Tag: Education

  • 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

  • Federal Judge Rules in Favor of Religious Colleges in Minn.

    Federal Judge Rules in Favor of Religious Colleges in Minn.

    Religious colleges that require students to sign a faith statement cannot be shut out of a Minnesota program that funds the dual enrollment of high school students in the state’s public and private postsecondary institutions, a federal judge ruled Friday.

    U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel’s ruling overturns a Minnesota law prohibiting Christian colleges that participate in the state’s 40-year-old Postsecondary Enrollment Options program from forcing students to pass a religious test. The state Education Department and LGBTQ+ advocates had sought such legislation for years on the grounds that faith statements discriminate against students who are not Christian, straight or cisgender. It finally passed in 2023, under a Democratic State Legislature.

    The families of several high school students seeking to earn credits at two Christian institutions in the state, Crown College and the University of Northwestern, then sued, arguing that the law violated their First Amendment right to religious freedom. The ban on faith statements was suspended while the legal battle played out.

    “This dispute requires the court to venture into the delicate constitutional interplay of religion and publicly-funded education,” Judge Brasel said in her 70-page ruling. “In doing so, the court heeds the Supreme Court’s instruction that the First Amendment gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations.”

    Brasel noted in her ruling that the two Christian colleges have received nearly $40 million to cover the costs of the PSEO program since the 2017–18 academic year; she wrote that the University of Northwestern admits about 70 percent of dual-enrollment applicants. Over all, some 60,000 high school students have benefited from PSEO, The Minneapolis Star Tribune noted.

    The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the plaintiffs, applauded the decision.

    “Minnesota tried to cut off educational opportunities to thousands of high schoolers simply for their faith. That’s not just unlawful—it’s shameful,” said Becket senior counsel Diana Thomson, according to the Associated Press. “This ruling is a win for families who won’t be strong-armed into abandoning their beliefs, and a sharp warning to politicians who target them.”

    Source link

  • George Mason Must Not Comply With the Government’s Demands (opinion)

    George Mason Must Not Comply With the Government’s Demands (opinion)

    The Department of Education is demanding a personal apology from George Mason president Gregory Washington.

    Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    On Aug. 22, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights announced that George Mason University, led by President Gregory Washington, violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The agency demanded an extraordinary remedy—President Washington must issue a personal apology, to be posted “prominently on the University website,” retract statements supporting diversity and abandon practices that even hint at equity-focused hiring. The message to George Mason, where I was a professor of public policy for nearly two decades, is clear: Equity is now presented as a civil rights violation.

    Title VI was meant to prevent discrimination, not to penalize institutions for recognizing that diversity matters. With courts allowing the consideration of diversity as one factor among many in holistic decisions, OCR’s stance appears to be a politically motivated shift away from long-standing interpretations—not a clear enforcement of the law. Just last week, a federal judge “struck down two Trump administration actions aimed at eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the nation’s schools and universities,” the Associated Press reported.

    Most alarming in OCR’s proposed resolutions is the demand for a personal apology from the university’s first Black president. Washington, who called for eliminating racist legacies on campus, is now being compelled to apologize for doing just that. This isn’t simply an institutional issue—it’s a deeply symbolic act that resembles public shaming of a leader of color for advocating inclusion. It evokes the disturbing history of targeting minority leaders through law and policy.

    This move against Mason is not an isolated incident; it is part of a broader effort to reshape public institutions. Consider the Trump administration’s recent attacks on the Smithsonian Institution. The president criticized the Smithsonian for highlighting slavery’s brutality and diversity in its exhibits, calling the museums “out of control” and “too woke.” He ordered a comprehensive review of Smithsonian content to align it with his vision of “American exceptionalism,” demanding changes to exhibits begin within 120 days.

    Here again, ideology replaces impartial curation. A common thread emerges: Whether in higher education or national museums, diversity and sincere historical reflection are viewed not as civic strengths but as transgressions. Institutional autonomy and academic governance are being subordinated to partisan narratives.

