Tag: Education

  • Indiana governor issues executive order eliminating DEI

    Indiana governor issues executive order eliminating DEI

    Indiana governor Mike Braun signed an executive order Wednesday eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion in all state agencies and replacing it with what he’s calling “MEI”—merit, excellence and innovation.

    The order requires all executive branch state agencies to uphold the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard, which prohibited the consideration of race in college admissions, noting that “eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it” and that equal protection applies “without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality.”

    Under the order, government offices cannot use state funds, property or resources to support DEI initiatives, require job candidates to issue DEI statements or “mandate any person to disclose their pronouns.” State agencies must review their individual programs and policies for compliance by April 30 and provide a written report to the governor by July 1.

    The order also closes the government’s Office of the Chief Equity, Opportunity and Inclusion Officer, which was created in 2020 under Braun’s predecessor, Governor Eric Holcomb.

    This makes Indiana the second state this year to eliminate DEI by executive order, following West Virginia.

    Among the other executive orders Braun signed during his first week as governor was one requiring the state personnel office to review all job postings and eliminate degree requirements for positions where they’re not necessary.

    Source link

  • Prof. says he was fired for email calling U.S. racist, fascist

    Prof. says he was fired for email calling U.S. racist, fascist

    After Donald Trump was elected president in 2016, some faculty canceled classes to allow themselves and students time to process a result that shocked the media and academe.

    Campus responses to Trump’s re-election in November seemed more muted. But at Millsaps College, a private Mississippi institution of roughly 600 students, James Bowley said he canceled his Abortion and Religions class meeting the day after the election.

    Bowley, a tenured religious studies professor, told Inside Higher Ed the class had only three students, and he knew they were upset about Trump’s re-election. He said he sent them an email with the subject line “no class today” and one line of text: “need time to mourn and process this racist fascist country.”

    For what he wrote in that email, Bowley said, the college swiftly barred him from campus and, on Tuesday, fired him—ending his more than 22 years of employment. He’s now fighting to get his job back and said he remains on the payroll while he appeals to the institution’s Board of Trustees.

    “This seems to me like the very definition of censorship, and of course it will make every single faculty member fearful of the administration, fearful of sharing their own opinions,” Bowley said. “There are hundreds of historians who would say that the election was a victory for fascism and racism,” he added.

    The college didn’t provide interviews Thursday and didn’t answer written questions. The situation appears to be another example of faculty members being punished for commenting on current events—but this time involving communication to a small group of students, according to Bowley. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech and academic freedom advocacy group, is pushing for Bowley’s reinstatement.

    “This is absolutely absurd,” said Haley Gluhanich, a senior program officer in FIRE’s campus rights department. She said that when Bowley was initially suspended, “he was charged with an offense that does not exist in any of the handbooks, so they completely just made up a violation of policy.”

    The Email Gets Out

    Bowley said one of the students who received the email shared it on Instagram, approvingly, but another student whom he doesn’t know reported it to administrators. Bowley said he got a call from interim provost Stephanie Rolph on Nov. 7, the day after he sent the email, saying he was being placed on leave for it and banned from campus.

    “I was shocked, I was dumbfounded, I just could not believe it,” Bowley said.

    A copy of a letter from Rolph to Bowley, obtained by Inside Higher Ed, says this leave was “pending a review of the use of your Millsaps email account to share personal opinions with your students.” In the letter, Rolph told Bowley his email account access was cut off and further told him not to “engage with students.”

    The suspension dragged on, Bowley said, and three weeks in he filed a grievance against Rolph—which led to a hearing. Then, on Dec. 27, a grievance panel composed of three faculty members ruled that Bowley should be reinstated, according to a copy of the ruling that FIRE provided.

    “We recognize that Dr. Bowley has, on multiple occasions, shown poor judgment in his use of campus email,” the committee wrote. But during the hearing, Rolph couldn’t “identify a specific policy that Dr. Bowley violated,” they said. “No policy prohibiting the use of campus email to share personal opinions with students exists in either the Faculty Handbook or the Staff Handbook.”

    The panel further recommended that “Rolph issue a formal apology to Dr. Bowley” and that Bowley “be compensated for the loss of income resulting from his removal from the winter study abroad course he had been scheduled to teach.” Bowley told Inside Higher Ed that was a course in Mexico for which he would’ve been paid more than $6,000 and would have had his travel expenses covered. 

    The panel also concluded that Bowley wasn’t “afforded due process.” It said Rolph had argued that the both the staff handbook and the faculty handbook applied to faculty. It also mentioned unresolved tension between the interim provost’s confidentiality claims and Bowley’s right to the hearing, saying the “interim provost can refuse to answer substantive questions pertaining to the grievance.” (Michael Pickard, chair of the grievance panel and vice president of the college’s Faculty Council, said he couldn’t comment Thursday. Rolph didn’t respond to requests for comment.)

    Millsaps president Frank Neville rejected the grievance panel’s report and then fired Bowley on Tuesday, according to Bowley.

    Bowley and FIRE said there was an extra twist at the end: FIRE wrote on its website that Bowley was told in a meeting Tuesday that he was also fired for “not clarifying that his views were not that of the college’s. To be clear: The college fired Bowley for an offense … of which he wasn’t accused.”

    “The FIRE article is riddled with inaccuracies,” wrote college spokesperson Joey Lee in an email to Inside Higher Ed. He did not specify what those inaccuracies were.

    “Because Millsaps does not disclose information about individual employment matters for privacy and confidentiality reasons, the article is based on incomplete information,” he wrote.

    ‘A Bit Reckless’

    Was Bowley fired for more than the email? The college won’t specify, and Bowley didn’t provide a copy of his termination letter.

    David Wood, the Faculty Council president, told Inside Higher Ed he doesn’t exactly know why Bowley was fired, but he doesn’t think he should have been. Wood said he’s disappointed in the college administration and “the extreme nature of the punishment.” But he also said he’s disappointed in Bowley.

    “This is partly on him as well,” Wood said.

    Wood doesn’t believe academic freedom is under threat at Millsaps and thinks “everything was done legally and by our own rules at the college,” he said.

    (After this article was initially published Friday, Wood added in an email that he believes the “initial suspension was unfair and unsubstantiated” and that Rolph “exercised very poor judgment in banning James without a hearing.” Wood wrote that he believes “the review continued and shifted because” Rolph “realized she was wrong and had to go fishing for other reasons to fire James. The rest of her investigation I believe was done according to the rules of the Faculty Handbook.”)

    Asked whether college leaders were upset with Bowley for previous alleged transgressions, Wood said, “There’s a history there, I’ll just put it that way.”

    “James has been a bit reckless in the past, but I do not believe that being terminated was the appropriate punishment,” Wood said. “James likes to push the envelope, let me just put it that way … he’s not going to steer away from controversial issues.”

    Bowley, for his part, said that Rolph had verbally reprimanded him before for sharing with students and employees—through email—a brochure for a prayer vigil for Palestinians killed in Gaza that used the term “genocide.”

