Tag: equity

  • DEI Skepticism Threatens to Derail Japan’s Gender Equity Push

    DEI Skepticism Threatens to Derail Japan’s Gender Equity Push

    Japan needs to admit that long-running efforts to address gender inequality in higher education aren’t working, experts say, with antidiversity sentiment spreading from the U.S. and threatening to gain traction.

    Despite government policies spanning nearly two decades, women remain severely underrepresented across Japanese universities, particularly in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields.

    As of 2022, women made up just 26.7 percent of faculty nationwide and fewer than half of all students, with even starker disparities in senior academic roles and male-dominated disciplines.

    Sayaka Oki, a professor at the University of Tokyo, described the situation as “terrible.”

    “Gender equality doesn’t really exist here,” she added.

    As of 2022, only 11 percent of professors at Oki’s university were female, with particularly low representation in engineering. In undergraduate programs in physics and engineering, women typically make up only about 15 percent of the student population.

    “The gender imbalance starts at the student level and gets worse in higher positions,” she said. The university has launched repeated initiatives that have attempted to address the problem and has reported that it has “steadily increased the number of women in faculty positions.”

    Since 2006, Japan’s government has implemented a “goal and timetable” policy aimed at increasing women researchers in natural sciences, setting numerical hiring targets every five years.

    However, these targets have remained largely unchanged because the proportion of women earning doctoral degrees—the main feeder for research roles—has not significantly increased.

    Ginko Kawano, professor of gender equality at Kyushu University, said that, “after nearly two decades, the policy has not produced significant results, and it appears we are now at a turning point in terms of policy design.”

    Kawano noted recent government encouragement for universities to adopt admission quotas for women in STEM to improve applicant numbers.

    Yet “while this sends a positive message that women are welcome in these disciplines, it is unlikely to serve as a fundamental solution to the underlying issues,” she said.

    She also acknowledged strong opposition from students and faculty: “Institutions that choose to introduce this system should clearly explain the reasoning behind it.

    “At the same time, it is crucial for university faculty to have access to the information and knowledge necessary to evaluate the merits and drawbacks of such quotas.

    “For example, they should be aware of the historical exclusion of women from science, and recognize the persistent bias that suggest[s] women are not suited for STEM fields—biases that continue to shape the choices women feel able to make,” Kawano said.

    Adding to the complexity is a political environment increasingly wary of diversity initiatives.

    Kawano warned that antidiversity sentiment similar to that in the U.S. could gain traction in Japan, although opposition to gender equality policies has existed independently for years.

    Akiyoshi Yonezawa, professor of higher education in the Global Strategy Office at Tohoku University, highlighted demographic pressures pushing universities toward diversity.

    “Since around 1990, the number of 18-year-olds has continuously declined and is expected to continue until at least 2040,” he said.

    In response, women and international students have been framed as essential for sustaining Japan’s knowledge economy.

    Yonezawa criticized how diversity initiatives in Japan are often framed: “DEI initiatives in Japanese universities and society tend to be promoted as a ‘catch-up’ Western mindset rather than intrinsic value formation through daily experience. This makes DEI activities in Japan’s higher education fragile in the long term when faced with controversy.”

    Institutional barriers also persist. Oki described how her university’s collegial governance system complicates efforts to implement top-down diversity policies and secure funding, which often comes with centralized control conditions.

    “To access the fund, we’re required to adopt a more top-down management style,” she said. “That’s difficult because our university traditionally follows a collegial governance model.”

    Oki agreed that there was a risk that international developments had made the situation potentially more difficult—particularly in the U.S., where things like the ban on affirmative action had made colleagues “more cautious about what might happen here.”

    Source link

  • Reputation Is Revenue: Why Brand Equity Matters in Higher Ed

    Reputation Is Revenue: Why Brand Equity Matters in Higher Ed

    If you’re a university leader today, you’re juggling a lot: enrollment challenges, tightening budgets, shifting student expectations, and the rise of non-traditional competitors. Amid all this, one asset might not be getting the attention it deserves — your university’s brand.

    No, not just your logo or tagline. We’re talking about brand equity — the value your institution holds in the minds of students, parents, alumni, faculty, employers, and the public. It’s about reputation, trust, recognition, and connection. And in a competitive market, it matters now more than ever.

    What is brand equity in higher education?

    Think of it this way: Brand equity is what people think and feel when they hear your university’s name. It’s the difference between being someone’s first-choice school versus just another option.

    It shows up in the pride alumni feel when they wear your sweatshirt, the confidence prospective students have when they see your graduates succeed, and the trust employers place in your credentials. It’s shaped by every experience — from the way your website tells your story, to how your faculty engage in the classroom, to the tone of your communications during a crisis.

    It’s what drives alumni to give, students to enroll, and faculty to choose you over other institutions. When a university has strong brand equity, people trust it, recognize it, and feel loyal to it. That kind of reputation can spark a ripple effect of positive influence across an entire institution.

    Understanding the impact of brand equity across an institution

    Brand equity touches every dimension of institutional life, influencing how people experience, perceive, and engage with your university across the student and stakeholder journey. Let’s take a look at its impact in six key areas.

    1. Enrolling new students

    Choosing a college is a huge decision for students and their families. Today’s students are more informed than ever and expect an institution that’s respected, innovative, and committed to their success.

    That’s where your brand can make an impact. If your university has a strong, positive reputation, you’re more likely to make their shortlist. Schools with solid brand equity are seen as high-quality, forward-thinking, and worth the investment, which makes all the difference in a world where competition is fierce and the landscape is changing fast.

    2. Attracting top faculty

    It’s not just students who care about a school’s reputation — faculty and academic leaders do too. A strong, well-respected brand sends a clear message: This place is serious about excellence, values academic freedom, and encourages innovation.

    It’s not just about prestige — top talent also wants to be somewhere that fosters genuine, supportive relationships with students. A respected brand signals a vibrant academic culture where everyone’s invested in each other’s success.

