Tag: Education

Ideas for navigating editor-reviewer relationships (opinion)
An editor or reviewer can have an outsize impact on the career of a scholar, particularly in the early stages. The stakes can be high for an author. A negative review or edit can set back a research plan by months and harm a scholar’s chances for tenure or promotion. This reality creates a power imbalance between an editor or reviewer and an author that can be abused.

Graduate schools offer few pointers on how to navigate editor and reviewer relationships. Our goal in this essay is to debunk the process and offer suggestions and observations for editors/reviewers and authors on how to approach the task in a more thoughtful and efficient way.

Understanding the Reviewer and Editor Roles

First, it is important to note that while reviewers and editors take part in a similar process—assessing the work of an author—the tasks are different. The editor is rarely an expert in the specific subject of an article and necessarily needs to rely on impartial reviewers to place the work in context. Nevertheless, the editor—and, at times, an editorial board—is the decision-maker in this equation. Having a clear and transparent line of communication between the author and the editor is critical.

The task of the reviewer is to place the work in its scholarly context and to weigh its merit. Is the work breaking new ground? Is it challenging a long-held interpretation within the academy? Are the sources contemporary and the most relevant? Does the work fit the subject area of the journal or press? Can it be revised to make it suitable for publication?

It is our strong belief that reviewers need to meet the authors where they are—that is, to understand the goal of the author, determine whether the work is suitable for the journal or press in question and, if so, help them reach the promised land of publication. Simply put: The reviewer should weigh the author’s case against the author’s intent.

Unfortunately, this does not always happen: It is sometimes the case that reviewers stray from this path and insert suggestions that they would like to see addressed but that are not central to the submitted work. The dreaded “reviewer number 2” has become the bane of many an author’s existence. In this sort of review, the reviewer raises so many questions and objections that an author is left to ponder whether the two are reading the same text. And, it must be said, just as on social media, anonymity can at times lead to incivility. Instead of being helpful, sometimes a reviewer is unkind and cruel.

The role of the editor is to referee between the goals of the author and the desires of the reviewer. Egos and politics often come into play in this process because reviewers in many cases are colleagues of the editor and contributors to the publication in question. Our experience suggests there are two major types of editors. Authors will need to adjust their approach based on which of these two types best describes their editor:
- Sympathetic editor: This is the ideal. This editor will work with an author to publish a submission if the research is strong and will allow them to keep their own voice. They do not seek to impose their vision on the book or article. They do not allow their personal politics to influence the decision-making process. They are driven by one central question: Does the author accomplish what they set out to do? This type of editor tries to determine whether a reviewer is acting out of hubris by suggesting tangential and substantial changes or whether they are addressing core issues. On the opposite end of the spectrum, they are alert to the two-paragraph, lackadaisical reviewer who read the work over lunch while answering emails.
- Visionary editor: It may sound counterintuitive, but an editor with their own vision for someone else’s work can mean frustration and ultimately rejection for an author. This type of editor sees someone else’s work as an opportunity to explore an aspect of a topic that interests them. They impose their own vision on someone else’s work rather than determining whether the author has achieved the goal they set for themselves. This typically takes the form of a lengthy response asking an author to fundamentally rethink their piece. The response contains so many critiques that to adhere to the suggestions would amount to writing a completely different piece of scholarship. This editor also tends to extend and even impede the process almost endlessly.
As an example, upon the death of Fidel Castro in November 2016, the Latin American historian of this writing duo (Argote-Freyre) was asked by a journal editorial board member to author an article comparing the career of Castro with that of the prior dictator of Cuba, Fulgencio Batista. The resulting piece concluded that the two political figures shared more similarities than differences. The editor, although agreeing to the concept, was unhappy with the conclusions reached by the essay. The editor struck out paragraph after paragraph; a lecture on tone and thesis ensued.

The editor suggested a piece analyzing the revisionist historiography on Batista—a subject outside the contours of the original assignment and one that would take many months to complete. The author made a rookie mistake in assuming that a member of the editorial board was vested with the authority to make assignments. In retrospect, it seems as if the assignment was foisted upon the working editor, who then wanted to steer the piece in a completely different direction. The author withdrew the piece; the only positive was that only a few months were lost in the process.

The visionary editor is the type who is never satisfied. They forget that the piece is the author’s, not theirs. Yes, the editor is a gatekeeper for the journal or press, but if it is not a good fit, they should say so and move on. This picky editor sends a revision back to a new third (or fourth) reviewer, who is likely to ask for another, different round of revisions. This is nothing other than moving the goalposts. One of us had this occur with an editor who said, “As you know, we often send articles to several rounds of reviewers.” Well, we did not know, because the journal’s website did not say that. Such a process could go on forever and, to our eyes, makes no sense. The editor should decide on his or her own whether the author has revised sufficiently: It is clear from the reader reports what needed to be done, so just check and see. The editor needs to be decisive.

At the point a work is about to be sent to an additional set of reviewers, an author needs to withdraw the article or book from consideration. Run as fast as you can in search of another editor and publication. Do not let someone waste your time, especially if your clock is ticking for tenure and promotion.

How to Make Relationships Work— and When to Walk Away

The author-editor relationship should be a dance, not a duel. An author is not at the mercy of the process; you are a partner. If you are not clicking with the editor, walk away. A bad first date rarely turns into a good second date. This is particularly true when working on a book project, given the many steps and long timeline involved.

For a revise-and-resubmit, we suggest strongly that you be professionally assertive. Ask about the review of the resubmission before you do it. If the editor says it will go to new readers, withdraw the piece. This never goes well. Editors should be transparent about the steps involved. It is our experience that some editors are hesitant to divulge their process. If that is the case, the author needs to reassess the integrity of that process.

Being fully transparent allows you to ask for transparency in return, whether you are an editor or an author. If, as we have experienced, two peer reviews come in that are quite opposed, the editor should get a third before returning to the author. If there are two or three reviews, the editor should synthesize them with a memo attached to the reports. The summary should go something like: “All reviewers agree chapter four needs to be revised with this material, but there is disagreement about chapter six.” There is also nothing wrong with asking the author to make the tough call on a contested point of interpretation. Once again, it is the author’s scholarship, not the editor’s, the journal’s or the press’s.

