Tag: Education

  • Faculty/Administrative Divides Weaken Higher Ed (opinion)

    Faculty/Administrative Divides Weaken Higher Ed (opinion)

    As U.S. higher education enters one of the most perilous times in its history, an internal threat makes it even more vulnerable—the ever-widening chasm between administrators and faculty. In the last three decades, budget pressures at larger universities have led administrators to shift faculty ranks toward contingent appointments with near-poverty wages, no benefits and little opportunity for advancement.

    At research universities, the remaining tenure-track faculty positions have become hypercompetitive, with faculty having to publish far more than they did in the 1980s to obtain tenure and promotion. Pressure on these faculty to obtain large grants continues to mount in a funding environment that is now uncertain and even chaotic. At other universities, faculty ranks in general have shrunk, leading to increased workloads and larger class sizes, alongside shifts to more online offerings to meet student demand.

    On the administrative side, the tenure of senior leaders is also shrinking, leading to increased leadership turnover. New leaders come in with change agendas to fix some prior unaddressed issue or manage significant budget deficits or other operational inefficiencies. In this environment, faculty disillusionment is high, as is disengagement. It is all too easy for administrators to treat faculty as expendable resources, forgetting that there is a human component to leadership and fostering distrust between these two critical groups of campus leaders.

    But as external threats come to campuses, a divided campus will not be well prepared to fend off attacks aimed at weakening institutional autonomy. Administrators on many campuses find themselves unable to speak openly about their objections to current federal or state policies due to institutional neutrality stances or concerns about political blowback; at the same time, we have seen faculty organizations and unions step out in front to defend academic freedom and institutional autonomy. In this context, how can these two groups come together to restore trust, re-engage all stakeholders and build productive working relationships?

    We write this from the perspectives of a longtime faculty leader and faculty champion who has published on the problems of deprofessionalizing the faculty and a longtime administrator who started as a faculty member and moved up the ranks to a chancellor position by working with faculty to solve campus challenges. We have worked together over the years from our respective vantage points, publishing tools and resources that are geared toward fostering clarity, communication and collaboration in the face of a rapidly changing environment. We know that the faculty/administrative divides will not serve the academy in this current crisis. But we have seen examples of ways that both groups can come together.

    Here we offer some suggestions for leaders—faculty and administrative—from our experiences working with hundreds of campuses. We call for administrators to take the first step in reaching out, repairing and rebuilding where trust and relationships have been broken. But we also call on faculty to ask what they can do in response or how they might “lead up.” If one group extends an olive branch, and if there is to be hope for a different future, the other must accept it. Both parties must also hold one another accountable as relationships are renewed, trust is rebuilt and bridges across the chasm are constructed.

    1. Empower and support faculty leadership. Studies have shown that administrators can help support faculty in having a voice and assuming an active leadership role. Mentoring faculty on how the institution operates, sending faculty to leadership development opportunities, rewarding faculty who step into significant leadership or shared governance roles, providing summer stipends to work on projects, and offering course releases for active faculty leadership can all empower faculty to play a greater leadership role on campus.
    2. Strengthen shared governance structures. Over the last three decades, shared governance has been hollowed out on many campuses. Rebuilding it will require examining processes, policies and structures that enable faculty to contribute meaningfully to campus decision and policymaking. A strong shared governance system is a way to ensure that external groups are less able to divide and conquer, to commandeer the curriculum, the student experience and other key areas of campus work. And ensuring that faculty have avenues to exert their leadership with governing boards can help ensure that board members hear from and understand faculty perspectives and concerns.
    3. Clearly delineate administrative and faculty roles and responsibilities with respect to decision-making, authority and accountability. Strengthening shared governance means including faculty in more than advisory capacities when budgets, organizational structures or operations that affect them are slated for major changes. Put more decisions back in faculty hands, explain situations and ask for input, and include faculty in more important and strategic decisions on campus. Viewpoints may be at odds, and boards and administrators do have important fiduciary responsibilities, but these do not preclude engaging stakeholders in the decision-making process.
    1. Establish and grow your own leadership programs aimed at faculty. One of the best ways to ensure that faculty can play a leadership role on campus and off is to offer an annual leadership program for faculty. Costs can be relatively low for grow-your-own programs that rely on more senior and experienced faculty to serve as facilitators and trainers. Empowering senior faculty to train newer faculty on the campus operations and broader higher education landscape can lead to more proactive succession planning for key campus committees and leadership roles.
    2. Consider using a shared leadership approach to clearly involve multiple people and perspectives in decision-making. Beyond leadership development, consider using more formal structures associated with collaborative or shared leadership. This may help campuses create more inclusive and transparent processes for decision-making, especially when a variety of constituents are involved in or impacted by the changes.
    3. Have regular sessions for faculty and administrators to interact outside shared governance. Occasional lemonade or iced tea gatherings, Zoom social hours, annual community forums and the like can ensure that faculty and administrators get to know each other as people, not just positions. It may also be helpful to have periodic focused workshops or retreats for faculty and administrators on key change issues. These events can be led by external expert facilitators who can help create space for difficult dialogue.
    4. Acknowledge the wrongs and correct the course. When trust is broken, administrators should listen to concerns and be prepared to make adjustments and change course to address those concerns, and faculty should take the opportunity to collaboratively engage. That doesn’t necessarily mean going backward, but going forward in ways that involve a two-way dialogue to address concerns. For example, administrators need to be open about the need to strengthen faculty job security, pay and autonomy, while faculty need to recognize the competing pressures administrators are facing. Ensuring a strong faculty is a key component of a robust system of higher education, which is what is needed to ward off external threats. Somewhere in between lies the solution.

    While these may seem like long-term strategies in the midst of a crisis, this crisis is going to last years, so investing in and empowering the faculty will pay off. Faculty have critical voices that can productively shape the change agenda, if given the opportunity to use them.

    Adrianna Kezar is the Dean’s Professor of Leadership, Wilbur-Kieffer Professor of Higher Education and director of the Pullias Center for Higher Education at the University of Southern California.

    Susan Elrod is the former chancellor and professor emeritus of Indiana University South Bend. She studies higher education systemic change and is actively engaged in helping campus leaders build capacity to create more strategic, scalable and sustainable change.

    Source link

  • University of Florida Hires Interim President

    University of Florida Hires Interim President

    After months of uncertainty over who will lead the University of Florida, the Board of Trustees tapped Donald Landry as interim president in a unanimous vote at a meeting Monday morning.

    Landry, chair emeritus of the Department of Medicine at Columbia University, will replace outgoing interim president Kent Fuchs, whose contract ends on Sept. 1. The appointment comes after the Florida Board of Governors rejected Santa Ono as UF’s next leader in June over his past support of diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, despite the university’s trustees approving the hire.

    Landry, who is currently president of the American Academy of Sciences and Letters, will officially step into the job on Sept. 1, pending successful contract negotiations. Details of Landry’s contract have not been released, but Ono was set to make about $3 million annually.

