Tag: Events

Purdue Cuts Off Student Paper Citing Institutional Neutrality

Purdue University has ended a long-standing partnership with its independent student newspaper, The Purdue Exponent, and will no longer distribute papers, give student journalists free parking passes or allow them to use the word “Purdue” for commercial purposes.

The Purdue Student Publishing Foundation board (PSPF), the nonprofit group that oversees The Exponent—the largest collegiate newspaper in Indiana—said the changes came without warning.

On May 30, PSPF received an email from Purdue’s Office of Legal Counsel notifying the group that their contract had expired more than a decade ago and the university would not participate in newspaper distribution or give the students exclusive access to newspaper racks on campus.

In addition, the message said, the university will not enter into a new contract for facility use with the paper to remain consistent with the administration’s stated policy on institutional neutrality.

According to a statement from the university, it is not consistent “with principles of freedom of expression, institutional neutrality and fairness to provide the services and accommodations described in the letter to one media organization but not others.”

The Exponent is the only student newspaper, though Purdue also has two student news channels, FastTrack News and BoilerTV.

Legal counsel also asked The Exponent to keep “Purdue” off the masthead and out of the paper’s URL because “The Foundation should not associate its own speech with the University.” PSPF says it has a trademark on “The Purdue Exponent” until 2029.

PSPF and Purdue have held distribution agreements since 1975, in which Exponent staff would drop papers off at various locations across campus and staff would then place them on newspaper racks.

In 2014, the Exponent delivered the university a new contract to renew the agreement for the next five years, according to paper staff. The contract was never signed, but the terms of the agreement continued until Monday, June 2.

Now, The Exponent is permitted to distribute papers themselves and have nonexclusive access to newspaper stands on campus, according to the university; students said they don’t have early access to many of the buildings the way staff do.

“Purdue’s moves are unacceptable and represent not only a distortion of trademark law but a betrayal of the university’s First Amendment obligations to uphold free expression,” Dominic Coletti, a student press program officer for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told The Exponent. “Breaking long-standing practice to hinder student journalism is not a sign of institutional neutrality; it is a sign of institutional cowardice.”

Source link

June 6, 2025
Trump Proposes $161M Cut to Tribal Colleges’ Funding

The Trump administration is asking Congress to cut funds for tribal colleges and universities by nearly 90 percent, according to the Department of the Interior’s proposed budget released Monday.

Tribal college advocates told ProPublica, which first reported on the cuts, that tribal colleges could have to shutter if Congress approves the plan, leaving thousands of students without the support they need to complete a degree program. And reports from ProPublica show that it will only further devastate institutions that were already underfunded.

“The numbers that are being proposed would close the tribal colleges,” Ahniwake Rose, president and CEO of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, told ProPublica. “They would not be able to sustain.”

The budget request calls for about $860 million to operate Indian Education Programs, which includes two federally controlled tribal colleges—Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute. Of that $860 million, about $22 million would go toward postsecondary programs. That’s about a $161 million cut compared to fiscal year 2024.

Tribal colleges argue that their funding is protected by treaties and contend that the institutions up for discussion are critical providers in some of the country’s poorest areas.

“It doesn’t make sense for them to [approve the cuts[ when they’re relying on us to train the workforce,” Dawn Frank, president of Oglala Lakota College in South Dakota, told ProPublica. “We’re really relying on our senators and representatives to live up to their treaty and trust obligation.”

Source link

June 6, 2025
Judge Restores AmeriCorps Funding in 24 States, D.C.

A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore funding to AmeriCorps programs in 24 states and Washington, D.C., following a lawsuit that challenged the April cuts to the program, The Hill reported Thursday.

The judge, Obama appointee Deborah Boardman, ruled that the states were likely to succeed in their argument that the agency’s funding could not legally be cut without a notice-and-comment period. The ruling did not reinstate any of the agency’s staff.

AmeriCorps volunteers and grants support at least 100 college-access organizations across the U.S., many of which had to lay off their AmeriCorps members in the wake of the cuts.

It’s the latest court order blocking the administration’s crusade to reduce the size of the federal government; recently, judges reversed layoffs at the Department of Education and ruled that a lawsuit challenging funding cuts at the National Institutes of Health could move forward.

Source link

June 6, 2025
Trump Proclamations Escalate International Student Attacks

President Trump issued two directives targeting international students just hours apart on Wednesday night. One is a ban on entering the U.S. for citizens from 12 countries and heightened visa restrictions for those from another seven. The other bans all international students, researchers and other “exchange visitors” from Harvard University.

The orders represent another escalation of the Trump administration’s simultaneous, and sometimes overlapping, campaigns to both punish Harvard and curtail the number of foreign students studying in the U.S.

Chris Glass, a professor of higher education at Boston College and a member of the college’s Center for International Education, said the combination of the travel ban and the Harvard order are part of the administration’s “flood the zone” strategy for its higher education agenda. He added that the timing of the dual orders, following on the heels of a “seemingly indefinite” pause on student visa interviews and a promise to “aggressively revoke” Chinese students’ visas, seems intended to cause the most chaos possible.

“The timing couldn’t be worse … this is when 70 percent of international students are getting or renewing their visas,” he said. “It injects catastrophic uncertainty, and the uncertainty is the strategy from my perspective.”