    But Bowley said the postelection email was the primary reason for his firing. Regarding any other accusations, he said, “The administration spent two months trying to find other things, and they allege that there were problems in my other class.”

    One accusation leveled at him was “lack of awareness of the status of assignments and grades for a course,” he said. But he wasn’t allowed to appear before a committee to answer such charges, he said, or access his emails and other documents to defend himself.

    He also said he’s protested the death penalty and celebrated the legalization of gay marriage and has ended up on the news for such demonstrations.

    “The idea of me pushing the envelope is me being an activist,” Bowley said. “I am an activist and people know that.”

    Source link

  • HBCU leaders prepare for “delicate dance” under Trump

    HBCU leaders prepare for “delicate dance” under Trump

    Mississippi Valley State University, a historically Black institution, proudly announced last month that its marching band was invited to perform at Donald Trump’s upcoming inauguration. The university’s president, Jerryl Briggs, described the invitation as a chance to “showcase our legacy” and “celebrate our culture.” A GoFundMe campaign was started in hopes of raising enough money for the Mean Green Marching Machine Band to make its debut on the national stage.

    Then the fighting started. Social media exploded with reactions to the move from within and outside of HBCU campus communities, with alumni coming down on both sides of the issue. Some condemned the university for participating in the celebration while others argued the band should embrace its moment in the spotlight. (The band is doing that, heading to the inauguration on Monday.)

    The moment felt like déjà vu. During the first Trump administration, in 2017, a group of HBCU leaders spoke with Trump during an impromptu visit to the Oval Office after they met with other government officials. A photo of their interaction with the president went viral, prompting swift backlash and skepticism. “Is it a photo op, is it an opportunity for Trump to put himself next to Black people and smile?” Llewellyn Robinson, a Howard University sophomore at the time, asked The New York Times. “Is that the situation we’re dealing with? Or is it truly a seat at the table?”

    The controversy speaks to a tension HBCU leaders face ahead of a second Trump administration, with Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress. On the one hand, they want to foster positive relationships with the powers that be and take advantage of whatever opportunities the new administration can offer their students and institutions. On the other hand, they’re serving communities with deep misgivings about the incoming president.

    Most Black voters, 83 percent, voted for Kamala Harris, reported AP VoteCast. And while that’s fewer than the 91 percent who voted for President Biden in 2020, it’s still the vast majority at a time when many Black Americans, including HBCU students, are leery of anti-DEI rhetoric and state laws advanced by Trump supporters. Some have a more tangible worry: that Trump’s talk of abolishing the U.S. Department of Education may threaten the federal financial aid that gets many HBCU students to and through college and helps often cash-starved, tuition-dependent institutions meet their bottom lines.

    HBCU leaders and scholars find themselves, once again, thinking through how to navigate a fraught political moment.

    “It is sometimes a delicate dance,” said Walter Kimbrough, interim president of Talladega College and the former president of Philander Smith College and Dillard University. He expects some HBCU presidents will avoid “high-profile photo opportunities” with members of the new administration this time around. Even so, “we have to let our constituents know, we have to work with whoever is in the White House. That’s part of the job.”

    He also, however, believes part of the job is pushing back on policies that could hurt the sector regardless of who’s in office.

    “We need to be consistent on the things that are good for us, to be advocating,” he said, “and the things that we think are problematic, we need to be brave enough to speak up against those, too.”

    But doing so can be precarious for HBCU presidents and their institutions, said Melanye Price, a political science professor and director of the Ruth J. Simmons Center for Race and Justice at Prairie View A&M University. “The question is always: Is it better to speak out with the potential of losing whatever ability you have to tend to and care for students, or figure out ways to maneuver within the context that you’re in now and still be able to help students?” Price said.

    Efforts to partner with the new Trump administration have already begun. The Thurgood Marshall College Fund, an organization representing public HBCUs, congratulated Trump in a statement after he was elected. They also praised some of the wins HBCUs achieved under his first administration, including the FUTURE Act, which made permanent additional annual funding for minority-serving institutions, and the HBCU PARTNERS Act, which required some federal agencies to submit annual plans describing how they’d make grant programs more accessible to HBCUs.

    Michael L. Lomax, president and CEO of the United Negro College Fund, which represents private HBCUs, met with Linda McMahon, Trump’s pick for education secretary, in December. He said in a press release that he found her to be a “good listener” and said they had a “productive discussion” about “issues of importance to HBCUs, HBCU students, the nation’s underserved students and how to improve the avenues of learning for all students.”

    “We will continue to work with those elected, because the needs of our institutions and students are urgent,” Lomax added. “Our motto is ‘A mind is a terrible thing to waste,’ but so is an opportunity to advance our HBCU-related goals and objectives.”

    Strategies and Priorities

    Trump has often touted his support for HBCUs during his first term, arguing in a presidential debate last summer that he “got them all funded,” though HBCU leaders have pointed out that many of these successes were initially pushed forward by Congress and signed by the president. It’s also unclear whether support for HBCUs, a meaningful issue to Black voters, will be as much of an emphasis for Trump in his final term now that he’s no longer striving for re-election.

    But HBCU leaders express optimism that they can secure some legislative wins in the next four years, given that support for the institutions has historically come from both sides of the aisle. And they plan to keep it that way.

    “While I can’t say what the future may hold, I can say that our most recent interactions with the secretary-designate seemed as if we have reason to be positive about the next steps,” said Lodriguez Murray, UNCF’s vice president of public policy and government affairs.

    HBCUs achieved some of their goals in partnership with the first Trump administration, Murray noted, including some loan forgiveness for institutions that received federal disaster relief loans as a result of Hurricane Katrina.

    Harry Williams, president and CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, noted another reason for optimism heading into the new Trump term: Most HBCUs are located in red states, so they’ve always developed and relied on positive relationships with Republican lawmakers.

    State-level challenges to DEI programming from Republican lawmakers have ramped up anxieties on HBCU campuses about the state and federal political climate for their institutions in the years ahead, Williams said. But “what we have seen, and we’re hoping to continue” is that those same states are still investing in HBCUs. For example, Tennessee recently coughed up funds to keep Tennessee State University afloat, and Florida has made some sizable investments in HBCUs in recent years, he added.

    Williams hopes the incoming administration and Congress will echo those state lawmakers in their treatment of HBCUs. “Our strategy is to continue to partner with both sides and continue to forge relationships and create opportunities for our member schools to come and visit” government officials, he said.

    Kimbrough said those visits from HBCU representatives are going to be particularly important in the years ahead. Trump had an HBCU graduate and advocate among the ranks of his first administration, he noted—his former aide Omarosa Manigault Newman. But “right now, he doesn’t have anybody who really knows HBCUs at a close [level],” he said, “so we’ve got to do a lot of teaching and educating them about what we do, what our value is to the country.”