    The interim hire will still need to be approved by the state’s Board of Governors.

    UF’s New Leader

    In a public hourlong interview during Monday’s board meeting, Landry promised that UF would be “neutral” under his leadership. However, he added a caveat.

    “A neutral university, paradoxically, in this nation at the moment would be a conservative university. Not espousing conservative values, certainly not indoctrinating in conservatism,” Landry said. “We’d be neutral. We wouldn’t choose sides.”

    Landry also criticized Columbia faculty and administrators for failing to respond to concerns about antisemitism amid pro-Palestinian student protests last year. Last month the university reached a settlement with the federal government that included sweeping reforms to academic programs, speech and disciplinary policies, as well as a $221 million payout.

    “I saw things at Columbia that suggested an alignment between some faculty and students that I think encouraged the students to do things that were more reckless,” Landry told UF’s board.

    At another point, when asked about DEI, he said when it “first emerged it was a bit vague what it actually meant” but “by the time it crystallized it was clear [DEI] had gone too far.” Landry added that he was thankful the “government has intervened and returned us to a rational meritocracy.”

    Landry also cast himself as someone who resisted DEI at Columbia when it was “being implemented widely at every level, from the very top down to the smallest unit,” adding that “the Department of Medicine never wavered in its commitment to excellence” in his time there. Landry vowed to uphold state laws barring spending on DEI at Florida’s public institutions.

    A physician by training, Landry has degrees from Lafayette College, Harvard University and Columbia’s College of Physicians and Surgeons. In 2008, President George W. Bush awarded Landry the Presidential Citizens Medal for his work on stem cell research, which used embryos that did not survive in vitro fertilization. Bush lauded Landry as a man of science and faith, crediting his approach to stem cell research. Landry was also on the President’s Council on Bioethics during the Bush administration.

    Landry has also brought his scientific training to bear on other political debates. In early 2024, he filed a brief in a Supreme Court case in support of former Florida attorney general Ashley Moody and Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, who were sued by a technology trade group over laws passed in both states seeking to limit content moderation on social media platforms. Landry expressed concerns about censoring alternative perspectives, arguing that “the danger of censoring scientific dissent is painfully apparent from the conduct of social media platforms during the COVID-19 crisis,” which “reinforced prevailing opinion and allied government policy by suppressing dissent on a host of scientific questions.”

    SCOTUS ultimately remanded the case to the lower courts.

    Landry has also praised Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health and an epidemiologist who was skeptical of the dangers of COVID-19 and prevention measures such as stay-at-home orders. Last year Landry said that Bhattacharya refused “to compromise his scientific findings,” thus risking “his own personal and professional self-interest, repeatedly, without hesitation, to take a stand for the public’s right to unrestricted scientific discussion and debate.”

    ‘A Great Selection’

    UF Board of Trustees chair Mori Hosseini emphasized Landry’s scientific background in a news release announcing the hire, stating the new interim president “has shown exceptional leadership in academia and beyond, building programs with innovation, energy and integrity.”

    Chris Rufo, the conservative anti-DEI activist who helped tank Ono’s chances at the UF presidency through an online campaign highlighting his past statements, praised the hire.

    “Dr. Landry is a principled leader who will reverse ideological capture and restore truth-seeking within the institution. Kudos to the UF board of trustees on a great selection,” Rufo wrote on social media.

    Alan Levine, a member of the Florida Board of Governors who voted against hiring Ono, also praised the selection in a post on X, calling Landry “an excellent choice” for the UF interim presidency.

    Landry is expected to serve as interim president while UF begins a national search for its next leader. The university has been without a permanent president since former Republican senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska abruptly resigned from the job shortly before a spending scandal emerged.

    Source link

  • GMU President Refuses to Apologize, Rejects OCR Findings

    GMU President Refuses to Apologize, Rejects OCR Findings

    Washington rejected OCR’s demand for a personal apology Monday.

    Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    George Mason University president Gregory Washington has rejected demands by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights that he apologize for alleged discriminatory hiring practices, questioning the findings of an OCR investigation that accused him of implementing “unlawful DEI policies.”

    In a letter to GMU’s board Monday, Washington’s attorney, Douglas F. Gansler, alleged that OCR cut its fact-finding efforts short and only interviewed two university deans before reaching the conclusions the Department of Education published Friday. Gansler wrote that “OCR’s letter contains gross mischaracterizations of statements made by Dr. Washington and outright omissions” related to the university’s DEI practices.

    Gansler also accused OCR of selectively interpreting various remarks by Washington, the first Black president in GMU’s history.

    “To be clear, per OCR’s own findings, no job applicant has been discriminated against by GMU, nor has OCR attempted to name someone who has been discriminated against by GMU in any context. Therefore, it is a legal fiction for OCR to even assert or claim that there has been a Title VI or Title IX violation here,” Gansler wrote in a 10-page letter.

    ED has demanded changes at GMU and a personal apology from Washington.

    “In 2020, University President Gregory Washington called for expunging the so-called ‘racist vestiges’ from GMU’s campus,” Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor said in a statement released by the Department of Education last week. “Without a hint of self awareness, President Washington then waged a university-wide campaign to implement unlawful DEI policies that intentionally discriminate on the basis of race. You can’t make this up.”

    In his letter to the board, Gansler emphasized that under Washington’s leadership, GMU has complied with executive orders that cracked down on DEI programs and practices, pointing to recent changes such as the dissolution of GMU’s DEI office and restricting the use of diversity statements in hiring.

    “If the Board entertains OCR’s demand that Dr. Washington personally apologize for promoting unlawful discriminatory practices in hiring, promotion, and tenure processes, it will undermine GMU’s record of compliance. An apology will amount to an admission that the university did something unlawful, opening GMU and the Board up to legal liability for conduct that did not occur under the Board’s watch,” Gansler wrote. He added that admitting to such violations could bring about punitive action from other federal agencies, such as the Department of Justice.

    Washington’s rejection of an apology and dispute over the claims made by OCR comes shortly after speculation that GMU’s Board of Visitors—which includes numerous conservative political figures and activists appointed by Republican Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin—would fire him. Instead, the board gave Washington a raise after a lengthy closed-door meeting earlier this month that brought dozens of protesters out to show their support for the besieged president.

    Asked for a statement, GMU officials referred Inside Higher Ed to Gansler.

    ED did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    Source link

  • Is gamification the key to achieving true inclusion in special education?

    Is gamification the key to achieving true inclusion in special education?

    Key points:

    For students with special needs, learning can often resemble a trek through dense woods along a narrow, rigid path–one that leaves little to no room for individual exploration. But the educational landscape is evolving. Picture classrooms as adventurous hunts, where every learner charts their own journey, overcomes unique challenges, and progresses at a pace that matches their strengths. This vision is becoming reality through gamification, a powerful force that is reshaping how students learn and how teachers teach in K–12 special education.

    Personalized learning paths: Tailoring the adventure

    Traditional classrooms often require students to adapt one method of instruction, which can be limiting–especially for neurodiverse learners. Gamified learning platforms provide an alternative by offering adaptive, personalized learning experiences that honor each student’s profile and pace.