On Thursday evening, Harvard filed a legal challenge to the proclamation targeting the university and asked a judge to issue a temporary restraining order against the administration. Judge Allison Burroughs from the District of Massachusetts quickly granted that request and extended the current restraining order issued last month. She set a hearing for June 16.

2017 Again

The last time Trump instituted a travel ban, in his first term, it threw colleges into chaos and left students and researchers stranded for months in the middle of winter break, sending colleges scrambling to find ways to bring them back. Higher ed has been bracing for a repeat of that travel ban since Trump was elected in November; many institutions told their international students to return to campus before the inauguration to avoid the same fate.

The new ban is not as drastic as many predicted; when the White House initially proposed another travel ban in March, officials rolled out a list of 43 potential target countries. But it is more expansive than the 2017 ban—it affects 19 countries instead of eight—and, combined with the administration’s barrage of attacks on international students over the past three months, could be even more damaging to international enrollment.

The full ban applies to Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen—largely Middle Eastern and African countries with substantial Muslim populations. Trump also restricted visas from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.

The travel ban doesn’t immediately affect students currently in the U.S. or who have already been approved for visas. But with many admitted international students still languishing in a visa process that the State Department halted two weeks ago, it will likely prevent thousands of students from attending in the fall and upend institutions’ projected enrollments.

The countries on the list send a relatively small number of students to U.S. colleges. Of the affected countries, Iran has by far the most students studying in the U.S. It is the 15th most common origin country for international students, with 12,430 studying at American colleges and universities as of fall 2024, according to the latest report from the Institute for International Education.

Still, the order is likely to compound the uncertainty and fear that has grown among international student populations, leading to signs of a large decline in student visa applications. Glass’s research, along with more recent reports, shows a double-digit decline in student visas from March 2024 to this March alone; the latest moves could double that, he said.

“[The] COVID [pandemic] was a disruption of 15 percent,” he said. “This looks like it could be more significant than COVID, if the pause is extended and the uncertainty continues.”

In his proclamation announcing the travel ban, Trump wrote that the targeted countries had “deficient” vetting and screening processes for visa applicants, or had “taken advantage of the United States in their exploitation of our visa system and their historic failure to accept back their removable nationals.”

Sarah Spreitzer, vice president and chief of staff for government relations at the American Council on Education, said the rationale outlined in the travel ban—that students pose a unique national security threat and have been overstaying their visas—doesn’t align with reality.

“If this is for national security concerns, our students are some of the most vetted visas out there,” she said. “And I don’t know if our students actually overstay their visas very often.”

Fanta Aw, the president of NAFSA, an association of international educators, echoed Spreitzer and said that international students are already “among the most tracked individuals entering the United States.”

“Actions such as halting student visa issuance and implementing nationality-based travel bans do not enhance national security,” she wrote in an email. “Instead, they weaken it—undermining our economy, diminishing our global competitiveness and eroding our country’s ability to effectively engage with the global population.”

The 2017 travel ban was amended twice after being challenged in the courts and eventually exempted nonimmigrant visas, including student and exchange visas. Spreitzer said the administration’s outsize focus on student visa holders over the last few months makes that outcome less likely, but only time—and the courts—will tell.

Havoc at Harvard

The travel ban came on the heels of another White House proclamation Wednesday night, this one banning foreign students and scholars from attending Harvard.

Trump restricted visa applicants from entering the country “solely or principally to participate in a course of study at Harvard University or in an exchange visitor program hosted by Harvard,” claiming that allowing foreign students on campus would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States because, in my judgment, Harvard’s conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers.”

A Harvard spokesperson wrote that the proclamation is “another illegal retaliatory step taken by the administration in violation of Harvard’s first amendment rights” and that the university “will continue to protect its international students.”

The proclamation is the latest jab in a weeks-long fight over international students on Harvard’s campus. Last month the Trump administration attempted to revoke Harvard’s Student Exchange and Visitor Program certification, which would have banned the university from enrolling international students altogether, affecting not just visa applicants but also foreign students and researchers currently on campus. Harvard challenged the effort in court, and a judge swiftly granted the university an injunction; on Monday, the Trump administration lost its appeal to overturn that decision.

Harvard amended that lawsuit to include a challenge to the newest proclamation, calling it “an unlawful evasion of the Court’s order.”

“When the Court enjoined the Secretary [of State’s] efforts to revoke Harvard’s certifications and force its students to transfer or depart the country, the President sought to achieve the same result by refusing to allow Harvard students to enter in the first place,” the amended suit reads.

Unlike the SEVP decertification attempt, Trump’s executive proclamation doesn’t immediately affect international students currently enrolled at Harvard, only those who have yet to secure visas—though it does instruct the State Department to determine whether current students “should have their visas revoked.”

The proclamation runs through a gamut of justifications for its international student ban. Trump cites data on increasing campus crime rates in the interest of student safety, alleges discrimination in the admissions process that he claims foreign students exacerbate and points to academic partnerships and financial contributions from countries like China that he says endanger U.S. national security interests.

Notably, Trump also says Harvard has failed to cooperate with the administration’s demands for student misconduct records; the university has provided data on “only three students,” which Trump wrote was evidence that “it either is not fully reporting its disciplinary records for foreign students or is not seriously policing its foreign students.”

