Tag: Events

  • Transitioning to the Agentic University 2026–27

    Transitioning to the Agentic University 2026–27

    The dramatic enhancement in the capability of AI as it moves from bots to agents will bring about efficiencies and have a far greater impact on the day-to-day operations, strategies and effectiveness of our institutions. We will become less expensive, more personalized and more responsive to students and employers. Those are big claims, so for this column, I turned to my personal assistant, Google Gemini 2.5 Pro on Nov. 1, 2025, to help me with identifying the pathway to those outcomes.

    Caveats

    In this article, I can only hit the high points along the way in developing an agentic AI–enhanced university. This is merely a broad-brush, incomplete view that each university should adjust and enhance in order to meet its structures and needs. I also encourage you to read the valuable McKinsey article “Deploying agentic AI with safety and security: A playbook for technology leaders,” published on Oct. 15, 2025, for important security and safety information.

    Gemini Pro prefaced its recommendations with:

    This is the central strategic challenge for the next 36 months. The institution has successfully navigated the first wave—generative AI, which is about creating content. You are right to be concerned about the second, more powerful wave: agentic AI, which is about taking action.

    Where generative AI is a research assistant, an agentic AI is a 24/7, autonomous project manager. It can understand a high-level goal (e.g., “increase retention for first-generation students”), create a multi-step plan, execute that plan across different software systems and learn from its mistakes without constant human prompting.

    Competitors will use this to create profound operational efficiencies and new, hyper-personalized student services. The institutions that wait will be competing on price and quality against a rival that has automated its back office and given every student a personal AI adviser.

    This will take significant thought and planning across the university. It will be important that we include all members of the university community to make this a coordinated, comprehensive change that will significantly advance the efficiency, effectiveness and relevance of the institution. Timing is important. We must begin immediately if we hope to have major changes in place before the end of 2027. Let’s begin!

    First Half of 2026 Foundation and Vision

    We will need an executive task force with the knowledge, resources and shared vision to accomplish this task. Gemini recommends we be sure to include:

    • Chief information officer: To map the data and systems.
    • Chief financial officer: To identify cost-saving opportunities and fund pilots.
    • Provost: To champion the academic quality and student-facing initiatives.
    • VP of enrollment: To represent the entire student life cycle (recruitment to alumni).
    • VP of operations: To represent the “back office” (HR, grounds, facilities).

    The executive task force will want to set up opportunities for input and support of the initiative. Perhaps the first step will be to seek ideas of whether the first order of priority should be quality improvement (hyperpersonalization of services to the learners) or cost efficiency (operational excellence). Both of these will be needed in the long run in order to survive the agent-enabled competition that will be both of higher quality and less expensive. In seeking input on this choice, universitywide awareness can be fostered. Perhaps a broad university forum could be scheduled on the topic with smaller, targeted follow-ups with faculty, staff, students, administrators and external stakeholder groups scheduled as the initiative proceeds.

    One of the first steps of the executive task force will be to perform a universitywide Agent Readiness Audit. Since agents run on data and processes, we need to identify any data silos and process bottlenecks. These will be among our first priorities to ensure that agents can perform work smoothly and efficiently. Resolving these may also be among the most time-consuming changes. However, removing these data roadblocks can begin to show immediate progress in responsiveness and efficiency.

    Second Half of 2026 Into Spring 2027 Pilot and Infrastructure

    Gemini suggests that a good starting point in the summer of 2026 would be to set up two pilots:

    • Cost-Saving Pilot: The Facilities Agent
    • Goal: Reduce energy and maintenance costs.
    • Action: An AI agent integrates with the campus event schedule, weather forecasts and the building HVAC/lighting systems. It autonomously adjusts climate control and lighting for actual use, not just a fixed timer. It also fields all maintenance requests, triages them and dispatches staff or robotic mowers/vacuums automatically.
    • Quality-Improvement Pilot Example: The Proactive Adviser Agent
    • Goal: Improve retention for at-risk students.
    • Action: An agent monitors student data in real time (LMS engagement, attendance, early grade-book data). It doesn’t replace the human adviser. It acts as their assistant, flagging a student who is at risk before the midterm and autonomously executing a plan: sending a nudge, offering to schedule a tutoring session and summarizing the risk profile for the human adviser to review.

    Our most significant centralized expense will be to set up a secure digital sandbox. The pilots cannot live on a faculty member’s laptop. The CIO must lead the creation of a central, secure platform. This sandbox is a secure environment where AI agents can be developed, tested and given access to the university’s core data APIs (e.g., SIS, LMS and ERP).

    Gemini reminds me that, concurrently, we must set up a new entity. The generative AI rules were about plagiarism. The agentic AI rules must be about liability. The new entity is a kind of Agent Accountability Framework. It deals with policy questions such as:

    • Who is responsible when an agent gives a student incorrect financial aid advice?
    • What is the off-switch when an agent-driven workflow (like course wait lists) creates an inequitable outcome? Who has authority to flip the switch?
    • By whom and how are an agent’s actions audited?

    Implementation Across University Through Fall 2027

    There will be many personnel and staffing topics to address. By the summer of 2027, we should be well on the way to refining roles and position descriptions of employees. The emphasis should be efficient, enhanced redesign of roles rather than staffing cuts. Some cuts will come from normal turnover as staff find more attractive opportunities or retire. In most cases, employees will become much more productive, handing off their redundant, lower-level work to agents. For example, Gemini Pro envisions:

    • The admissions counselor who used to answer 500 identical emails now manages a team of AI agents that handle the routine questions, freeing the counselor to spend one-on-one time with high-priority applicants.
    • The IT help desk technician no longer resets passwords. The technicians now train the AI agent on how to troubleshoot new software and directly handle only the most complex, level-three issues.
    • The human adviser now manages a caseload of 500 students (not 150), because the AI assistant handles 90 percent of the administrative churn, allowing the adviser to focus on high-impact mentoring.

