Universities Australia CEO Luke Sheehy. Picture: Supplied
The peak body representing universities, Universities Australia (UA), has said the federal government should offer more money and less bureaucracy to the higher education sector ahead of the election due by April.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Colleges can be hot spots for debate, inquiry and disagreement, particularly on political topics. Sometimes institutional leaders weigh in on the debate, issuing public statements or sharing resources internally among students, staff and faculty.
This past fall, following the 2024 presidential election, college administrators were notably silent. A November Student Voice survey found a majority (63 percent) of student respondents (n=1,031) said their college did not do or say anything after the election, and only 17 percent released a statement to students about the election.
A more recent survey from Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found this aligns with students’ preferences for institutional response.
Over half (54 percent) of respondents (n=1,034) to a December Student Voice survey said colleges and universities should not make statements about political events, such as the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. One-quarter of students said they weren’t sure if institutions should make statements, and fewer than a quarter of learners said colleges should publish a statement.
Across demographics—including institution size and classification, student race, political identification, income level or age—the greatest share of students indicated that colleges shouldn’t make statements. The only group that differed was nonbinary students (n=32), of whom 47 percent said they weren’t sure and 30 percent said no.
Experts weigh in on the value of institutional neutrality and how college leaders can demonstrate care for learners without sharing statements.
What’s the sitch: In the past, college administrators have issued statements, either personally or on behalf of the institution, to demonstrate care and concern for students who are impacted by world events, says Heterodox Academy president John Tomasi.
“There’s also an element, a little more cynically, of trying to get ahead of certain political issues so they [administrators] couldn’t be criticized for having said nothing or not caring,” Tomasi says.
Even with a majority of colleges and universities not speaking out after the 2024 election, some students think colleges are still being supportive.
The November Student Voice survey found 35 percent of respondents believed their institution was offering the right amount of support to students after the election results, but 31 percent weren’t sure.
The events of Oct. 7, 2023, proved complicated for statement-issuing presidents, with almost half of institutions that published statements releasing an additional response after the campus community or others pushed back. Initial statements, according to one analysis, often lacked caring elements, such as the impact to students or health and well-being of university community members in the region.
A growing number of colleges and universities are choosing to opt out of public political conversations at the executive level, instead selecting to be institutionally neutral. Heterodox Academy, which tracks colleges’ commitments to neutrality, saw numbers rise from a dozen in 2023 to over 100 in 2024.
Some students are experiencing political fatigue in general, says Vanderbilt University chancellor Daniel Diermeier, particularly relating to the war in Gaza. “This dynamic of ‘which side are you on, and if you’re not with me, you’re against me’ was troubling to many students and was exhausting and had a detrimental impact on the culture of learning, exploration and discussion.”
Vanderbilt University has held a position of neutrality for many years, part of a free expression policy, which it defines as a “commitment to refrain from taking public positions on controversial issues unless the issue is materially related to the core mission and functioning of the university.”
College students aren’t the only group that want fewer organizations to talk politics; a November survey by Morning Consult found two-thirds of Americans believe companies should stay out of politics entirely after the 2024 presidential election and 59 percent want companies to comment neutrally on the results.
However, an earlier survey by Morning Consult found, across Americans, 56 percent believe higher education institutions are at least somewhat responsible for speaking out on political, societal or cultural issues, compared to 31 percent of respondents who say colleges and universities are not too or not at all responsible.
Allowing students to speak: Proponents of institutional neutrality say the practice allows discourse to flourish on campus. Taking a position can create a chilling effect, in which people are afraid to speak out in opposition to the prevailing point of view, Diermeier says.
Recent polls have shown today’s college students are hesitant to share their political opinions, often electing to self-censor due to fears of negative repercussions. Since 2015, this concern has grown, with 33 percent of respondents sharing that they feel uncomfortable discussing their political views on campus, compared to 13 percent a decade ago.
Part of this hesitancy among students could be an overstepping on behalf of administrators that affirms the institution’s perspective on issues one way or another.
