarily communicated, were not necessarily enforced and the chaos that resulted became an opportunity for enemies of higher education to have a basis for attack,” he added. “We have to be very disciplined about that.”

    In response to a question from the audience about increased surveillance of faculty and students online, Creeley said students in Oklahoma and Texas “manufactured outrage and made-for-TV moments” when they complained about a grade on an essay referencing the Bible and secretly recorded a confrontation with a professor who used the word “gender” in their classroom, respectively.

    “[These incidents are] manufactured to go viral—a culture war sugar rush for all kinds of media outlets. To the extent you can prepare your educators for that … I think is for the better.”

    Correction: King used the word “chaos” not “payoff” to describe the student protests after Oct. 7.

    Source link