For authors: Have a conversation with the editor. If it’s a call, follow up with a written summary. When responding to reader reports, especially when they disagree, say what you will and will not do. Do not say you will revise when you disagree—but don’t be stubborn. Give a little to get what you won’t compromise. If you disagree with a reviewer’s suggestion, say why, and ask the editor for approval not to make a specific change suggested in one of the reader reports. Get that approval. If the editor says the revision will go back to one or both original readers instead of making the final call himself, politely insist that the written exchange between the author and editor be sent along, too.

It may not always work. Recently, one of us did just what we described and the editor said the plan sounded good, only to have the journal reject the revision. The editorial board said a specific change was not made even though the editor agreed that change would not be necessary. Poor communication and coordination between an editor and an editorial board should not penalize an author.

Finally, we’d like to briefly weigh in on the argument that professors should reject peer reviewing because it is an unpaid task. If you do not want to do it, don’t—but there are compelling reasons to write responsible peer reviews. First, unpaid labor is not without merit. Even if your tenure and promotion committees might not value the task, that does not mean it is not worthwhile. You’re not paid to volunteer at your local food pantry, but you still do it. Second, people do this for you; it is time to be generous in return. Third, reviewing provides insights into the process for your own work. Peer reviewing keeps you current on trends in the field. Editing and peer reviewing make you a better writer and produce better scholarship. Isn’t that what we all want?

Frank Argote-Freyre and Christopher M. Bellitto are professors of history at Kean University in Union, N.J., with extensive experience with peer review on both sides of the process. Argote-Freyre, a scholar of Latin American history, serves as a frequent peer reviewer and content editor on various book and article projects. Bellitto, a medievalist, is the series editor of Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition and academic editor at large of Paulist Press.
Source link
January 30, 2025
Academic unions should adopt neutrality (opinion)

Institutional neutrality at universities is having its moment in the aftermath of a year of nationwide campus protests over the Israel-Gaza war. The list of universities that have adopted neutrality has grown over the course of the past 12 months. The concept necessarily is expanding to include conversations around university investments. Yet, academic unions have slipped under the radar as purveyors of positions on political issues. They should not be neglected in the push for neutral stances except for those that directly pertain to an institutional mission. In the case of the union, this should be to promote labor interests. Professors from a range of ideologies should be able to find common cause for collective bargaining purposes without being forced into supporting other political positions.

The lack of neutrality of professors’ unions on non-labor-related issues is a pernicious problem. Federal law and some state laws that pertain to unions work to compel professors’ speech. Under the federal National Labor Relations Act, if a majority of private sector workers voting in a union election choose to unionize, all workers in that bargaining unit must be exclusively represented by that union. New York’s Taylor Law requires the same for public employees. And, if workers want the benefits of membership, like voting for union leadership and contracts, they must pay dues.

While public employees could choose not to be union members before the Supreme Court’s 2017 Janus v. AFSCME ruling, that case now guarantees their right to not pay agency fees. But even if workers wish to eschew membership and not pay fees, they cannot dissociate entirely. They are required to be represented by a union that speaks via statements at the local, state and national level on many non-labor-related subjects. Therefore, with their veneer of solidarity, unions quash viewpoint diversity and suppress First Amendment rights. They tie one of the only forms of dissent possible (withdrawing dues) to disenfranchisement from the union, the organization that negotiates their wages and labor conditions.

Professors who do stop paying their dues are often derided as “free riders.” They risk offending union leadership, who have a say in university processes that can impact their employment, like grievances and denial of reappointment. The union is formally required to provide equal advocacy as their exclusive representative. However, even if one believes biases will never prevail against “free riders,” there is still the suppressive impact of professors’ perception that paying dues and keeping quiet is best for their careers.

And so, professors are forced into a kind of protection racket, paying unions that may endorse positions with which they may disagree. The National Education Association has opined on everything from ending private prisons to climate change, from promoting women-led businesses to helmets for motorcyclists. They have issued statements on the Israel-Gaza conflict, advocated for codifying Roe v. Wade into law and called for Donald Trump’s ouster. They have adopted progressive ideological lenses throughout such statements, arguing for instance that “white supremacy culture” is prevalent in the current U.S., and that “intersectionality must be … addressed … in order to advance the [NEA’s] social justice work.”

To be clear, I am not arguing that these positions taken by unions are bad. I am not reflecting my own political preferences. I am not highlighting progressive examples to critique only progressive examples: I could find none that can be considered conservative. I am not saying that it’s not possible that a majority of members agree with the statements. I am also not arguing that workers do not have the right to form associations to advocate for political causes.

What I am arguing is that due to laws making exclusive representation compulsory, unions should adopt neutrality on political issues that do not impact the primary purpose of academic unions: advocating for professors’ interests as workers. This lets ideological diversity exist and prevents coerced speech and dues payments. This neutrality is of paramount importance with public sector unions, where union leadership activities may receive taxpayer-subsidized administrative benefits.

This neutrality should extend to political endorsements of individual candidates. While there may be some argument to be made that endorsing a pro-union or pro–higher education candidate over their opponent directly pertains to professors’ interests as workers, this carries with it implicit endorsement of a wide slate of other policies. A better approach would be for unions to support (or critique) candidates’ specific policy proposals or voting records. It would also reduce antagonism between unions and candidates they did not endorse, should those be elected.

Recent examples show the perils of academic unions not having a neutrality standard. In 2018, a University of Maine professor sued his union, noting his opposition to its stances, like endorsing Hillary Clinton for president. More recently, in 2022, six City University of New York professors filed suit against the Professional Staff Congress (PSC), which passed a pro-Palestinian resolution they viewed as antisemitic. They resigned their memberships, along with approximately 263 other professors. But because of the Taylor Law, they are required to be represented by the PSC, which did not give evidence it could be fair in representing them. The PSC called them free riders, claiming their lawsuit was “meritless … funded by the notoriously right-wing National Right to Work Legal Foundation,” and described the “‘Right to Work’ agenda” as “rooted in white supremacy.”

After lower courts ruled to dismiss their suit, the CUNY professors appealed to the Supreme Court, which just this month declined to hear their case. Yet, while this case could have been a victory for viewpoint diversity and free speech and an impetus for unions to get on the institutional neutrality bandwagon, future such suits will doubtless arise and reach a court favorable to their claims. Academic unions should get ahead of such a court ruling and make union membership attractive to all who may want to participate based on advocacy for improved working conditions, but not for particular solutions to international wars—or for wearing motorcycle helmets.