    3. Fostering alumni pride

    When a university has strong brand equity, it’s not just about reputation — it’s about the sense of pride and connection it creates. Alumni who feel proud of their alma mater are more likely to stay involved, whether that means attending events, volunteering, or giving back financially.

    A strong brand also helps foster a lasting sense of community and belonging well beyond graduation. In short, when your brand is trusted and respected, alumni remain engaged — and they’re more likely to support the institution not only with their resources but by recommending it to future students within their networks.

    4. Securing strategic partnerships

    Whether you’re aiming to partner with major companies, secure government grants, or build global collaborations, having a strong brand can be a significant factor. Organizations want to work with universities they respect, trust, and recognize as leaders in their field.

    When your university’s brand is strong and clear, opportunities that are imperative to your institution open up more quickly. Meanwhile, lesser-known schools often struggle to get noticed. Building a strategic and strong brand is your best way to stand out and secure meaningful partnerships that benefit your students and your bottom line.

    5. Staying resilient amid market disruption

    Higher education is under pressure from various directions shifting demographics, financial constraints, and evolving expectations. A strong brand is essential to stay resilient and relevant.

    When controversy, crises, or big changes hit, your brand becomes your safety net. People are far more likely to give you the benefit of the doubt if they already respect and trust you. That reputation can be the difference between weathering the storm and facing long-term damage.

    6. Boosting visibility through rankings

    While rankings aren’t everything, they do influence perception. Many ranking systems factor in peer reputation, which is directly tied to your brand. The same goes for media coverage. The stronger your brand, the more likely you are to be recognized as a thought leader and trusted voice in the field.

    Ready for a Smarter Way Forward?

    Higher ed is hard — but you don’t have to figure it out alone. We can help you transform challenges into opportunities.

    Practical tips for building brand equity that lasts

    University leaders can’t afford to view brand as merely a marketing function— it’s so much more than that. Brand must be seen as a strategic asset embedded in everything from big-picture planning to day-to-day decisions. It’s part of how you attract students, build partnerships, and earn trust.

    So how can you turn brand equity into a competitive advantage for your institution? Here are a few key moves to get started:

    1. Know what you stand for

    Start with a clear sense of who you are and what makes your school unique. What do you want people to feel when they think of your institution? Your brand promise should reflect your values, vision, and personality — and it should feel real, not like something cooked up in a boardroom.

    2. Take time to truly know your audience

    What matters most to your students, parents, alumni, and faculty? What are they proud of, and what do they wish were better? Take time to listen — through surveys, conversations, and social media — and use those insights to shape your strategy and message.

    3. Tell one clear, consistent story

    Your brand shows up everywhere: your website, your campus tours, your social media posts, even how your staff answers the phone. Make sure that story feels authentic, easy to understand, and consistent across every touchpoint. Developing comprehensive brand guidelines, share them widely across the institution, and conduct regular audits to ensure every touchpoint reinforces a unified, memorable experience for all audiences.

    4. Get your people involved

    Your brand isn’t just a logo — it’s how people talk about your institution and the trust they place in it. That means faculty, staff, students, and alumni all have a role to play. Keep them in the loop, give them the tools to share your story, and make them feel like part of the bigger picture. Want to get more people talking about — and proud of — your school? Make it easy for them. Share what’s happening through newsletters and social media and provide your community with tools that help them show off their connection. When faculty, staff, students, and alumni feel informed, celebrated, and included, they’re more likely to stay engaged — and more likely to brag about being part of your institution.

    5. Make sure the experience matches the message

    If you’re promising innovation, inclusivity, or career readiness, you better be delivering that on campus, in the classroom (both online and in person), and beyond. Brand equity grows when expectations match real experiences. That’s why creating a seamless website experience is so important — it directly impacts how much trust students place in your institution and it’s offerings.

    6. Get the word out (strategically)

    Raising awareness isn’t just about marketing louder — it’s about marketing smarter. Use the right mix of channels, from digital ads and social media to speaking opportunities for university leaders. And don’t forget about earned media and storytelling that highlights real student success. Do this by building a strategic content plan that aligns messaging across platforms, targets the right audiences, and consistently showcases the impact your institution makes.

    7. Keep a pulse on your reputation

    What are people actually saying about your school? Check in regularly using surveys, online reviews, social listening, and even informal feedback. This will help you spot issues early and see what’s working.

    8. Be prepared to evolve

    Higher ed is changing fast, so your brand needs to be flexible. Stay grounded in your core values, but be open to shifting your tone, visuals, or messaging as your audience and the world around you change.

    Build a brand with a lasting legacy and immediate impact

    In an age of increasing competition and shifting student expectations, brand equity is no longer a luxury — it’s a leadership priority. With students having endless options, donors getting more selective, and reputations spreading instantly, your brand equity can be a serious competitive edge.

    Investing in a strong, authentic, and trusted brand can lay the foundation for long-term success. The institutions that thrive in the years ahead will be those that treat their brand as a central part of their overall strategy instead of a marketing afterthought.

    Because in higher ed, your brand isn’t what you say it is — it’s what people believe it to be. And that belief? That’s your brand equity.

    Ready to strengthen your institution’s brand equity? Explore how a strategic marketing approach can help you stand out and thrive. Let’s talk!

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Source link

  • National Junior College Athletic Association Head Coaches Reveal Athletic Equity is Present

    National Junior College Athletic Association Head Coaches Reveal Athletic Equity is Present

    Dr. Riann MullisImagine going through a typical work week without a colleague or coworker inserting an analogy or anecdote from sports into the conversation. Regardless of the reason, from comparison to training, or overcoming adversity, “Collegiate athletics have been a part of the American culture since the 1800s” (Lewis, 2013). Sports significantly influence colleges and universities nationwide, acting as a driving force for institutional culture. The National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA) is no stranger to cultivating a positive environment for student-athletes. The association has been providing student-athletes with opportunities to compete in collegiate athletics since 1938 (NJCAA, 2025). Community college athletics traditionally have not received the majority of attention from national media; however, discussion is crucial at this foundational level, especially for the more than 45,000 NJCAA student-athletes pursuing academic and athletic opportunities each year.