Glass said the move is almost certainly an attempt to work around the court injunction using executive powers rather than the visa bureaucracy. And making the issue about constitutional authority in the national security realm—rather than whether the proper SEVP decertification process was followed—could change the legal calculus in court.

“That’s what’s going to set a precedent for generations,” Glass said. “Will the precedent of autonomy and academic freedom at Harvard win in the courts? Or will the precedent of national security powers for the government win the day?”

(This story has been updated to correct the list of banned countries to include Republic of the Congo.)

Source link

June 6, 2025
What to Expect as the Senate Tackles Reconciliation

The clock is ticking for Senate Republicans as they rush to approve a sweeping bill that cuts spending and taxes and pays for some of President Donald Trump’s top agenda items by the Fourth of July.

If passed, the complex piece of legislation—known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—could entirely reshape the student loan system, increase endowment taxes, force colleges to repay their students’ unpaid loans and significantly cut Medicaid, among other changes.

The House passed the measure late last month, putting the ball in the Senate’s proverbial court. But key senators have since said little about the higher ed provisions in the bill, so it’s unclear what lawmakers in the upper chamber will prioritize. Higher ed experts predict risk-sharing, or the plan to require colleges to pay a penalty for unpaid loans, likely won’t survive. Other issues, like whether to change the eligibility criteria for the Pell Grant, are more uncertain. But any changes to the House bill will come at a cost, as saving one program likely will mean deeper cuts to another.

Over all, lawmakers will face a difficult balancing act to get the legislation through the Senate without endangering a second passage in the House, where bill advanced by the skin of its teeth. And Trump has called the bill the single most important piece of legislation in his second term, suggesting that failure is not an option.

“The One, Big, Beautiful Bill will implement President Trump’s Make America Great Again agenda by delivering the largest tax cut in American history, the largest border security investment in history, and the largest deficit reduction in nearly 30 years,” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement last month. “The Senate should pass this critical legislation as soon as possible to usher in America’s Golden Age.”

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the bill would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over a decade.

What’s Next

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hasn’t yet released its version of a reconciliation bill, though a draft is expected soon since congressional leaders are hoping to get a vote on the legislation by June 16, sources familiar with the Hill say. Lawmakers are using the reconciliation process, so they only need 51 votes in the Senate to pass the bill. But if the Senate version is at all different from the House’s, the House will have to vote again before the legislation can reach the president’s desk.

When a bill does drop, it will likely skip the traditional committee markup, so the legislation can reach the Senate floor for a vote faster. But that fast tracking will limit the time for college leaders and others to review and weigh in on the bill.

Policy analysts say Senate and House Republicans will likely have to make some compromises in order to move the bill forward. Some Senate Republicans may stand firm and advocate for changes on certain provisions, but the question is which ones will earn priority and which ones will fall by the wayside. For instance, can moderate Republicans save both the Pell Grant and Medicare? Or will they have to choose between the two?

In many cases, what spending cuts and program changes survive is going to depend on “how the tug-of-war between the House and Senate plays out,” said Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank.

All of this, however, could be thrown for a loop if former Trump adviser Elon Musk holds any influence. The billionaire tech mogul who previously led Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency has launched an all-out feud with the president over social media, calling the bill a “disgusting abomination” and saying, “shame on those who voted for it.”

At Odds Over Accountability

If the reconciliation bill does move forward, policy experts expect the Senate to propose a very different version than the House. And Michelle Dimino, director of education at Third Way, a left-leaning think tank, said she’s looking to the Lowering Education Costs and Debt Act, a bill introduced by Louisiana senator Bill Cassidy in 2023, for an outline of what it may include. (Cassidy is the chair of the Senate education committee.)

“Senate and House Republicans have not always been aligned in their approach to higher ed reform,” she said. And “unsurprisingly, each chamber tends to favor legislation that originated internally.”

One of the most notable differences Dimino and others anticipate between the House and Senate is how each tries to hold colleges accountable for students’ financial outcomes.

House Republicans want to use risk-sharing, a strategy that would require colleges and universities to pay a fee each year based on the amount of loans their graduates (or those who left without a degree) have failed to repay. But the formula for calculating that fee is complicated, and colleges have a lot of questions about how it works and whether it’s fair. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that these risk-sharing payments would total $1.3 billion by 2034 and then continue to increase annually.

Meanwhile, the Lowering Education Costs Act calls for a plan similar to the gainful-employment rule—a metric that ties colleges’ financial aid eligibility to their students’ earnings and debt levels. The idea was first introduced by President Obama, scrapped by President Trump in his first term and then expanded by President Biden.

Under gainful employment, colleges would have to show their graduates make more than someone with a high school diploma and that their loan payments will be affordable. If a college ever falls below those thresholds, it could lose access to all federal student aid. The Senate plan would likely apply to all colleges, whereas the current gainful-employment rule only applies to for-profit colleges and nondegree programs.

Higher education lobbyists are generally more supportive of the Senate’s anticipated proposal. But they note that while it’s a much lesser evil than risk-sharing, concerns remain, especially about how it would affect institutions.

“When the data is not available … we are operating off concepts and ideas,” said Emmanual Guillory, senior director of government relations at the American Council on Education. “So it begs the question: What is the intended outcome and is this proposal the solution?”