Colleen P. Eren is a professor of sociology and criminal justice at William Paterson University and a research fellow at the Segal Center for Academic Pluralism. Her commentaries on higher ed and other topics can be found across a range of publications, including The New York Times, Discourse, Reason, and the Foundation for Economic Education.

Source link

January 30, 2025
Q&A with a student success dean, Soka University of America

As an undergraduate student, Lisa MacLeod wasn’t sure where her career path would take her. She majored in English literature and international relations with the aspirations of being a journalist or a State Department staffer and found herself back in academia not long after.

Lisa MacLeod, assistant dean of student success at Soka University of America

Lisa MacLeod/Soka University of America

Now, as the inaugural assistant dean of student success at Soka University of America since last fall, MacLeod is charged with breaking institutional silos at the California institution to improve student outcomes after graduation, working collaboratively across campus.

MacLeod spoke with Inside Higher Ed about her time thus far at the institution, a private liberal arts college, and her aspirations in the long-term.

Inside Higher Ed: What is your new role at Soka and how does it fit into institutional goals for student success?

MacLeod: One of the most important things [about my role] is that I am housed under the dean of faculty, so I’m not under the dean of students, which is very different from how a lot of schools have done this.

My top priority, luckily, isn’t getting students to graduate—because we already are doing that very well as an institution … I’m not just new in the job, the position is new at the university—so there’s some room for me to define what the position is.

I was asked to look specifically at advising. Right now, our program is all faculty individually advising students for academic advising. Career services and internships is the other side of the house, and historically, the two sides of the house don’t talk to each other very well. So looking at how we advise, but also thinking about, are there ways that we can integrate better, because we have lots of good things happening by different people. But do faculty know about that? Do they know enough about it to recommend it to students? Not so much.

The other thing is starting to integrate career readiness skills into the curriculum. This year, we are rolling out RATE (Reflect, Articulate, Translate, Evaluate), which was developed by the University of Minnesota for their liberal arts students.

We’re having our first cohort this coming semester—so beginning in February—of faculty fellows who have pledged to develop the RATE system into their existing course, and we’re supporting them with some training and other kinds of activities so that we’re very specific in the application. We’re not asking you to change your course. What we’re asking is that you make it more evident to students how they are developing career readiness skills in addition to academic and subject area knowledge.

Inside Higher Ed: You were a double major in college. While interdisciplinary learning can be an asset to students, sometimes academic departments can be more focused on helping students on a specific path within their discipline. Do you have any insights based on your experience as a dual major and helping students find their own path?

MacLeod: At Soka, we don’t have majors—everyone graduates with a major in liberal arts, and then within that, we have concentrations. Students here do have the opportunity to double concentrate, so they’re not taking as many courses as you would for a major, but there’s still some degree of specialty.

I encourage them to look at the whole course catalog and say, “Take the classes that really attract you, that are interesting, and you’ll figure out how they connect to each other if you look for it,” and to not worry about double concentrations. Or, you know, force yourself to take courses you wouldn’t otherwise.

Certainly, I encourage students, depending on what their interests are, if you’re going to go to graduate school, yes, take statistics, take a research methodology course. Do these kinds of courses that are skill building [so] you’ll have that [for] the next level of your education; they will have expected you to have that background.

But beyond that, I’m really focused on having students maybe try something they wouldn’t otherwise. I wish as an undergraduate I had taken an anthropology class, but it never occurred to me; it just wasn’t on my radar. Explore, because you don’t know what you don’t know, and to really find something that drives them, that they’re really excited about doing the coursework and learning more about that area. Because they’ll put more into it, and as they put more into it, they’re going to develop the liberal arts skills in the process. Whereas, if they’re forcing themselves to take a course because they feel they should take this course, they’re not going to have the same level of motivation. They’re not going to get the same out of it.

Inside Higher Ed: As you said, one of your priorities is advising, which is so important to the student journey. What does quality advising look like to you?

MacLeod: I think that quality advising really requires time and listening.

I always ask students to come in with kind of a worksheet: Where are you [in your progress] toward graduation? Where are you in terms of taking required courses? But I also ask them things like, “OK, this is a required course, but you have a selection of five different faculty members that might be teaching that course, and of course, they bring their skills and expertise and kind of personality in each course. Why did you choose that faculty member? If you’re interested in this, maybe this other faculty member—even though it’s the same requirement—might teach that course in a way that you would find appealing?” And directing them to resources, encouraging them to talk to faculty before they enrolled in the course if they have questions or concerns or if they’re not certain about something.

Then also asking them very blatant questions that I wish someone had asked me when I was an undergraduate. What are your plans after you graduate? What are you doing to achieve that goal? What information do you need to know, and how are you going to get it moving forward?

I took time off [after graduating] because I’d never had those conversations. Maybe people at the university thought I was having it with my family. My family may have thought I was having it with people at the university. I’m not sure where I lost the memo, but it just didn’t happen. Before, someone had always come along and said, “Apply for this,” and it was a very structured thing. That’s not how life after graduation works at all. So I ask those questions I wish someone had asked me.

Inside Higher Ed: What is student success to you?

MacLeod: It’s not for me to define for someone else what success looks like. I have my own ideas, but I think it’s wrong to impose that on other people, because success can look like so many different things.

In general, I feel that student success is they graduate from the program, and they feel good about that. That there’s not regret that they should have gone someplace else, but also that we’ve equipped them with the skills in their personal and in their professional life to face the challenges that will inevitably come and to be able to surmount them.

The first couple years after graduation for everyone is hard—that’s just kind of the nature of the beast—but that they are prepared for, that they can get through it, and know that there’s something on the other side. that they are confident in their skills, that they will figure it out and then end up on the other side in a career that they find fulfilling in some manner, being able to contribute to the community, if that’s their goal, in a way that is meaningful to them. And hopefully happy alumni that are talking to our current students that and sharing their experiences.

Inside Higher Ed: What are your long-term goals in this new role?

MacLeod: It feels like so much of academic life is keeping your head above water for now.

I think that in the long term, I’d really like to see a more collaborative campus culture, where faculty members are supporting each other in their endeavors, maybe a bit more. It’s not that my colleagues are unsupportive, but we don’t always ask each other or are aware of the ways in which our research overlaps and we could actually be doing more—whether it’s with our teaching or where we could be drawing more on each other’s skills and knowledge base.