    Mainstream media’s focus on ticket sales, influential athletes, and comparisons of athletic experience have contributed to a heightened sense of awareness of athletics at all levels. A significant change for athletics occurred more than 50 years when President Richard Nixon signed Title IX of the Education Amendment (Title IX) into law in 1972 (Valentin, 1997). “Implementing Title IX requires institutions to provide equal athletic opportunities for members of both sexes and to accommodate students’ athletic interests and abilities effectively” (U.S. Department of Education [USDE], 2020b).

    Dr. Jennifer SpielvogelDr. Jennifer Spielvogel The ability to conceptualize the similarities and differences of sports becomes critical to recognize what is considered fair opportunities and experiences for student-athletes. This informs the concept of athletic equity. Though major progress has been made since the enactment of this law, questions remain as to what equity looks like in athletics (Jensen, 2022).

    In a recently published study, “The Assessment of Athletic Equity by Head Men’s and Women’s Coaches in the National Junior College Athletic Association”, (Mullis, 2024) head coaches from a variety of NJCAA sports at Division I (DI) and Division II (DII) institutions were surveyed and interviewed to glean their opinions pertaining to implementation and best practices of athletic equity. Questions focused on observations, opportunities, and experiences.

    The NJCAA head coaches’ opinions about athletic equity initially focused on facilities, scholarships, and travel provided for teams. They were asked to assess the level of agreement on a 4-point Likert (1932) scale ranging from 4 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree) and the mean (M) was calculated for each question. The head coaches assessed facility equity (M = 2.8), scholarship equity (M = 2.8) and travel equity (M = 3.2) at prominent levels, indicating equity is present. The survey data also were disaggregated by team, with no significant differences found from head coaches of men’s and women’s teams in any sport. Further, the coaches agreed that equity is present for all teams at their institutions.

    In the study, head coaches also rank ordered the importance of six distinct coaching roles: advisor, advocate, fundraiser, leader, mentor, and role model. All 192 survey respondents were consistent in ranking leader as the most significant role. The coaches were confident about their relationships and impact on the student-athletes. Most impressively, when interviewed, none of the coaches mentioned wins and losses. Rather, their focus, shared with enthusiasm, highlighted the importance of each of their identified roles and their overwhelming responsibility to advance athletic equity through fair experiences and opportunities for their student-athletes.

    Collectively, the head coaches conveyed enhanced advocacy accountability for their athletes and teams. Case in point, when coaches were asked in the interviews if they had a responsibility to advocate for athletic equity, an NJCAA DII women’s basketball coach confidently expressed:

    Yes. Absolutely. If I do not advocate for my kids [women’s basketball student-athletes], who is going to do that? That is my job. My goal is to make sure they are getting the same treatment the same opportunities that every other sport, whether it be male or female, is getting on campus.

    With similar conviction, when posed the question if he considered himself responsible for advocating for athletic equity, a DII softball coach sharply stated, “No question.” In the interviews many coaches indicated that campus athletic directors and presidents should be involved and aware of athletic needs. From their perspective, there is a need for effective collaboration and communication, as the administration’s decisions can significantly impact the advancement of athletic equity.

    The assessments and opinions from NJCAA DI and DII head coaches offer a never-before-seen insight into athletic equity implementation at the NJCAA level. Continuing the conversations around the best practices of athletic equity through the voice of the coaches is imperative for the future of collegiate athletics. Implementing progressive ideas such as campus forums, shared documentation, and open discussion around the student-athlete and how to best provide equitable experiences for everyone involved will lead to the continuation of athletic equity at the two-year college level.

    Dr. Riann Mullis serves as Athletic Director and Title IX Coordinator at Neosho County Community College (KS).

    Dr. Jennifer Spielvogel serves as Professor of Practice, Community College Leadership Program, Department of Educational Leadership, at Kansas State University.

    The Roueche Center Forum is co-edited by Drs. John E. Roueche and Margaretta B. Mathis of the John E. Roueche Center for Community College Leadership, Department of Educational Leadership, College of Education, Kansas State University.

    References: 

    Jensen, M. (2022, June 23). What would starting Title IX from scratch look like? Philadelphia Inquirer. https://www.inquirer.com/college- sports/title-ix-anniversary-polls-issues 20220623.html 

    Lewis, G. (2013). The beginning of organized sport. American Quarterly, 22(2), 222–229. https://history.msu.edu/hst329/files/2015/05/ LewisGuy-TheBeginning.pdf 

    Likert, R (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Retrieved May 4, 2025 from https://archive.org/details/likert-1932/ page/14/mode/2up

    Mullis, R. (2024). The assessment of athletic equity by head Men’s and Women’s coaches in the national junior college athletic association (Order No. 31489530). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ Kansas State University; ProQuest One Academic. (3097398397). Retrieved from https://er.lib.k-state.edu/ login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations- theses/assessment-athletic-equity- head-men-s-women/docview/3097398397/ se-2

    National Junior College Athletic Association. (2025). About. History. Retrieved May 4, 2025 from https://www.njcaa.org/about/history/ index 

    U.S. Department of Education. (2020b). Intercollegiate athletics policy: Three part test – part three. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/ list/ocr/docs/title9-qa-20100420.html 

    Valentin, I. (1997). Title IX: A brief history. 25 years of Title IX. WEEA Digest. Women’s Educational Equity Act Resource Center at EDC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED414271

     

    Source link

  • Empowering Mature Students through Inclusive AI Literacy: Advancing Digital Equity and Social Justice in Higher Education

    Empowering Mature Students through Inclusive AI Literacy: Advancing Digital Equity and Social Justice in Higher Education

    • By Assoc. Prof. Dr. Eleni Meletiadou, Guildhall School of Business and Law, London Metropolitan University, PFHEA, NTF, UTF, MCIPD, MIIE.