    Many of these platforms use real-time data and algorithms to adjust content based on performance. A student with reading difficulties might receive simplified text with audio support, while a math-savvy learner can engage in increasingly complex logic puzzles. This flexibility allows students to move forward without fear of being left behind, or without being bored waiting for others to catch up.

    Accessibility features such as customizable avatars, voice commands, and adjustable visual settings also create space for students with ADHD, autism, or sensory sensitivities to learn comfortably. A student sensitive to bright colors can use a softer palette; another who struggles with reading can use text-to-speech features. And when students can replay challenges without stigma, repetition becomes practice, not punishment.

    In these environments, progress is measured individually. The ability to choose which goals to tackle and how to approach them gives learners both agency and confidence–two things often missing in traditional special education settings.

    Building social and emotional skills: The power of play

    Play is a break from traditional learning and a powerful way to build essential social and emotional skills. For students with special needs who may face challenges with communication, emotional regulation, or peer interaction, gamified environments provide a structured yet flexible space to develop these abilities.

    In cooperative hunts and team challenges, students practice empathy, communication, and collaboration in ways that feel engaging and low-stakes. A group mission might involve solving a puzzle together, requiring students to share ideas, encourage one another, and work toward a common goal.

    Gamified platforms also provide real-time, constructive feedback, transforming setbacks into teachable moments. Instead of pointing out what a student did wrong, a game might offer a helpful hint: “Try checking the clues again!” This kind of support teaches resilience and persistence in a way that lectures or punitive grading rarely do.

    As students earn badges or level up, they experience tangible success. These moments highlight the connection between effort and achievement. Over time, these small wins raise a greater willingness to engage with the material and with peers and the classroom community.

    Fostering independence and motivation

    Students with learning differences often carry the weight of repeated academic failure, which can chip away at their motivation. Gamification helps reverse this by reframing challenges as opportunities and effort as progress.

    Badges, points, and levels make achievements visible and meaningful. A student might earn a “Problem Solver” badge after tackling a tricky math puzzle or receive “Teamwork Tokens” for helping a classmate. These systems expand the definition of success and highlight personal strengths.

    The focus shifts from comparison to self-improvement. Some platforms even allow for private progress tracking, letting students set and meet personal goals without the anxiety of public rankings. Instead of competing, students build a personal narrative of growth.

    Gamification also encourages self-directed learning. As student complete tasks, they develop skills like planning, time management, and self-assessment, skills that extend beyond academics and into real life. The result is a deeper sense of ownership and independence.

    Teachers as learning guides

    Gamification doesn’t replace teachers, but it can help teach more effectively. With access to real-time analytics, educators can see exactly where a student is excelling or struggling and adjust instruction accordingly.

    Dashboards might reveal that a group of students is thriving in reading comprehension but needs help with number sense, prompting immediate, targeted intervention. This data-driven insight allows for proactive, personalized support.

    Teachers in gamified classrooms also take on a new role, both of a mentor and facilitator. They curate learning experiences, encourage exploration, and create opportunities for creativity and curiosity to thrive. Instead of managing behavior or delivering lectures, they support students on individualized learning journeys.

    Inclusion reimagined

    Gamification is not a gimmick; it’s a framework for true inclusion. It aligns with the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), offering multiple ways for students to engage, process information, and show what they know. It recognizes that every learner is different, and builds that into the design.

    Of course, not every gamified tool is created equal. Thoughtful implementation, equity in access, and alignment with student goals are essential. But when used intentionally, gamification can turn classrooms into places where students with diverse needs feel seen, supported, and excited to learn.

    Are we ready to level up?

    Gamification is a step toward classrooms that work for everyone. For students with special needs, it means learning at their own pace, discovering their strengths, and building confidence through meaningful challenges.

    For teachers, it’s a shift from directing traffic to guiding adventurers.

    If we want education to be truly inclusive, we must go beyond accommodations and build systems where diversity is accepted and celebrated. And maybe, just maybe, that journey begins with a game.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : HEI Resources Fall 2025

    Higher Education Inquirer : HEI Resources Fall 2025

     [Editor’s Note: Please let us know of any additions or corrections.]

    Books

    • Alexander, Bryan (2020). Academia Next: The Futures of Higher Education. Johns Hopkins Press.  
    • Alexander, Bryan (2023).  Universities on Fire. Johns Hopkins Press.  
    • Angulo, A. (2016). Diploma Mills: How For-profit Colleges Stiffed Students, Taxpayers, and the American Dream. Johns Hopkins University Press.
    • Apthekar,  Bettina (1966) Big Business and the American University. New Outlook Publishers.  
    • Apthekar, Bettina (1969). Higher education and the student rebellion in the United States, 1960-1969 : a bibliography.
    • Archibald, R. and Feldman, D. (2017). The Road Ahead for America’s Colleges & Universities. Oxford University Press.
    • Armstrong, E. and Hamilton, L. (2015). Paying for the Party: How College Maintains Inequality. Harvard University Press.
    • Arum, R. and Roksa, J. (2011). Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. University of Chicago Press. 
    • Baldwin, Davarian (2021). In the Shadow of the Ivory Tower: How Universities Are Plundering Our Cities. Bold Type Books.  
    • Bennett, W. and Wilezol, D. (2013). Is College Worth It?: A Former United States Secretary of Education and a Liberal Arts Graduate Expose the Broken Promise of Higher Education. Thomas Nelson.
    • Berg, I. (1970). “The Great Training Robbery: Education and Jobs.” Praeger.
    • Berman, Elizabeth P. (2012). Creating the Market University.  Princeton University Press. 
    • Berry, J. (2005). Reclaiming the Ivory Tower: Organizing Adjuncts to Change Higher Education. Monthly Review Press.
    • Best, J. and Best, E. (2014) The Student Loan Mess: How Good Intentions Created a Trillion-Dollar Problem. Atkinson Family Foundation.

      • Bledstein, Burton J. (1976). The Culture of Professionalism: The Middle Class and the Development of Higher Education in America. Norton.