    Gemini Pro suggests that this approach can result in a higher-quality, more efficient university that will be able to compete in the years ahead. The final step is the most critical and is the job of everyone, from the president and board on down. We must champion a culture where AI agents are seen as collaborators, not replacements. This is a human-AI “co-bot” workforce.

    The institutions that win in 2027 will be those that successfully trained their managers to lead mixed teams of human and AI employees. This is the single greatest competitive advantage one can build.

    This framework will position the university not just to survive the agentic AI wave but to lead it, creating an institution that is both more efficient and, critically, more human-centered.

    Source link

  • Colleges Expand Basic Needs Support Following SNAP Freeze

    Colleges Expand Basic Needs Support Following SNAP Freeze

    The government shutdown may be nearing its end, but the delayed distribution of food assistance funds continues to pose a threat to Americans, including the basic needs security of college students. For now, the future of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funding remains cloudy amid the federal government’s ongoing court battles against releasing the funds.

    Nearly three in five college students experience some form of basic needs insecurity, and two in five experience food insecurity, according to national surveys. In addition, approximately 3.3 million college students are eligible for federal food assistance, according to 2020 data, though a large share do not utilize SNAP due to lack of awareness.

    Financial insecurity is one of the top threats to student retention and persistence in higher education, meaning a lapse in support may impede some students’ ability to remain enrolled.

    Some colleges and universities have established new or expanded measures to plug the gap in food support for students during the shutdown, including expanding the hours of campus food pantries and promoting emergency grant funding.

    University of Minnesota

    Minnesota administrators announced on Nov. 3 that students affected by the lack of SNAP funds would be able to access one free meal a day in the residential dining hall until benefits resume. The university estimates fewer than 1,000 individuals on campus are enrolled in SNAP.

    In addition, the on-campus food pantry, Nutritious U, will offer expanded hours for the rest of the semester, opening one hour earlier to serve more students.

    Franklin Pierce University

    The New Hampshire–based university provides basic needs resources at several campus locations—including the library, counseling center and the Office of Outreach and Engagement—to ensure students can have access to food and hygiene products.

    The pantry, Rations for Ravens, is funded primarily through donations, both monetary and physical products.

    City University of New York

    CUNY chancellor Félix Matos Rodríguez announced the university system would allocate additional funding to all campuses “so they can stock extra supplies in their on-site food pantries or provide food assistance in other forms,” he wrote in a Nov. 7 email to students. CUNY students can visit any campus pantry in the system, regardless of their home enrollment, allowing them to access those with the most convenient hours and locations.

    The chancellor also urged students to apply for SNAP benefits for future assistance; students at the Bronx campuses (Lehman, Hostos and Bronx Community College) can also participate in a pilot program for community-based resources.

    Austin Community College

    Nearly half of the students at Austin Community College are food insecure, according to fall 2023 survey data. Since the government shutdown, officials have received up to 500 requests a week for emergency aid from the college’s 74,000 students, as reported by The Austin American-Statesman.

    The college has pantries on every campus, called River Food Bites, which now have extended hours to meet students’ needs. ACC also allocated $25,000 in emergency funding to purchase gift cards to the H-E-B grocery store, and staff plan to create meal kits to support students over winter break.

    Long Beach City College

    The California college expanded services at its food pantry locations, called Viking Vaults, by increasing food options and offering food cards to students who have been impacted by suspended SNAP benefits. Students can also apply for emergency aid, and the college outlined a list of FAQs to address their concerns during the shutdown.

    University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

    UNC offers a variety of basic needs resources during a typical academic year, some of which have been expanded to meet the current surge in demand.

    Undergraduate and graduate students can access any of the six on-campus food pantries or nine gardens around campus to pick up food. Eligible students can also receive a free campus dining meal card through a referral form. In addition, the university is piloting a meal swipe donation program for the end of the term so students can share their unused meals with others.

    Students can also receive push notifications of events and other free resources through campus events.

    Source link

  • 3 Questions for MIT’s Luke Hobson

    3 Questions for MIT’s Luke Hobson

    Luke Hobson does it all. He is not only assistant director of instructional design for MIT xPRO and a lecturer at the University of Miami’s School of Education and Human Development, but Luke also writes books, hosts a podcast, blogs, publishes a newsletter, creates videos on YouTube and seems to know everyone in our field.

    I asked if Luke would be willing to step away from all these commitments and projects to answer my questions, and he graciously agreed.

    Q: How did your career progress from an individual learning design contributor to advancing into a leadership role at your institution, as well as a thought leader and creator in the learning, technology and design space? What advice do you have for others in our field looking to increase their campus and national impact?

    A: I have a bit of an obsession within our field. I still find it remarkable that, for a living, I get to care about designing learning experiences. Funny enough, I had no idea this field even existed until I met an instructional designer back in 2013. As soon as I learned that this was a career, I went all in. That obsessive mentality stayed with me when I became a contributor at Northeastern University and later at MIT. I wanted to find every possible way to create the most effective and meaningful kinds of courses and programs.

    Through all of my seldom successes and many, many failures, I learned a thing or two along the way, and I decided to start sharing these stories online. It began with answering questions in Facebook groups, which eventually turned into a blog, a podcast, a YouTube channel, a book and more. What I discovered through sharing these moments is that I developed a love for teaching about instructional design. This led me to pursue a leadership role at MIT and to build a team of instructional designers. It also led me to teach in the University of Miami’s online Ed.D. program. Being able to teach future leaders in learning science has been an incredibly rewarding experience.