    As higher education embraces artificial intelligence (AI) to drive digital transformation, there is a growing risk that older, non-traditional, or mature students will be left behind. This blog post draws on insights from the QAA-funded “Using AI to promote education for sustainable development and widen access to digital skills” project I have been leading alongside findings from the EU COST Action DigiNet (WG5), where I co-lead research into media portrayals and digital inequalities impacting mature learning workers.

    Through this work, and in collaboration with international partners, we have identified what genuinely supports inclusion and what simply pays lip service to it. While AI is often heralded as a tool for levelling the educational playing field, our research shows that without intentional support structures and inclusive design, it can reinforce and even widen existing disparities.

    Supporting mature students’ AI literacy is, therefore, not just a pedagogical responsibility; it is an ethical imperative. It intersects with wider goals of equity, social justice, and sustainable digital inclusion. If higher education is to fulfil its mission in an age of intelligent technologies, it must ensure that no learner is left behind, especially those whose voices have long been marginalised.

    Why Mature Students Matter in the AI Conversation

    Mature students are one of the fastest-growing and most diverse populations in higher education. They bring a wealth of life and work experience, resilience, and motivation. Yet, they are often excluded from AI-related initiatives that presume a level of digital fluency not all possess. However, they are often left out of AI-related initiatives, which too frequently assume a baseline level of digital fluency that many do not possess. Media portrayals tend to depict older learners as technologically resistant or digitally inept, reinforcing deficit narratives that erode confidence, undermine self-efficacy, and reduce participation.

    As a result, mature students face a dual barrier: the second-order digital divide—inequity in digital skills rather than access—and the social stigma of digital incompetence. Both obstruct their academic progress and diminish their employability in a rapidly evolving, AI-driven labour market.

    Principles that Support Mature Learners

    The QAA-funded project, developed in partnership with five universities across the UK and Europe, embedded AI literacy through three key principles—each critical for mature learners:

    1. Accessibility

    Learning activities were designed for varying levels of digital experience. Resources were provided in multiple formats (text, video, audio), and sessions used plain language and culturally inclusive examples. Mature students often benefited from slower-paced, repeatable guidance and multilingual scaffolding.

    1. Collaboration

    Peer mentoring was a powerful tool for mature students, who often expressed apprehension toward younger, digitally native peers. By fostering intergenerational support networks and collaborative projects, we helped reduce isolation and build mutual respect.

    1. Personalised Learning

    Mature students frequently cited the need for AI integration that respected their goals, schedules, and learning styles. Our approach allowed learners to set their own pace, choose relevant tools, and receive tailored feedback, building ownership and confidence in their digital journeys.

    Inclusive AI Strategies That Work – Based on What Mature Learners Told Us

    Here are four practical strategies that emerged from our multi-site studies and international collaborations:

    1. Start with Purpose: Show AI’s Relevance to Career and Life

    Mature learners engage best when AI tools solve problems that matter to them. In our QAA project, students used ChatGPT to refine job applications, generate reflective statements, and translate workplace policies into plain English. These tools became career companions—not just academic add-ons.

    ‘When I saw what it could do for my CV, I felt I could finally compete again,’ shared a 58-year-old participant.

    2. Design Age-Safe Learning Spaces

    Many mature students fear embarrassment in digital settings. We created small, trust-based peer groups, offered print-friendly guides, and used asynchronous recordings to accommodate different learning paces. These scaffolds helped dismantle the shame often attached to asking for help.

    3. Make Reflection Central to AI Literacy

    AI use can be empowering or alienating. We asked students to record short video reflections on how AI shaped their thinking. This helped them develop critical awareness of what the tool does, how it aligns with academic integrity, and what learning still needs to happen beyond automation.

    4. Use Media Critique to Break Stereotypes

    Drawing on my research into late-life workers and digital media, we used ageist headlines, adverts, and memes as classroom material. Mature learners engaged critically with how society depicts them, transforming deficit narratives into dialogue, and boosting confidence through awareness.

    How We Measured Impact (and Why It Mattered)

    We evaluated these strategies using mixed methods informed by both academic and lived-experience perspectives:

    • Self-reflective journals and confidence scales tracked growth in AI confidence and self-efficacy
    • Survey data from mature students (aged 55+) in the UK and Albania (from my older learners study) revealed the key role of peer support, professional experience, and family encouragement in shaping digital resilience
    • Narrative mapping, developed with COST DigiNet partners, was used to document shifts in learners’ digital identity—from anxious adopter to confident contributor
    • Follow-up interviews three months post-intervention showed sustained engagement with AI tools in personal and professional contexts (e.g., CPD portfolios, policy briefs)

    Policy and Practice: Repositioning Mature Learners in AI Strategy

    As highlighted in our Tirana Policy Workshop (2024), national and institutional policy often fails to differentiate between age-based needs when deploying AI in education. Mature students frequently face a “second-order digital divide,” not just in access, but in relevance, scaffolding, and self-belief.

    If UK higher education is serious about digital equity, it must:

    • Recognise mature learners as a distinct group in AI strategy and training
    • Fund co-designed AI literacy programmes that reflect lived experience
    • Embed inclusive, intergenerational pedagogy in curriculum development
    • Disrupt media and policy narratives that equate older age with technological incompetence

    Conclusion: Inclusion in AI Isn’t Optional – It’s Foundational

    Mature learners are not a marginal group to be retrofitted into digital learning. They are core to what a sustainable, equitable, and ethical higher education system should look like in an AI-driven future. Designing for them is not just good inclusion practice—it’s sound educational leadership. If we want AI to serve all learners, we must design with all learners in mind, from the very start.

    Source link

  • Could “Fear Equity” Revive Campus Free Speech? (opinion)

    Could “Fear Equity” Revive Campus Free Speech? (opinion)

    For most of the past decade, many professors lived in fear of challenging progressive beliefs on elite college campuses, beliefs that, as linguist John McWhorter argues, have often attained religious status. Saying the wrong word, or liking the wrong social media post, perhaps especially if one was a vocal member of an unfashionable minority, like Jews, could evoke ostracism from peers and even Twitter mobs demanding termination, followed by star chamber hearings led by unaccountable administrators.