I’m still really new at this … so I think right now my priority is still listening, rather than planning for the future.

Seeking stories from campus leaders, faculty members and staff for our Student Success focus. Share here.

Source link

January 30, 2025
Ducking and covering is no way to protect higher ed

This is one of those times I’m glad I’m in charge of only myself. I can’t imagine the pressure of leading an organization—like a higher ed institution—that is dependent on support from the federal government for its literal day-to-day operations.

Also, I am aware of the old saw about free advice … it’s worth what you pay for it.

Nonetheless, I’m going to venture some advice for institutions experiencing the assault of the opening 10 or so days of the second Trump presidency.

Opinions may differ on exactly what is happening, but I’m convinced that New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie is correct in saying, “Donald Trump is waging war on the American system of government.”

If you believe this is true, there’s no room for accommodation. Ending democratic governance leaves no room for the kind of higher education that has made the U.S. the envy of the world.

You’ve got to resist, all of it, actively, with as much countering force as possible. An administration that without notice “pauses” NIH and NSF activities, that even stops disbursement through the Office of Management and Budget, is not merely reorienting the government around the new president’s priorities. It seems clear they either intend to destroy or hobble higher education to make it a vassal state.

I’ve got myself thinking of a couple of dynamics that I think are important to recognize in the moment.

One is the problem of “institutional awe,” which I draw from the term “vocational awe,” coined by Fobazi Ettarh from observing the work of librarians such as herself. She calls vocational awe “the set of ideas, values and assumptions librarians have about themselves and the profession that result in notions that libraries as institutions are inherently good, sacred notions, and therefore beyond critique.”

Ettarh identifies vocational awe as a route to self-exploitation as librarians are called upon to sacrifice their own well-being in order to preserve the operations of the library itself.

“Institutional awe” is a bit different, and something perpetrated not by the laborers, but by leadership, where it’s judged that the continued operation of the institution is of the utmost importance, no matter the sacrifices required by the individual stakeholders, or the damage to the underlying mission of the institution.

Under institutional awe, as long as the doors remain open, anything goes.

There are already some worrying signs of this mentality in terms of some pre-emptive compliance with merely perceived threats from the Trump administration. In some cases, these moves appear to be motivated by a desire for administrations to use Trump policy as a rationale for either seizing more control or silencing dissent that’s causing them headaches. I do not want to think uncharitably of some of the leaders of the nation’s higher education institutions, but “Trump made me do it” appears to be a handy rationale for dodging responsibility.

In other cases, I think we’re looking at rank cowardice, as in Northeastern University’s decision to purge any public-facing information that even references diversity, equity and inclusion. I suppose this suggests that Northeastern was not particularly committed to these things, as they are setting a land speed record for “obeying in advance.”

The other big-picture caution I have is something I wrote about recently, to remember that there is always something next, and decisions you make in the present shape what that next thing is going to be.

It seems clear to me that higher ed institutions are going to be fundamentally different both because of the efforts of Trump and some red state governors to make them over to something that must express fealty to their preferred vision, and simply because we’ve reached an endpoint regarding a prior vision of postsecondary education as something that should be accessible to all.

A long-standing belief of many conservatives, that too many people go to college—and by too many people they mean women and minority students—that has been simmering under the surface for decades has now come into the open as overt attempts to, in the words of Victor Ray, “resegregate America” under the guise of challenging diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

I understand the urge to treat what’s going on as perhaps elevated but still normal government functioning in line with what happens during any transition from one party to the other holding the White House. Members of the Democratic Party themselves seem to be acting according to this view.

But how much evidence is necessary to recognize that this is a delusion and that pre-emptive appeasement or ducking and covering while hoping the blows land elsewhere is not going to work?

While public trust in higher education has declined in recent years—mostly along partisan lines—it does not follow that most Americans would like to see the important work of teaching and research be utterly destroyed.

As much as possible, institutions should act in solidarity with each other, considering an attack on one institution an attack on all, given that your institution will be next at some point.

In the words of Alexander Hamilton, as imagined by Lin-Manuel Miranda, “If you stand for nothing, what will you fall for?”

Source link

January 30, 2025
What would a TikTok ban mean for higher ed?

Less than two weeks into President Donald Trump’s second term, he’s already testing the limits of executive power.

As one of his first actions in office, he wielded that power to resume Americans’ access to TikTok—the popular Chinese-owned short-form video app 47 percent of college students use on a daily basis—after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a law banning it.

Last April, Congress banned companies from distributing, maintaining or updating a “foreign adversary controlled application,” specifically those “operated, directly or indirectly” by TikTok or its parent company, ByteDance Ltd. As a result, TikTok went dark for about 12 hours two days before Trump, who had previously supported the idea of a TikTok ban, took office. Almost immediately after his inauguration, he issued an executive order halting enforcement of the ban for 75 days, while the administration determines “the appropriate course forward in an orderly way that protects national security while avoiding an abrupt shutdown” of TikTok.

Some experts say Trump’s order falls into murky legal territory, and TikTok’s fate in the U.S. remains unclear. But banning a social media app that 170 million Americans use as a tool for self-expression and self-promotion would have numerous implications for both college students and their institutions. A 2022 study found two-thirds of teenagers were using TikTok to consume a wide range of information, including news, tutorials, entertainment and advertisements, making it a vital recruiting tool for colleges.

“TikTok represents a pivotal transition point between what was the social media–driven higher ed of the last 15 years and now the artificial intelligence–powered, immersive digital future that’s going to define the next decade,” said J. Israel Balderas, an assistant professor of journalism at Elon University and a lawyer specializing in First Amendment cases. “TikTok isn’t just a social media platform somehow caught in this geopolitical battle. It represents a transition point in digital history.”

Last week, Inside Higher Ed asked Balderas five questions about what a TikTok ban would mean for students, faculty and institutions. The interview has been edited for concision and clarity.

1. What are the implications of a TikTok ban for the culture of higher education?

TikTok has become a dominant space for student expression, activism and social engagement. For professors, it also has become a place of research and AI literacy. Losing the platform means that student organizers would lose a mobilization tool. TikTok has played a critical role, not just in campus activism—from political movements to social justice campaigns—but it has also been a way for others to communicate and play a role in the marketplace of ideas.