“I hear from students that they want to be the ones making the statements themselves … and if a president makes a statement first, that kind of cuts off the conversation,” says Tomasi, who is a faculty member at Brown University.
A majority of campus community members want to pursue learning and research, Diermeier says, and “the politicization that has taken hold on many university campuses … that is not what most students and faculty want.”
Institutional neutrality allows a university to step back and empower students to be political agents, Tomasi says. “The students should be platformed, the professors should be platformed, but the university itself should be a neutral framework for students to do all those things.”
Neutral, not silent: One distinction Tomasi and Diermeier make about institutional neutrality is that the commitment is not one of silence, but rather selective vocalization to affirm the university’s mission.
“Neutrality can’t just be the neutrality of convenience,” Tomasi says. “It should be a neutrality of a principle that’ll endure beyond the particular conflict that’s dividing the campus, because it celebrates and stands for and flows from that high ideal of university life as a community of imperfect learners that does value intellectual pluralism.”
Another area in which universities are obligated to speak up is if the issue challenges the core mission of an institution. Examples of this could include a travel ban against immigration from certain countries, a tax on endowments, a ban on divisive topics or scrutiny of admissions practices.
“On issues that are core to the academic mission, we’re going to be vocal, we’re going to be engaged and we’re going to be advocates,” Diermeier says, and establishing what is involved in the core mission is key to each institution. “Inside the core doesn’t mean it’s not controversial—it just means it’s inside the core.”
So what? For colleges and university leaders considering how to move forward, Diermeier and Tomasi offer some advice.
Not yet a subscriber to our Student Success newsletter? Sign up for free here and you’ll receive practical tips and ideas for supporting students every weekday.
DES MOINES, Iowa, Jan. 7, 2025 — The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression announced today it will defend veteran Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer pro bono against a lawsuit from President-elect Donald Trump that threatens Americans’ First Amendment right to speak on core political issues.
“Punishing someone for their political prediction is about as unconstitutional as it gets,” said FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere. “This is America. No one should be afraid to predict the outcome of an election. Whether it’s from a pollster, or you, or me, such political expression is fully and unequivocally protected by the First Amendment.”
EXPLAINER: FIGHTING TRUMP’S LAWSUIT IS FIRST AMENDMENT 101
Trump’s lawsuit stems from a poll Selzer published before the 2024 presidential election that predicted Vice President Kamala Harris leading by three points in Iowa. The lawsuit, brought under Iowa’s Consumer Fraud Act, is meritless and violates long-standing constitutional principles.
The claim distorts the purpose of consumer fraud laws, which target sellers who make false statements to get you to buy merchandise.
“Consumer fraud laws are about the scam artist who rolls back the odometer on a used car, not a newspaper pollster or TV meteorologist who misses a forecast,” said FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick.
Trump’s suit seeks damages and a court order barring the newspaper from publishing any future “deceptive polls” that might “poison the electorate.” But Selzer and The Des Moines Register were completely transparent about how the poll was conducted. Selzer and the newspaper released the demographic breakdowns showing the results of the telephone survey and the weighting system. Selzer also released an analysis of how her methods might have contributed to missing the mark.
“I’ve spent my career researching what the people of Iowa are thinking about politics and leading issues of the day,” Selzer said. “My final poll of the 2024 general election missed the mark. The response to a mismatch between my final poll and the decisions Iowa voters made should be thoughtful analysis and introspection. I should be devoting my time to that and not to a vengeful lawsuit from someone with enormous power and assets.”
Selzer’s Iowa polls have long enjoyed “gold standard” status among pollsters. She correctly predicted Trump’s win in Iowa in 2016 and 2020 using the same methodology in her 2024 poll.
COURTESY PHOTOS OF J. ANN SELZER FOR MEDIA USE
“Donald Trump is abusing the legal system to punish speech he dislikes,” said FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh. “If you have to pay lawyers and spend time in court to defend your free speech, then you don’t have free speech.”
America already rejected its experiment with making the government the arbiter of truth. President John Adams used the Sedition Act of 1798 to imprison political rivals for “false” political statements. Trump’s lawsuit is just a new spin on the same theory long rejected under the First Amendment.