    This was an inevitable consequence of ever-expanding conceptualizations of what constituted “harm” and various -isms (racism, sexism, etc.). University mandates requiring investigations for accusations of “harm” or “bias” inevitably incentivized some progressives, who are overrepresented in academia, to weaponize bureaucratic procedures to denounce, demonize and punish those they saw as violating sacred values. Greg Lukianoff, the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, reports that more professors were terminated for speech “offenses” in 2014–2023 than in the entire McCarthy era.

    The 2024 FIRE Faculty Survey found that 14 percent of the approximately 5,000 respondents reported having been disciplined or threatened with discipline by their institutions for their teaching, research or other speech. If that response generalizes to the population of American faculty, it means there have been tens of thousands of such investigations (or threats) over the last 10 years.

    The sense of fear was wildly inequitable, with far more conservatives than liberals reporting self-censoring. American universities suffered a decade of cancellations, terminations, harassment and even the odd death threat from the far left.

    Fear Equity?

    Now, thanks to the Trump administration’s—in our view questionable—policies regarding academia in general and elite institutions like Columbia and Harvard Universities in particular, policies that many plausibly view as political vengeance for leftist activism, higher education is rapidly approaching fear equity: The presidential right has joined the campus left in using intimidation to punish those whose speech they dislike. Now, everybody in academia gets to be afraid of being canceled, or at least having their grants canceled. Noncitizen students and faculty also have to fear being deported for expressing views that the Trump administration opposes. Conservative and centrist academics still have good reasons to fear their colleagues and students, as they have since 2014, but now, progressive peers have similar reasons to fear whatever comes next out of Washington.

    Is this an opportunity for free speech advocates? At first glance, it seems not. The solution to erosion of protections for heterodox free speech and academic freedom cannot possibly be vengeful restrictions on progressive speech. That is the road to expanding authoritarianism and eroding free speech environments for all, a tendency many current leaders in Washington would seemingly welcome.

    Academia’s Failure to Protect Nonprogressive Speech

    Nonetheless, academia’s record of restraining the censoriousness coming from within its ranks over the last decade has been abysmal. The American Association of University Professors, once a nonpartisan bulwark against censorship, jettisoned its principled support for free speech in focusing almost entirely on threats from the right while, in higher education, our (and AAUP’s) primary concern, most censorship came from the left. The AAUP’s recent statements endorsing the use of DEI criteria in hiring and promotions and the legitimacy of academic boycotts are seemingly designed to cement progressive orthodoxy over the professoriate.

    In just months, President Trump has demonstrated the error of AAUP’s “free speech for me but not for thee” positions, as Nat Hentoff put it in his book of that title. Of course, it remains to be seen whether the AAUP will interpret this as “time to take principled stances for speech and academic freedom for all of our faculty” rather than “Trump is evil incarnate, so we should double down on imposing progressive politics.”

    The last 10 years have been disastrous for free speech on campus. As Occidental College professor and Free Black Thought cofounder Jake Mackey recently wrote in “The last four years were the most repressive of my lifetime,” “It was fear of retaliation from the left, not from a fascist leader, that caused me to lay awake at night on more occasions than I can count, terrified that a student might have misinterpreted something I said in class and initiated a cancelation campaign against me.”

    Polling data bear this out, as Sean Stevens and his coauthors report in “Ostrich Syndrome and Campus Free Expression,” a chapter in our co-edited book, The Free Inquiry Papers (AEI Press, 2025). Conservative professors are more than twice as likely as liberal peers to report self-censoring. This is a rational response to reports showing that, within academia, “cancellation” attacks—attempts to punish faculty for their speech—are more likely to come from their left than their right. Risking one’s livelihood is not usually worth it.

    There is also evidence raising the possibility that support for censorship and for antisemitism was spread in part through shadowy foreign donations. A 2024 report, which one of us (Jussim) co-authored, found that universities underreported billions of dollars in funding from foreign sources (revealed after a Department of Education investigation). Worse, receipt of funding from authoritarian regimes and from member states of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation was statistically associated with deterioration of free speech and heightened antisemitism on campus.

    Follow-up research in progress is examining the hypothesis that this foreign financial assistance helped organize anti-Israel student groups and whole academic departments. As Lukianoff reported in “How Cancel Culture Destroys Trust in Expertise” at the recent Censorship in the Sciences conference held at the University of Southern California, protests by such groups were almost “exclusively responsible” for disruptions of campus speakers in 2024, which he called “the worst year we know of in history for campus deplatforming.” (To its credit, FIRE protects the rights of both pro- and anti-Israel speakers.)

    Notably, some campuses are far worse on free speech than others. A FIRE faculty survey released last December revealed that a remarkable 63 percent of Columbia faculty reported self-censoring at least occasionally; they identified the Israel-Hamas conflict as the most difficult issue to discuss on campus, with affirmative action second. That the far left has imposed a regime of denunciation and fear on many college campuses is beyond doubt.

    Trump’s Attacks on Free Speech and Academic Freedom

    But under President Trump, the right is making up for lost time. The Trump administration’s attempt to cut indirect costs on grants could be viewed as a genuine attempt to reduce wasted tax dollars. However, given that they have not reported any analysis of how indirects are used, many see this as a straightforward attack designed to cut academia down to size for its leftist politics. The administration has also disrupted the academic study of topics related to diversity, equity, inclusion, prejudice, inequality and oppression by defunding almost every grant to study these important issues. While faculty are not entitled to federal grant dollars and the federal government has the legitimate right to set funding priorities, the Trump administration has also attempted to ban any funding on any topic from universities that have DEI programs that the administration believes engage in discrimination. These policies will chill academic discourse.