What’s most concerning to me is the potential chilling effect on student expression. Students will start to question whether other digital spaces will face similar crackdowns. For example, if TikTok can be banned under the guise of national security, what will happen to other foreign-owned or politically sensitive platforms? Will they be next?

Universities would also lose a primary storytelling platform. You have campus life blogs; you have student-run media accounts. TikTok allows institutions and students to shape their narrative in a way that no other platform currently allows.

2. Do you think there’s justification for a TikTok ban?

It depends on how you weigh national security risks versus free speech rights. The Chinese government could potentially use TikTok’s recommendation engine to shape political discourse, suppress content or even promote certain narratives. But we’ve been here before with that. We were here in 1919 with Schenck v. United States and Abrams v. United States that questioned influence from socialists and communists. What we discovered is that the marketplace of ideas theory works and the truth rises.

While the national security argument is valid, why is TikTok being singled out when U.S.-based platforms with equally invasive data practices, like Meta, Google and X, remain untouched? The First Amendment doesn’t protect the companies from regulation, but it does protect Americans’ right to access information.

J. Israel Balderas is a journalism professor at Elon University and a First Amendment lawyer.

3. Could such a ban really be enforced? What might college students do to get around it?

Banning a social media app in a free society is incredibly difficult.

Big tech being so powerful and so close to power in Washington also creates a very gray legal area, because Apple and Google control access to mobile apps. If they refuse to reinstate TikTok, then enforcement becomes a de facto reality even without the government directly blocking access. But what we saw earlier this month, with Trump’s intervention to reinstate TikTok, shows that enforcement can be overridden by executive power. So, it’s unclear how consistently a ban could be applied, but enforcement of a ban is far more complicated than either the courts or Congress can anticipate.

College students are digital natives, and they adapt to these things by bypassing restrictions. They can use VPNs [virtual private networks], which are already widely used in countries with restricted internet laws, like China. Students could also download it from unofficial sources, instead of the traditional app stores. They can also use alternative apps, like the other, increasingly popular Chinese-owned app, RedNote.

Somebody will find an emerging app, especially now in the world of AI, where AI is open source. You can take the backbone of TikTok, and with AI and proper coding you can create the same kind of environment as TikTok. So how many more clones out there would that be, right?

4. How would a TikTok ban shape colleges’ digital literacy efforts in the age of AI?

A TikTok ban would be a blow to digital literacy and AI education. This is the moment when we need to be talking about AI education and what it means for the workforce, students and us as faculty members, who are teaching that it’s not just about facts and knowledge. It’s about teaching students how to ask the right questions and how to connect the dots.

TikTok opens the door to asking students what it is the algorithm knows about you, if that’s an ethical thing and if they want it. It’s not about shaming students for their choices. It’s about teaching them to think critically about what they’re doing and then letting them decide what it means for their lives and relationships.

If the government can decide what content is good or bad for the population, we’d have to rethink what it means to have AI literacy in the curriculum.

5. TikTok is caught in a geopolitical crossfire. Is there a teachable moment in all of this?

The fact that we are having these conversations is the best part of this entire fiasco. Because students are questioning if the government can really do these things. What about the future? What about AI? Will the government be able to say that it’s not suppressing speech, but just suppressing the person who’s writing these codes or the person who’s putting these algorithms into the marketplace? Students are at least trying to figure out what is the role the government will play going forward when it comes to ideas that are not popular.

If they’re being more critical about those things, then as a professor, I’ve done my job.

Source link

January 30, 2025
Degree Apprenticeships in England: What Can We Learn from the Experiences of Apprentices, Employers, and Education and Training Providers?

By Josh Patel, Researcher at the Edge Foundation.

Degree Apprenticeships (DAs) were launched in 2015, as a novel work-based learning route to obtaining a degree. On their introduction, then Prime Minister David Cameron said they would ‘give people a great head start, combining a full degree with real practical skills gained from work and the financial security of a regular pay packet’. Since then, they have taken the higher education sector by storm. Their growth has been the key factor in the expansion of higher apprenticeships from 43,800 starts in 2015/16 to 273,700 in 2023/24, a rise from 4.8% to 35% of all apprenticeships. They have stimulated innovative models of delivery and new and productive relationships between employers and providers. Former Skills Minister Robert Halfon remarked that ‘Degree Apprenticeships’ were his ‘two favourite words in the English language’.

DAs have, however, recently come under scrutiny. Concerns persist that the growth of DAs and their high cost – reported in the media as growing from 2% of the apprenticeship budget in 2017/18 to 21% in 2021 – might crowd out opportunities for young entrants to the workforce, as DAs are primarily taken by existing employees. The suitability of DAs as instruments to improve upward social mobility has been contested. Meanwhile, the government is drawing up plans to increase the flexibility of the Apprenticeship Levy through which Degree Apprenticeships can currently be funded, asking employers ‘to rebalance their funding for apprenticeships… to invest in younger workers’.

Our report, ‘Degree Apprenticeships in England: What Can We Learn from the Experiences of Apprentices, Employers, and Education and Training Providers?’, written in collaboration with colleagues from the Universities of Bath, Huddersfield, and Oxford, was published on Tuesday and is a timely intervention into these discussions. Here, we present the evidence for some our policy recommendations, gathered from nearly 100 interviews with stakeholders including large employers and SMEs, providers, degree apprentices, and policymakers.

Engaging employers

The government needs to consider a more systematic approach that serves to rationalise the way that employers are supported to offer a wide range of work-based opportunities. As Edge has identified in other programmes, such as T Levels or plans to provide universal work experience through the government’s Youth Guarantee, DAs are restricted by the number of employers willing to engage. We repeatedly heard evidence of the difficulties ‘resource-poor’ employers had in engaging with the design of apprenticeship standards and participating fully in collaboration with providers. As one SME told us contributing to the design and development of a DA ‘doesn’t give me any benefit now, and I’m impatient’.

The government needs to develop a coherent strategy for DAs with a particular focus on support for SMEs, including improved awareness of levy transfer schemes. Involvement in DAs is often based on being ‘in the know’ and contacts with providers and local authorities. In our ‘Learning from the past’ stream of work, we reviewed Education Business Partnerships, as an example of intermediary organisations, noting both their strengths and shortcomings, which could inform effective initiatives for supporting employers.