    The best piece of advice I can give is to share. Share everything. Share your wins. Share your losses. Share your moments of glory. Share the times you fall flat on your face. People appreciate transparency. That’s how I built my brand online and my presence at MIT. I didn’t realize how much of an impact I was having until multiple faculty members mentioned following me on LinkedIn and asked how they could hire an instructional designer for their team. It’s been amazing to see the growth of IDs here from when I first started to now.

    Another step you can take today is to build your network. Dig the well before you’re thirsty. You mentioned how it seems like I know everyone in our field and I chuckled, thinking back to when I didn’t know a soul in instructional design. The pandemic opened my eyes: Everyone was stuck at home and on Zoom, so I took advantage of that. I reached out to people on LinkedIn for virtual coffee chats, invited them on my podcast, gave webinars for universities and companies, and more. All of this was to get to know people. If you want to make an impact, you can’t do it alone. You need the support of others, and there is no better community than the learning nerds.

    Q: Your Ed.D. is in educational leadership. Please tell us about your program and how completing a terminal degree in this field has impacted your career. For our community of nonfaculty educators—learning nerds—what are your recommendations around pursuing a doctorate while working?

    A: I’m thankful that I had a truly fantastic Ed.D. experience. I have to give all the credit in the world to Dr. Peg Ford for what she built at Southern New Hampshire University. I was on the fence about pursuing this degree, but after speaking with current students at the time, I felt like it was the right place for me. The program was built on a core foundation of a cohort-based model and forging strong bonds with fellow members. Dr. Ford understood the perils and curve balls life throws your way when you’re pursuing a doctorate and how easily those challenges can land you in A.B.D. limbo. It didn’t take long to see she was absolutely right. Our cohort faced major life events—losing loved ones, taking on new roles, having children, relocating to new cities and more. Through it all, we stuck together.

    What I appreciated most about my Ed.D. in educational leadership was the range of educators I met. From business professors to special education teachers, from deans to superintendents, I had the opportunity to hear a wide variety of perspectives on education and what it means to support students and fellow educators. I was introduced to the good, the bad and the ugly. By taking in all of those voices, I was able to apply their teachings and life lessons to my own learning experiences. That program shaped me into the educator I am today.

    What I find most surprising is that I now teach in an online Ed.D. program in applied learning sciences at the University of Miami. I often share with my students the same message about sticking together as a cohort and how those bonds will carry them through. While Dr. Ford is no longer associated with SNHU’s program, my dissertation chair, Dr. Audrey Rodgers, is now leading it. I recently had the chance to speak with current students, and it’s amazing to see how much the program has grown since I graduated.

    Here’s what I wish I knew before pursuing a doctorate: It’s absolutely possible to do, but it will be the hardest thing you’ve ever done. There’s a reason why only a small fraction of the population holds the title of doctor. No matter which school you attend, it’s going to be difficult. But in my opinion, it’s worth it. I knew I wanted to work in academia, and after speaking with a few colleagues, they all advised me to go back to grad school. Every role I wanted in the future required either an Ed.D. or a Ph.D., so it was the logical choice.

    With all that said, the first step in your journey as a working professional should be finding the right program for your needs. Not all programs are created equal. After all, you’re about to commit at least three to seven years of your life to this institution, so it’s important to choose wisely. Do your due diligence. Contact the institution and ask as many questions as you want. Watch program webinars. Find currently enrolled students on LinkedIn and ask for a quick chat about their experience. Connect with faculty and administrators. Read online reviews. Go the extra mile before starting this journey.

    Once you’ve found the right program for your goals, my best advice is to set up a system that works for your life. Your schedule has to shift to make space for classwork, research, lectures, readings and everything else. For me, this meant starting my days earlier. I found myself constantly distracted during the day, so I decided to wake up before everyone else. Surprisingly, it worked. Once you find a system that fits, it needs to become sacred and a top priority. I also relied heavily on the Pomodoro technique to stay focused and on track. If you haven’t used the “study with me” videos on YouTube, you’re missing out. Whatever helps you get into a state of flow is going to be key.

    And I know your question was about going back to school while working, but honestly, work wasn’t the hardest part of my academic journey. For me, it was family and my social life. Work will always be there. But when you start missing family functions, birthdays and social events, it’s tough. I essentially became a hermit during the final stretch of my dissertation. That was the only way I could stay focused and meet my goals.

    Q: The growth of online programs has increased the demand for learning designers. There is concern within our profession that in the (near) future, AI will be able to do much of the work that learning designers have traditionally done. How worried should learning designers be and what can they do to ensure they are not replaced by AI?

    A: Ah yes, the million-dollar question. What’s funny is that I’ve been designing AI courses long before the generative AI boom, and I could’ve never predicted that AI would find its way into our space. In health care, medication discovery or 3-D printing? Sure. But instructional design? That thought never crossed my mind. Yet here we are.

    Let’s break down your question a bit, starting with the concern around AI. You’re going to see this come in waves. A new breakthrough will happen, there will be mass pandemonium online and, within a few weeks, it fades. AI tools will continue to evolve and become more helpful, but someone still has to drive the bus. AI can’t do everything for you. I think that’s where many decision-makers are getting confused. Everyone is trying to add AI into their products, but do people actually want those features? The answer is often no.

    AI can be helpful for kick-starting ideas. But if you’re a student and you find out that your entire course was generated by AI and not created by a human, you’d likely be furious.