    • Bogue, E. Grady and Aper, Jeffrey.  (2000). Exploring the Heritage of American Higher Education: The Evolution of Philosophy and Policy. 
    • Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the Marketplace : The Commercialization of Higher Education.  Princeton University Press. 
    • Bousquet, M. (2008). How the University Works: Higher Education and the Low Wage Nation. NYU Press.
    • Brennan, J & Magness, P. (2019). Cracks in the Ivory Tower. Oxford University Press. 
    • Brint, S., & Karabel, J. The Diverted Dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in America, 1900–1985. Oxford University Press. (1989).
    • Cabrera, Nolan L. (2024) Whiteness in the Ivory Tower: Why Don’t We Notice the White Students Sitting Together in the Quad? Teachers College Press.
    • Cabrera, Nolan L. (2018). White Guys on Campus: Racism, White Immunity, and the Myth of “Post-Racial” Higher Education. Rutgers University Press.
    • Caplan, B. (2018). The Case Against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money. Princeton University Press.
    • Cappelli, P. (2015). Will College Pay Off?: A Guide to the Most Important Financial Decision You’ll Ever Make. Public Affairs.
    • Cassuto, Leonard (2015). The Graduate School Mess. Harvard University Press. 
    • Caterine, Christopher (2020). Leaving Academia. Princeton Press. 
    • Carney, Cary Michael (1999). Native American Higher Education in the United States. Transaction.
    • Childress, H. (2019). The Adjunct Underclass: How America’s Colleges Betrayed Their Faculty, Their Students, and Their Mission University of Chicago Press.
    • Cohen, Arthur M. (1998). The Shaping of American Higher Education: Emergence and Growth of the Contemporary System. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    • Collins, Randall. (1979/2019) The Credential Society. Academic Press. Columbia University Press. 
    • Cottom, T. (2016). Lower Ed: How For-profit Colleges Deepen Inequality in America
    • Domhoff, G. William (2021). Who Rules America? 8th Edition. Routledge.
    • Donoghue, F. (2008). The Last Professors: The Corporate University and the Fate of the Humanities.
    • Dorn, Charles. (2017) For the Common Good: A New History of Higher Education in America Cornell University Press.
    • Eaton, Charlie.  (2022) Bankers in the Ivory Tower: The Troubling Rise of Financiers in US Higher Education. University of Chicago Press.
    • Eisenmann, Linda. (2006) Higher Education for Women in Postwar America, 1945–1965. Johns Hopkins U. Press.
    • Espenshade, T., Walton Radford, A.(2009). No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life. Princeton University Press.
    • Faragher, John Mack and Howe, Florence, ed. (1988). Women and Higher Education in American History. Norton.
    • Farber, Jerry (1972).  The University of Tomorrowland.  Pocket Books. 
    • Freeman, Richard B. (1976). The Overeducated American. Academic Press.
    • Gaston, P. (2014). Higher Education Accreditation. Stylus.
    • Ginsberg, B. (2013). The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All Administrative University and Why It Matters
    • Gleason, Philip. Contending with Modernity: Catholic Higher Education in the Twentieth Century. Oxford U. Press, 1995.
    • Golden, D. (2006). The Price of Admission: How America’s Ruling Class Buys its Way into Elite Colleges — and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates.
    • Goldrick-Rab, S. (2016). Paying the Price: College Costs, Financial Aid, and the Betrayal of the American Dream.
    • Graeber, David (2018) Bullshit Jobs: A Theory. Simon and Schuster. 

      • Groeger, Cristina Viviana (2021). The Education Trap: Schools and the Remaking of Inequality in Boston. Harvard Press.

    • Hamilton, Laura T. and Kelly Nielson (2021) Broke: The Racial Consequences of Underfunding Public Universities

      • Hampel, Robert L. (2017). Fast and Curious: A History of Shortcuts in American Education. Rowman & Littlefield.

    • Johnson, B. et al. (2003). Steal This University: The Rise of the Corporate University and the Academic Labor Movement
    • Keats, John (1965) The Sheepskin Psychosis. Lippincott.
    • Kelchen, R. (2018). Higher Education Accountability. Johns Hopkins University Press.
    • Kezar, A., DePaola, T, and Scott, D. The Gig Academy: Mapping Labor in the Neoliberal University. Johns Hopkins Press. 
    • Kinser, K. (2006). From Main Street to Wall Street: The Transformation of For-profit Higher Education
    • Kozol, Jonathan (2006). The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America. Crown. 
    • Kozol, Jonathan (1992). Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. Harper Perennial.
    • Labaree, David F. (2017). A Perfect Mess: The Unlikely Ascendancy of American Higher Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    • Labaree, David (1997) How to Succeed in School without Really Learning: The Credentials Race in American Education, Yale University Press.
    • Lafer, Gordon (2004). The Job Training Charade. Cornell University Press.  
    • Loehen, James (1995). Lies My Teacher Told Me. The New Press. 
    • Lohse, Andrew (2014).  Confessions of an Ivy League Frat Boy: A Memoir.  Thomas Dunne Books. 
    • Lucas, C.J. American higher education: A history. (1994).
    • Lukianoff, Greg and Jonathan Haidt (2018). The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. Penguin Press.
    • Maire, Quentin (2021). Credential Market. Springer.
    • Mandery, Evan (2022) . Poison Ivy: How Elite Colleges Divide Us. New Press. 
    • Marti, Eduardo (2016). America’s Broken Promise: Bridging the Community College Achievement Gap. Excelsior College Press. 
    • Mettler, Suzanne ‘Degrees of Inequality: How the Politics of Higher Education Sabotaged the American Dream. Basic Books. (2014)
    • Newfeld, C. (2011). Unmaking the Public University.
    • Newfeld, C. (2016). The Great Mistake: How We Wrecked Public Universities and How We Can Fix Them.
    • Paulsen, M. and J.C. Smart (2001). The Finance of Higher Education: Theory, Research, Policy & Practice.  Agathon Press. 
    • Rosen, A.S. (2011). Change.edu. Kaplan Publishing. 
    • Reynolds, G. (2012). The Higher Education Bubble. Encounter Books.
    • Roth, G. (2019) The Educated Underclass: Students and the Promise of Social Mobility. Pluto Press
    • Ruben, Julie. The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality. University Of Chicago Press. (1996).
    • Rudolph, F. (1991) The American College and University: A History.
    • Rushdoony, R. (1972). The Messianic Character of American Education. The Craig Press.
    • Selingo, J. (2013). College Unbound: The Future of Higher Education and What It Means for Students.
    • Shelton, Jon (2023). The Education Myth: How Human Capital Trumped Social Democracy. Cornell University Press. 
    • Simpson, Christopher (1999). Universities and Empire: Money and Politics in the Social Sciences During the Cold War. New Press.
    • Sinclair, U. (1923). The Goose-Step: A Study of American Education.
    • Stein, Sharon (2022). Unsettling the University: Confronting the Colonial Foundations of US Higher Education, Johns Hopkins Press. 
    • Stevens, Mitchell L. (2009). Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites. Harvard University Press. 
    • Stodghill, R. (2015). Where Everybody Looks Like Me: At the Crossroads of America’s Black Colleges and Culture. 
    • Tamanaha, B. (2012). Failing Law Schools. The University of Chicago Press. 
    • Tatum, Beverly (1997). Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria. Basic Books
    • Taylor, Barret J. and Brendan Cantwell (2019). Unequal Higher Education: Wealth, Status and Student Opportunity. Rutgers University Press.
    • Thelin, John R. (2019) A History of American Higher Education. Johns Hopkins U. Press.
    • Tolley, K. (2018). Professors in the Gig Economy: Unionizing Adjunct Faculty in America. Johns Hopkins University Press.
    • Twitchell, James B. (2005). Branded Nation: The Marketing of Megachurch, College Inc., and Museumworld. Simon and Schuster.
    • Vedder, R. (2004). Going Broke By Degree: Why College Costs Too Much.
    • Veysey Lawrence R. (1965).The emergence of the American university.
    • Washburn, J. (2006). University Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education
    • Washington, Harriet A. (2008). Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present. Anchor. 
    • Whitman, David (2021). The Profits of Failure: For-Profit Colleges and the Closing of the Conservative Mind. Cypress House.
    • Wilder, C.D. (2013). Ebony and Ivy: Race, Slavery, and the Troubled History of America’s Universities. 
    • Winks, Robin (1996). Cloak and Gown:Scholars in the Secret War, 1939-1961. Yale University Press.
    • Woodson, Carter D. (1933). The Mis-Education of the Negro.  
    • Zaloom, Caitlin (2019).  Indebted: How Families Make College Work at Any Cost. Princeton University Press. 
    • Zemsky, Robert, Susan Shaman, and Susan Campbell Baldridge (2020). The College Stress Test:Tracking Institutional Futures across a Crowded Market. Johns Hopkins University Press. 