Reducing complexity

With the creation of Skills England, the government should take the opportunity to review and simplify the process of design, delivery and quality assurance for DAs, and ensure regulatory elements work together. DAs currently draw in a large number of bodies including the OfS, IfATE, regulatory bodies, professional bodies and Ofsted. Providers told us that this had created a complex landscape of ‘many masters’ where lines of accountability are blurred and innovation is stifled. Providers described ‘overregulation’ as limiting ‘our ability to go off-piste’, and while the process could be constructive, providers were unconvinced of its added value. ‘Does that add to the quality?’ one provider asked. ‘I don’t think it necessarily does’.

Skills England’s remit includes shaping technical education to respond to skills needs, and its incorporation of IfATE has already begun. As a first exercise, it could review the regulatory requirements to remove any duplication and contradictions and then consult with the sector to devise a simpler, clearer mechanism for providers to report.

Increasing flexibility

These difficulties meant that, while we found examples of excellent integration of academic learning and the workplace, concerns persisted as to the vocational relevance and obsolescence of learning, particularly in fast-moving sectors such as IT and mental health provision. One employer involved in delivery said they told their apprentices: ‘we have to teach you this so you get through your apprenticeship, but actually in practice that is not the way it’s done any longer’.

In other countries, such as the Netherlands, a proportion (up to 20-25%) of an apprenticeship standard is kept flexible to be agreed between the employer and provider so that it can take better account of the current and changing situation in that particular industry, location and employer – such flexibility could be piloted in the UK.

…without compromise

The government’s commitment to adapting the levy into a ‘Growth and Skills Levy’, offers opportunities to improve DA delivery. Diversification was not a major consideration for the majority of employers when recruiting, though we certainly did hear evidence from those with a strong sense of their social corporate responsibility. As one SME put it:

there are too many people in the IT industry that are like me. So we’re talking middle-aged white guys. […] Now, DAs allow people who don’t necessarily, wouldn’t consider getting into this industry from a variety of backgrounds, creeds, colours…

We recommended in our Flex Without Compromise report that the government should take a measured approach to levy reform to minimise the risk that a broadening of scope diminishes the opportunities available particularly for younger people and newer entrants to the labour market. It should consider modelling the impact of differentiating levy funding available for DAs by either or both age and staff status, and diversification of the workforce. This could be a powerful mechanism to encourage employers to focus DA opportunities on younger people and on new recruits but would need to be considered carefully to allow for continued expansion of DAs.

These initiatives might help address existing challenges and enhance the efficacy of Degree Apprenticeships in fostering equitable access and meeting the needs of learners and employers.

To find out more about Edge and to read the report in full, visit www.edge.co.uk

Source link

January 30, 2025
Grant reviews at NSF and NIH still paused

Some of President Donald Trump’s executive orders ban funding to diversity, equity and inclusion programs or activities as well as the promotion of so-called gender ideology.

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

The Trump administration on Wednesday walked back its plan to freeze trillions in federal grants and loans, though a review of thousands of federal programs continues, along with a pause on grant reviews at the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health.

A federal judge blocked the plan from taking effect Tuesday night, but the proposal, outlined in a two-page memo, raised a number of questions and concerns from higher ed leaders who warned of devastating consequences. Had the order taken effect, it could have cut off millions in federal aid to colleges, though not federal student loans or Pell Grants. Congressional Democrats and others called the decision to rescind the memo a victory but criticized the Trump administration for causing chaos and confusion.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on social media that rescinding the memo was “not a rescission of the federal funding freeze,” adding that “the president’s [executive orders] on federal funding remain in full force and effect and will be rigorously implemented.”

So, the White House is still moving forward with plans to stop funding programs that are at odds with the president’s executive orders. In the last week, President Trump has issued executive orders that banned funding for diversity, equity and inclusion programs and “gender ideology” as well as cracked down on illegal immigration, among other issues.

In order to comply with those orders, the National Science Foundation halted grant reviews this week, even before the memo from the Office of Management and Budget. The National Institutes of Health also canceled meetings key to reviewing research grant applications.

The disruption to federal research funding has set university researchers and scientists on edge, and the grant reviews are still on hold, according to numerous sources within the academic research community. On Wednesday, the National Science Foundation said its top priority was to resume funding actions.

“We are working expeditiously to conduct a comprehensive review of our projects, programs and activities to be compliant with the existing executive orders,” a statement posted online reads.

NSF said that all grantees must comply with the orders and cease “all non-compliant grant and award activities.”

“In particular, this may include, but is not limited to conferences, trainings, workshops, considerations for staffing and participant selection, and any other grant activity that uses or promotes the use of diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) principles and frameworks or violates federal anti-discrimination laws,” the statement said. “Please work with your institutional research office to assist you in complying with the executive orders.”

In addition to the temporary pause, the Office of Management and Budget ordered federal agencies to review more than 2,600 programs by Feb. 7 to ensure they comply with the executive orders. It’s unclear whether that deadline remains now that OMB rescinded the memo.

At the Education Department, programs subject to review include TRIO, Pell Grants, student loans and grants for childcare on campus, as well as those that support students with disabilities and minority-serving institutions. Currently, neither the $229 million fund for Hispanic-serving institutions nor the $400 million grant program for historically Black colleges and universities is included in the review.

As part of the review, agencies will have to answer a series of questions for each program, including whether the programs fund DEI, support “illegal aliens” or promote “gender ideology.”

For programs that might not comply with the executive orders, OMB officials wrote in further guidance sent Tuesday that agency leaders could consult the office “to begin to unwind these objectionable policies without a pause in the payments.”

Kathryn Palmer contributed to this report.

Source link

January 29, 2025
Raw Deals in Higher Education

In a 2022 interview with Gary Stocker of College Vialbility App, we discussed the idea of bad deals in higher education. And as the College Meltdown advances, we expect many more bad deals to occur, both for institutions and consumers.

Already, in early 2025, we have seen documentation of the collapse of St. Augustine University, a 146-year old HBCU in North Carolina. We expect many more collapses and closures like this, and difficult mergers, to occur in the coming years. The immense greed we saw in for-profit higher education a decade ago we’ll see in public and non-profit private education.

HEI will attempt to document these events not merely as news, but as part of a larger pattern of criminality in US higher education, not just at the institutional level, but at the state and federal level, and with predatory banks and other investors who are working on these deals behind the scenes. We also plan to explain how this predatory behavior damages communities. Communities with people.