    A great source of insight on this is Reddit. You’ll find post after post from students deeply concerned about how AI is being used, whether by classmates or even by professors. LLMs tend to have a certain tone and style. It’s hard to describe exactly, but the writing often feels off. Unnatural. AI isn’t magical, even though that’s exactly how marketers are presenting it. LLMs work by predicting patterns based on data and trying to say the next most probable thing to please the user. In many cases, this doesn’t add up.

    Now, on to the second part of your question: What can instructional designers do to ensure they’re not replaced?

    We do what we’ve always done. We learn. Become the most knowledgeable person on your team when it comes to the ins and outs of AI. For many, AI still feels like a black box, and that’s understandable. But if you know which tool serves which purpose and how to use these tools to enhance your designs, ensure accessibility, create flexible learning pathways, transform content into different formats and generate compelling visuals, you’ll be far ahead of the curve.

    As you experiment, you’ll also encounter the limits of these tools. And when you see where AI stumbles, you’ll feel much more secure about your place in this evolving landscape. It’s not there yet. And getting an entire industry to adopt something at scale, especially something as complex as AI, is a massive undertaking.

    Source link

  • Trump Gutted ED’s Civil Rights Office. Could States Step Up?

    Trump Gutted ED’s Civil Rights Office. Could States Step Up?

    The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, which is supposed to protect students from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sex, age and disability status, isn’t what it once was.

    The Trump administration laid off nearly half the staff in March, shuttered seven of its 12 regional offices, shifted the hollowed-out agency’s focus to new priorities (including keeping transgender women out of women’s sports) and then reportedly terminated more employees amid the ongoing shutdown.

    Philadelphia was among the cities that lost its OCR regional office in the first round of layoffs. Lindsey Williams, a Pennsylvania state senator who serves as minority chair of the Senate Education Committee, said the region’s cases now go to Atlanta, “where they may or may not be heard.”

    To fill this void, Williams, a Democrat, announced she will file legislation to establish an Office of Civil Rights within the Pennsylvania Department of Education. The bill has yet to be written, but Williams said she wants to “create new authorities for the Pennsylvania Department of Education to investigate and enforce federal civil rights violations.” She noted, “There may be opportunity as well to strengthen our state laws in this regard.”

    “We’re looking at all of it to see what we can do,” she said, “because we haven’t been here before.”

    Students facing discrimination across the country now have far fewer staff in the federal Education Department OCR who can respond to their complaints. The agency had a large backlog of cases even before President Trump retook office, and then it dismissed thousands of complaints in the spring. Some advocates have expressed particular concern about OCR’s current capacity to process complaints of disability discrimination.

    And those left at OCR appear to be applying a conservative interpretation of civil rights law that doesn’t recognize transgender students’ gender identity. The Trump-era OCR has actively targeted institutions for allowing trans women in women’s sports. It’s also focused on ending programs and practices that specifically benefit minorities, to the exclusion of whites.

    Civil rights advocates are calling for states to step up.

    “We cannot stop what is happening at the federal level,” Williams said. “There’s plenty of lawsuits that are trying … but, in the meantime, what do we as a state do?”

    One of those ongoing suits, filed by the Victim Rights Law Center and two parents in April, alleges that shrinking OCR harms students from protected classes. It argues that the federal OCR cuts left “a hollowed-out organization incapable of performing its statutorily mandated functions,” adding that “without judicial intervention, the system will exist in name only.” But that intervention may not work in students’ favor—judges have issued preliminary injunctions, but the Supreme Court has, so far, allowed the Education Department layoffs to continue.

    Shelby Chestnut, executive director of the Transgender Law Center and a Pennsylvania resident, said, “States need to be picking up some of the slack.”

    “If more states with Democratic leaders started to propose such offices or legislation or money, it would likely create a bigger conversation,” Chestnut said.

    He noted that during the Obama administration, the federal government sued North Carolina over its controversial law banning trans people from using bathrooms matching their gender identity. But that’s not something the Trump administration would do. Chestnut said some states are now saying—and more should be saying—“OK, you won’t do your job, so we’ll do your job for you.”

    Beth Gellman-Beer, who was director of the Philadelphia regional office of the federal OCR before the Trump administration laid her off, said she doesn’t know of other states creating a new state-level agency like the one that’s been proposed in Pennsylvania. Even there, Republicans control the state Senate, and the legislation isn’t certain to pass. She said other state legislatures “should be really thinking about this and taking immediate steps to build out some kind of civil rights unit to help students in their state.”

    Some states already have their own agencies that protect civil rights in higher ed, Gellman-Beer said, including the existing Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. But she said these entities “are traditionally severely understaffed and don’t have the resources and relied heavily on OCR.”

    Chad Dion Lassiter, executive director of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, agreed with Gellman-Beer’s assessment of commissions like his. Lassiter said he feels “sheer exuberance” over the proposed legislation—which he said would be even greater if the new Office of Civil Rights were created in his agency.

    “Give us 20 additional staff and we’ll do the work,” Lassiter said. Ideally, 15 would be investigators in his agency’s education division and five would be attorneys, he said.

    “Each state that has a human relations commission should have an educational component,” he said. “Fund these commissions.”

    Gellman-Beer said the only true fix is to restore a federal OCR—because even if some states do step up, students’ rights will be contingent on where they live.

    “It used to be, under the model prior to this administration, that the promise for equal educational opportunity was across the board,” she said.

    Unequal Rights Across States

    For a student going before a state-level OCR in a state that doesn’t recognize their identity, the process could be as fruitless as seeking help from the Trump-era federal OCR. The Movement Advancement Project, which advocates for LGBTQ+ rights, says 27 states have laws banning trans students from participating in sports matching their gender identity. Such laws don’t all affect postsecondary students, but they often do, the organization said.