    With those ties reinforced, HBCU leaders plan to advocate for a long-held policy wish list: higher annual funding, improvements to campuses’ infrastructure, relief for institutions in debt and increases to the Pell Grant, federal financial aid for low-income students that helps the majority of HBCU students pay for college. HBCU leaders also want federal money for campus safety and security measures after a slew of bomb threats against HBCUs in 2022, which some campus leaders contend was inadequately handled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

    “We don’t believe that a single student needs to have in their mind that something is happening to their institution simply because of what the institution is and who they are,” Murray said.

    Murray noted one more priority: increased funding for the Education Department’s Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities program, from about $400 million per year to at least $500 million, to keep pace with inflation.

    Student Fears, Faculty Concerns

    The day after the election, students in Price’s class on voting rights at Prairie View A&M discussed the results. The same worry came up over and over again: How will they pay for college if Trump abolishes the Department of Education?

    According to data from TMCF, more than 75 percent of HBCU students rely on Pell Grants, federal financial aid for low-income students. Price said it’s natural that students are worried about any policy plans that could destabilize financial aid. “There is a palpable fear about what this new administration will bring and that there’s no one to stop them,” she said.

    The students’ often tuition-dependent institutions are also vulnerable if changes in financial aid make it difficult for students to pay; most HBCUs don’t have large endowments or megadonors as a safety net.

    University of the District of Columbia professors, worried themselves, described a particular kind of pall hanging over their students ahead of Inauguration Day as they prepare for the Trump administration and new members of Congress to settle into the deep-blue district. To acknowledge and address some of students’ fears and worries, two faculty members organized a pre-inauguration teach-in today. It will begin with mindfulness practices, followed by panel discussions and speakers on Washington, D.C., history and politics and how the transition of power could affect the district.

    “Students are concerned about what the city will feel like in terms of its receptivity [and] tolerance around diversity,” said Michelle Chatman, associate professor of crime, justice and security studies and the founding director of the Mindful and Courageous Action Lab at UDC. Since Congress has more sway over D.C. than elsewhere, students also worry about programming and curriculum at the HBCU given restrictions on African American studies pushed by Republican lawmakers in other parts of the country. “We want them to feel empowered, and we want to normalize their feelings of concern.”

    Amanda Huron, a professor of interdisciplinary social sciences and political science and the director of the D.C. History Lab at UDC, said a teach-in felt like the obvious move in this tense political moment.

    “When we think, ‘well, what can we do in this moment, what can we as a university community do’—what we do is teach,” Huron said.

    She acknowledged that HBCUs have a difficult balance to strike right now. “HBCUs in the country, we want to thrive, regardless of what’s going on politically, and we need to, because we need to serve our students,” Huron said. At the same time, “we need to make sure that we are always providing spaces for critical and honest and fact-based conversation, so I think it’s important that we’re able to do both things.”

    Source link

  • How five colleges recognize the National Day of Racial Healing

    How five colleges recognize the National Day of Racial Healing

    Racial healing circles, or opportunities for community members to share stories and connect on a human level, are common activities for the National Day of Racial Healing. This year is the ninth observance of the holiday.

    AJ Watt/E+/Getty Images 

    Over the past two decades, higher education has grown exceptionally diverse, enrolling students from all backgrounds and offering opportunities for education and career development for historically underserved populations.

    This diversification of the students, staff and faculty who make up higher education also offers opportunities for institutions to promote justice and racial healing through intentional education and programming. One annual marker of this work is the National Day of Racial Healing.

    The background: The National Day of Racial Healing was established by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation in 2017 as part of the Truth, Racial Healing and Transformation (TRHT) initiative to bring people together and inspire action to build a more just and equitable world.

    The day falls on the Tuesday after Martin Luther King Jr. Day and is marked by events and activities that promote racial healing. Racial healing, as defined by the foundation, is “the experience shared by people when they speak openly and hear the truth about past wrongs and the negative impacts created by individual and systemic racism,” according to the effort’s website.

    On campus: The American Association of Colleges and Universities encourages institutions to “engage in activities, events or strategies to promote healing and foster engagement around the issues of racism, bias, inequity and injustice in our society,” according to a Dec. 18 press release. AAC&U partners with 72 institutions to establish TRHT Campus Centers, with the goal of developing 150 self-sustaining community-integrated centers.

    Some ways institutions can do this is through organizing activities, inviting faculty to connect course material to racial healing during that week, coordinating events or sharing stories on social media, according to AAC&U.

    Here’s how colleges and universities, many that host TRHT Campus Centers, plan to honor the National Day of Racial Healing.

    • Baldwin Wallace University in Ohio will host two Jacket Circles for students to participate in storytelling and deep listening to build empathy and compassion. The University of Louisville, similarly, will host Cardinal Connection Circles.
    • Emory University in Georgia will hold a three-day event, beginning on Jan. 21, that includes a keynote, lunch-and-learn panel discussion, racial healing circles, and a dinner experience.
    • Binghamton University, part of the State University of New York system, will host its first National Day of Racial Healing this year, which includes healing circles, roundtable discussions and art-based initiatives.
    • The TRHT Center at Northern Virginia Community College will partner with the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors to issue a formal proclamation in a public forum, acknowledging the importance of the day, a tradition for the two groups.
    • The University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa will take a pause today to recognize the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom, as well as the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. and the National Day of Racial Healing. The event, Hawai‘i ku‘u home aloha, which “Hawai‘i my beloved home,” honors the past, present and future of the islands.

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

    Source link

  • Turbulent times require both immediate and long views

    Turbulent times require both immediate and long views

    I don’t remember where I heard this bit of wisdom, if I read it in a book or someone else told it to me, but it’s something I’ve carried around for a while now: There’s always going to be a next, until there isn’t.

    My interpretation is a kind of combination of “this too shall pass” with “time marches on,” along with a reminder of the certainty that at some point all things and all people cease to exist.

    (I find that last bit sort of comforting, but maybe I’m weird that way.)

    It comes in handy when thinking about both exciting and difficult times. What is happening in a moment is not eternal, and something else will be coming along. In order to make that next thing as positive and beneficial as possible, we have to deal with both the present and those possible futures.

    I think this mindset might be helpful to anyone who is considering the coming couple of years for higher education and bracing for the possible impact of a presidential administration that appears hostile to the work of colleges and universities and intends to bring this perceived hostile group to heel. I’m concerned that many institutions are not considering that there’s always going to be a next, and short-term accommodations are going to result in long-term problems.

    What comes next will be far worse than it needs to be.

    It’s strange to think that institutions that are so well established with such long histories should act with such fragility in the face of present uncertainty, but there are signs of what scholar of authoritarianism Timothy Snyder calls “obeying in advance” everywhere.

    As reported by IHE’s Ryan Quinn, Texas A&M, along with other public higher ed institutions in the state, following threats ginned up by right-wing conservative billionaire-backed activist Christopher Rufo, has ended their participation in the PhD Project, a conference meant to help increase the number of doctoral students identifying as “Black, African American, Latino, Hispanic American, Native American or Canadian Indigenous.”