    Should we dismiss the department’s findings as another part of the culture wars? I worry the consequences are much more serious. If OCR’s interpretation of Title VI holds, even referring to diversity as a priority could trigger federal enforcement. Schools are feel compelled to eliminate inclusive programs, silence voices advocating for equity and adhere to a limited historical perspective—all out of fear of losing funding.

    That chilling effect would cripple higher education when it needs vibrancy most. Universities must remain havens of reasoned inquiry, honest history and inclusive excellence. When federal agencies start dictating not only policy but the exact language leaders must use, we enter coercive territory.

    GMU’s faculty, students, alums and board members must unite in opposition to OCR’s unjustified demands. The proposed resolution is not genuine compliance; it’s forced capitulation driven by intimidation. Institutions should not be compelled to apologize for standing up for the principles of true equal opportunity.

    This moment is a clarion call for universities. Yesterday, it was the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard, dragged through headline-grabbing investigations. It was New College of Florida, where political appointees dismantled DEI programs and faculty governance. It was the University of Virginia, accused by the Department of Justice of defying federal antidiscrimination laws. Today it is Mason. Tomorrow, it could be UCLA, Michigan, Wisconsin or any other institution that values diversity, equity and academic freedom. No campus—public or private, flagship or regional—should assume it is immune.

    George Mason should reject the department’s findings and oppose this injustice. Capitulation is not compliance; it’s surrender. If Mason yields, it will damage its credibility and encourage more attacks on higher education nationwide. When universities submit to politically motivated demands disguised as enforcement, they legitimize them and invite more. Silence will be perceived as complicity. Resistance is crucial to protecting the fundamental principles of higher education: autonomy, fairness and the freedom to teach and learn without political interference.

    This is not the first time universities have faced pressure to abandon their commitments to equity and truth. In the 1960s, Southern universities used “law and order” to oppose desegregation. In the 1980s and 1990s, Black faculty and administrators pushing for fair representation often faced vilification and political retaliation. Today, the same tactics are being used, only now they are masked in the language of “civil rights enforcement.”

    What is happening at Mason is part of that history. Title VI, a law born of the civil rights movement to expand opportunity, is being distorted into a tool to silence leaders of color and dismantle diversity initiatives. President Washington’s commitment to pursuing equity should be celebrated, not criminalized. Twisting Title VI into an instrument of ideological punishment and racial scapegoating should alarm everyone who values a democracy that depends on honest history, inclusive leadership and academic freedom.

    And let’s be honest: Coercing a university president to issue a scripted public apology isn’t enforcement—it’s extortion. It’s the same tactic organized crime always uses: Demand submission, humiliate and make an example of one victim to scare others. That has no place in a democracy, much less in higher education.

    The struggle now is the same as it was then: whether our universities will stay places of truth, inclusion and independent thought, or whether they will become tools of partisan control. Mason must choose the first. And the rest of us—in Virginia and across the country—must support it.

    James Finkelstein is professor emeritus of Public Policy at George Mason University

    Source link

  • Censorship at Northwestern Worse After Dreger’s Resignation

    Censorship at Northwestern Worse After Dreger’s Resignation

    Ten years ago, on Aug. 24, 2015, Alice Dreger submitted her resignation as a tenured professor at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine. Dreger was protesting the censorship of an academic journal at Northwestern called Atrium, for which she had served as guest editor of the 2014 issue with the theme “Bad Girls.” That edition included a controversial essay by disability rights advocate William Peace, who wrote about receiving oral sex from a nurse in the 1970s. Northwestern officials removed Atrium’s online issues for 14 months, restoring access to it only after Dreger announced she was going public about the censorship.

    Dreger wasn’t even the first professor to quit in protest over the censorship of Atrium. Kristi Kirschner, a clinical professor of medical humanities and bioethics, resigned in December 2014 because of the repression.

    But Northwestern demanded a new editorial board (including a public relations official) to oversee the journal in the future, which Dreger called a “censorship committee.” The faculty editors of Atrium refused to accept administrative control over its content, and it has never published another issue.