    Nicholas Hite, a senior attorney at Lambda Legal, which advocates for LGBTQ+ people in court, said the federal OCR was supposed to provide a single, consistent application of federal legal protections. Now, he said, “that just isn’t happening—they’re just refusing to do it.”

    “If we’re relying on states to be the enforcement mechanism, we’ve created this patchwork where each state is going to take their own approach,” Hite said.

    Universities in states with laws recognizing trans students’ rights have to decide whether to comply with those laws or with the Trump administration’s approach. The administration, using massive cuts to federal research funding, forced concessions from the University of Pennsylvania for allowing a trans woman to compete in women’s sports. But Scott Lewis—a co-founder of the Association of Title IX Administrators and managing partner of TNG Consulting, which advises higher ed institutions on civil rights issues—said so far he’s seen blue-state universities handling discrimination complaints like they did before Trump retook office.

    Lassiter, of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, said, “It’s important for people to know you still have protections under the state.” But protections for trans students can be unclear.

    His agency enforces state laws protecting students against discrimination based on gender identity, but wouldn’t directly answer whether that means it would order a university to allow a trans woman to play on a woman’s sports team. Lassiter said his agency avoids “cultural wars.”

    Students facing discrimination of all sorts can still sue under federal civil rights law in lieu of seeking help from the federal OCR or any state version of that agency. But personal lawsuits can be expensive.

    Williams, the Pennsylvania state senator, noted that lawsuits may also not wrap up by the time a student graduates. Gellman-Beer, the former federal OCR employee, said they also often lead to individual remedies for a victim, rather than “systemic interventions to make sure that the problem doesn’t occur again for other students.” That was the kind of broad solution the federal OCR could achieve, she said.

    Hite welcomed people whose rights are being infringed, or who are concerned about others’ rights, to reach out to Lambda Legal. He noted the federal OCR did much of its work through negotiating with universities to fix issues, rather than pursuing litigation. If the federal OCR is no longer doing these negotiations, the burden is placed on students and parents to sue to uphold their own rights—while an added cost of litigation is also placed on universities, he said.

    Lewis said that if the Trump administration continues its trajectory, people who don’t feel they’re being served at the federal level will go to the state level.

    “If the federal government won’t do it,” he said, “the states are going to be left to do it.”

    Source link

  • Federal Policy Changes Impact Student Veterans (opinion)

    Federal Policy Changes Impact Student Veterans (opinion)

    Every year on Veterans Day, we pause to honor those who have served our country—but our gratitude must extend beyond a single day of reflection. One of the most powerful ways to repay veterans’ service is through education, a goal long supported by the general public and Republican and Democratic administrations alike. Student veterans bring leadership, discipline and unique experiences to college campuses; their postsecondary success strengthens both our communities and economies.

    Yet despite their proven academic potential and deep motivation to earn a degree, too many veterans face unnecessary barriers to completing college. At Ithaka S+R, we’ve reported on the value of enrolling and supporting student veterans and the unique challenges these students face in getting to and through higher education, for several years running. From underresourced institutions to opaque transfer processes and predatory recruitment practices, these obstacles result in lower bachelor’s degree attainment among veterans compared to their civilian peers.

    Right now, policy and appropriations decisions (including the current government shutdown) could undermine the progress the country has made in providing educational opportunities for our veterans. As we celebrate Veterans Day, it’s time for higher education leaders and policymakers to renew their commitment to supporting those who’ve served. Here are three developing situations that we’re monitoring for their potential impact on student veterans.

    Cuts to Veterans Upward Bound

    Veterans Upward Bound is a federally funded TRIO program focused on precollege, college transition and college success support for veterans. Started in 1972, the program now supports more than 8,000 veterans looking to enroll in or return to college by providing academic instruction, tutoring and counseling. There are 60-plus programs nationally, run by individual colleges and universities. The programs have proven highly effective: Participants are 42 percent more likely than their peers to earn a bachelor’s degree within six years.

    There is significant uncertainty about whether the federal government will sustain the current and future funding for these Veterans Upward Bound programs. The federal government delayed payment for the majority of TRIO programs this fall, including all Veterans Upward Bound programs. The funding delay came on the heels of proposals to decrease, or even eliminate completely, TRIO programs in next year’s federal budget. The Department of Education got a head start this year, canceling many thousands of dollars in already-allocated funding for TRIO programs, including for VUB programs, in mid-September. Although some of that funding has since been restored, the uncertainty leaves many programs struggling to plan for the year ahead.

    VA Staffing Cuts and GI Bill Processing Times

    Enrolled student veterans rely on the federal government for the processing of their GI Bill funds. The combination of staffing cuts at the Department of Veterans Affairs and the recent federal government shutdown has created delays, confusion and, ultimately, financial stress for student veterans.

    This summer, student veterans and campus advisers reported that benefit eligibility determinations and payments for the GI Bill took three times longer than previously because of understaffing and increased administrative errors. This meant that housing and textbook payments were delayed, which led to some student veterans missing the start of classes (and, in more severe cases, dropping or stopping out).

    The situation has worsened since the federal government shut down on Oct. 1. Although education benefits themselves are primarily funded through advance appropriations and thus can continue to be paid out, critical support services have ceased operation during the shutdown. The VA’s GI Bill phone hotline, which many rely on for questions about eligibility, payments and school certification, is closed. Regional VA offices, which normally handle in-person assistance, are also closed. Not only do these closures create challenges in the current moment, but resulting processing delays will result in a backlog even after the government reopens.

    For student veterans on fixed schedules, with tight budgets and in transitional life phases, the time and energy to deal with unsettled paperwork add up to real risks for academic progress and financial stability.