Other Key Issues to Watch

What is less certain, policy experts noted, is whether the Senate will sign off on the House’s plans to consolidate student loan repayment plans, cap loans, increase endowment taxes and change who is eligible for the Pell Grant. For example, while the House proposed waiving borrowers’ interest if their monthly income-based payment isn’t enough to cover what’s owed and forgiving remaining debt after 30 years of payments, Cassidy’s legislation would create a more traditional plan where students accrue interest but all is forgiven after 20 or 25 years of payments.

And though the House plan would eliminate subsidized loans, end the Grad PLUS loan program and limit Parent PLUS, experts predict that the Senate will likely end both Grad and Parent PLUS and put more aggressive limits on how much students can borrow over all.

But other aspects like Pell Grant eligibility were not discussed in Cassidy’s 2023 bill at all. So while the House would expand the Pell Grant to short-term workforce programs and limit access for the full-time Pell program, it’s unclear what, if anything, the Senate would propose. At a recent hearing, some senators appeared reticent to make deep cuts to the Pell program, though lawmakers have generally supported the concept of workforce Pell.

Over all, it’s hard to know exactly where the Senate will fall on most issues, Guillory said, especially because unlike during most sessions, it seems the House has the upper hand.

“I think the Senate would like to propose a very different bill that would require a lot of back-and-forth compromise, but they are feeling more and more pressure from the House to make fewer changes in order to get the bill passed quicker and to meet that July 4 deadline,” he said.

Source link

June 5, 2025
They Don’t Want to Learn About the Middle East (opinion)

Being arrested by armed riot police on my own campus was not, somehow, the most jarring thing that has happened to me since the spring of 2024. More disturbing was the experience of being canceled by my hometown.

In June 2024, I was supposed to give the second of two lectures in a series entitled “History of the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” at the public library in San Anselmo, Calif., a leafy suburb of San Francisco best known as the longtime home of George Lucas.

I grew up in San Anselmo during the Sept. 11 era and vividly remember how stereotypes and misperceptions of the Middle East were used to justify war in Iraq and discrimination against Arabs and Muslims at home. I was shaped by the commonplace refrains of that moment, especially that Americans needed to learn more about the Middle East. So, I did. I learned Arabic and Farsi and spent years abroad living across the region. I earned a Ph.D. in Middle Eastern history and am now a professor at a public university in Colorado. I see teaching as a means of countering the misrepresentations that generate conflict.

But as the second lecture approached, I began receiving alarmed messages from the San Anselmo town librarian. She told me of a campaign to cancel the lecture so intense that discussions about how to respond involved the town’s elected officials, including the mayor. I was warned that “every word you utter tomorrow night will be scrutinized, dissected and used against you and the library” and that she had become “concerned for everyone’s well-being.” Just hours before it was scheduled to begin, the lecture was canceled.

I later learned more about what had transpired. At a subsequent town council meeting, the librarian described a campaign of harassment and intimidation that included “increasingly aggressive emails” and “coordinated in-person visits” so threatening that she felt that they undermined the safe working environment of library staff.

In Middle Eastern studies, such stories have become routine. A handful have received public attention—the instructor suspended for booking a room on behalf of a pro-Palestinian student organization, or the Jewish scholar of social movements investigated by Harvard University for supposed antisemitism. Professors have lost job offers or been fired. Even tenure is no protection. These well-publicized examples are accompanied by innumerable others which will likely never be known. In recent months, I have heard harrowing stories from colleagues: strangers showing up to classes and sitting menacingly in the back of the room; pressure groups contacting university administrators to demand that they be fired; visits from the FBI; a deluge of racist hate mail and death threats. It is no surprise that a recent survey of faculty in the field of Middle East Studies found that 98 percent of assistant professors self-censor when discussing Israel-Palestine.

Compared to the professors losing their jobs and the student demonstrators facing expulsion—and even deportation—my experience is insignificant. It is nothing compared to the scholasticide in Gaza, where Israeli forces have systematically demolished the educational infrastructure and killed untold numbers of academics and students. But the contrast between my anodyne actions and the backlash they have generated illustrates the remarkable breadth of the censorship that permeates American society. The mainstream discourse has been purged not just of Palestinian voices, but of scholarly ones. Most significantly, censorship at home justifies violence abroad. Americans are once again living in an alternate reality—with terribly real consequences.

On Oct. 7, 2023, it was clear that a deadly reprisal was coming. It was equally evident that no amount of force could free Israeli captives, let alone “defeat Hamas.” I contacted my university media office in hopes of providing valuable context. I had never given a TV interview before, so I spent hours preparing for a thoughtful discussion. Instead, I was asked if this was “Israel’s Pearl Harbor.”

Well, no, I explained. It was the tragic and predictable result of a so-called peace process that has, for 30 years and with U.S. complicity, done little more than provide cover for the expansion of Israeli settlements. Violence erupts when negotiation fails. Only by understanding why people turn to violence can we end it. I watched the story after it aired. Nearly the whole interview was cut.

I accepted or passed to colleagues all the interview requests that I received. But they soon dried up. Instead, I began receiving hate mail.

It quickly became clear that I had to take the initiative to engage with the public. I held a series of historical teach-ins on campus. The audience was attentive, but small. I reached out to a local school district where I had previously provided curriculum advice. I never heard back. I contacted my high school alma mater and offered to speak there. They were too afraid of backlash. I was eventually invited to speak at two libraries, including San Anselmo’s. Everyone else turned me down.