    Dreger recently wrote about her “disappointment (and that tablespoon of regret) at having accidentally caused the end of Atrium. For the magazine was such a gem.” But, of course, she didn’t cause the end of the journal—Northwestern administrators did by making unacceptable demands for control. The blame for censorship always must belong to the censor for suppressing controversy, and not the censored for causing controversy.

    Dreger’s resignation, and the censorship that prompted it, received much less attention than it deserved. This year is also the 10th anniversary of another case at Northwestern that was far more publicized: The Title IX investigation of Laura Kipnis over her essay “Sexual Paranoia Strikes Academe” that examined the case of a Northwestern professor accused of sexually assaulting a graduate student. Two students filed a complaint of retaliation against Kipnis over her writing, and the university cleared her after a lengthy investigation. While Kipnis obviously should never have been investigated for expressing her opinions on a case of campus sexual misconduct, she never suffered any official penalty or censorship.

    By contrast, the censorship of Atrium actually did lead to the demise of a respected academic journal (and the loss of the two professors who protested it). But while the Kipnis case fit a very popular narrative of politically correct leftists demanding suppression, the Atrium case exposed the reality on campus: Conservative censorship was more repressive but much less publicized than the trendy complaints about the PC police.

    Another example of this at Northwestern occurred in 2016, when political science professor Jackie Stevens was suspended and banned from campus after she complained that an administrator had yelled at her and slammed a door. Without any evidence and in violation of its due process policies, Northwestern officials contended that Stevens posed an immediate violent threat to the campus and forced her to undergo a psychological evaluation (which found no danger) before lifting the suspension and banishment. Stevens had been a harsh critic of the administration and was a leader of the successful faculty effort to prevent a retired general without a Ph.D. from being appointed head of an international studies program.

    Looking back at the Dreger resignation a decade ago, it’s hard to feel optimistic, because censorship on campus is even worse today. In the past year, Northwestern University’s actions have been some of the most repressive in the entire history of the institution. In February, Northwestern’s administration adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression has condemned because it “will chill campus speech.”

    One little-known example of Northwestern’s censorship is shockingly reminiscent of what happened to Atrium, except that it’s much worse. In February, Northwestern officials took down the entire website of the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center in response to President Donald Trump’s executive order “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” GSRC director Matt Abtahi didn’t go public about the censorship, but wrote an April 14 email to his staff to explain the removal of the website: “This last month working with the lawyers and senior leadership at NU has been particularly gutting.”

    He added, “The use of civil rights law and discrimination policy to advance these kinds of changes is alarming.” When Northwestern officials learned about the email, they immediately suspended Abtahi on April 18 and then fired him on April 29 and banned him from campus. Northwestern finally restored the GSRC website in May but censored all of the LGBTQ+ content. The censorship today is far worse than what happened to Atrium, which was finally restored online without censorship and no one was fired for questioning the repression.

    But even more appalling has been Northwestern’s violation of the rights of journalism professor Steven Thrasher. After Thrasher defended a student encampment in spring 2024 to prevent police from arresting protesters, Northwestern’s administration retaliated several months later in the wake of Northwestern president Michael Schill’s testimony before members of Congress who called Thrasher a “goon” and demanded his firing.

    Northwestern used its police powers to order Thrasher’s arrest, although the charges were immediately dismissed. In the fall of 2024, Northwestern suspended Thrasher from teaching for two quarters in violation of campus rules and claimed that he had violated professional norms by questioning the concept of “objectivity” in journalism. After a faculty committee cleared Thrasher of any wrongdoing, Northwestern was forced to reinstate him.

    However, Thrasher was up for tenure in 2025, and Northwestern denied him tenure. When Thrasher publicly criticized that decision and blamed it on retaliation for his criticism of Israel, Northwestern’s administration promptly banned Thrasher from teaching in the spring quarter and the entire 2025–26 academic year, declaring, “Your public lobbying, mischaracterizations and efforts to encourage pressure from groups complicate and compromise the process of tenure review, decision making, and appeal. Therefore, we are concerned about your presence with students in our community.”