    The institutions had previously participated for a number of years but have now rescinded their sponsorship because of Texas law SB 17, banning DEI programs at public universities. Texas governor Greg Abbott threatened to fire A&M president Mark Welsh. Welsh folded, issuing a statement that said, “While the proper process for reviewing and approving attendance at such events was followed, I don’t believe we fully considered the spirit of our state law in making the initial decision to participate. We need to be sure that attendance at those events is aligned with the very clear guidance we’ve been given by our governing bodies.”

    The intention behind these attacks by Rufo and his backers is to, essentially, resegregate higher education under an entirely twisted definition of “fairness.” This point of view is ascendant, as multiple states have banned so-called DEI initiatives, and the rolling back of affirmative action in college admissions has already resulted in a decline in Black first-year students, something most pronounced at “elite” institutions.

    So, this is now, but in acting this way now, what’s likely to be next? Will Texas A&M regress to a de facto policy of segregation? Is this healthy for the institution, for the state of Texas?

    I grant that it is possible that a program of resegregation is consistent with the desires of a majority of the state’s citizens and the elected legislators are simply reflecting the desire of their constituency. If so, so be it … I guess. I wonder how long the institutions can last when it allows Chris Rufo or Elon Musk or Charlie Kirk or any other outside individual or group to dictate its policies. Is this a good precedent for whatever is next?

    There’s going to be a next. What happens now will give shape to what that next might be. I worry that the folks making decisions believe there is only the now, not the next.

    Thankfully, most of us do not have to make consequential decisions that impact many people working in large institutions, but we can use this framing in considering our individual fates as well.

    In a couple of weeks my next book, More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI, will be in the world. I’ve invested a lot in this book, not just time and effort, but some measure of my hopes for my career and the impact my ideas may have on the world of writing and teaching writing.

    It is a fraught thing to invest too much into something like a single book. Books fail to launch all the time, as I’ve experienced personally … more than once. Finding the balance between investing sufficient effort to take advantage of the now, while also recognizing that I will have to do something next, has been a bit tricky, but necessary.

    Maybe what’s next will be closely related to the now: more speaking, more workshops related to my vision for teaching writing, a truly tangible impact on how we collectively discuss these issues after being more of a gadfly and voice in the woods. But also, maybe this is closer to the end of a cycle that started with a previous book.

    To calm my worries, I spend time thinking about what would be next if 50 percent or even 90 percent of what I now do for my vocation and income dried up. This is what I did when it became clear that teaching off the tenure track was not going to continue to be a viable way forward—a process that has put me in this moment.

    Imagining a next, I think I would call my local School of Rock and see if they needed someone to teach kids the drums, and I also would get to work on a novel that’s been rolling around my head. I picture that possible next, and while there is a sadness that what I’m hoping to achieve now did not come to fruition, I can also envision real pleasure in that other path.

    To preserve their essential mission, institutions must be prepared for turbulence and change by knowing there will be a next. To survive in this time, individuals must both be present in the now and consider what might have to happen next.

    Not easy, but always necessary.

    Source link

  • Review of Adamson’s “A Century of Tomorrows” (opinion)

    Review of Adamson’s “A Century of Tomorrows” (opinion)

    The name of an ambition more than it is of a body of knowledge, the term “futurology” is attributed by one source on word origins to Aldous Huxley. The author of Brave New World is a plausible candidate, of course; he is credited with coining it in 1946. But a search of JSTOR turns up an article from three years earlier suggesting that Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West made him the pioneer of “what one may hope will sometime develop into a real science of ‘Futurology.’”

    The author of that article was a political scientist and émigré from Nazi Germany named Ossip K. Flechtheim, then teaching at the historically Black Atlanta University; the article itself was published in a historically Black scholarly journal, Phylon. He soon decided that his idea’s time had come.

    By 1945, writing in The Journal of Higher Education, Flechtheim advocated for futurology both as an emerging line of interdisciplinary scholarship and as a matter of urgent concern to “the present-day student, whose life-span may well stretch into the twenty-first century.” He was optimistic about futurology’s potential to advance knowledge: Maintaining that “a large number of scholars” concurred on “the major problems which humanity would face” in the coming decades, he announced that “predict[ing] the most probable trends is a task which we have the means to accomplish successfully today.”

    But as Niels Bohr and/or Yogi Berra famously put it, “It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.” Flechtheim went on to publish landmark contributions to the incipient field of study, surely expecting that a proper social science of the future would be established by the turn of the millennium. But on this point, as in most cases, subsequent history only confirms the Bohr-Berra conundrum.

    One rough metric of futurology’s public-intellectual salience over time is how often the word appears per year in publications stored in the Google Books database. The resulting graph shows barely any use of the term before about 1960. But with the new decade there is a sudden burst of activity: a period of steep acceleration lasting about two decades, then collapsing dramatically over the final years of the 20th century. The JSTOR search results show much the same pattern.

    And so it is that Glenn Adamson’s A Century of Tomorrows: How Imagining the Future Shapes the Present (Bloomsbury Publishing) approaches the subject with not so much skepticism about futurology’s prospects as a certain irony about its very status as a distinct kind of knowledge. The author, a curator and a historian, attaches Flechtheim’s neologism as a label to a kaleidoscopic array of efforts to anticipate the shape of things to come, whether by analyzing statistical trends, through artistic creativity or in experimentation with new ways of life. The book concentrates on the United States and the 20th century, but inevitably the larger world and earlier history shape the book, which also reflects some 21st-century pressures as well.

    Plenty of science fiction novels have done better at imagining life in subsequent decades than think tank projections made in the same era. But comparing prognostications for relative accuracy is not Adamson’s real concern. Whatever means it may employ, the futurological imperative is always to respond to current reality—to its perceived failings or potentials, to the opportunities and terrors looming over the world or lurking just out of sight. Adamson writes that “every story about the future is also a demand to intervene in the present.” The forms of intervention considered include political movements, religious revivals, market research, scenarios for thermonuclear war, hippie communes, the insurance industry and time capsules assembled for future generations to ponder (to give an abbreviated list).

    The future’s uncertainty provides a blank screen for projecting contemporary issues in reimagined form and the opportunity to imagine alternatives. (Or to imagine inevitabilities, whether of the encouraging or despairing kind.)

    The author takes futurology to have emerged in the 19th century as a response to concerns previously the domain of religious traditions. Utopia and dystopia provide fairly obvious secular analogues to heaven and hell. But there is more to it than that. “For those who no longer saw the future as a matter of revealed truth,” Adamson writes, “new forms of authority stepped in to fill the gap. This is where the futurologists would come in. They would not only make claims about what lies ahead but also somehow persuade others of their ability to see it.”