In April 2024, the Denver chapter of Students for a Democratic Society organized yet another protest in their campaign to pressure the University of Colorado to divest from companies complicit in the Israeli occupation. This event would be different. As one of the students spoke, others erected tents, launching what would become one of the longest-lasting encampments in the country.

There was no cause for panic. The encampment did not interfere with classes or even block the walkway around the quad. Instead, it became the kind of community space that is all too hard to build on a commuter campus. It hosted speakers, prayer meetings and craft circles. But as I left a faculty meeting the day after the start of the encampment, I sensed that something was wrong. I arrived on the quad to find a phalanx of armed riot police facing down a short row of students standing hand in hand on the lawn.

Fearing what would happen next, two colleagues and I joined the students and sat down, hoping to de-escalate the situation and avoid violence. The police surrounded us, preventing any escape. Then they were themselves surrounded by faculty, students and community members who were clearly outraged by their presence. We sat under the sun for nearly two hours as chaos swirled around us. The protesters cleared away the tents to demonstrate their compliance. It made no difference. Forty of us were arrested, zip-tied and jailed. I was charged with interference and trespassing. Others faced more serious charges. I was detained for more than 12 hours, until 3:00 in the morning.

The arrests backfired. When the police departed, the protesters returned, invigorated by an outpouring of community support. I visited the encampment regularly over the following weeks. When the threat of war with Iran loomed, I gave a talk about Iranian history. When the activists organized their own graduation, they invited me to give a commencement address. I spoke about their accomplishments: that they had taken real risks, made real sacrifices and faced real consequences in order to do what was right. The encampment became the place where I could speak most freely, on campus or off.

While the encampment came to an end in May, the prosecutions did not. The city offered me deferred prosecution, meaning that the matter would be dropped if I did not break the law for six months. I am not, to put it lightly, a seasoned lawbreaker, so the deal would have effectively made everything disappear. I turned it down. Accepting the offer would have prevented me from challenging the legality of the arrests, and I was determined to do what I could to prevent armed riot police from ever again suppressing a peaceful student demonstration. It was a matter of principle and precedent. A civil rights attorney agreed to represent me pro bono. I would fight the charges.

During my pretrial hearings, I learned more about the cancellation of my lecture in San Anselmo. A local ceasefire group served the town with a freedom of information request that yielded hundreds of pages of emails. Two days before the talk was scheduled, one local resident sent an “all hands on deck” email that called for a coordinated campaign against my lecture “in hopes of getting it canceled.” A less technologically savvy recipient forwarded the message on to the library, providing an inside view.

The denunciations presented a version of myself that I did not recognize. The letters relied on innuendo and misrepresentation. Many claimed that I was “pro-Hamas” or accused me of antisemitism, which they invariably conflated with criticism of Israeli policy. Several expressed concern about what I might say, rather than anything I have ever actually said, while others misquoted me. Fodder for the campaign came largely from media reports of my arrest and video of my commencement address, both taken out of context. One claimed that the talk was “a violation of multiple Federal and California Statutes.” Another claimed that I “seemed to promote ongoing violence”—the lawyerly use of the word “seemed” betraying the lack of evidence behind the accusation.

Perhaps the most popular claim was that I am biased, an activist rather than a scholar. My opponents seemed especially offended by my use of the word “genocide.” But genocide is not an epithet—it is an analytical term that represents the consensus in my field. A survey of Middle East studies scholars conducted in the weeks surrounding the talk found that 75 percent viewed Israeli actions in Gaza as either “genocide” or “major war crimes akin to genocide.”

I was most struck by how many people objected to the idea of contextualizing the Oct. 7 attack; one even called it “insulting.” But contextualization is not justification. Placing events in a wider frame is central to the study of history—indeed, it is why history matters. If violence is not explained by the twists and turns of events, it can only be understood as the product of intrinsic qualities—that certain people, or groups of people, are inherently violent or uncivilized. In the absence of context, bigotry reigns.

I did what I could to fight back against the censorship campaign. After reading the library emails, I reached out to journalists at several local news outlets to inform them about the incident. None followed up. The only report ever published was written by an independent journalist on Substack.

In the weeks leading up to my trial, I wrote an op-ed calling for the charges to be dropped. I noted that the protest was entirely peaceful until the police arrived. I asked how our students, especially our undocumented students or students of color, can feel safe on campus when the authorities respond to peaceful demonstrations by calling the police. I sent the article to a local paper. I never heard back. I sent it to a second. Then a third. None responded. It was never published.

In October, prosecutors dropped the charges against me. The official order of dismissal stated that they did not believe that they had a reasonable likelihood of conviction. I have now joined a civil lawsuit against the campus police in the hope that it will make the authorities think twice before turning to the police to arrest student demonstrators.

Scholars of the Middle East are caught in an inescapable bind. Activist spaces are the only ones left open to us, but we are dismissed as biased when we use them. We are invited to share our insights only if they are deemed uncontroversial by the self-appointed gatekeepers of the conventional wisdom. If we condemn—or even just name—the genocide unfolding before our eyes, we are deplatformed and silenced. The logic is circular and impenetrable. It is also poison to the body politic. It rests on a nonsensical conception of objectivity that privileges power over truth. This catch-22 is no novel creation of the new administration. The institutions most complicit in its creation are the pillars of society ostensibly dedicated to the pursuit of justice—the press, the courts and the academy itself. They have constricted the boundaries of respectable discourse until they fit comfortably within the Beltway consensus. Rather than confronting reality, they have become apologists for genocide and architects of the post-truth world. They have learned nothing from Iraq. Nor do they want to. They don’t want to learn about the Middle East.