    Obviously, criticizing the administration can never be grounds for banning a professor from the classroom for years without due process. Because tenure decisions are secretive, we don’t know if illegitimate, nonacademic judgments affected Thrasher’s case. But we do know that Northwestern’s excuses for twice suspending Thrasher are entirely illegitimate and violate basic norms of academic freedom.

    (Full disclosure: I’m a member of the Illinois AAUP’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, and we wrote two letters to Northwestern, condemning its initial suspension of Thrasher and its second suspension of Thrasher that denied him the right to teach during his terminal year after being denied tenure.)

    Despite the extraordinary repression at Northwestern, where merely speaking out against the administration’s censorship can get you immediately banished, faculty and students are resisting efforts to silence dissent. On April 21, 2025, the entire faculty assembly at Northwestern voted 338 to 83 to support a resolution sponsored by the Northwestern AAUP (led by Jackie Stevens) that called upon the university to defend academic freedom, protect free speech and follow due process. But so far Northwestern refuses to back down from its embrace of censorship.

    As Dreger wrote 10 years ago, “An institution in which the faculty are afraid to offend the dean is not an institution where I can in good conscience do my work. Such an institution is not a ‘university,’ in the truest sense of that word.”

    Sadly, Dreger’s warning is going unheeded by Northwestern (and many other “universities”) that are part of a growing wave of repression on campus.

    John K. Wilson was a 2019–20 fellow with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement and is the author of eight books, including Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies (Routledge, 2008), and his forthcoming book The Attack on Academia. He can be reached at [email protected], or letters to the editor can be sent to [email protected].

    Source link

  • How modern HR tools are helping higher education adapt – Campus Review

    How modern HR tools are helping higher education adapt – Campus Review

    As budget cuts continue to ripple across the education sector, many institutions are being forced to reassess how they manage their workforce. From widespread restructures to heavier workloads, staff are feeling the strain.

    Some academics are now working the equivalent of nine-hour days, 365 days a year. At the same time, some institutions are making difficult staffing decisions in response to multi-million dollar funding gaps.

    These pressures are compounding existing workforce challenges. Human resource (HR) and payroll teams are navigating complex employment arrangements, evolving compliance requirements, and increasing scrutiny around underpayment.

    Without the right systems in place, even minor errors can have significant consequences.

    The limitations of outdated systems

    For many universities and TAFEs, HR and payroll systems haven’t kept pace with the realities of modern education. What may have once worked for a more stable, less fragmented workforce is now creating unnecessary complexity.

    When systems aren’t integrated, data is difficult to reconcile and even harder to act on. Payroll teams are left cross-checking spreadsheets, while HR teams struggle to track performance, training, and entitlements across multiple roles and contracts.

    Manual processes create more room for error, and a lack of visibility makes it harder to ensure compliance. According to McKinsey, automating finance processes can free up 30 to 40 per cent of a team’s capacity.

    Disparate platforms also limit the experience for staff. Employees struggle to access their information, update details, or understand how their workload impacts their pay and entitlements. In a climate where staff are already stretched, that lack of clarity can further impact morale and retention.

    A smarter approach to HR and payroll

    Education providers are turning to integrated enterprise resource planning (ERP) software to automate tasks like timesheet management, onboarding, and performance tracking, thereby freeing up teams to focus on more strategic work.

    We have identified eight benefits of an integrated HR and payroll solution. Payroll becomes more accurate, compliance becomes easier to manage, and leaders gain clearer insights into workforce trends.

    How institutions are making it work

    While workforce challenges persist across the sector, some institutions are proving that the right technology can deliver meaningful change.

    Instead of relying on fragmented systems, organisations like GOTAFE and Victoria University have shown how ERP software, like TechnologyOne’s, can play a critical role in improving payroll accuracy, streamlining HR tasks, and boosting overall efficiency and decision-making.

    These are just two recent TechnologyOne success stories among many, but their experiences reflect a broader shift happening across the sector. More institutions are recognising the value of embracing ERP software that can grow with them.

    How GOTAFE transformed payroll and people management

    We recently saw this shift in action at GOTAFE, which replaced its ageing payroll system with TechnologyOne’s modern enterprise software.