    The grounds for claiming such authority proliferated, as did the visions themselves, in ways resistant to linear narrative. Instead, the author pulls seemingly unconnected developments together into thematic clusters, rather like museum exhibits displayed in partly chronological and partly thematic order.

    For example, the futurological cluster he calls the Machine includes the organization Technocracy, Inc., which in the early 1930s won a hearing for its plan to put the entire economy under the control of engineers who would end the waste, bottlenecks and underperformance that had, they purported, caused the Depression.

    Enthusiasm for the Technocracy’s social blueprints was short-lived, but it expressed a wider trend. Futurologists of this ilk “set about creating self-correcting, self-regulating systems; conceptually speaking, they became machine builders.” Under this heading Adamson includes enthusiasts for “the Soviet experiment” (as non-Communist admirers liked to call it), but also the market-minded professionals involved in industrial design, especially for automobiles: “The advance planning of annual model changes was a way to humanize technology, while also setting the horizon of consumer expectation.”

    Whereas the Machine-oriented visionaries of the early 20th century had specific goals for the future (and confidence about being able to meet them), a different attitude prevailed after World War II among those Adamson calls the Lab futurologists. The future was for them “something to be studied under laboratory conditions, with multiple scenarios measured and compared against one another.” Some of them had access to the enormous computers of the day, and the attention of people making decisions of the highest consequence.

    “Prediction was becoming a much subtler art,” the author continues, “with one defining exception: the prediction of nuclear annihilation, a zero multiplier for all human hopes.”

    Those who thought life in a Machine world sounded oppressive offered visions of the future as Garden, where a healthier balance between urban and rural life could prevail. A corresponding horror at Lab scenarios spawned what Adamson calls Party futurology. This started in Haight-Ashbury, fought back at the Stonewall and generated the radical feminist movement that still haunts some people’s nightmares.

    Missing from my thumbnail sketch here is all the historical texture of the book (including a diverse group of figures, leading and otherwise) as well as its working out of connections among seemingly unrelated developments.

    As mentioned, the book is centered on 20th-century America. Even so, “Flood,” the final chapter (not counting the conclusion), takes up forces that have continued to accumulate in the early millennium. Flood-era futurology is not defined either by climate change or digital hypersaturation of attention. The main element I’ll point out here is Adamson’s sense that futurology’s own future has been compromised by an excess of noise and meretricious pseudo-insight.

    The floods of dubious information (from too many sources to evaluate) make it harder to establish reality in the present, much less to extrapolate from it. Filling the void is a churn of simulated thought the author calls Big Ideas. “By this,” he writes, “I mean a general prediction about culture at large that initially feels like an important insight, but is actually either so general as to be beyond dispute, or so vague as to be immune to disproof.” Much better, on the whole, is to study the record of futurology itself, with its history as a warning against secular fortune-telling.

    Scott McLemee is Inside Higher Ed’s “Intellectual Affairs” columnist. He was a contributing editor at Lingua Franca magazine and a senior writer at The Chronicle of Higher Education before joining Inside Higher Ed in 2005.

    Source link

  • Higher education postcard: Trinity College, Carmarthen

    Higher education postcard: Trinity College, Carmarthen

    It is 1848, and a spectre is haunting Europe. If you’re Karl Marx, that spectre is communism. But if you’re a member of the god-fearing gentry in west Wales, that spectre is the lack of education!

    Here’s the South Wales and Monmouthshire Training College, later Trinity College, Carmarthen, later still part of University of Wales Trinity Saint David. It was opened in 1848, following the efforts of the National Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor in the Principles of the Established Church in England and Wales (they loved a snappy title in the nineteenth century). The National Society, as it was better known, had been established in 1811 to promote a religious education, mostly via Sunday schools. And there was a counterpart – the British and Foreign School Society for the Education of the Labouring and Manufacturing Classes of Society of Every Religious Persuasion – established in 1808 and 1814, which did the same but with less religion.

    I’ve written before about how education policy in England and Wales developed slowly, and that compulsory, free education for children was a long time coming. The efforts of the National Society and the British and Foreign School Society had a big impact. And they included not only the operation of schools, but of training colleges for teachers.

    Let’s take in the report from the magnificently named Monmouthshire Merlin of Saturday 4 November 1848 to get a flavour of the excitement in Carmarthen:

    OPENING of the TRAINING COLLEGE CARMARTHEN.

    This interesting event, which was anxiously looked forward to by the clergy and members of the Church Establishment in the Principality, took place on Tuesday week. The weather was very unpropitious; heavy showers descending the whole of the morning, which greatly marred the appearance of the imposing spectacle, and no doubt hindered many distant clergymen and gentlemen, as well as a great number of the respectable inhabitants of the town, from joining in the procession. At eleven o’clock the procession moved from the Town-Hall in the following order:

    Police Constables of the Borough.

    The Mayor and Corporation.

    The Magistrates.

    The Welsh Education Committee.

    The Principal, Vice-Principal, and Master of the Training College.

    The Clergy, in their gowns.

    The Gentry and Inhabitants of the Neighbourhood. &c., &c.

    After the procession reached St. Peter’s Church, divine service was performed, and the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of St Da vid’s preached an excellent sermon, with his usual eloquence and ability, from the 12th chapter of the Romans, and the 6th, 7th, and 8th verses. The collection at the close of his lordship s eloquent appeal amounted to £ 67. 14s. 4d., a much larger sum than had ever been previously collected at St. Peters Church on any occasion. After the conclusion of the service, the procession was not re-formed; the parties departed, and proceeded towards the Training College, to partake of the cold collation which had been provided at that place. No ceremony was performed at the college, in connection with its opening, any farther than the throwing open of the doors to admit the visitors and others interested in the proceedings. The place is now ready for the reception of pupils, as the masters are in residence, and the arrangements are all complete. From the celebrity of the principal. and the salubrious situation of the college, we have no doubt that many will avail themselves of the opportunities now offered to them at this Training Institution. The building of the college is finished in the best style of workmanship, is replete with every convenience required by the pupils, and it reflects great credit on the architect and others concerned. The Model Schools are also in a state of great forwardness; and as the workmen have now been transferred from the Training College to them, it is expected they will be ready for opening in a very short time.

    Romans chapter 12 verses 6, 7 and 8, by the way, read as follows:

    6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;

    7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;

    8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

    The college did well. In 1967 there was an entrance examination for places, with tuition fees waived, and travelling expenses for successful students, as noted by the Carmarthen Journal of 26 July 1867. Note that the better students were given more money for travelling expenses; and that “all persons of good health and character” did not include women: the college first admitted women in 1957.

    The college formally changed its name to Trinity College Carmarthen in 1931, although it seems likely that the name was used informally before then. I have seen, for example, a newspaper article of 1894 referring to its as Trinity College Carmarthen; and the postcard itself is certainly earlier than the 1930s.