Alex Boodrookas is an assistant professor of history at Metropolitan State University of Denver. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not represent those of his employer.

Source link

June 5, 2025
Learning Designer, Learning Technologist, Brown

If there is anyone in higher education that you want to work with, that person is Melissa Kane. As director of online program development at Brown University, Melissa leads a talented team doing incredible work at the intersection of learning, technology and institutional change. You can learn more about Melissa and her professional and educational journey here. When I saw on LinkedIn that Melissa is recruiting for a learning designer and a learning technologist, I thought that these roles would be perfect to highlight in this “Featured Gig” series.

If you are also recruiting for an opportunity at the place where learning, technology and organizational change meet, please get in touch.

Q: What is the mandate behind these roles? How do the roles align with and advance the university’s strategic priorities?

A: Both the learning designer and the learning technologist positions are directly tied to Brown University’s strategic priority to diversify the master’s degree portfolio and significantly increase global impact through the expansion of online graduate degree programs. As higher education continues to evolve toward more flexible, human-centered and accessible learning modalities, Brown delivers on its mission by providing a uniquely Brown learning experience to a new demographic of working professionals and international learners who may require more geographical flexibility.

Since this strategic initiative began in 2021, Brown has remained invested in its internal staff resources to partake in constructing and delivering its online master’s programs. Because of this, the learning designer and learning technologist positions are essential infrastructure investments that will enable us to continue delivering the same rigorous and innovative education that defines Brown through the online modality.

The learning designer role advances our mission by ensuring that courses in our online master’s programs maintain Brown’s hallmark of academic excellence while leveraging evidence-based practices in fully asynchronous online learning experience design. Similarly, the learning technologist role has the opportunity to position us at the forefront of educational innovation by pioneering new approaches to implement existing and emerging learning technologies that can influence the ways we advance graduate student education.

Both of these roles will be integral in helping Brown with its goal of enrolling and retaining new markets of graduate students while still maintaining our mission-driven commitment to deliver transformative, high-quality education in this evolving landscape.

Q: Where do the roles sit within the university structure? How will the people in these roles engage with other units and leaders across campus?

A: The learning designer and the learning technologist roles are strategically positioned within the Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning, reporting through the Office of the Provost, which again reflects the university’s commitment to placing pedagogical excellence at the center of its online master’s degree expansion efforts. The Sheridan Center’s integrated approach makes it an ideal location for individuals in these positions to collaborate with other members of the university’s community, including the School of Professional Studies, the library and academic departments and schools. Because of our cross-campus partnerships to help deliver courses within the online graduate degree portfolio, we have the unique opportunity to enable consistent quality and pedagogical coherence across all online programs as we work with academic departments to draw on their unique disciplinary strengths and identities.

Q: What would success look like in one year? Three years? Beyond?

A: Our team’s success stems from deep human connections and the intellectual capital created through collaboration, trust and empathy with each other and our campus partners. In the first year, success is measured by the individual’s openness to creative thinking, empathetic cross-functional collaboration and inclusive practice in both their projects and interpersonal interactions. The learning designer will demonstrate fluency in digital pedagogies that are inclusive of global audiences at scale, while the learning technologist will continue to grow their technical knowledge and skills to meet diverse student learning needs through innovative, ethical and accessible educational technologies as the AI landscape changes.

By year three and beyond, individuals in these roles will have evolved into thought leaders in learning experience innovation that is responsive and relevant to our ever-changing world. They will have established themselves as trusted collaborators with our campus partners, and their work will demonstrate measurable impact on student success and engagement in the graduate degree environment. Ultimately, I see individuals in these roles continuing to forge bridges between academic departments and inclusive online learning environments that reflect Brown’s commitment to academic excellence, innovation and accessibility.

Q: What kinds of future roles would someone who took these positions be prepared for?

A: As members of the integrated Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning, both positions have clearly defined advancement pathways based on the university’s evolving needs, with opportunities to progress to senior learning designer, senior learning technologist or even assistant director roles.

While that’s the formal pathway, what’s exciting to me is that we’ve deliberately designed these positions to foster professional growth, which means an individual’s potential future impact at Brown is really only limited by their own ambitions of expanding their expertise in the field of learning design and technology. This has been my experience at Brown, and between the university’s deep commitment to staff development and remaining responsive to emerging trends in higher education, I imagine the possibilities for future roles extend beyond what I can envision at this moment.

Source link

June 5, 2025
Practical Lessons for Leaders in Crisis (opinion)

Crises are an inevitable part of leadership, challenging the resilience of both leaders and institutions. In these moments, leaders must make tough decisions under immense pressure, and how we respond can shape the outcome of the crisis and the legacy we leave behind. It’s not just about surviving the storm but also about learning from it, adapting and coming out stronger on the other side.

The lessons shared in this essay provide practical guidance to help higher education leaders face crises with clarity and purpose, from fostering open communication to prioritizing the well-being of your team. These insights reflect hard-earned experiences and are grounded in the values that carry us forward, even when the path feels uncertain.