    By moving to our Human Resources & Payroll product, GOTAFE was able to unify its systems and reduce its reliance on manual processes. Staff could manage leave and payslips through self-service tools, while HR teams gained real-time insights into workforce activity and performance.

    The improvements were significant. Contract generation dropped from four days to five minutes. Workforce reports that once took weeks could now be produced in two days. These changes helped the organisation make faster, more informed decisions and improve the employee experience.

    Importantly, the shift was also cultural. GOTAFE moved away from customising the platform to match legacy processes, instead adopting standard functionality to unlock ongoing improvements.

    The result is a more agile, data-driven workforce environment that supports both staff needs and strategic planning.

    Read more about the GOTAFE story here.

    Victoria University improves student experience

    Victoria University recently completed a major digital transformation, replacing legacy platforms with a single enterprise solution with TechnologyOne’s OneEducation. While the project was initially focused on improving the student experience, the impact on staff productivity, reporting, and decision-making has been just as significant.

    Before the shift, the university was operating across a patchwork of disconnected systems. Frequent outages and manual workarounds meant that staff were spending more time managing technology than using it effectively. Reporting was cumbersome, making it difficult to generate insights or respond to changes with confidence.

    By unifying core systems across student management, finance, and scheduling, Victoria University has created a more connected environment for both staff and students. Manual tasks have been replaced with automated workflows. Reporting is no longer a reactive process but an embedded part of everyday decision-making.

    Overall, the university fixed nearly 180 pain points. The result is a more agile workforce environment where time is spent on higher-value work and institutional knowledge is easier to share and act on.

    You can find out more about Victoria University’s transformation here.

    Embrace the future of education software

    From shifting compliance requirements to the increasing complexity of workforce management, legacy systems are no longer equipped to support long-term success.

    Modern enterprise platforms are changing that. In an environment where every hour counts, the ability to streamline tasks and remove administrative roadblocks makes a real difference.

    The next generation of education software is already here. Institutions that embrace it will be better positioned to support their people, respond to challenges, and plan with confidence.

    Invest in TechnologyOne’s Human Resources & Payroll today

    TechnologyOne Human Resources & Payroll (HRP), part of our OneEducation solution, provides universities with real-time workforce insights, automated payroll processing, and self-service HR tools.

    Designed for the unique needs of higher education, it streamlines recruitment, onboarding, and workforce planning, helping institutions manage staff efficiently while ensuring compliance.

    Adapt, evolve, and stay ahead with a solution built for the future of education.

    Do you have an idea for a story?
    Email [email protected]

    Source link

  • DOJ Deems Definition of HSIs Unconstitutional, Won’t Defend

    DOJ Deems Definition of HSIs Unconstitutional, Won’t Defend

    Arizona State University (left) and the University of California, San Diego, are two HSIs.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | InnaPoka and yongyuan/iStock/Getty Images

    The country’s roughly 600 Hispanic-serving institutions are in peril of losing hundreds of millions of dollars annually from the federal government, after the Department of Justice said it won’t defend the program against a lawsuit alleging the way HSIs are currently defined is unconstitutional. The suit challenges the requirement that a college or university’s undergraduate population must be at least a quarter Hispanic to receive HSI funding.

    U.S. solicitor general D. John Sauer wrote to House Speaker Mike Johnson July 25 that the DOJ “has determined that those provisions violate the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.” Federal law requires DOJ officers to notify Congress when they decide to refrain from defending a law on the grounds that it’s unconstitutional.

    Citing the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that banned affirmative action in student admissions, Sauer wrote that “the Supreme Court has explained that ‘[o]utright racial balancing’ is ‘patently unconstitutional’” and said “its precedents make clear that the government lacks any legitimate interest in differentiating among universities based on whether ‘a specified number of seats in each class’ are occupied by ‘individuals from the preferred ethnic groups.’” 

    The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative outlet, first reported on the letter Friday. The DOJ subsequently provided Inside Higher Ed with the letter but gave no further comment or interviews.