    Like most colleges, over time it grew, added new subjects and generally thrived. The college building expanded from that shown on the card, with other facilities and residences. In 1990 it became affiliated to the University of Wales, and became a full member college in 2004. By this time, of course, the University of Wales was in a degree of turmoil, with exits as well as entrances. Trinity gained degree awarding powers in 2008, became Trinity University College in 2009, and in 2010 merged with St David’s College – or University of Wales Lampeter – to form University of Wales Trinity Saint David.

    Its most famous alumnus is arguably Barry John, one of the great fly halves of the legendary 1970s Welsh rugby team, and the punchline to Max Boyce’s Hymns and Arias.

    The card was posted, but sadly the stamp has been removed, so the postmark is missing. It was sent to Mr Williams in the Cottage Hospital, Caernarfon. The original message in Cymraeg is below. As best as I can tell, the first part reads something like:

    The weather for pilgrims far away is very good. We will be coming home next weekend.

    (This probably isn’t entirely right.)

    And then I can’t make out the words in the second half, so no chance of a translation, however bad. Can any reader do this?

    Here’s a jigsaw for you too.

    Source link

  • Misrepresentations by OPMs could land colleges in trouble, Education Department says

    Misrepresentations by OPMs could land colleges in trouble, Education Department says

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Colleges could lose access to federal financial aid or face penalties if their external service providers mislead their students, the U.S. Department of Education said Tuesday. 

    That includes companies that help colleges launch and run online programs. Employees of online program managers, or OPMs, cannot represent themselves as working directly for colleges, including by having email addresses or signatures implying they’re employed by those institutions, according to the guidance. 

    OPM employees are also not allowed to represent a virtual program as equivalent to a college’s campus-based version if they have dissimilar admissions criteria, completion rates, faculty qualifications or other substantive differences. And workers in recruiting or sales roles can’t call themselves an “academic counselor” or use a similar title if it doesn’t accurately describe their position. 

    The guidance — issued in the waning days of the Biden administration — aims to add more oversight to colleges’ relationships with OPMs. Student advocacy groups have long called for stricter rules for these companies, which often help colleges launch online programs in exchange for a significant cut of their tuition revenue.

    Carolyn Fast, director of higher education policy at The Century Foundation, a left-leaning think tank, praised the letter Wednesday. 

    “Today’s move by the Department of Education is a step in the right direction, affirming what we already know: OPMs commonly mislead students about the quality of their online programs and that is illegal,” Fast said in a statement. “This action will deter misconduct by OPMs and their college partners and will help protect online college students from the risks posed by predatory OPMs.”

    What led to the guidance?

    The guidance comes after the Biden administration’s other plans to add oversight to the OPM industry faltered. 

    In early 2023, the administration said it would review guidance that allows colleges to enter tuition-sharing deals with OPMs that provide recruiting help — so long as it is part of a larger bundle of services. Despite asking for public comment on the matter, the Education Department has not updated or rescinded the 2011 guidance.

    At the same time it announced the review, the administration issued separate guidance that would designate OPMs and other organizations as third-party servicers. The change would have subjected them to regulations that would give the department insight into their contracts with colleges. 

    However, the Education Department quickly delayed the guidance — and eventually rescinded it altogether — amid widespread criticism that it would create burdensome requirements for the higher education sector. 

    “We finally have clarity, in the last days of the administration, what they’re actually going to do with the guidance around [third-party servicers]” and OPMs, said Phil Hill, an ed tech consultant. “It’s just been this soap opera for 2 1/2 years now.”

    However, Hill described Tuesday’s guidance as “petulant rulemaking” from the Biden administration. 

    “This Dear Colleague letter is attempting to go down to the level of telling colleges and universities and vendors what words are allowable and what aren’t,” Hill said. “And this went through zero process, zero attempt to get input from schools.”

    That includes whether the guidance will hamstring colleges from running online programs or whether the policies address the issues they’re trying to solve, Hill said. 

    Stephanie Hall, senior director for higher education policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, took a different stance. 

    The Education Department received a “treasure trove of comments” when it sought public input in 2023 on policies that would have impacted the OPM sector, Hall argued. 

    “A lot was given over the past couple of years, and I see this guidance letter as just an extension or a conclusion of that process and not something new that didn’t take any input,” Hall said. 

    Whether the Trump administration will enforce the new guidance is another matter. But Hall said the guidance is likely to create changes either way. 

    “Schools are put on notice,” Hall said. “It’s something they take very seriously.” 

    The incoming Trump administration could also rescind the guidance altogether, though it’s unclear if OPM oversight is a priority issue to incoming officials. 

    “Are they aware of the impact this could have on online education, and is this going to be on their radars to take action and just immediately get rid of it?” Hill said. 

    The guidance could also draw legal challenges. The Biden administration’s now-rescinded 2023 guidance sparked a lawsuit from 2U, a prominent OPM. 

    “This is just waiting for a rescission or a lawsuit,” he said. 

    Source link

  • Making Higher Education More Affordable: The Role of Financial Aid Strategies

    Making Higher Education More Affordable: The Role of Financial Aid Strategies

    Key Takeaways:

    • Financial aid optimization transforms financial resource allocation into a strategic enrollment tool, aligning affordability for students with institutional goals.




    • By leveraging real-time data and tools like Liaison Othot, institutions can craft tailored financial aid strategies that address individual student needs and enrollment strategies.




    • Optimization enables proactive adjustments to financial aid strategies, ensuring accessibility while supporting student retention and institutional sustainability.




    • Strategic financial aid leveraging balances affordability for students with long-term enrollment and revenue objectives.

     

    The rising costs of higher education and fear of long-term debt have left many prospective students and their families questioning whether they can afford to pursue their academic dreams. For institutions, this presents a dual challenge: attracting diverse students and ensuring enrollment goals align with their mission. An effective and aligned financial aid optimization strategy offers a powerful tool to meet a campus’s enrollment goals. By combining institutional funds with federal and state resources effectively, colleges and universities can increase access and affordability in higher education while achieving broader enrollment objectives.

    From offering enough aid to make tuition manageable to continuously refining financial aid strategies based on real-time information, optimizing plays a pivotal role in strategic enrollment management (SEM). It transforms financial aid awarding from a static process into a dynamic tool that not only attracts and enrolls students but also supports their retention by effectively meeting their financial needs.

     

    What Is Financial Aid Optimization?

    Financial aid optimization transforms the allocation of financial resources into a critical enrollment tool. By aligning the overall enrollment leveraging strategy—regularly and in real-time at the individual level—optimization allows campuses to address student affordability needs in a unique and tailored way.

    At its core, optimization is a dynamic, data-informed process. Institutions develop annual plans for allocating financial aid (leveraging), basing decisions on previous cycles’ successes and challenges. Unlike traditional static leveraging models, modern optimization approaches incorporate continuous adjustments informed by real-time data. This lets colleges and universities respond proactively to shifting enrollment trends and keeps their financial aid strategies effective throughout the year.