The lawsuit fits the very definition of a “SLAPP” suit — a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Such tactical claims are filed purely for the purpose of harassing and imposing punishing litigation costs on perceived opponents, not because they have any merit or stand any chance of success. In other words, the lawsuit is the punishment. As Trump once colorfully put it after losing a lawsuit: “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.”
By providing pro bono support, FIRE is helping to remove the punishment-by-process incentive of SLAPP suits — just as we’ve done when a wealthy Idaho landowner sued over criticism of his planned airstrip, when a Pennsylvania lawmaker sued a graduate student for “racketeering,” and when an education center threatened to sue a small, autistic-led, nonprofit organization for criticizing the center’s use of electric shocks.
“Pollsters don’t always get it right,” said Fitzpatrick. “When the Chicago Tribune published its famously incorrect ‘Dewey Defeats Truman’ headline, it was because the polls were off. Truman didn’t sue the newspaper. He laughed — his victory was enough. That’s how you handle missed predictions in a free society.”
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE defends free speech for all Americans, regardless of political ideology. We’ll defend your rights whether you’re a student barred from wearing a “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirt, a professor censored under Florida’s STOP WOKE Act, or a mother arrested for criticizing your city’s mayor. If it’s protected, we’ll defend it. No throat-clearing, no apologies.
CONTACT:
Daniel Burnett, Senior Director of Communications, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]
by CUPA-HR | November 14, 2024
The results of the 2024 election are in: Donald Trump will serve as the 47th president of the United States, while both the Senate and House of Representatives will be controlled by Republicans. With the Republican trifecta in the White House and Congress, Republicans can focus on passing their policy priorities through legislation in Congress and regulatory action at the federal agencies. CUPA-HR’s government relations team provides the following analysis to offer insight into possible leadership, policies and regulations we expect starting in January 2025.
Department of Labor
The Department of Labor (DOL), overseen by the secretary of labor, directs policy and regulations for employers, workers, and retirees in the U.S. Throughout the election season, news organizations have speculated President-elect Trump’s potential picks for the secretary position, though who will be nominated will be unknown until Trump announces it. According to Politico, two possible candidates are Patrick Pizzella and Bryan Slater. Under the first Trump administration, Pizzella served as deputy secretary of labor and acting secretary of labor between former secretaries Alex Acosta and Eugene Scalia. Slater, who currently serves as Virginia’s secretary of labor, had also previously served as assistant secretary at DOL under the previous Trump administration.
In addition to the secretary of labor, Trump will pick people to head the subagencies at DOL, including the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and Wage and Hour Division, among others. These agencies draft and implement regulations governing retirement and health benefits plans, workplace safety and health, and minimum wage and overtime pay requirements. Leaders of the DOL subagencies are typically selected later in the Cabinet-appointment process.
National Labor Relations Board
The party control of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) depends on actions taken by the Senate during the lame-duck session between the election and President-elect Trump’s inauguration. Current chair of the NLRB Lauren McFerran’s term is set to expire in December 2024, but she has been renominated to serve on the board for another five years by President Biden. Senate Democrats, who are likely to push for her confirmation now that the Senate and White House will be Republican-controlled in 2025, will need to vote to confirm her position, only needing a simple majority. If confirmed, NLRB would be under Democratic control until at least August 2026, more than a year and a half into the Trump administration, leaving President Trump unable to obtain a Republican majority on the board — and thereby control the policy at the NLRB — for nearly half of his second term.