Be the Buffalo

Have you heard the story of the buffalo? When a storm approaches, many animals instinctively run away from the storm. But because storms move swiftly, by running away, they can prolong their exposure when the storm catches up to them. Buffalo, however, face storms head-on, running into them instead of away from them, minimizing their time in adversity.

In crisis leadership, this means confronting the situation directly often resolves it faster and builds resilience. Sometimes, that means intentionally thinking about what is happening, giving yourself time to process it and trying to accept the reality. Avoid the temptation to ignore problems or hope they dissipate on their own. Acknowledge reality, process the pain and release its grip on your focus. Facing a crisis with courage and clarity accelerates recovery and strengthens leadership.

Keep the End in Mind

From the moment the crisis begins, envision what recovery looks like. Protect your institution and team while safeguarding critical relationships. This mindset helps you pivot from managing the immediate challenges to laying the groundwork for a return to normalcy and stability. Avoid impulsive decisions that can have long-term consequences.

Equally important is how you support your team, particularly those who are on the front lines of the crisis, feeling its weight acutely. By keeping the end in mind, you can better prioritize your team’s well-being. For instance, ensure they have the resources, communication and guidance they need to navigate the storm. Protect them from unnecessary fallout by taking on more external pressure when possible. A team that feels supported and valued during a crisis will emerge better and more unified in its aftermath.

Also stay mindful of your future self—the leader who will look back on this period and assess the outcomes and the approach. Treat every interaction carefully, knowing that future collaboration often depends on how you conduct yourself during difficult times.

Do the Next Right Thing

In a crisis, the path forward often feels murky and overwhelming and the pressure to anticipate every possible scenario can be paralyzing. Simplify your focus: Break the challenge into manageable steps and identify the next critical decision. For instance, in a financial crisis, the next right thing might be to prioritize cost-cutting measures. Ask, “What is the next right thing?” and then focus on that.

In other words, break the challenge into manageable steps and identify the next critical decision. Not every decision carries the same weight; some choices will matter more than others in the short term. Taking a moment to identify what requires immediate action versus what can wait is essential. Trust your instincts and lean on your values.

Remember, no single decision will end a crisis, but a series of thoughtful, well-executed actions can. By consistently doing the next right thing, you’ll build momentum, foster confidence and guide your institution toward recovery.

Rise Above the Fray

Crises test your composure. When you’re down and out and your back is against the wall, it is natural to want to fight back—to stand up for yourself or defend your organization. While the instinct to protect or retaliate can be strong, rising above the fray—staying calm, measured and professional—reflects well on you and your organization. Your actions during a crisis set the tone for your team and how external stakeholders perceive your leadership. By maintaining your composure, you can instill a sense of control and confidence in your team and stakeholders.

During a crisis, emotions often run high and others may act in ways that disappoint or frustrate you. These moments are as much a reflection of their character as they are a test of your own. Respond with integrity and intention, ensuring actions align with your values. Anchor yourself fairly and professionally, leading by example. How you act in these moments defines your leadership and shapes your legacy.

Seek Help Early

No leader faces a crisis alone. When a storm comes, take a moment to think, “Who might be able to help me?” Asking for help from legal counsel, crisis communication experts or trusted advisers is essential. These professionals offer critical perspectives and solutions. By involving them early, you give yourself and your team the advantage of informed, strategic guidance.

Equally important is leaning on your network and reaching out to colleagues who have faced similar challenges for their lessons learned, moral support and practical insights to help you navigate the complexity of the crisis. Asking for help is a strength, not a weakness, and ensures you emerge from the crisis with relationships and trust intact.

Rethink Public Relations in the Age of Social Media

There was a time when saying “no comment” or ignoring a media inquiry was the worst kind of public relations. Traditional public relations strategies may not apply in today’s social media–driven world. Not every media inquiry or rumor warrants a response. Prioritize credible sources and local media relationships critical to your institution’s reputation.

Avoid the trap of engaging with nonconstructive voices. Strategic silence can sometimes be the best action, allowing your focus to remain on the broader recovery effort.

Support the Core and Reassure the Whole

Crises often pressure a core team—typically leadership and crisis managers. Support these individuals with clear communication, resources and guidance. A supported core team can act decisively and confidently, which is essential for effective crisis management.

At the same time, safeguard your broader community—your students, employees and other stakeholders—by shielding them from unnecessary distractions, allowing them to stay focused on the institution’s vision and mission. Clear, empathetic communication reassures stakeholders and sustains trust, morale and well-being.

This Too Shall Pass—Find the Lessons

Crises feel all-encompassing at the moment—when you’re in the thick of it, it is easy to think life will never be the same again—but they are temporary. Remind yourself that leadership and life will return to normal.

Once the storm passes, reflect on the experience. Adversity shapes us, often in ways we don’t immediately recognize. What lessons has this crisis taught you about leadership, resilience and institutional dynamics? Growth frequently emerges from adversity, preparing you for future challenges.

Take Care of Yourself

When a crisis hits, dealing with that crisis becomes your sole focus. Self-care during a crisis is both essential and challenging. Your capacity to lead diminishes without rest, nutrition and mental reprieve. Prioritize habits that sustain you while giving yourself grace. Some things—like a full inbox or a missed task—can wait.

Strong habits built before crises ensure you have the reserves needed for long-term endurance. Leadership, like endurance, depends on maintaining your strength for the long haul.