    Activists, Coalitions, Innovators, and Alternative Voices

     College Choice and Career Planning Tools

    Innovation and Reform

    Higher Education Policy

    Data Sources

    Trade publications

    Source link

  • Letter From a Region of My Mind

    Letter From a Region of My Mind

    Working in journalism left Inside Higher Ed’s co-founder Doug Lederman little time to read for anything but information, so last summer, when he stepped away from 90-hour workweeks, he told me he wanted to watch less Netflix. I said, “Friend, you came to the right place.” Recommending reading is pretty much the only area where I can make solid contributions these days.

    I started Doug out with things I knew he’d like. Chad Harbach’s The Art of Fielding was an early favorite. I moved him along to Jess Walter’s Beautiful Ruins, The Friend by Sigrid Nunez, James (Percival Everett, not Henry), Meg Wolitzer’s The Interestings and loaded him onto the Louise Penny train.

    But just before I headed to D.C. last March for his official farewell party, I assigned him a novel I’d been wanting to reread and liked the idea of book-clubbing with him: John Williams’s beautiful and heartbreaking Stoner. I’ve often given Doug a hard time about—well, everything—but especially the fact that he’s never actually been in higher ed. He’s only peered in from outside with a reporter’s magnifying glass, exposing our flaws and fault lines, doing his essential duty as a journalist.

    When Doug asked me to work with him as a thought partner to create a newsletter for upper-level administrators, he wanted to bring tough love to leaders. He confessed to having a case of the fuck-its, disappointed that higher ed has been so slow to change and unwilling to take responsibility for some missteps. As we know, disappointment can only come from love, and is much harder for recipients to bear.

    I responded in my typically tactful fashion, asking him, “Who the fuck are you to have a case of the fuck-its? Do not speak to me of the fuck-its! Have you had to read millions of pages of academic monographs? Have you heard academics complain that their names were too small on book covers? Have you denied thousands of qualified applicants admission to their dream college, or sat through interminable Faculty Senate meetings group-copyediting policies? Have you taught classes that flop or graduate students who just can’t?”

    In other words, I told the co-founder of IHE he had little idea what it was like to be in higher ed, especially from the perspective of a faculty or staff member. Given his role and prominence in the industry, Doug’s attention is always sought after, a high-value treat. In our world, he is beef jerky, not a Milk-Bone.

    I thought it time for him to use his leisure reading to get a deeper understanding of what it’s like to be a regular professor. Not an oversize character like Morris Zapp (my old boss, Stanley) or even Lucky Hank Devereaux (or Lucky Jim).

    Stoner follows the fictional life and career of an English professor at the University of Missouri in the early part of the last century. Early in the novel, and just before the sinking of the Lusitania, the sharpest of a group of three young academics asks his fellows, “Have you gentlemen ever considered the question of the true nature of the University?”

    Mr. Stoner “sees it as a great repository, like a library or a whorehouse, where men come of their free will and select that which will complete them, where all work together like little bees in a common hive.” Mr. Finch, with his “simple mind,” sees it as “a kind of spiritual sulphur-and-molasses that you administer every fall to get the little bastards through another winter.” Finch goes on, naturally, to become a dean.

    But they are both wrong, claims the character named Masters. The university ”is an asylum …. a rest home, for the infirm, the aged, the discontent, the otherwise incompetent.” His self-diagnosis: ”I’m too bright for the world, and I won’t keep my mouth shut about it.” He concludes, ”But bad as we are, we’re better than those on the outside, in the muck, the poor bastards of the world. We do no harm, we say what we want, and we get paid for it.”

    The book, published in 1965, presents characters that feel so current and vibrant you can imagine having a cocktail with them. In the times we now find ourselves, Stoner may become popular again—but not for all the right reasons.

    I have friends who have long said they’re done reading things by dead white men. When Doug and I were in college, that was pretty much the entire curriculum, with the exception of the 19th century gals, an Emily Dickinson here, a Frederick Douglass there. This reluctance is understandable, given how long the canon excluded previously silenced voices. Yet, I don’t discriminate. Stoner offers profound insights into institutional structures that persist today.

    These thoughts were on my mind as I finished my reread just before our flight to D.C. to celebrate Doug’s retirement next chapter, where institutional structures of a different kind awaited us in marble and glass.

    We had half a day before the event and my husband, Toby, and I wanted to be tourists. It had not been my intention to speed-walk through four museums in five hours. (Toby could spend hours in front of one painting, but he loves me and is a good sport.)

    My childhood consisted of trips downstate to see grandparents in New York City, which often involved visits to museums. A favorite was the one that hosted the squid and the whale. Unconsciously, I bought into the primate visions described by Donna Haraway about hierarchies—her critique of how science museums construct narratives of power and evolution that shape our understanding.

    Fifty years later, I was eager to see what had changed. We started at Natural History, moved on to American History, then African American, and ended up at the Holocaust. In March 2025, this journey was not, it won’t surprise you to learn, an uplifting experience. The museums, like higher education itself, told a complex story of American identity that is now under dire threat.

    I sped through to parse the presentation. How did the curators choose to tell the stories, some of which I know well, and which, as an adult, I would always prefer to read? Since I began my career publishing books in American history at Oxford University Press, I’ve imbibed a decent amount of quality scholarship.

    When I became an acquisitions editor at Duke University Press in 1991, I was intrigued by the work of scholars like Kimberlé Crenshaw, Patricia Williams, Mari Matsuda, Derrick Bell and other theorists who used narrative to examine how our legal system perpetuated structural inequalities. Most people weren’t reading law journals back then, and it took a while for those ideas to make it into the mainstream

    Academe cranked open the curriculum to face historical truths not always self-evident: We are a country built on a commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion. At times we fell short of the mark, but the arc of the universe is long, and we were taught the direction in which it bends.

    Except. The rise to power documented in that last somber building we visited reads to me like a blueprint for what’s happening today. Before I could remember not knowing it, my father drilled into me that what it means to be a Jew is there’s always someone who wants to put you in an oven. That was made tangible by the numbers I saw tattooed on the arm of Great-Grandpa Max.