Despite possibly not having control of the NLRB, President Trump may choose to fire the NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo (Democrat), whose term is not set to expire until July 2025. In 2021, President Biden terminated then-General Counsel Peter Robb (Republican) within hours of his inauguration, despite Robb’s term not ending until November of that same year. This was the first time any sitting president had fired a sitting general counsel at an independent agency for policy differences. Federal courts upheld Robb’s termination, so President Trump is highly likely to terminate Abruzzo immediately upon taking office. As a reminder, Abruzzo issued several memos stating her position regarding employment status for student-athletes, severance agreements, and disclosure obligations under the National Labor Relations Act and Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, all of which would likely be rescinded by Trump’s NLRB general counsel appointee.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Unless a commissioner leaves their post before their term expires, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will maintain a Democrat majority (currently 3-1, with one Republican seat vacant) until July 2026. Despite this, President-elect Trump is likely to appoint Commissioner Andrea Lucas to serve as chair of the EEOC. Lucas and the EEOC would be limited in their ability to adopt new policies or reverse actions taken by the Democrat-controlled commission prior to July 2026. At that time, we expect the Republican-controlled EEOC to issue revised guidance that narrows the scope of the agency’s interpretation of Title VII protections in light of Bostock v. Clayton County and the legality of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in employment practices, possibly extending legal principles established under the Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard case.
Similar to the NLRB, we expect that President-elect Trump will replace the current EEOC General Counsel Karla Gilbride (Democrat). In her role, Gilbride has litigated on behalf of the EEOC in federal court, but the position typically does not provide policy recommendations to the full commission like the NLRB general counsel does.
Department of Education
The Department of Education (ED) oversees and implements policy and regulations governing federal assistance to education. With respect to higher education, ED governs issues like federal financial aid, Title IX compliance, and other laws aimed at promoting student success. Under the incoming Trump administration, Politico has speculated that there are a few possible contenders who could ultimately lead the agency.
One possible candidate for ED’s secretary is Betsy DeVos, who served as secretary of education during Trump’s first term. During DeVos’ first term as ED secretary, she led the agency to implement the 2020 Title IX regulations that are still currently in place in 26 states and hundreds of schools around the country, pending legal challenges to the Biden administration’s rule. However, DeVos resigned from her position as secretary of education after the January 6, 2021, riots at the U.S. Capitol, which may lead the incoming Trump administration to search for new candidates. Despite her resignation, DeVos has indicated that she is open to discussions about potentially serving in the role again.
As we also discuss below, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) will be stepping down from her role as chair of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, where she most recently led an investigation into antisemitism on campus in higher education. This, along with her previous experience serving as an English instructor and president of a community college, may set her up for a bid for the secretary position.
Some additional names that have been discussed by Politico are Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters, and Moms for Liberty founder Tiffany Justice.
House Education and the Workforce Committee
Republicans held control of the House in the 2024 election, but there will still be some shakeup in leadership for the Education and Workforce Committee. Chair of the committee Virginia Foxx will be stepping down from her role, leaving open the Republican leader position of the Committee. The two front-runners to chair the committee are Reps. Tim Walberg (R-MI) and Burgess Owens (R-UT), both currently serving on the committee. Notably, Walberg has served on the committee for 16 years, and Owens currently serves as the chair of the Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee. For Democrats, current ranking member of the committee Bobby Scott (D-VA) is expected to maintain his position as leader of the Committee Democrats.
Walberg and Owens have both publicized their policy priorities. Walberg has stated that, under his leadership, the committee would focus on legislation to make college more affordable, boost apprenticeships, implement a short-term Pell grant for workforce training programs, and reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Owens hopes to steer the committee with a more education-centric focus, stating that top priorities for him are school choice and oversight into how ED uses its funding.
Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee
Republicans in the Senate gained control during the 2024 election, flipping the previously Democrat-controlled chamber. As a result, Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) will likely rise to the role of chair on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) will shift into the ranking member position after serving as the chair of the full committee in the 118th Congress. Before his political career, Cassidy was a physician, meaning he could pivot the committee to focus more on health policy. Despite this, Cassidy has also advocated for the HELP committee to advance a Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act reauthorization bill, and he has advocated for the committee to focus on other education issues as well.
FLSA Overtime
As you already know, the Biden administration is in the process of implementing their FLSA overtime regulations. The final rule took a two-phased approach to increasing the minimum salary threshold. The first increase raised the salary threshold to $43,888 per year and took effect on July 1, 2024. The second increase would raise the salary threshold to $58,656 per year and is set to take effect on January 1, 2025. The regulations are currently being challenged in a federal district court in Texas, where a preliminary injunction to block the rule from taking effect has been placed only for public employers in the state of Texas. It remains to be seen how the federal judge will rule on the lawsuits, though a hearing for the cases was held on November 8 and a ruling is imminent.