     

    How to Make Higher Education More Affordable and Accessible

    More accessible higher education starts with understanding the financial challenges students face. For many undergraduates, the cost of tuition, housing, books, and other expenses can make college seem out of reach, even with federal and state aid. For example, a student from a low-income household may find that even the maximum Pell Grant award leaves a significant financial gap. Similarly, a middle-income family might struggle to cover tuition despite not qualifying for significant need-based aid.

    Financial aid leveraging allows institutions to tackle these challenges head-on by creating tailored aid packages that remove financial barriers for students. This approach relies on a mix of need-based and merit-based strategies, often informed by tools like FAFSA data and predictive analytics.

    One of the key advantages of financial aid optimization is its flexibility. Institutions can use data to fine-tune aid offerings based on unique student needs and behaviors. For instance, Liaison’s Othot platform, a cloud-based predictive and prescriptive analytics tool designed specifically for higher ed, can analyze factors such as a student’s location, academic profile, and campus engagement to build aid packages thatneeds. This granularity ensures that the financial aid awarding strategy not only meets the affordability threshold for students also aligns with the overall enrollment strategy being employed on the campus. An aligned optimization approach ensures that the affordability component is integrated into the strategy for specifically targeted cohorts or students, maximizing the likelihood of their enrollment.

    Optimization also lets institutions adapt aid policies for entire cohorts or demographic groups. For example, schools can address rising inflation in high school GPAs by recalibrating merit-based awards to prioritize equity and maintain fairness in their financial aid distribution. This adaptability keeps aid plans relevant as the dynamics of higher education continue to shift. By relying on data and continuously streamlining their financial aid models, institutions can make higher education more attainable for all students while maximizing their impact.

     

    The Strategic Impact of Financial Aid Optimization

    Financial aid optimization goes beyond simply helping students cover tuition—it’s about achieving a delicate balance between affordability for students and sustainability for institutions. By carefully crafting aid packages that meet the financial needs of students without overextending institutional resources, colleges and universities can enhance their enrollment efforts while maintaining financial health.

    For example, reallocating funds for strategic distribution among students could result in higher net tuition revenue (NTR) without sacrificing enrollment numbers. This demonstrates how strategic adjustments can yield significant results when financial aid decisions are guided by data, tailored to meet institutional priorities, and aligned to overall enrollment strategies.

    Retention and persistence are critical factors to consider when determining how to optimize financial aid. An effective leveraging model doesn’t stop at enrollment and the conclusion of a successful first year—it considers the long-term success of students. By analyzing which cohorts are more likely to persist and graduate, institutions can refine their aid offerings to improve outcomes for all students. This approach ensures that financial aid strategies not only attract students but also support their success throughout their academic journey.

     

    Aligning Financial Aid With Student Success and Institutional Goals

    Financial aid optimization is a powerful way to make higher education more accessible while helping institutions achieve their objectives. By combining institutional, federal, and state resources with data-driven optimization tools, colleges and universities can craft aid strategies that address affordability, bolster student retention, and maximize their impact.

    Institutions looking to enhance their financial aid and enrollment can benefit from Liaison’s suite of solutions, including Othot. Whether your team is just beginning to explore financial aid leveraging or has years of experience, Liaison’s tools provide the flexibility and insights needed to meet your unique goals. From devising an initial plan to optimizing existing processes, our solutions are designed to assist schools at every stage of their journey. Contact us today to learn more.

     

     

    Source link

  • Beyond the Rhetoric: Mexico’s Higher Education Reality with Alma Maldonado Maldonado

    Beyond the Rhetoric: Mexico’s Higher Education Reality with Alma Maldonado Maldonado

    Hi everyone. I’m Alex Usher, and this is the World of Higher Education podcast. If you’re a really faithful listener, you may remember that when the show was in beta and we were fooling around with formats and guests, we did an episode about Mexican higher education and its tribulations under the populist president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador or AMLO for short.

    Our guest that day was my friend, Alma Maldonado Maldonado, an education researcher at Cinvestav, which is the Center for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute. That interview was so brilliant, we turned this podcast into a full-time investigation of higher education developments in various countries around the world.

    Today, Alma’s back with us again to talk about how things have and have not changed in Mexico over the past two years. The big story there is that there’s a new president in town. Last spring, Claudia Sheinbaum became the country’s first ever woman president. One who happens to have a PhD in engineering with a specialty in energy and sustainability.

    You’d think that might be an advantage to a higher education sector, but Scheinbaum comes from AMLO’s Morena party and her instincts seem to be to continue her predecessor’s tradition of attacking higher education as being a dissolute elite enterprise.

    So what does this mean for Mexican higher education? Well, in general, it’s not good. Alma takes us through the implications of Morena’s supermajority in Congress, as well as its early attempts to put fiscal pressure on universities, and its continued fascination with the experimental and kind of shambolic Benito Juarez universities.
    Spoiler alert, there are not a lot of silver linings in this story, either for public or private sector universities in Mexico. But enough from me, let’s hand things over to Alma to explain.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.16 | Beyond the Rhetoric: Mexico’s Higher Education Reality with Alma Maldonado Maldonado

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Alma, almost two years ago, then-President López Obrador had about a year and a half left in his mandate and was essentially at war with the university sector and the scientific community. How did his administration end with respect to higher education? Did anything change? Did things get better or worse in his final months? Were there any significant policy shifts we should know about?

    Alma Maldonado Maldonado (AMM): Hi Alex, thanks for inviting me. It’s a pleasure to be here. Well, I think most things didn’t change. Essentially, everything stayed the same. His rhetoric and narrative against higher education institutions, against graduates from abroad, and especially against UNAM, continued until the end of his term, unfortunately.

    There wasn’t anything that made him change that rhetoric. One reason for this is that he had political capital—he knew his base supported him fully. So, why change something that was working for him? On the contrary, the attacks on universities and the restriction of resources continued right until the end.

    AU: So, nothing was resolved. But earlier this year, there were elections for the presidency and both the Chambers of Deputies and the Senate. Did higher education play any role in that election? Were there significant policy differences between the parties?

    AMM: Not really. Education didn’t feature much in the campaign—similar to what we see in the U.S. It just wasn’t important. There were only a few mentions here and there about education, but in general, it wasn’t a key part of any campaigns.

    What we did see, unfortunately, was this sort of competition around scholarships. One candidate would say, “I’ll offer scholarships for secondary education,” and the other would respond, “Well, I’ll offer scholarships for secondary, but also primary, and even preschool!” That was the extent of the debate around education policy between the two main candidates. I’m not surprised but it was very disappointing because in a country like Mexico, where education can be a major driver of social change, it wasn’t given the attention it deserves.

    AU: The winner of the election was Claudia Sheinbaum of the Morena party, the same party as López Obrador. But she has a somewhat different image—she’s a scientist with an advanced degree from UNAM, a doctorate, I think. Does her presidency signal any kind of shift for higher education?