    Furthermore, even if ultimately found to be legal (which we doubt), the Trump administration’s targeting for deportation of immigrants who have allegedly expressed support for Hamas further retards the robust exchange of ideas on campus. And these efforts are succeeding; the rapid capitulation of institutions such as Columbia to Trump’s demands has been dubbed “The Great Grovel” by Politico.

    Toward the Rediscovery of Principled Defenses of Speech and Academic Freedom

    Is it possible that the new fear equity, with both left and right afraid to speak their minds, may be a necessary precondition to pave the way for a free speech renaissance? There is historical precedent for this possibility. It would be a mirror image of the way that McCarthy-era repression set the stage for a raft of Supreme Court cases that dramatically strengthened legal protections for free speech. Yet judges cannot be everywhere and lawsuits cannot change culture.

    Now that censorship is bipartisan, both the left and right have incentives to rediscover principled defenses of free speech, including for their opponents. As James Madison counseled in Federalist Paper No. 51, the best protection of freedom is self-interest, and now, on free speech, all sides have it. Alternatively, to take a more positive view centered on political education, it may take having one’s own speech threatened, or that of one’s allies, before one fully understands the value of constitutional protections of free speech and institutional protections of academic freedom.

    An Action Agenda

    What can be done to reinvigorate a culture of free and open inquiry, debate, and speech on America’s college campuses? Quite a lot. Last year, as reported here, House Republicans passed a horribly titled (“End Woke Higher Education Act”) but conceptually sound campus free speech bill prohibiting ideological litmus tests in faculty hiring and institutional accreditation, protecting the rights of faith-based groups to determine their membership and assuring that speech limitations cannot be selectively enforced, as when conservative or pro-Israel speakers must pay “security fees” waived for liberal or pro-Palestine speakers. Just four Democrats voted yea and the then-Democratic Senate showed no interest. (In fairness to Senate Democrats, the House bill passed near the end of the congressional session.) Sponsor Burgess Owens, Republican of Utah, is expected to reintroduce the bill, and given Republican majorities in the House and Senate and Democrats’ newfound interest in free speech, its prospects for passing should be improved.

    Yet federal legislation can never solve the whole problem. Norms and social practices matter more than law with respect to creating a free speech culture on campus. What can institutions of higher education do to strengthen an intellectual culture of freewheeling discourse, inquiry and debate? First, they can adopt a formal statement of their commitment to free speech and academic freedom, such as the Chicago principles or the Princeton principles.

    Second, campuses can restrict the bureaucratic overreach of DEI bureaucracies and institutional review boards, both of which can and do threaten and erode faculty free expression. Third, the best way to limit overreach of existing bureaucratic units may sometimes be to create another bureaucratic unit explicitly designed to do so. An Office of Academic Freedom that is mandated to ensure faculty rights are not infringed by DEI units, IRBs, chairs, deans or anyone else, might go a long way toward protecting faculty.

    We would prefer deep and principled commitments to free speech and academic freedom to be the font from which such reforms spring. But if the only way we will get reforms is through fear equity, we’ll take it.

    Lee Jussim is a Distinguished Professor of psychology at Rutgers University and creator of the Unsafe Science Substack. Robert Maranto is the 21st Century Chair in Leadership in the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas. Together, they were among the co-editors of The Free Inquiry Papers (AEI Press, 2025) and among the co-founders of the Society for Open Inquiry in Behavioral Science.

    Source link

  • Landmark New Mexico Education Equity Case Heads Back to Court Next Week – The 74

    Landmark New Mexico Education Equity Case Heads Back to Court Next Week – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    The parties in the long-running Yazzie-Martinez lawsuit over educational equity in New Mexico will meet in court next week to discuss a motion alleging the state has not complied with previous court orders, along with the plaintiffs’ request for a “remedial plan.”

    The case, originally filed in 2014, led to a finding in 2018 by the late First Judicial District Court Judge Sarah Singleton, who found that the state was not providing equitable educational opportunities to Native students, English language learners, low-income students and students with disabilities. She ordered the state to take steps to address the needs of these at-risk students and ensure schools have the resources to provide them with the education they deserve.

    Attorneys representing Louise Martinez and Wilhelmina Yazzie filed a joint motion of non-compliance in September 2024, arguing that the state has not made significant progress in addressing the needs of at-risk students. Specifically, in their motion, plaintiffs point to ongoing poor student performance; high turnover within the New Mexico Public Education Department; high teacher vacancy rates; and a lack of targeted funding for at-risk students.

    Since Singleton’s decision, the state has increased funding for public education, but students are still being overlooked, Melissa Candelaria, education director for the NM Center on Law and Poverty, which represents the plaintiffs, told Source NM.

    The motion hearing is scheduled for 9 a.m. Tuesday, April 29.

    “We believe the court’s ruling should have been a wakeup call,” Candelaria said. “Our students can’t afford more bureaucratic churn and empty promises from PED. And we believe, the plaintiffs believe, the court must step in to enforce a real community-driven plan that reflects the urgency and the gravity to improve the overall state education system.”

    Candelaria noted that the joint motion was not opposed by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, who represents the state in the case. Court documents state that Torrez “agrees” that there has been “insufficient compliance.” However, private counsel for the PED did oppose the motion, particularly the plaintiff’s proposed remedial plan.

    PED had not responded to a request from Source NM for comment prior to publication.

    That plan, as detailed in court documents, includes nine components or goals, including: establishing a multicultural and multilingual educational framework; building an education workforce; increasing access to technology; developing methods of accountability; and strengthening the capacity of the PED.

    “There’s no longer a debate that a statewide education plan is necessary. Now, the decision is who leads that development,” Candelaria said.

    Candelaria also told Source the plaintiffs propose the Legislative Education Study Committee take the lead in developing the remedial plan because the department’s staff have knowledge and expertise in the area of education and have access to data. The department also has a director and permanent staff, as opposed to the PED, which has had multiple cabinet secretaries lead the department in the nearly seven years since Singleton’s decision, she noted.