As the Trump administration will not take office until after the January 1 threshold, the regulation will take effect, pending further appeals, if the final rule is upheld in federal court. If the rule is struck down, we expect the Trump administration will let the court’s decision remain and make no further effort to appeal the decision. If the Trump administration decides to increase the minimum salary threshold during this upcoming term, they will likely use the methodology from the 2019 rule to increase the threshold.
Title IX
Similar to the overtime final rule, the Biden administration issued Title IX regulations in 2024 that are also facing legal challenges. The Biden administration’s Title IX rule took effect on August 1, 2024, but several lawsuits challenging the rule have resulted in preliminary injunctions blocking ED from enforcing it in 26 states and hundreds of other schools in states that did not challenge the final rule.
The Biden administration’s regulations replaced the previous Trump administration’s 2020 Title IX regulations. If the regulations are upheld in federal court, we expect that the incoming secretary of education will repeal the Biden administration’s regulations in favor of keeping the 2020 regulations in effect across the country.
Immigration
There are several policies and regulations that CUPA-HR has been tracking on the immigration front that face uncertain futures under the incoming Trump administration. During the first term, the Trump administration placed a proposed rule on the regulatory agenda aiming to restrict the Optional Practical Training program, which allows international students who graduate from U.S. institutions to work in their degree-related field for at least 12 months after graduating. The Trump administration also finalized a couple of final rules that would have increased wage obligations for H-1B visas and narrowed eligibility for H-1B visas to positions that qualified as “specialty occupations.” These rules were struck down in court, so while Trump is unlikely to implement the same rules, we could see similar attempts to increase H-1B wage obligations and narrow the H-1B program.
Additionally, the incoming Trump administration will likely look to reverse policies implemented by the Department of Homeland Security under the Biden administration, including dropping any appeal of the recent court ruling against the “Keeping Families Together” program for undocumented spouses and children of U.S. citizens, as well as rescinding the guidance to streamline the H-1B visa waiver process for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients. Similarly, if the Biden administration does not finalize the H-1B modernization rule before the end of his term, a new Trump administration may seek to implement a more restrictive version, reshaping the rule to reflect its own priorities rather than those outlined in the Biden administration’s October 2023 proposal.
Legislative Priorities
With Republicans controlling both the House and the Senate, legislative priorities should be mostly aligned between the two chambers and the White House. However, their ability to pass legislation will still depend on bipartisan support, as Republicans hold a narrow majority in the House and do not have a large enough majority in the Senate to bypass the 60-vote filibuster. Despite these challenges, we expect Republicans to focus on issues like paid leave, workforce development, and affordable college and workforce training.
Though paid leave is a priority for both parties, Republicans and Democrats have previously not agreed on the best approach to establish it through federal legislation. In his first term, Trump and other Republicans backed paid leave legislation that allowed parents to collect a portion of their future child tax credits early to use for leave and receive smaller credits in the following years. This proposal ran counter to the Democrat-supported Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act, which would establish a payroll tax to fund a paid family and medical leave program that can be used to pay workers who are new parents or who are caring for their own health issues or those of their family. Republicans and Democrats will need to find a compromise if they are to pass any paid leave legislation in the upcoming Congress, as they will need 60 votes in the Senate to bypass a filibuster.
Despite their differences on paid leave, Republicans and Democrats have made bipartisan efforts to pass legislation to improve workforce development and create a short-term Pell grant. During this Congress, both the House and Senate have worked to pass legislation to reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which serves as the nation’s primary federal workforce development legislation designed to help Americans receive training and support to obtain skills necessary for high-quality jobs and careers. Additionally, there has been bipartisan support to pass legislation that would expand the Pell grant program to cover short-term workforce development and training programs that are outside the traditional higher education path. Again, Republicans and Democrats will need to find consensus on these issues in order to bypass the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster, but bipartisan issues like workforce development and short-term Pell grants appear to have a possible path to becoming law.