Source link

January 29, 2025
Survey gauges whom college students trust most
Undergraduates’ level of trust in their institution has been positively linked to individual student outcomes, as well as the broader institutional culture and reputation. So trust matters. And a new analysis of data from Inside Higher Ed’s annual Student Voice survey with Generation Lab shows which groups of campus employees students trust the most—and least—to promote an enriching experience.

Asked to rate their level of trust in the people in various roles across campus to ensure that they and other students have a positive college experience, nearly all students have some (43 percent) or a lot (44 percent) of trust in professors. This is consistent across institution size, classification (both two-year and four-year) and sector, though students at private nonprofit institutions are somewhat more likely than their peers at public institutions to say they have the highest level of trust in their professors (51 percent versus 42 percent, respectively).

Methodology

Nearly three in 10 respondents (28 percent) to Inside Higher Ed’s annual Student Voice survey, fielded in May 2024 in partnership with Generation Lab, attend two-year institutions, and closer to four in 10 (37 percent) are post-traditional students, meaning they attend two-year institutions and/or are 25 or older. The 5,025-student sample is nationally representative. The survey’s margin of error is 1.4 percent.

Other highlights from the full survey and from follow-up student polls on key issues can be found here, while the full main survey data set, with interactive visualizations, is available here. In addition to questions about academic life, the main annual survey asked questions on health and wellness, the college experience, and preparation for life after college.

Trust in professors is also relatively consistent across a swath of student characteristics, including gender, household income level and even political affiliation, with 47 percent and 44 percent of Democratic- and Republican-identifying students, respectively, having a lot of trust in them. By race, however, Black students (32 percent) are less likely to say they have a lot of trust in professors than are white (47 percent), Asian American and Pacific Islander (42 percent), and Hispanic students (41 percent).

Academic advisers come next in the list of which groups students trust a lot (36 percent), followed by campus safety and security officers (32 percent). The trust in security is perhaps surprising, giving heightened concerns about overpolicing in the U.S., but some general public opinion polling—including this 2024 study by Gallup—indicates that confidence in policing is up year over year. That’s as confidence in other institutions (including higher education) remains at a low. In a 2022 Student Voice survey, undergraduates were about equally likely to have a lot of trust in campus safety officers.

Toward the bottom of the list of campus groups students trust a lot is financial aid staff (23 percent). This finding may be influenced by the tenor of national conversations about college costs and value, as well as last year’s chaotic Free Application for Federal Student Aid overhaul. Revised national data suggests that the FAFSA mess did not have the negative impact on enrollment that was feared. But another Inside Higher Ed/Generation Lab flash survey in 2024 found that a third of students disapproved of the way their institution communicated with them about the changes, with lower-income students especially likely to say this communication had been poor.

Victoria Nguyen, a teaching fellow at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education and a program coordinator in the Office for Community Conduct at the university, recalls worrying about the financial aid process during her undergraduate years. “The issue is transparency and understanding … Did my scholarship go through? Are they going to reimburse me [for tuition paid]? … It’s not a lack of trust, but since there’s no transparency it feels as though financial aid staff does not have that care,” says Nguyen, who earned her bachelor of science degree in 2023.

At the very bottom of the trust hierarchy are presidents and other executive-level college and university leaders, with just 18 percent of students expressing a lot of trust in this group. It’s been a tough few semesters for college leaders, with presidents, in particular, in the hot seat—including before Congress—over their responses to campus dynamics surrounding the war in Gaza. And those current tensions aside, the presidency appears to be getting harder and harder to hold on to, with average tenures shrinking.

In any case, the newly released Student Voice data shows that students, too, may be losing faith in presidents and other senior leaders. These findings are relatively consistent across institution and student type.

Closing the Presidential Trust Gap

One recent study that sought to identify essential competencies for any modern college president ranked trust-building No. 1 in a list of seven that emerged from focus groups and surveys of presidents themselves: Some 96 percent emphasized that presidents need to behave “in a way that is trustworthy, consistent and accountable.”

Jorge Burmicky, assistant professor of higher education leaders and policy studies at Howard University and co-author of that study, says that while this particular survey item on trust-building was drafted without a specific population in mind, presidents in focus groups emphasized the importance of building trust with students, as well as with faculty members. Participants’ ideas for building trust included bringing campus stakeholders into decision-making processes, minimizing surprises, supporting shared governance and showing consistency by aligning actions with personal and institutional values. Respondents also identified listening to and understanding the needs of various campus groups as a related, critical skill.

Presidents “shared that it was important for them to maintain visibility on campus and that they often took time to visit with students as a way of staying connected to their campus,” Burmicky notes. He also encourages further study on what students—not just presidents—think about core competencies for presidents and means of building trust, including and perhaps especially around communication. Some presidents in his study shared feelings of frustration that students were not reading weekly or monthly presidential newsletters, and he advises that presidents develop trust in a way that works for their campus. Town hall–style gatherings might work in smaller settings, but not others, for instance.

“There is clearly a perception gap between students and presidents on important issues such as trust-building and feeling heard,” he says. “Presidents ought to reach students where they’re at by using outlets that are relevant to their day-to-day lives,” such as social media or athletic events.

Nguyen of Harvard would like to see college presidents showing care by attending more events where they can listen to students’ concerns, such as student organization meetings and workshops, or meetings of task forces that include students. Leaders’ “presence in the room matters so much more than they think,” she says.

Tone and authenticity are additional considerations: Generic messages “do not resonate with most people as they lack empathy, as expressed by our participants,” says Burmicky.

Nguyen adds that campus leaders should assess their communication to ensure they’re not “using tactics from 20 years ago that don’t match our student population anymore.”

Faculty ‘Trust Moves’

Another study published last month shed new light on the concept of student-faculty trust, seeking to better understand how students perceive its value. The study, involving hundreds of engineering students in Sweden, identified showing care and concern as the most important trust-building approach for professors. Teaching skills also mattered.

Co-author Rachel Forsyth, of Lund University, explains that students “seem to want to have confidence that the teacher knows what they are talking about, is able to communicate their ideas and will attempt to build an effective relationship with them.” Student participants indicated that they could learn without trust, “but that the process felt more effective if it were present and that they had more options in terms of supporting that learning and extending their engagement with the materials.”