    “Without a plan, the efforts by the Legislature will still be piecemeal and scattershot and it’s not going to result in what we want to see in a transformed education system that’s equitable and that builds on the strengths and provides for the needs of the four student groups in the case,” Candelaria said.

    The PED opposes the motion on this point, according to court documents, and argues the education department should take the lead in developing the plan. The department also says more time is needed to create and then implement the plan. Plaintiffs suggest that the five-year plan should be developed within six months of this month’s hearing.

    Wilhelmina Yazzie, one of the original plaintiffs, told Source she feels “very optimistic” ahead of the motion hearing and that she hopes the judge agrees a plan is necessary. She added that the inequities in public education were emphasized during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “Especially our tribal communities who are really deeply impacted by that, and they still continue to suffer to the present time right now and just by the state not taking the action that we need them to take,” Yazzie said.

    Yazzie’s son, Xavier Nez, 22, was in third grade when the lawsuit started. He is now in his third year studying at the University of New Mexico. Candelaria pointed out that since the 2018 court decision, multiple classes of students have made their way through the state’s educational system and failed to receive a comprehensive education. Yazzie’s youngest child, Kimimila Black Moon, is currently in third grade but attends private school.

    “She’s not in the public school because I still haven’t seen changes,” she said.

    Yazzie told Source that another goal of hers is to get out into communities throughout the state and speak with families because many parents are still unaware of the lawsuit and “they’re the ones that firsthand know what their children need, what they’re lacking, how they’re doing in school.”

    Source New Mexico is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Source New Mexico maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Julia Goldberg for questions: [email protected].


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Will end to federal Office of Ed Tech mean an end to equity?

    Will end to federal Office of Ed Tech mean an end to equity?

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

    From internet access to 1:1 devices, ed tech use in schools has grown at a rapid pace since Congress formed the Office of Educational Technology three decades ago within the U.S. Department of Education.

    But now that OET is gone, former employees fear the office’s progress to push for equitable access to technology for students and teachers nationwide will be lost — particularly as the implementation of artificial intelligence tools accelerates. 

    The Trump administration informed all seven OET employees in a March 12 email that their positions and office were being “abolished” as the Education Department announced massive layoffs across the agency. 

    Just a couple weeks later, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of the Education Department. The move comes as the Trump administration aims both to reduce the overall size of the federal government and to give states more authority over their education systems. 

    The Education Department did not respond to a request for comment on OET’s closure.

    When Kristina Ishmael, OET’s deputy director from October 2021 to December 2023, found out about the office’s closure, she said she felt “shock and surprise, as well as disappointment and anger.” Ishmael added that those feelings extended to the decimation of other Education Department offices as well. 

    OET’s role in guiding schools

    OET’s responsibilities over the years, among many other things, included the development of six National Educational Technology Plans between 2000 and 2024. 

    The latest plan identified three persistent barriers to equity in ed tech to be addressed by education leaders at state, district and school levels. Those barriers included inequitable implementation of ed tech in classrooms, uneven availability of ed tech professional development opportunities for teachers, and gaps in students’ access to broadband connections, devices and digital content.

    There is still a lot of work to do to address those inequities, Ishmael said. 

    Just months after ChatGPT debuted, OET began to release guidance on AI use in schools, focusing first on its impact on educators, and then on responsibilities for ed tech industry leaders and logistical concerns for school district leaders. 

    Beyond offering nonregulatory federal guidance, OET worked with multiple offices in the Education Department and other federal agencies. Additionally, OET acted as a point of contact for Congress to keep lawmakers informed about the state of ed tech in classrooms, according to former staff. 

    For instance, OET collaborated with the Office for Civil Rights when the Education Department released guidance last year on students’ civil rights protections regarding the use of AI tools in schools, said Anil Hurkadli, who held a one-year appointment as OET’s acting deputy director through Jan. 20. 

    “If we don’t have a really clear interpretation or articulation of how civil rights laws do indeed apply in the use of educational technology and educational settings, you create a lot of risk that districts and states are not procuring products and services in ways that are in alignment with those laws,” Hurkadli said. 

    The same issue applies to ed tech developers, Hurkadli said. If the industry creates tools without a clear understanding of civil rights laws, they also run the risk of violating students’ privacy and potentially compromising their sensitive data, he added. 

    OET served as a key convener for districts and states in the ed tech space, which also included student and teacher perspectives, Hurkadli said. For decades, the office leveraged its federal role to advocate both within the government and with external stakeholders for equitable access to ed tech in classrooms. 

    Without OET, there will be “a gaping hole in those efforts at a time when technology is accelerating at a pace where we can’t afford to lose ground,” Hurkadli said.

    Source link

  • UTS is showing how to achieve student equity now, not in 2050 – Campus Review

    UTS is showing how to achieve student equity now, not in 2050 – Campus Review

    The University of Technology Sydney (UTS) has taken bold steps to reach its own equity targets in a time when sector voices are calling on institutions to take action.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • llinois Community College Bachelor’s Degree Bill Stalls Amid Equity Concerns

    llinois Community College Bachelor’s Degree Bill Stalls Amid Equity Concerns

    Illinois Governor JB PritzkerA legislative initiative backed by Illinois Governor JB Pritzker that would allow community colleges to offer four-year bachelor’s degrees in high-demand fields has temporarily stalled in the state’s General Assembly, with lawmakers raising concerns about potential impacts on minority-serving institutions.

    The bill, which was one of Gov. Pritzker’s top legislative priorities announced in his February State of the State address, failed to advance from the House Higher Education Committee before Friday’s deadline for most non-spending bills.

    Rep. Katie Stuart, who chairs the committee, declined to call House Bill 3717 for a vote, though she indicated the legislation may still have a path forward this session.

    “I don’t think around here anything’s really ever dead, and I think there’s a path forward,” Stuart told reporters following last Wednesday’s committee hearing.

    Stuart, whose district includes Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, expressed specific concerns about how the proposed expansion might affect institutions that primarily serve minority students, such as Northeastern Illinois University and Chicago State University.