CUPA-HR is hosting a 2024 election analysis webinar on November 21 at 12 PM ET. Registration is free for CUPA-HR members. Additional updates will be provided through future blogs and Washington Insider alerts.
Election Day in the U.S. is just around the corner. On top of carrying multiple academic and employment responsibilities, some students will also be voting for the first time. Others, such as those from marginalized or historically underrepresented populations, may be overwhelmed with what the election results could mean for them. In the lead up to Election Day, a healthy dose of empathy will be essential in ensuring students have a chance to fulfill their civic duty—and the opportunity to consider its consequences.
Being flexible with due dates, considering students’ wellbeing and ensuring learners are armed with the resources needed to vote are the most important things you can do as Election Day nears. Read on to learn how professors advocated for their students during the 2020 election—and how you can do the same.
Exams can cause some students a great deal of stress and anxiety. Lillian Horin, Biological and Biomedical Sciences PhD student at Harvard University, urges educators to keep BIPOC students in mind when scheduling high-stakes tests.
Professors: PLEASE don’t schedule examinations for directly after election night. In 2016, I had a biochem exam the day after the election. BIPOC students spent our election night begging our professor to postpone it. It intensified one of the most traumatic nights of our lives.
— Lillian Horin 🏳️🌈🧫🔬 (@LillianHorin) August 12, 2020
Consider swapping your exams or problem sets (Psets) with a trip to the ballot box. Jacob Light, Economics PhD student at Stanford University, writes that this simple gesture may allow students to exercise their civic duty.
In 2012 my linear algebra professor canceled our election week problem set because voting was more important. The gesture meant the world to me. Today I made the same argument on behalf of my students. #AcademicTwitter cancel psets during election week; your students want to vote
— Jacob Light (@jlight_) October 13, 2020
Other students like Anna-Sophia Boguraev, Bioengineering PhD student at Harvard Medical School and MIT, say that TAs have the power to amplify student concerns and requests—none of which should be ignored.
legit if you have any leverage w prof, use it to help students – when ppl started basically being like “we’re traumatized plz let us reschedule the midterm” on piazza, the TAs just deleted the posts w no response or acknowledgement bc the prof told them to. so like … not that
— Anna-Sophia (she/her) (@artisanna01) October 3, 2020
Self-paced learning can allow students to visit the polls and complete coursework at a time that works for them—so says Jesse Fox, Associate Professor of Communication at Ohio State University.
US instructors: working on your syllabus?
🇺🇸Election Day is Tuesday, November 3🇺🇸
Please plan an asynchronous option that day. There are already enough efforts to impede & suppress voting!
Tell a friend! #AcademicChatter #AcademicTwitter #Election2020
— Jesse Fox (@CommFox) July 29, 2020
Election Day can also be a good opportunity to let students catch their breath in your course. Give students a chance to study and review material that they haven’t had a chance to look over, suggests Scott Grunow, Instructor in English and Religious Studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Same here. Kind of. They are working asychronously on an essay. Feedback week. No synchronous class. I will be available all week for drop in hours.
— Dame Scott G. Against Petty Persecutions/Vainglory (@scottgr60613) October 6, 2020
Should your institutions provide little leeway in your assessment choices, at least incorporate real-time events into your discussions. Derek Bruff, Associate Director, Center for Teaching Excellence at the University of Virginia, notes that relating course content to the election can help students see the value of what they’re learning.
What are you planning to do in class the day after the election? 1. Find a connection to your course topic (e.g. polling error in a stats course). 2. Acknowledge that it was a late, emotional night. 3. Don’t give a pop quiz.
— Derek Bruff (@derekbruff) October 15, 2020
Real-time political events and policy proposals can make for discipline-specific conversations. This also allows students to apply what they’ve learned in your class to the real world, as Andrea Gomez Cervantes, Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at Wake Forest University, proposes.