    Measuring Student Veteran Success

    The uncertainty of federal support for student veterans comes at a time when there is shrinking programmatic and rhetorical support for students that higher education has historically struggled to welcome. Veterans are increasingly more likely to belong to other underrepresented groups, such as racial minorities and adult learners, so the challenges they face in accessing and affording higher education may be multiplied.

    The states, systems and institutions interested in continuing to serve student veterans are also facing immense challenges as they confront federal policy changes that have downstream financial impacts, such as changes to graduate student loans and the decline in international student enrollment. While these challenges make it even more imperative for institutions to enroll a wider range of students, including student veterans, there is simultaneously increased difficulty in doing so.

    Investing in veteran-specific admissions strategies and academic advising, providing efficient credit transfer mechanisms, and tracking postcollege outcomes are initiatives that can help boost student veteran success. The full scope of that success, however, remains elusive, as the data landscape for student veterans remains fragmented and incomplete. Alongside institutional efforts to ensure success, regional and national efforts are needed to more fully understand how many new veterans could benefit from enrolling in higher education each year and in what degree programs they are most interested. To truly understand the scope of the impact of the federal budget and staffing cuts and how other parts of higher education can help fill that breach and prioritize veterans’ enrollment, it is essential to know more about the size and scope of the potential student veteran population we are looking to serve.

    Conclusion

    As federal uncertainty grows, from cuts to Veterans Upward Bound programs to delays in GI Bill processing, and the shutdown drags on, student veterans risk being left behind just when they need institutional support most. At the same time, colleges face shrinking budgets and shifting demographics that make it harder to serve those who’ve already given so much.

    But these challenges also present an opportunity for stakeholders throughout higher education to refocus on veterans. By investing in veteran-specific recruitment, advising and data collection efforts, institutions, states and veteran-serving organizations can open doors to a new generation of leaders ready to contribute to their campuses and communities.

    The promise of higher education for veterans should not only depend on bureaucratic stability or federal budget cycles; it requires a collective effort from within and beyond the field of higher education. This Veterans Day and every day after, let’s recommit to ensuring that those who served our nation have every chance to succeed in the classroom and beyond.

    Emily Schwartz is a principal of bachelor’s attainment at the nonprofit Ithaka S+R, which conducts research and offers strategic advice on student access and success, among other topics related to higher education and research. Michael Fried is a senior researcher and Daniel Braun is senior development and operations specialist, both at Ithaka S+R.

    Source link

  • Faculty Lead AI Usage Conversations on College Campuses

    Faculty Lead AI Usage Conversations on College Campuses

    Since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022, higher education as a sector has grappled with the role large language models and generative artificial intelligence tools can and should play in students’ lives.  

    A recent survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that nearly all college students say they know how and when to use AI for their coursework, which they attribute largely to faculty instruction or syllabus language.

    Eighty-seven percent of respondents said they know when to use AI, with the share of those saying they don’t shrinking from 31 percent in spring 2024 to 13 percent in August 2025.

    The greatest share of respondents (41 percent) said they know when to use AI because their professors include statements in their syllabi explaining appropriate and inappropriate AI use. An additional 35 percent said they know because their instructors have addressed it in class.

    “It’s good news that students feel like they understand the basic ground rules for when AI is appropriate,” said Dylan Ruediger, principal for the research enterprise at Ithaka S+R. “It suggests that there are some real benefits to having faculty be the primary point of contact for information about what practices around AI should look like.”

    The data points to a trend in higher education to move away from a top-down approach of organizing AI policies to a more decentralized approach, allowing faculty to be experts in their subjects.

    “I think that faculty should have wide latitudes to teach their courses how they see fit. Trusting them to understand what’s pedagogically appropriate for their ways of teaching and within their discipline” is a smart place to start, Ruediger said.

    The challenge becomes how to create campuswide priorities for workforce development that ensure all students, regardless of major program, can engage in AI as a career tool and understand academic integrity expectations.

    Student Perspectives

    While the survey points to institutional efforts to integrate AI into the curriculum, some students remain unaware or unsure of when they can use AI tools. Only 17 percent of students said they are aware of appropriate AI use cases because their institution has published a policy on the subject, whereas 25 percent said they know when to use AI because they’ve researched the topic themselves.

    Ruediger hypothesizes that some students learn about AI tools and their uses from peers in addition to their own research.

    Some demographic groups were less likely than others to be aware of appropriate AI use on campus, signaling disparities in who’s receiving this information. Nearly one-quarter of adult learners (aged 25 or older) said they don’t  know how or when to use AI for coursework, compared to 10 percent of their traditional-aged peers. Similarly, two-year college students were less likely to say they are aware of appropriate use cases (20 percent) than their four-year peers (10 percent).

    Students working full-time (19 percent) or those who had dropped out for a semester (20 percent) were also more likely to say they don’t know when to use AI.

    While decentralizing AI policies and giving autonomy to faculty members can better serve academic freedom and AI applications, having clearly outlined and widely available policies also benefits students.

    “There is a scenario here where [AI] rules are left somewhat informal and inconsistent that ends up giving an advantage to students who have more cultural capital or are better positioned to understand hidden curricular issues,” Ruediger said.

    In a survey of provosts and chief academic officers this fall, Inside Higher Ed found that one in five provosts said their institution is taking an intentionally hands-off approach to regulating AI use, with no formal governance or policies about AI. Fourteen percent of respondents indicated their institution has established a comprehensive AI governance policy or institutional strategy, but the greatest share said they are still developing policies.

    A handful of students also indicated they have no interest in ever using AI.