    The Free Beacon wrote that “the letter likely spells the end for the HSI grants, which the Trump administration is now taking steps to wind down.” The Education Department wrote in an email, “We can confirm the Free Beacon’s reporting,” but didn’t provide Inside Higher Ed an interview or answer further written questions. 

    Just because the executive branch has given up defending the program doesn’t necessarily mean it’s over—or that the group Students for Fair Admissions and the state of Tennessee have won the lawsuit they filed in June. The Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities moved to intervene in the case late last month, asking U.S. District Court judge Katherine A. Crytzer to add the group as a defendant. She has yet to rule, but the Education Department and education secretary Linda McMahon, the current defendants, didn’t oppose this intervention. 

    The legal complaint from Students for Fair Admissions and Tennessee  asks Crytzer to declare the program’s ethnicity-based requirements unconstitutional, but not necessarily to end the program altogether. Students for Fair Admissions is the group whose suits against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill yielded the 2023 Supreme Court decision banning affirmative action in admissions. In the suit over the HSI program, that group and Tennessee’s attorney general, Jonathan Skrmetti, now argue that the admissions ruling means Tennessee colleges and universities can’t use affirmative action to increase Hispanic student enrollments in order to qualify for HSI funding. 

    Deborah Santiago, co-founder and chief executive officer of Excelencia in Education, which promotes Latino student success, said Friday that the Education Department in June “opened a competition to award grants for this fiscal year for HSIs.”

    “There are proposals to the Department of Education right now that they said they were going to allocate,” Santiago said, noting that the program was set to dole out more than $350 million this fiscal year—money that institutions use for faculty development, facilities and other purposes. 

    “The program doesn’t require that any of the money go to Hispanics at all,” she said. For a college or university to qualify for the program, at least half of the student body must be low-income, in addition to the requirement that a quarter be Hispanic. 

    “The value of a program like this has really been investing in institutions that have a high concentration of low-income, first generation students,” Santiago said. 

    Source link

  • George Mason University violated civil rights law, Education Department alleges

    George Mason University violated civil rights law, Education Department alleges

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

    Dive Brief: 

    • The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights alleged Friday that Virginia’s George Mason University has violated civil rights law by illegally using race and other protected characteristics in its hiring and promotion practices. 
    • Craig Trainor, the office’s acting assistant secretary for civil rights, accused George Mason President Gregory Washington of waging a “university-wide campaign to implement unlawful DEI policies that intentionally discriminate on the basis of race.”
    • Under the Trump administration, Trainor and other officials have set their sights on diversity, equity and inclusion programs and other policies that were designed to help historically disadvantaged groups. 

    Dive Insight: 

    George Mason has faced a torrent of investigations in recent weeks from the Trump administration, including probes into whether the university is practicing discriminatory hiring and admissions and adequately responding to antisemitism on campus. 

    The most recent allegations from the Education Department, announced just six weeks after it opened the probe, said the agency determined that the university violated Title VI. The civil rights law bars federally funded institutions from discriminating based on race, color or national origin. 

    The agency gave George Mason, which is located near Washington, D.C., 10 days to agree with the Trump administration’s proposal to voluntarily resolve the alleged violations. 

    Under the proposed agreement, Washington would have to release a statement saying the university’s hiring and promotion practices will comply with Title VI and explaining the steps for submitting a discrimination complaint. 

    The university would also have to review its employment policies, conduct annual training for all employees involved in hiring and promotion decisions, and maintain and share records with the federal government upon request to prove compliance. 

    The agreement would also require Washington to apologize to the university community “for promoting unlawful discriminatory practices in hiring, promotion, and tenure processes,” the Education Department said. 

    In a Friday statement, George Mason’s governing board said the Education Department notified it of the violation, and it will review the proposed resolution and fully respond to government inquiries.

    “Our sole focus is our fiduciary duty to serve the best interests of the University and the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia,” the board said. 

    The Education Department said it opened the investigation following a complaint from multiple George Mason professors who alleged that university leadership has implemented policies that give preferential treatment to underrepresented groups since 2020. 

    The agency pointed to a 2021 statement from Washington as evidence of “support for racial preferencing.”