Manage Stakeholders Thoughtfully and Lead With Humility

Crises reshuffle priorities; stakeholder needs will inevitably shift. Identify the most impacted and influential, tailoring communication to meet their needs. Internal stakeholders often need reassurance, while external groups may require clarity, particularly when misinformation or media scrutiny complicates the narrative.

Crises also remind us of our fallibility. Adopt humility and seek diverse perspectives to uncover blind spots and improve decision-making. Leading with humility signals strength, not weakness. It demonstrates that you value thoughtful, intentional leadership over impulsive reactions and earns the trust and respect of those you serve.

Final Thoughts

Crisis leadership is both a test and a teacher. The lessons it imparts— about resilience, humility and strategic focus—are hard-earned but invaluable. By embracing these principles, leaders can survive crises and emerge more self-aware and better prepared for future challenges.

Janet N. Spriggs, Ed.D., is president of Forsyth Technical Community College in North Carolina. Paula Dibley, Ed.D., is chief officer of student success and strategic innovation at Forsyth Technical Community College.

Source link

June 5, 2025
Michigan Governor Declines to Remove Two MSU Trustees

After more than a year of uncertainty, Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer has decided not to remove two Michigan State University trustees as requested by the board, The Lansing State Journal reported.

Michigan State’s Board of Trustees asked the Democratic governor to remove Rema Vassar and Dennis Denno last year after a university investigation found both trustees violated MSU’s code of conduct. The investigation determined that the pair had “created a fear of retaliation amongst administrators and other MSU personnel,” according to the report, which said they encouraged students to call a frequently critical faculty member a racist. Vassar also accepted gifts from donors, including flights and tickets to athletic events, the report said.

(Vassar and Denno are currently facing a lawsuit from the professor they allegedly targeted.)

The report also found the duo intended to “embarrass and terrify” former interim president Teresa Woodruff. The trustees have refuted most allegations and taken issue with the findings.

Both trustees were stripped of their duties by the board and Vassar stepped down as chair.

While Whitmer called Vassar and Denno’s actions “shameful,” she decided not to remove her fellow Democrats. (Trustees at Michigan State are elected, unlike at most institutions nationally.)

“The denial of the request by no means indicates a condoning of the conduct alleged in the referral,” Whitmer’s deputy legal counsel Amy Lishinski wrote in a letter to the MSU board obtained by the newspaper. “Rather, it only means that other considerations related to the Governor’s removal authority weigh against removal under these circumstances at this time.”

Source link

June 5, 2025
ED Pressures Accreditor to Act on Columbia

The Department of Education has publicly called on Columbia University’s accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, to take action against the university’s alleged noncompliance with federal nondiscrimination laws.

In a Wednesday news release, officials wrote that Columbia was found to have acted “with deliberate indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students, thereby violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Officials said, “Columbia failed to meaningfully protect Jewish students against severe and pervasive harassment on Columbia’s campus and consequently denied these students’ equal access to educational opportunities to which they are entitled under the law.” As a result of that finding, ED called on MSCHE to take action on the matter.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon accused the university of failing to protect Jewish students on campus in the wake of Hamas’s Oct. 7 terrorist attacks against Israel, arguing that such a lapse “is not only immoral, but also unlawful.”

McMahon added that accreditors are obligated to ensure members abide by their standards and called on MSCHE to inform the department of compliance actions taken against Columbia. ED indicated that MSCHE should require Columbia to develop a plan to ensure compliance.

“We are aware of the press release issued today by the United States Department of Education (USDE) regarding Columbia University and can confirm that we received a letter regarding this matter this afternoon,” MSCHE president Heather Perfetti said in a statement. “This letter is part of the commitment reflected within the Executive Order to promptly provide to accreditors any noncompliance findings relating to member institutions issued after an investigation conducted by the Office of [sic] Civil Rights. Consistent with our Commission’s management of investigative findings, we will process these in accordance with our policies and procedures.”

The call for MSCHE to take action on Columbia is the latest effort by the Trump administration to force further changes at an institution that has been in its crosshairs over how it handled a pro-Palestinian student encampment and related demonstrations in the aftermath of Oct. 7.

Columbia has already yielded to the Trump administration’s call for sweeping changes, agreeing in March to revise disciplinary processes, hire campus police officers with the authority to make arrests and appoint a new senior vice provost to oversee academic programs focused on the Middle East, among other changes—despite concerns around academic freedom. However, university officials appear to have rejected the administration’s desire for a consent decree.

The Trump administration has also frozen hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research funding, an effort that has continued even after university officials agreed to various demands.

Columbia officials acknowledged the exchange between ED and MSCHE in a statement.

“Columbia is aware of the concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights today to our accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, and we have addressed those concerns directly with Middle States. Columbia is deeply committed to combatting antisemitism on our campus. We take this issue seriously and are continuing to work with the federal government to address it,” university officials wrote in a statement posted online.

Wednesday’s news sparked confusion (and celebrations from some critics) online, as many social media users incorrectly interpreted the news to mean Columbia had lost accreditation. However, the federal government does not have the power to strip accreditation. Only accreditors can determine if universities are out of compliance, as experts have previously noted.

(This article has been updated to add statements from MSCHE and Columbia.)

Source link

June 4, 2025