    How much longer will busloads of boisterous students milling around these repositories of culture be able to learn our history? When will the whitewashing take hold so that the ideas contained in the curators’ vision—in the works we’ve published since the latter part of the last century—are mummified?

    One of many chilling moments: coming on a small story I knew from the film Who Will Write Our History? Historian Emanuel Ringelblum organized Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1939 to document unprecedented actions. He collected materials, placed them in milk cans and buried them throughout the city. The archive known as the Oneg Shabbat is housed in Jerusalem at Yad Vashem.

    It was impossible in March not to feel that my colleagues at IHE and other media outlets are busting their butts at a similar task: chronicling the last days of an era of inclusion.

    How long before these exhibits come down, replaced by gold toilets in buildings repurposed for hotels and casinos?

    Just as the bright shining moment of Camelot disappeared for a previous generation, many of us already look back on Hamilton with nostalgia. A too-quick tour of museums in our nation’s capital filled me with love for America and the things that made us great. When I left, all I felt was grief. What happens if we don’t rise to today’s challenge?

    This sobering experience in D.C. brought me back to my conversation with Doug about higher education’s resistance to change. A reading of Stoner should not feel as resonant and familiar as it does. Little about faculty structure and the ethos of academe has evolved in the last century.

    Walking through those endangered halls of American memory, what Doug has long been saying to leaders is urgent: We need more than just better storytelling about higher education—we need to fundamentally reimagine it. And we need to do it now.

    The buried milk cans of our moment will someday be unearthed. The articles, reports and assessments documenting higher education’s struggles will serve as testimony to what we did—or failed to do—in this critical period. My only hope is that they’ll reveal how colleges and universities finally broke free from institutional inertia to continue to do the work of educating our citizenry toward truth and justice for all.

    Note: This reflection was published March 22, 2025, as an issue of The Sandbox. I wanted to share it as part of my new column here for two reasons (and with apologies to subscribers). First, if you’ve been reading the news, you’ll see that I wish I’d been wrong. Just a week after this first came out, the dismantling began. And now we’re seeing a scrubbing of our nation’s history in essential cultural institutions and not just in D.C.

    Also, I got a ton of responses from readers thanking me for putting them onto Stoner. So now, you’re welcome, friends.

    Rachel Toor is a contributing editor at Inside Higher Ed and the co-founder of The Sandbox, a weekly newsletter that allows presidents and chancellors to write anonymously. She is also a professor of creative writing and the author of books on weirdly diverse subjects. Reach her here with questions, comments and complaints compliments.

    Source link

  • Howard President Steps Down, Former President Appointed Interim

    Howard President Steps Down, Former President Appointed Interim

    Vinson has led the Washington, D.C., HBCU since 2023.

    Cheriss May/NurPhoto via Getty Images

    Howard University president Ben Vinson III will step down Aug. 31, two years after assuming the role and two weeks after the start of fall classes, university officials announced Friday. Former Howard president Wayne A. I. Frederick will serve as interim president. 

    “It has been an honor to serve Howard,” Vinson said in a statement. “At this point, I will be taking some time to be with my family and continue my research activities. I look forward to using my experiences as president to continue to serve higher education in the future.” 

    University officials declined to comment about why Vinson is leaving only two years after he took up the helm. During his tenure, the Washington, D.C.–based HBCU became an R-1 research institution and brought on several high-profile faculty, including journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, author Ta-Nehisi Coates and historian Ibram X. Kendi. The university also hosted Kamala Harris’s election night watch party.

    But the past year has also brought its share of challenges. In May, the Trump administration proposed cutting Howard’s federal funding by $64 million in fiscal year 2026, bringing it back to its 2021 funding level. Over the summer, the administration took heat from students over surprise bills that appeared on their accounts when the university transitioned to a new student financial platform, and some students turned to crowdfunding to pay those bills. 

    “On behalf of the Howard University Board of Trustees, we extend our sincere gratitude to Dr. Vinson for his service and leadership as president,” board chair Leslie Hale said in a statement. “We extend our very best wishes to him in his future endeavors.”

    Frederick, who served as president of Howard from 2014 to 2023, will remain interim president while the board conducts a nationwide search for a permanent replacement.

    Source link

  • Fewer Young People See Math Skills as Very Important in Work

    Fewer Young People See Math Skills as Very Important in Work

    Higher education stakeholders have noted that math anxiety can hold students back from pursuing some disciplines or major programs, but a new analysis from Gallup finds that young Americans over all place less importance on math skills compared to the general population.

    While over half of all Americans rate math skills as “very important” in their work (55 percent) and personal (63 percent) lives, only 38 percent of young people (ages 18 to 24) said math skills are very important in their work life and 37 percent in their personal life, according to a December survey of 5,100 U.S. adults.

    The survey highlights generational divisions in how math skills are perceived, with adults older than 55 most likely to see math as very important compared to younger adults, and Gen Z least likely to attribute value to math skills.

    To Sheila Tabanli, a mathematics professor at Rutgers University, the low ratings point to a lack of perceived connection between math skills and career development, despite the clear correlation she sees.

    Tabanli said it can be hard to convince many Gen Z and Alpha students that math content is necessary for their daily lives, in part because access to information is so convenient and they can perform calculations on their phones or online.

    “We need to transition from focusing too much on the concept, the domain, the content—which we do love as math people, otherwise we wouldn’t be doing it for a living—but students don’t see that connection [to employable skills],” Tabanli said.

    When asked how important math skills were for the majority of the U.S. workforce, 40 percent of young adults rated having math skills as very important—the lowest rating of nine skills evaluated, including reading, language, technology and leadership, according to Gallup.

    Young people also rated the importance of math skills for the general workforce, as compared to their own lives, the lowest of all age cohorts. Adults ages 55 to 64 (71 percent) and 65 and older (68 percent) were most likely to say math is a very important skill for the general workforce.

    Most career competencies that colleges and universities teach, such as those by the National Association for Colleges and Employers, focus on broader skills—including critical thinking, leadership, communication and teamwork—as essential for workplace success. Math can teach students how to solve problems and engage with difficult content, which Tabanli argues are just as important for an early-career professional.

    One reason a young adult might not rate math skills highly is because many students face undue math anxiety or a skepticism about their own ability to do math, falling into the belief that they’re not “math people,” Tabanli said.

    In response, Tabanli believes professors should help students apply computational skills to their daily lives or link content to other classes to encourage students to invest in their math learning. While this may be an additional step for a faculty member to take, Tabanli considers it a disservice to neglect this connection.

    Professors can also strive to make themselves and the content more human and approachable by sharing information about their lives, their careers and why they’re passionate about the subject, Tabanli said.

    Source link

  • Federal Grants for Area Studies and Foreign Language at Risk

    Federal Grants for Area Studies and Foreign Language at Risk

    For 67 years, the Department of Education has administered grants to universities to create centers devoted to foreign languages and area studies, a field focused on the study of the culture of a particular area or region. Now, those centers are under fire by the Trump administration, which has not released the funding the grantees expected to receive in July.