    “If we’re not careful about what programs are allowed, that it could collapse the existing programs in those institutions, collapse their student base, and just make them not able to be operational,” Stuart explained. “And then we wouldn’t have a four-year institution serving those communities.”

    This sentiment reflects growing concerns in higher education about maintaining equitable access while expanding educational options, particularly when considering the vital role that historically minority-serving institutions play in providing educational pathways for underrepresented populations.

    The governor’s proposal, introduced as House Bill 3717 by Rep. Tracy Katz Muhl, aims to make bachelor’s degrees more affordable and accessible, particularly in rural areas where four-year universities may not have a significant presence.

    “With lower tuition rates and a greater presence across the state — especially in rural areas — community colleges provide the flexibility and affordability students need,” Pritzker said when introducing the initiative. “This is a consumer-driven, student-centered proposal that will help fill the needs of regional employers in high-need sectors and create a pathway to stable, quality jobs for more Illinoisans.”

    The bill would allow community colleges to offer bachelor’s degrees in select fields, provided the college’s board of trustees demonstrates the program would address an “unmet workforce need” in their service area and that the institution possesses adequate resources and expertise to sustain the program.

    Following last week’s committee hearing, a coalition of presidents from several public and private universities in Illinois, including Chicago State and Northeastern Illinois University, released a statement acknowledging their concerns while expressing willingness to find a compromise.

    The university leaders noted they were concerned about “duplicating efforts and increasing costs at a time of limited resources,” but added they are “encouraged by negotiations and remain committed to working collaboratively to build a higher education ecosystem that serves all of our students and employers.”

    Despite missing the committee deadline, both Rep. Stuart and the governor’s office expressed optimism about reaching a compromise that addresses the concerns of all stakeholders.

    .

    Source link

  • Navigating the Kafkaesque nightmare of Columbia’s Office of Institutional Equity

    Navigating the Kafkaesque nightmare of Columbia’s Office of Institutional Equity

    Franz Kafka’s masterpiece “The Trial” begins when Josef K discovers that “one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested.”

    What follows is the story of his desperate attempt to navigate a nightmarishly opaque bureaucracy — and the bleak results. Like Josef K, Columbia students awoke one morning to find themselves at the mercy of the university’s new Office of Institutional Equity.

    In recent weeks, the OIE sent dozens of warnings to students telling them they were under investigation for alleged discriminatory harassment simply for engaging in pro-Palestinian advocacy on campus. Individual acts of protected political expression — social media posts, peaceful demonstrations, and op-eds in the student newspaper — were treated as creating a “hostile environment” for criticizing Israel, with accusations framed in expansive interpretations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

    FIRE has since heard from a number of students lost in the maze of Columbia’s cryptic dispatches and confusing accusations, and one thing is clear: the OIE has cast a late-winter chill across campus. 

    These investigations can take months or even years, and leave students in fear of what they can and cannot do or say while they await the results. 

    Take the two Columbia seniors who were notified just months before graduation that they were under investigation and subject to expulsion for allegedly writing a student newspaper article signed by a consortium of pro-Palestinian student groups urging divestment from Israel. One student described the situation as “dystopian” and said she is now reluctant to speak out on the issue again. Even worse, the two students were targeted not because there was any evidence they’d actually authored the article, much less created a hostile environment by doing so, but merely because of their involvement with the pro-Palestinian student group consortium.

    Another student contacted FIRE to report that they were afraid to return to campus because they feared the administration would retaliate against them for their previous advocacy with Students for Justice in Palestine. 

    Moreover, Columbia made national headlines this week when Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detained former student Mahmoud Khalil, who previously tried to fight the OIE. Though he had already successfully appealed the university’s disciplinary charges against him, federal agents showed up on his doorstep and hauled him off to an ICE detention center based on accusations that he led campus protest activities aligned with Hamas. 

    Trump administration’s reasons for detaining Mahmoud Khalil threaten free speech

    News

    The government arrested and detained Mahmoud Khalil for deportation, and its explanation for doing so threatens the free speech of millions of people.


    Read More

    Khalil reported that just before he was due to graduate this past December, the OIE buried him in allegations relating to social media posts with which he was uninvolved. Furthermore, when he stood up for himself and refused to sign a nondisclosure agreement, the university put a hold on his transcript and threatened to block his graduation — until he hired counsel, and the OIE seemed to temporarily back off. The timing of the ICE raid and the OIE’s investigation into Khalil leaves students and faculty with more questions than answers, especially as he has still not yet been criminally charged for anything and is facing deportation.

    While Columbia’s OIE is charged with addressing claims of unlawful discrimination and harassment, it cannot do so by employing an overly broad definition of harassment that stretches the meaning beyond recognition. Yet the OIE has done exactly that in interpreting Title VI harassment to include protected criticism of Israel, suppressing political activism under the guise of maintaining a “safe” environment by defining speech against another country as possible discriminatory harassment if “directed at or infused with discriminatory comments about persons from, or associated with, that country.” 

    Is it possible for such speech to be part of a pattern of discriminatory harassment? Yes. It’s also possible for it not to be harassment. The way Columbia is treating such speech, though, makes that impossible to discern. 

    The OIE’s needlessly murky investigatory process is also deeply troubling. Students report being left in the dark about the specifics of the charges against them, and being required to sign a nondisclosure agreement in order to see the evidence. In other words, they can’t talk to anyone about their case or get help until after it’s too late and the OIE has already decided their case and potentially sealed their fate. 

    These investigations can take months or even years, and leave students in fear of what they can and cannot do or say while they await the results. When students are forced to endure lengthy investigations that may result in serious sanctions such as suspension and expulsion, it’s obvious that the process, even if it results in a student’s favor, is the punishment. 

    The original title of “The Trial” was Der Prozess, or literally “The Process,” because the true horror Josef was forced to confront was that of a Byzantine and convoluted process custom-built to crush dissent. If nothing else, we can perhaps thank Columbia, like so many schools before it, for bringing classic literature to life.

    Source link