    AMM: It’s complicated. On paper, yes, she’s better. She has a PhD from UNAM and worked as an academic—one of the few cases where an academic has become president. Not the first, of course, but still, it’s notable.

    She has a pro-science and pro-higher education rhetoric, especially given her background in the student movement at UNAM in the 1980s. She fought alongside people like Emanuel Ordorica, Carlos Simas (her former husband), and Antonio Santos. She wasn’t a leader in that movement, though now some are rewriting history to present her as one.

    Her narrative emphasizes free higher education and the idea that education is a right, not a privilege. But since she took office a few months ago, we haven’t seen much change in terms of the most important issue—financing. It’s clear: follow the money.

    In the initial draft of the national budget, the funding for UNAM and other major universities was cut. Later, the government said, “Oh no, it was a mistake. We didn’t mean to cut the budget. Sorry, let’s fix it.” Imagine—someone who champions free higher education putting universities in that position. It’s a contradiction.

    AU: She has large majorities in both chambers of parliament, so she has significant power to implement her agenda. Why do you think she proposed cuts to education funding initially?

    AMM: Well, because she’s seen as the president of higher education and science. Reducing the budget as her first move would’ve been disastrous for her image.

    But you’re right—she has total control of Congress and the Senate. Right now, she’s focused on other reforms, particularly in the judicial system, and she’s changing a lot of laws. Education isn’t on the map because López Obrador already changed the Constitution’s third article, which governs education. There’s no immediate need for her to revisit it.

    AU: Let’s circle back to the budget cuts. Last month, the proposed budget included a cut of 10 billion pesos—about 500 million U.S. dollars—to higher education, with half of that falling directly on UNAM. There was significant outcry, and she backtracked somewhat. Do we know how this will end up? Will the universities be held whole, or are cuts still coming?

    AMM: They decided to reorganize the budget, but now they’re cutting other areas instead. Unfortunately, that includes initial education and other sectors. They also cut the Senate’s budget, which has caused disputes.

    In terms of higher education, they’ve claimed that funding will remain the same as last year, with a slight adjustment for inflation. But the adjustment is minimal—about 3%—while experts estimate inflation at around 5% but they’re just adding 3%. So, effectively, there’s still less money to spend. There’s less money for infrastructure, materials, and other essentials. Universities are in a slightly better position than they were a few weeks ago, but the situation remains difficult. The contradictions in her policies have drawn a lot of criticism.

    AU: Why was so much of the proposed cut targeted at UNAM? Was it deliberate? Is there animosity toward the university?

    AMM: There’s speculation about that. Some believe it was a punishment for UNAM’s independence, particularly regarding topics like judicial reform. UNAM has maintained a critical stance, which Morena and Claudia don’t like.

    Let’s not forget that one of the first things López Obrador did when he came to power six years ago was to modify the Constitution’s third article, removing university autonomy. When there was backlash, they said, “Oh, it was a mistake. We didn’t mean it.” But there have been many such “mistakes.”

    AU: Going back to AMLO, he also set a goal of increasing enrollment by 1.5 million students while also underfunding institutions at the same time. How did that play out? Did he reach that goal? How did the funding play into the final result?

    AMM: Currently, enrollment coverage in higher education is about 44%—very low compared to other Latin American countries. AMLO’s goal was to reach 50%, but he fell short.

    Now, Claudia Sheinbaum is aiming for 55%. I don’t think that’s realistic. The common system in Mexico is to add 5% on any policy, even if the last one isn’t achieved. To achieve that, they’d need to add about 1.2 million students, which isn’t feasible with the current system.

    The problem is that the educational spaces being created aren’t in the places where students want to go. There’s a clear contradiction between their enrollment goals and actual planning.

    AU: Part of AMLO’s strategy was the Benito Juárez Universities—small, access-oriented institutions in remote areas. You previously described them as “Potemkin institutions.” What’s the current situation? Will Sheinbaum continue with this policy?

    AMM: Yes, she’s continuing the project. But as I’ve said before, it remains very obscure. We don’t know who attends these universities, who teaches there, or what students are learning. I have a student doing their master’s dissertation on these universities, and they can’t get access for research.

    Sheinbaum recently announced plans to open 50 more. But we don’t even know what’s happening with the existing 140—or whether that number is accurate. There have been protests at these universities over issues like unreceived degrees and inadequate resources. I wouldn’t be surprised that Colombia would adopt them because they’re friends of Claudia. The idea is that these institutions could increase 40,000 new spaces. While they’re meant to provide education in remote areas with programs tailored to local communities, they’re not addressing the larger participation gaps.

    AU: We’ve been talking mainly about the public sector, but what about the private sector? Institutions like Tecnológico de Monterrey are highly regarded. How does the disarray in the public sector affect them? Does it make them stronger?

    AMM: I think they are struggling too, but we need to distinguish between the high-prestige institutions and the low-prestige ones. So, let’s start with the high-prestige institutions like Tecnológico de Monterrey or Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara.

    They are struggling financially, particularly because some scholarships they used to receive for graduate programs have been eliminated. For example, many students in their graduate programs previously got scholarships from the National Science and Technology Council. But now, under the current rhetoric, those scholarships are only being given to students in public institutions.

    This has forced high-prestige private institutions to get more creative with their resources to maintain their programs.

    On the other hand, there are low-prestige private institutions, some of which are as bad as the Benito Juárez Universities. They lack quality, but the government lets them operate because they solve a demand problem. Parents want their kids to attend college, and these institutions offer that possibility, even if the education isn’t great. Families make sacrifices to pay for these degrees because, in their minds, a degree is still a degree.

    And then, in the middle, there are institutions that are more decent in terms of quality. But the big question is: who ensures the quality of these institutions? That’s been a longstanding issue, and it hasn’t improved under the current government.

    AU: It’s a classic trade-off we see in many countries. Alma, we’ve covered a lot of doom and gloom. Are there any bright spots you foresee for 2025?

    AMM: I wish I could say I see more positive things coming, but honestly, I don’t. A big part of my concern is tied to North America and what a Trump presidency could mean for Mexico. If he returns to power, we’re likely to face serious challenges around migration and broader U.S.-Mexico relations.

    It’s really sad that Mexico didn’t take advantage of opportunities to strengthen ties with the U.S. while Biden was in office. There could have been agreements, collaborations, and advancements, but those didn’t materialize.

    In the face of all this, creativity will be key. Maybe we’ll see new programs to support migrants with higher education degrees who end up staying in Mexico. It’s critical that we do better this time than we did during the Dreamers situation. But honestly, I’m not confident that the government is prepared to handle these challenges effectively. So, unfortunately, I don’t see much good news ahead.

    AU: Well that’s a good reminder that international affairs do intrude on higher education affairs sometimes. Alma, thanks for being with us.

    AMM: Thank you very much, Alex.

    AU: And thank you to our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Samantha Pufek. If you have comments or questions, reach out at [email protected]. Don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel. Join us next week when Michael Shattock will discuss governance in European universities. Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service.

    Source link