    In it, Washington said that leaders wanted staff and faculty to reflect the diversity of the student population. “This is not code for establishing a quota system,” he added. “It is a recognition of the reality that our society’s future lies in multicultural inclusion.” 

    He noted that a majority of George Mason’s students weren’t White, yet only 30% of the university’s faculty were part of a ethnic minority group, were multi-ethnic or came from international communities. To achieve the university’s vision, officials should focus on both professional credentials and lived experiences when recruiting employees, he said. 

    “If you have two candidates who are both ‘above the bar’ in terms of requirements for a position, but one adds to your diversity and the other does not, then why couldn’t that candidate be better, even if that candidate may not have better credentials than the other candidate?” Washington said at the time. 

    On Friday, the Education Department also cited several George Mason policies it said violated Title VI, including one it said appeared on the university’s website in 2024. The policy said officials could forgo a competitive search process for faculty members when “there is an opportunity to hire a candidate who strategically advances the institutional commitment to diversity and inclusion,” the agency said.

    Washington, George Mason’s first Black president, pushed back on the Education Department’s allegations when it first opened the investigation. In a July 16 statement, he said that the university’s promotion and tenure policies don’t give preferential treatment based on race or other protected characteristics. 

    He also pointed to a “profound shift in how Title VI is being applied.” 

    “Longstanding efforts to address inequality — such as mentoring programs, inclusive hiring practices, and support for historically underrepresented groups — are in many cases being reinterpreted as presumptively unlawful,” he said. 

    The U.S. Department of Justice has also opened several investigations into George Mason, including one over its hiring and promotion practices. 

    Another DOJ probe is looking into the university’s Faculty Senate after its members approved a resolution supporting Washington and the diversity initiatives following the federal investigations, according to The New York Times. The agency has demanded internal communications from the Faculty Senate as part of its investigation.

    Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors slammed the probe shortly after it was announced. 

    “Let’s call this what it is: a gross misuse of federal power to chill speech, silence faculty members, and undermine shared governance,” he said in a July statement. “It is an attack on academic freedom, plain and simple.”

    Source link

  • Ed Dept. Says George Mason Violated Civil Rights Law

    Ed Dept. Says George Mason Violated Civil Rights Law

    The Virginia university has been under investigation since early July.

    John M. Chase/iStock Unreleased/Getty Images

    Gregory Washington, president of Virginia’s George Mason University, must apologize to the university community for “promoting unlawful discriminatory practices” in order to resolve allegations that the institution violated civil rights law, the Department of Education announced Friday.

    The department claims that the university has illegally factored race and “other immutable characteristics” into hiring, promotion and tenure practices since at least 2020.

    Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor said the unlawful practices began shortly after the murder of George Floyd, when Washington called on faculty and administrators to expunge campus of “racist vestiges” by “intentionally discriminat[ing] on the basis of race.” 

    “You can’t make this up,” Trainor said in the statement. “Despite this unfortunate chapter in Mason’s history, the university now has the opportunity to come into compliance with federal civil rights laws by entering into a Resolution Agreement with the Office for Civil Rights.”

    The Education Department first announced in early July that it would investigate GMU for potentially violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination based on race and national origin. Later that month, the Department of Justice announced it would investigate the institution’s Faculty Senate after the panel passed a resolution in support of Washington, who had been quick to push back on the Trump administration and defend the university’s commitment to addressing social injustice. Many conservatives called for Washington—the institution’s first Black president—to be fired. But the university’s Board of Visitors spared him at a meeting Aug. 1, at least for now, and gave him a raise.

    Trainor said in the statement that “the Trump-McMahon Department of Education will not allow racially exclusionary practices—which violate the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Protection Clause, and Supreme Court precedent—to continue corrupting our nation’s educational institutions.”

    In addition to an apology, the Education Department is demanding that GMU post that statement “prominently” to the university’s website, remove any contrary statements from the past and revise campus policies to prevent future race-based programming. It also wants the institution to begin an annual training session for all individuals involved in recruitment, hiring, promotion or tenure decisions to emphasize the ban on racial consideration and provide records documenting compliance whenever they are requested moving forward.