    The grants support what are known as National Resource Centers, which were originally developed as a national security tool to help the U.S. increase its international expertise in the midst of the Cold War and the aftermath of Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of Sputnik. Since then, their purpose has shifted with the times, now focusing not only on producing scholars but also on community outreach and collaboration with K–12 schools.

    The office responsible for administering the grants—International and Foreign Language Education—was dissolved and its entire staff laid off as part of the March reduction in force at the Department of Education. But it seemed IFLE’s programs, which were authorized under Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965, would live on; they were moved under the ED’s Office of Higher Education Programs, according to an internal communication shared with Inside Higher Ed at the time.

    Since then, funding has come through “in fits and starts,” Halina Goldberg, the director of Indiana University’s Robert F. Byrnes Russian and East European Institute (REEI), told Inside Higher Ed in an email, though ultimately, the center received all its promised funds for fiscal year 2024–25. REEI was part of the first cohort of NRCs and has been continuously funded by the program since then.

    But NRC directors, including Goldberg, are concerned the funds for the upcoming year—the final year of the program’s four-year cycle—may not come through, and that the Trump administration may be planning to demolish the program altogether. NRC leaders have received no notice from ED about whether or when the funds are coming, and some say their contacts at the department have expressed uncertainty about the program’s future.

    The funding cuts appear to be caused by the Office of Management and Budget; records show that the agency has not approved appropriations for programs formerly housed in IFLE, including the NRC program, as well as the Foreign Language and Area Studies fellowships, which fund scholarships and stipends for undergraduate and graduate students studying these disciplines. In total, about $85 million was appropriated for IFLE programs for FY 2025–26, including $60 million for NRCs and FLAS.

    “We’re just kind of in this holding pattern to learn whether our funds are going to be released or not. And there is some time pressure, because if that fiscal year 2025 funding is not allocated by Sept. 30, which is when the fiscal year, the government fiscal year ends, then it’s gone and we’re without funding,” said Kasia Szremski, associate director for the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    A Discipline in Crisis

    NRC grant recipients worry about what the funding freeze and potential elimination of the program will mean for the disciplines of foreign language and area studies, which have already taken a beating in recent years; many colleges have eliminated such programs as cost-saving measures— including West Virginia University, which gutted nearly all of its language programs in 2023. More recently, the University of Chicago has paused admissions to all its humanities Ph.D. programs, including a slew of language programs, for the coming academic year.

    Emanuel Rota, a professor in the Department of French and Italian at Urbana-Champaign who leads the university’s European Union Center, said he was already worried about the future of area studies and foreign language education, but “now I’m terribly scared.”

    “I think this seems to be, at this point, slightly part of a trend to provincialize the United States in a way that is troubling for the future of this generation of students, who are, at this point, used to learning from other experiences around the world; knowing about ways of teaching, other ways of learning; establishing collaborations early on; and being able to be multicultural and multilinguistic like their peers around the world,” he said. “And all of a sudden they are told, ‘You only speak one language, you only know one culture and you only know your local environment, and you have to live with that.’”

    It also comes amid efforts to quash other forms of cultural education and intercultural exchange. OMB also recently cut funding from a number of State Department exchange programs, according to Mark Overmann, executive director of the Alliance for International Exchange, which represents organizations that administer such programs.

    Larger entities like the Fulbright program are being spared, he said, but the cuts include critical programming aiming at increasing STEM education access for girls around the world, fostering intercultural exchange with students in the Middle East, bolstering the study of foreign affairs in the U.S. and more.

    International students and immigration broadly are also being targeted by the Trump administration, which has recently revoked thousands of student visas and increased barriers for overseas students studying in the U.S.

    “I think international exchange programs, mobility, the presence of international students on our campuses have long been something that is supported in a bipartisan way, and that has been played out for decades in tangible ways,” Overmann said. “One would be increases in funding in both Democrat and Republican administrations, as well as Congresses. This is something we have seen transcend party lines and those across the political spectrum see that the mobility of our students, of our young professionals—both Americans going abroad and international students and professionals coming here—is something that supports our national security, our diplomatic interests, our influence around the world and our economy, down to very local levels.”

    This isn’t the first time Trump has targeted NRCs. In 2018, during his first administration, ED criticized a Middle Eastern studies consortium at Duke University and the University of North Carolina for delivering programs it alleged had “little or no relevance to Title VI.” The programs under scrutiny included a conference about “Love and Desire in Modern Iran” and another focused on film criticism in the Middle East.

    “It was probably a harbinger of what’s happening now,” said Brian Cwiek, a former IFLE program officer who lost his job when the office was dissolved. “I think that’s really where a lot of the same folks became intent on shutting down this same program.”

    Area studies funding is also singled out in Project 2025, an agenda developed by the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation that the Trump administration is following closely.

    “Congress should wind down so-called ‘area studies’ programs at universities (Title VI of the HEA), which, although intended to serve American interests, sometimes fund programs that run counter to those interests,” Project 2025 reads. “In the meantime, the next Administration should promulgate a new regulation to require the Secretary of Education to allocate at least 40 percent of funding to international business programs that teach about free markets and economics and require institutions, faculty, and fellowship recipients to certify that they intend to further the stated statutory goals of serving American interests.”

    Outreach at Risk

    Although funding may still come through before the September cutoff date, some centers are already feeling the pressure.

    At the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies at Cornell University, which is home to two National Resource Centers, Kathi Colen Peck was responsible for administering an NRC-funded program focused on providing faculty development to professors at community colleges in upstate New York. Although the center has funding sources outside of ED, the community college program was almost entirely funded by an NRC grant.

    The program involved bringing international speakers—a dance instructor from Benin, for example—to give workshops in community college classrooms, as well as administering a fellowship for community college professors to create curricular projects.

    Once it became clear this year’s funding wasn’t going to become available when expected, Peck was laid off and the partnerships with community colleges for the upcoming academic year had to be discontinued.

    “The intention of [the outreach program] is really to sort of bridge resources and help the community college faculty have connections to the area studies expertise at, for example, Cornell. They’re able to leverage resources at Cornell where they wouldn’t necessarily have access to that in any other circumstances,” she said. “It’s really about trying to help the community college faculty internationalize their curricula.”

    At other campuses, cultural events and educational programs that NRC leaders say are immensely valuable to their communities could be on the chopping block. Hilary V. Finchum-Sung, the executive director of the Association for Asian Studies, said that the University of Michigan’s Korean Studies center, for example, hosts a free Korean film series at an off-campus theater that is open to members of the public. It’s an opportunity for members of the Ann Arbor community to see a film they likely never would otherwise—and to glean something new about a culture that they might be unfamiliar with.