The question of faculty trust is only gaining urgency with the rise of artificial intelligence–powered teaching tools, she adds.

Peter Felten, executive director of the Center for Engaged Learning, professor of history and assistant provost for teaching and learning at Elon University, notes that prior research in this area has defined trust as both “students’ willingness to take risks based on their judgment that the teacher is committed to student success” (original study here) and as “the perception that the instructor understands the challenges facing students as they progress through the course, accepts students for who they are and cares about the educational welfare of students.”

Felten says that his own research—completed with Forsyth and involving experienced faculty members teaching large science, engineering, technology and math courses—found there are four categories of “trust moves” faculty can make in their teaching:
1. Cognition, or showing knowledge, skill and competence
2. Affect, or showing care and concern for students
3. Identity, or showing sensitivity to how identities influence learning and teaching
4. Values, showing that they are acting on professional or cultural principles
These trust moves, Felton says, include “not only what instructors do and say, but how they design their courses, how they assess students and more.”

What do you do to build trust in your classroom or on your campus? Let us know by sharing your ideas here.
Source link
January 29, 2025
We need new ways to protect academic freedom (opinion)

Katherine Franke, formerly a law professor at Columbia University, is just the latest of many academics who have found themselves in hot water because of something they said outside the classroom. Others have been fired or resigned under pressure for what they posted online or said in other off-campus venues.

In each of those cases, the “offending party” invoked academic freedom or freedom of speech as a defense to pressures brought on them, or procedures initiated against them, by university administrators. The traditional discourse of academic freedom or free speech on campus has focused on threats from inside the academy of the kind that led Franke and others to leave their positions.

Today, threats to academic freedom and free speech are being mounted from the outside by governments or advocacy groups intent on policing colleges and universities and exposing what they see as a suffocating orthodoxy. As Darrell M. West wrote in 2022, “In recent years, we have seen a number of cases where political leaders upset about criticism have challenged professors and sought to intimidate them into silence.”

We have seen this act before, and the record of universities is not pretty.

During the 1940s and 1950s, an anticommunist crusade swept the nation, and universities were prime targets. In that period, “faculty and staff at institutions of higher learning across the country experienced increased scrutiny from college administrators and trustees, as well as Congress and the FBI, for their speech, their academic work, and their political activities.”

And many universities put up no resistance.

Today, some believe, as Nina Jankowicz puts it, that we are entering “an era of real censorship the likes of which the United States has never seen. How will universities respond?”

If academic freedom and freedom of expression are to be meaningful, colleges and universities must not only resist the temptation to punish or purge people whose speech they and others may find offensive; they must provide new protections against external threats, especially when it comes to extramural speech by members of their faculties.

They must become active protectors and allies of faculty who are targeted.

As has long been recognized, academic freedom and free speech are not identical. In 2007, Rachel Levinson, then the AAUP senior counsel, wrote, “It can … be difficult to explain the distinction between ‘academic freedom’ and ‘free speech rights under the First Amendment’—two related but analytically distinct legal concepts.”

Levinson explained, “Academic freedom … addresses rights within the educational contexts of teaching, learning, and research both in and outside the classroom.” Free speech requires that there be no regulation of expression on “all sorts of topics and in all sorts of settings.”

Ten years after Levinson, Stanley Fish made a splash when he argued, “Freedom of speech is not an academic value.” As Fish explained, “Accuracy of speech is an academic value … [because of] the goal of academic inquiry: getting a matter of fact right.” Free speech, in contrast, means “something like a Hyde Park corner or a town-hall meeting where people take turns offering their opinions on pressing social matters.”

But as Keith Whittington observes, the boundaries that Levinson and Fish think can be drawn between academic freedom and free speech are not always recognized, even by organizations like the AAUP. “In its foundational 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure,” Whittington writes, “the AAUP asserted that academic freedom consists of three elements: freedom of research, freedom of teaching, and ‘freedom of extramural utterance and action.’”

In 1940, Whittington explains, “the organization reemphasized its position that ‘when they speak or write as citizens,’ professors ‘should be free from institutional censorship or discipline.’”

Like the AAUP, Whittington opposes “institutional censorship” for extramural speech. That is crucially important.

But in the era in which academics now live and work, is it enough?

We know that academics report a decrease in their sense of academic freedom. A fall 2024 survey by Inside Higher Ed found that 49 percent of professors experienced a decline over the prior year in their sense of academic freedom as it pertains to extramural speech.

To foster academic freedom and free speech on campus or in the world beyond the campus, colleges and universities need to move from merely tolerating the expression of unpopular ideas to a more affirmative stance in which they take responsibility for fostering it. It is not enough to tell faculty that the university will respect academic freedom and free expression if they are afraid to exercise those very rights.

Faculty may be fearful that saying the “wrong” thing will result in being ostracized or shunned. John Stuart Mill, one of the great advocates for free expression, warned about what he called “the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling.” That tyranny could chill the expression of unpopular ideas.

In 1952, during the McCarthy era, Supreme Court justice Felix Frankfurter also worried about efforts to intimidate academics that had “an unmistakable tendency to chill that free play of the spirit which all teachers ought especially to cultivate and practice.”

Beyond the campus, faculty may rightly fear that if they say things that offend powerful people or government officials, they will be quickly caught up in an online frenzy or will be targeted. If they think their academic institutions will not have their back, they may choose the safety of silence over the risk of saying what they think.

Whittington gets it right when he argues that “Colleges and universities should encourage faculty to bring their expertise to bear on matters of public concern and express their informed judgments to public audiences when doing so might be relevant to ongoing public debates.” The public interest is served when we “design institutions and practices that facilitate the diffusion of that knowledge.”

Those institutions and practices need to be adapted to the political environment in which we live. That is why it is so important that colleges and universities examine their policies and practices and develop new ways of supporting their faculty if extramural speech gets them in trouble. This may mean providing financial resources as well as making public statements in defense of those faculty members.

Colleges and universities should also consider making their legal counsel available to offer advice and representation and using whatever political influence they wield on behalf of a faculty member who is under attack.

Without those things, academics may be “free from” the kind of university action that led Franke to leave Columbia but still not be “free to” use their academic freedom and right of free expression for the benefit of their students, their professions and the society at large.

Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College.

Source link

January 29, 2025