To encourage students’ critical thinking this election season I included assignments to analyze proposed policies by 2020 candidates.. Could be a great or terrible idea. We will find out! #AcademicTwitter #Sociology #Election2020 #Politics #Families #Immigration
— Dra. Andrea Gomez Cervantes (she/ella) (@AndreaGC_soc) September 23, 2020
Gen Z students are motivated to vote. In the 2018 midterm elections, the student turnout rate increased by 20 percent compared to the 2014 midterms.1 Ensure students are equipped with the resources to vote as soon as possible, writes Wendy Christensen, Sociology Professor at William Paterson University.
Don’t forget to include voting info in your Fall 2020 syllabus and online course module! Include any voter registration deadlines, registration info, drop off ballot info, AND the general election date Nov. 3rd. #GOTV #AcademicTwitter @AcademicChatter #AcademicTwitter
— Wendy Christensen 🏳️🌈🦉📚🍺 🏃♀️ (@wendyphd) August 19, 2020
Similarly, ask students about their voting plans. Consider working with your class to ensure they know where to go on November 5, suggests Margaret Boyle, Associate Professor of Romance Languages and Literatures at Bowdoin College.
Hey #AcademicTwitter, is election day on your syllabus? Have you asked your students about their plan to vote? #VoteLoud pic.twitter.com/B6mkUJ9yEc
— Margaret Boyle (@profmargboyle) September 24, 2020
Ensure your voter registration information and resources appeal to all students, regardless of what political party they support. Meghan Novisky, Assistant Professor of Criminology at Cleveland State University, emphasizes the importance of using non-partisan guidelines.
Suggestion for this fall: include (non-partisan) voter registration info for students in week 1’s course materials AND inform students election week will be assignment free in support of voter turnout. #phdchat #AcademicChatter
— Dr. Meghan Novisky (@DrNovisky) August 13, 2020
Some scholars like Sara Wheeler-Smith, Associate Professor of Management at Manhattan College, even plan to offer a grading incentive for visiting the polls.
With my chair’s approval, I’m offering extra credit to anyone who can demonstrate they voted. (Anyone ineligible can do an alternative assignment). If I were teaching on #ElectionDay I would have cancelled too.
— Dr. Sara Wheeler-Smith (@svaaati) August 17, 2020
Navigating election week with students in mind might be an unfamiliar undertaking. Consider leaning on faculty at your institution for support, writes Heather Mayer, Director of Educational Technology at Everett Community College.
Interested in hearing what people have planned. We’re developing a faculty workshop for the the week before to give people a chance to talk with each other about ideas and resources.
— Heather Mayer (@hmayerpdx) October 6, 2020
Some students may be undecided voters, while others may have missed the presidential debates. Incorporate forms of debate in your classroom—with the support of scholars from other institutions, as Yujin Jung, Political Sciences PhD student at the University of Missouri, plans to do.
I am truly lucky to have political campaign debate seminar with Prof. @MSMcKinney this semester given this exciting political arena – it feels like debate matters even more in this year’s election. #AcademicTwitter #PoliticalCommunication https://t.co/63nN9ICum6
— Yujin Julia Jung (@YJuliaJung) October 8, 2020
Check-ins with students have gained new meaning in the midst of an election. Andrea Kelley, Sociology Professor at the University of Michigan, tends to her students’ socioemotional needs before assigning readings and lectures.
I have built “self-care” weeks into all 3 of my courses during election week. No new readings, no graded assignments, just a check-in. We can’t self-care our way out of structural oppression and related stresses, but I can make sure my classes don’t pile on. #AcademicChatter
— Andrea D. Kelley, Ph.D., MSW (they/she) (@adkelleysoc) October 9, 2020
Election Day can come with a range of emotions for many students. Cate Denial, Distinguished Professor of American History, Chair of the History department, and Director of the Bright Institute at Knox College, removes the expectation for students to pay attention and participate in class.
I will not be assigning reading for the week, and instead we’ll review whatever happens in light of what we’ve been learning. It will be completely on the fly, but I will not be expecting my students to be able to focus.
— Cate Denial (@cjdenial) October 6, 2020