    George Mason officials have 10 days to respond to the department’s proposed resolution agreement.

    Source link

  • How are education leaders combating chronic absenteeism?

    How are education leaders combating chronic absenteeism?

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In Maryland’s Baltimore City Public Schools, educators are making home visits to determine families’ barriers to school attendance.

    In Virginia, a state-level task force is helping pediatricians and school nurses educate parents on the importance of school attendance and when to keep students home if they are truly too sick to attend school.

    And several states are prioritizing attendance campaigns through accountability measures, additional funding, data-informed decision-making and elevated attention within governors’ offices.

    These are some of the school attendance approaches school system leaders shared during a Thursday event focused on combating chronic absenteeism. The event was hosted by Attendance Works, EdTrust and American Enterprise Institute.

    “If we don’t have our students there, we will not see the outcomes that we’re looking for,” said Charlene Russell-Tucker, commissioner of the Connecticut State Department of Education.  

    Nat Malkus, a senior fellow and deputy director of education policy studies at AEI, said that while data shows the national chronic absenteeism rate is improving, there’s much more work to do to get school attendance back to pre-COVID-19 levels.

    In 2024, the national chronic absenteeism rate was 23.5%. That’s an improvement from a high of 28.5% in 2022, but still higher than the 13.4% recorded in 2017 and 15.2% in 2018, Malkus said. Chronic absenteeism is measured as missing 10% or more days in a school year — or about 18 days — for any reason. 

    In 2022, “almost every district in the nation saw [chronic absenteeism] increases, most of them sizable,” Malkus said. Although overall attendance improved in 2023 and 2024, the increases weren’t as high as the education field had hoped, he said.

    “This is a long-haul game” to get schools operating with consistent attendance “for our educational and economic future,” Malkus said.

    He commended 16 states and Washington, D.C., for committing to reduce chronic absenteeism by 50% over five years. At an event last year, the three organizations called on all states to make this commitment. 

    “States and districts have made progress, and we should be happy for that,” said Malkus, adding that improvements in attendance show “progress on this front is doable, and that the goals are achievable.”

    Trying different solutions

    Stephen Dackin, director of the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, said that his state has committed to the 50% reduction in chronic absenteeism. Ohio hit a high of 30% in 2021-22 but is now down to 25.6%.

    Dackin said what has helped improve attendance is the use of a multi-tiered system of supports that provides increased levels of interventions where needed and an integrated review of students’ academic and behavioral data in developing interventions.

    “That is a game-changer, if we do it well in Ohio,” Dackin said.

    Emily Anne Gullickson, superintendent of public instruction in Virginia, said the state had a peak chronic absenteeism rate of 20.1%, which a case study by Attendance Works shows occurred in 2021-22. As of spring 2024, the rate was 15.7%. More recent attendance data is expected to be released soon, Gullickson said.

    A state-level task force launched the ALL (Attendance, Literacy and Learning) Initiative in September 2023. The state board of education incorporated chronic absenteeism into its accountability system and included it as part of a readiness indicator for elementary, middle and high schools, Gullickson said. Additionally, Virginia is studying model programs and looking at how to scale those practices.

    In Connecticut, Russell-Tucker said the chronic absenteeism rate was at a high of 23%, which state data shows occurred in 2021-22. Now, it’s at 17.2%. The state board of education set a goal of 6% by 2028.

    To help better understand the problem and to implement solutions, the attendance data is collected at the state level monthly. That data is then disaggregated by student subgroups. That data helps the state work with the districts so they can intervene immediately, Russell-Tucker said. Additionally, the state has a line item in its budget addressing student attendance.

    She called the need to improve school attendance an “all hands on deck” moment.

    The state’s Learner, Engagement and Attendance Program — or LEAP — supports home visits to strengthen school-family relationships and to reduce school attendance barriers for students, Russell-Tucker said.

    Evaluation studies of LEAP show that six months after the first LEAP visit, student attendance rates improved by about 10 percentage points for students in K-8, and nearly 16 percentage points for students in grades 9-12, she said.

    Source link