    In 2024, 2 percent of Student Voice survey respondents (n=93) wrote in “other” responses to the question, “Do you have a clear sense of when, how or whether to use generative artificial intelligence to help with your coursework?” More than half of those responses—55—expressed distrust, disdain or disagreement with the use of generative AI. That view appears to be growing; this year, 3 percent of respondents (n=138) wrote free responses, and 113 comments opposed AI use in college for ethical or personal reasons.

     “I hate AI we should never ever ever use it,” wrote one second-year student at a community college in Wyoming. “It’s terrible for the environment. People who use AI lack critical thinking skills and just use AI as a cop out.”

    The Institutional Perspective

    A separate survey fielded by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that more than half of student success administrators (55 percent) reported that their institution is “somewhat effective” at helping students understand how, when and whether to use generative AI tools in academic settings. (“Somewhat effective” is defined as “there being some structured efforts, but guidance is not consistent or comprehensive.”)

    More than one-third (36 percent) reported their institution is not very effective—meaning they offer limited guidance and many students rely on informal or independent learning—and 2 percent said their institution is “very effective,” or that students receive clear guidance across multiple channels.

    Ithaka S+R published its own study this spring, which found that the average instructor had at least experimented with using AI in classroom activities. According to Inside Higher Ed’s most recent survey of provosts, two-thirds of respondents said their institution offers professional development for faculty on AI or integrating AI into the curriculum.

    Engaging Students in AI

    Some colleges and universities have taken measures to ensure all students are aware of ethical AI use cases.

    Indiana University created an online course, GenAI 101, for anyone with a campus login to earn a certificate denoting they’ve learned about practical applications for AI tools, ethical considerations of using those tools and how to fact-check content produced by AI.

    This year the University of Mary Washington offered students a one-credit online summer course on how to use generative AI tools, which covered academic integrity, professional development applications and how to evaluate AI output.

    The State University of New York system identified AI as a core competency to be included in all general education courses for undergraduates. All classes that fulfill the information literacy competency requirement will include a lesson on AI ethics and literacy starting fall 2026.

    Touro University is requiring all faculty members to include an AI statement in their syllabi by next spring, Shlomo Argamon, associate provost for artificial intelligence, told Inside Higher Ed in a podcast episode. The university also has an official AI policy that serves as the default if faculty do not have more or less restrictive policies.

    Source link

  • UNC Chapel Hill Won’t Sign Compact

    UNC Chapel Hill Won’t Sign Compact

    The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill made clear Friday that it won’t sign the federal “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” that has been extended to all institutions after seven of the original nine universities invited rejected the offer, WRAL reported. 

    Last month the Trump administration floated a plan for preferential treatment on federal funding in exchange for universities overhauling admissions and hiring practices, freezing tuition for five years, capping international enrollment at 15 percent, and making various other concessions that many critics have warned will undermine academic freedom.

    UNC Chapel Hill chancellor Lee Roberts said Friday that while the university has not received a formal invitation from the Trump administration, he is not interested in the arrangement.

    “There are some parts of the compact that we are already doing and there are some parts that would be difficult or impossible,” Roberts said in a faculty council meeting, according to WRAL. “There’s no way we can sign the compact as written and we don’t plan to.”

    Invitations to the compact were initially sent to Brown University, Dartmouth College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Arizona, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University. All but two declined—Vanderbilt said it would provide feedback and Texas has yet to offer a public response.

    Multiple others also announced pre-emptive rejections after the initial invitation went out, including Emory University, Pennsylvania State University, Syracuse University and the University of Kansas. So far, only two institutions have announced intentions to sign the compact: New College of Florida and Valley Forge Military College in Pennsylvania.

    Source link

  • Support Career Agency for International Scientists (opinion)

    Support Career Agency for International Scientists (opinion)

    International Ph.D. students and postdoctoral scholars drive a large share of the United States’ scientific research, innovation and global competitiveness. Yet these visa holders often face systemic barriers that limit their ability to build independent, fulfilling careers. Restricted access to fellowships and immigration constraints can stifle career agency, forcing the nation’s institutions to lose out on the very global talent they train to fuel discovery and progress.

    Drawing from insights in our recently released book, Thriving as an International Scientist (University of California Press), this essay outlines key challenges that international scientists face and concrete steps universities, employers and scientific societies can take to enable their dynamic career success.

    Systemic Barriers to Career Independence

    The U.S. depends on international talent to sustain its scientific enterprise. In 2023, nearly 41 percent of Ph.D. students and 58 percent of postdocs in U.S. universities were visa holders, and international scholars made up 34 percent of Ph.D. graduates in 2022, an increase from just 11 percent in1977.

    While U.S. universities still lead globally in training and employing a robust international scientific workforce, the recent anti-immigrant climate in the U.S. and growing global competition for STEM talent threatens this long-standing advantage. Two issues impacting international scientists stand out as particularly urgent: limited access to independent research fellowships and visa policies that restrict career flexibility.

    • Fewer fellowships lead to reduced agency. International scientists have access to fewer fellowships for supporting their independent research ideas. Data on primary sources of STEM doctoral student funding indicates 17 percent of international Ph.D. students relied primarily on fellowships, scholarships or dissertation grants in 2022, compared to 29 percent of their U.S. citizen and permanent resident peers. More than half of international Ph.D. students in science and engineering across U.S. universities relied on faculty-directed funding, through research assistantships, compared with just a third of domestic students (citizens and permanent residents).

    This reliance limits their autonomy to define research directions or confidently pursue professional development and internship opportunities. As a result, only 22 percent of international Ph.D. graduates from U.S. universities committed to academic careers (excluding postdocs) in 2022, in part due to a significant lack in independent funding experience—a key qualification for faculty roles.