    On the flip side, NRC programs can sometimes give immigrants a rare chance to connect with their culture on American soil. Szremski, of UIUC’s Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies, said the center has partnered with local libraries to hold a Latin American Story Time Program for about 15 years. At these events, they read children’s stories in English and Spanish, but also in other Latin American languages including Portuguese, Guaraní, Q’anjob’al, and Quechua.

    “This is particularly important in Champaign and Urbana, because even though we’re in central Illinois, we have a very large and very vibrant Latino community, many of whom are native speakers of Indigenous languages,” she said.

    Once, after a Latin American Story Time event, a library worker once told her, an older woman “came up to her in tears because she was a native Guaraní speaker and had never thought [she would] hear her native language again, really, now that she was living in the United States.”

    Cwiek noted that some faculty positions may also be at risk without NRC funding; though the grants usually cover only a small portion of a professor’s salary, that portion may be the difference that allows a college to offer certain world languages.

    Scholarship Uncertainty

    Students are also in imminent danger of losing scholarships due to the funding pause. Graduate students relying on Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships to fund their education in the new academic year still don’t know whether they will receive that money. Szremski said on Friday that one incoming fellow recently made the choice to withdraw from UIUC and instead study in Colombia for the upcoming academic year due to funding fears. With UIUC’s academic year beginning this week, others were forced to make the decision about whether to come to campus without knowing if they would receive the scholarships they’d been promised. Across the university’s NRCs, 53 students are awaiting FLAS funds.

    Other universities are in a similar position. At Cornell, 18 students will be impacted if the money doesn’t come through, according to Ellen Lust, the director of the Einaudi Center for International Studies and a government professor.

    These fellowships provide the cultural awareness, understanding and skills that the U.S. “has relied on to be a world leader. Students who benefited from NRC support have gone on to join the US Foreign Service, engage in international business, and educate new generations of global citizens. They have conducted international collaborations and research that that ultimately benefit Americans,” she wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed.

    While the stipends allocated to undergraduate students are not as sizable as those for graduate students, Szremski said those recipients have told her they may have to take out private loans or start part-time jobs to fill the gap created by the missing FLAS money.

    The future of these grants remains unclear. The Senate’s appropriations bill maintains funding for IFLE programs, so even if the funding doesn’t come through this year, the program may be able to resume the following year.

    But if the NRC and FLAS programs are shuttered permanently, the effects will “be felt for generations to come,” wrote Lust.

    “Our current and future students are the foreign service officers, intelligence analysts and CEOs of the future,” she wrote. “Within a generation, US citizens will be ill-equipped to live, work and lead in a global world. They will be outmatched by those from other countries, who speak multiple languages, understand diverse cultures and have built relationships across borders. Ultimately, these policies weaken the US’ global position and will make America less secure and prosperous.”

    Source link

  • SCOTUS Ruling Has “Bleak Implications” for Researchers

    SCOTUS Ruling Has “Bleak Implications” for Researchers

    Researchers will have to challenge grant terminations in federal claims court.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | SDI Productions/E+/Getty Images

    Hope is fading that federally funded researchers whose grants were terminated by the National Institutes of Health earlier this year will be able to resume their work as planned.

    On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that any legal challenges to the grant terminations should be litigated in the Court of Federal Claims, not the federal district court system they’ve been moving through for months.

    It’s the latest twist in federally funded researchers’ legal fight to claw back nearly $800 million in medical research grants—though accounting for the multiyear grants that the NIH is refusing to fulfill puts that figure closer to $2 billion—the NIH terminated for running afoul of the Trump administration’s ideological priorities. Many of the grants funded programs that advanced diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and research projects focused on topics such as LGBTQ+ health, vaccine hesitancy and racial disparities.

    Researchers sued the NIH in April and got a win in June when a federal district court judge in Massachusetts ordered the agency to reinstate the grants immediately. Although the NIH has since reinstated many of those grants, Scott Delaney, an epidemiologist at Harvard University and former lawyer who’s been tracking grant cancellations, told Inside Higher Ed that after Thursday’s ruling those reinstated grants will “almost certainly” be re-terminated. If that happens, “I don’t think they’ll get their money back.”

    That’s in part because the Supreme Court said researchers will have to re-file their lawsuits in federal claims court, which generally doesn’t have the power to issue injunctive relief that could keep grant money flowing during the litigation process. And it could take months or even years for the claims court to decide if researchers are owed damages.

    “Nobody has that kind of time. The nature of research is that you can’t just stop and restart it many months later,” said Delaney. “Folks have already had to do that once and many aren’t able to—they’ve had to lay off staff and lost contact with study participants. This additional delay probably renders the research unviable going forward.”

    Trump ‘Always Wins’

    Delaney is among numerous experts and advocates who say the decision is both a blow to the scientific research enterprise and the latest evidence that the Supreme Court is inclined to interpret the law to favor the Trump administration’s whims.

    “Make no mistake: This was a decision critical to the future of the nation, and the Supreme Court made the wrong choice,” the Association of American Medical Colleges said in a statement. “History will look upon these mass NIH research grant terminations with shame. The Court has turned a blind eye to this grievous attack on science and medicine, and we call upon Congress to take action to restore the rule of law at NIH.”

    Jeremy Berg, who served as director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences from 2003 to 2011, said in an email to Inside Higher Ed that while “many (but not all) grants from the lawsuits that had been terminated have been reinstated at this point,” the big question the Supreme Court’s ruling raises now “is whether NIH will start to re-terminate them.”

    Although a 5-4 majority did agree on Thursday that the district can review NIH’s reasoning for the terminations and kept in place a court order blocking the guidance that prompted the cancellations, Berg said the mixed ruling is “potentially very damaging” because redirecting the case to a different court means “the stay blocking the required reinstatements could go into effect.”

    He added that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent sums up his interpretation of the ruling’s implications. “This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist,” Jackson wrote. “Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: That one, and this Administration always wins.”

    That’s how Samuel Bagenstos, a professor of law and public policy at the University of Michigan and former general counsel to the Department of Health and Human Services, interpreted the decision, too.

    “The message the courts sent yesterday is very strong that they are going to let the Trump administration shut down the grants right now and remit grantees to the really uncertain process of going to the Court of Federal Claims and potentially getting damages in the future,” he said in an interview with Inside Higher Ed Friday.

    “But that’s really cold comfort for the grantees,” Bagenstos added. “If they can’t get the grants restarted right now, they probably can’t continue their research projects, and the prospect of maybe getting damages in the future doesn’t keep those research projects alive. It’s a bad sign for the entire research community.”

    The NIH is far from the only federal agency that has canceled federal research grants that don’t align with the Trump administration’s ideologies. The National Science Foundation, the Education Department and the National Endowment for the Humanities are all facing legal challenges in federal district courts after freezing or canceling grants.

    And the Supreme Court’s ruling on the NIH’s terminations has implications for those cases, as well.

    “The message seems to be pretty clear that if you have an ongoing grant that’s been terminated and you want to go to court to keep the money flowing, you’re out of luck,” Bagenstos said. “It’s got very bleak implications for all researchers who are depending on continuing the flow of federal grants.”

    Source link