    • Visa constraints on career mobility. Visa regulations often confine international scientists to narrowly defined “research-related” roles in academia or industry. This restriction effectively locks them out of emerging career paths in the business of science, science policy, science communication, entrepreneurship, university administration and nonprofit leadership until they obtain permanent residency.

    They are also disproportionately vulnerable to economic downturns or layoffs. Work visas typically allow a 60-day grace period to secure new employment and maintain legal immigration status, putting tremendous pressure on individuals and families. With rising costs and uncertainty surrounding H-1B work visas, employers may also hesitate to hire international scientists, compounding career instability for this essential segment of the STEM workforce.

    What Universities Can Do

    We expand on recommendations offered to universities in the International Talent Programs in the Changing Global Environment consensus report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine and by the Association of American Universities’ Ph.D. Education Initiative. Universities can take the following actions to better support international Ph.D. students and postdocs:

    • Expand access to independent funding. Increase visibility of funding through databases such as Pivot and create matching fellowship opportunities from institutional, corporate and philanthropic sources that are open to noncitizens.
    • Track and leverage alumni outcomes. Analyze Ph.D. and postdoctoral career outcomes by citizenship and location in order to strengthen alumni mentorship and global networks for trainees.
    • Specialized professional development for Ph.Ds. Provide training in in-demand and holistic skills to address wicked problems, advance emerging technologies and foster knowledge of a range of careers for STEM Ph.D. holders.
    • Integrate career development into curricula. Embed professional development and career preparation within graduate and postdoctoral programs, rather than limiting them to extracurricular workshops, in order to encourage international scientists to participate.
    • Foster equitable access to internships. Simplify and expand opportunities for experiential learning by using the Curricular Practical Training path. Departments can offer internship courses through which students can use CPT or encourage them to incorporate insights from their internships into the dissertation. Creating more practical opportunities for students to broadly apply their research skills enables their success in getting work visas for diverse careers.

    At Princeton University, one of us developed a specialized professional development series for international graduate students integrating creative design, intentional career planning, immigration literacy and strategies for global careers. This approach helps international scholars build resilience, community and agency in navigating complex systems and uncertain futures.

    The Role of Scientific and Professional Societies

    Scientific and professional societies hold powerful levers for nationwide systemic change. Through initiatives that foster advocacy, partnerships and innovation, they can amplify the impact of international scientists and shape more inclusive policies.

    • Diversify funding models. As scientific leaders reconsider how to continue funding STEM research including for graduate and postdoctoral programs at scale in the U.S. through convenings (e.g., by NASEM and UIDP), public-private-philanthropic partnerships must intentionally include considerations by and for international graduate students and postdocs in their planning and implementation.
    • Require professional development. Foundations and philanthropic funders can make career and professional development a standard component of fellowships and sponsored research grants, following the precedents set by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.
    • Mobilize advocacy through data. Public-facing dashboards such as the NAFSA International Student Economic Value Tool and OPT Observatory from the Institute for Progress, demonstrate the economic and intellectual value of international scientists. These are powerful tools for storytelling, advocacy and policy change.
    • Encourage immigration innovation. Beyond ongoing legislative efforts like the bipartisan Keep STEM Talent Act aiming to support the U.S. STEM workforce, the philanthropic sector can also pilot creative solutions. For instance, Renaissance Philanthropy’s Talent Mobility Fund raises awareness of underutilized immigration pathways such as O-1 and J-1 visas, diversifying routes available for STEM researchers.

    Employer Responsibility

    Employers across all sectors—universities, for-profit industries and nonprofit organizations—have a shared responsibility to create transparent, informed hiring practices for visa holders. Too often, candidates are left to initiate uncomfortable sponsorship discussions during job interviews. Instead, hiring managers should proactively coordinate with human resources and legal teams before posting positions to determine sponsorship possibilities, costs and timelines. Even small changes, such as explicitly noting “visa sponsorship available” (or not available) in job descriptions, can make a significant difference in promoting fairness and equity in hiring.

    Moving Forward: Shared Responsibility for Systemic Change

    The ability of international scientists to thrive is not just a matter of ethics and fairness—it is a strategic imperative for the future of American science and innovation. Universities, scientific societies, funders and employers have a shared responsibility to participate in removing systemic barriers and expanding opportunities for international scientists in a variety of careers.

    While large-scale policy change may take time, meaningful progress is possible through small, immediate steps:

    • Expanding access to independent funding and internships,
    • Increasing transparency through data, and
    • Fostering mentorship and advocacy networks.

    By enabling international scientists to build dynamic, independent careers, we strengthen not only their futures but also the vitality and global leadership of the U.S. research enterprise.

    Sonali Majumdar (she/her) is assistant dean for professional development in Princeton University’s Graduate School and author of Thriving as an International Scientist: Professional Development for Global STEM Citizens (October 2025, University of California Press). She is a member of the Graduate Career Consortium—an organization providing an international voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders.

    Adriana Bankston (she/her) is a strong advocate for the research enterprise and supporting the next-generation STEM workforce and a former AAAS/ASGCT Congressional Policy Fellow in the U.S. House of Representatives. She contributed to a chapter in Thriving as an International Scientist on systemic reforms and policy change in academia.

    Source link

  • U.S. Universities Are National Security Assets (opinion)

    U.S. Universities Are National Security Assets (opinion)

    For too long, Americans have underestimated the strategic value of our universities. The popular belief is that higher education’s chief contribution to national security is soft power—the goodwill generated by cultural exchange, academic diplomacy and global networking. That’s accurate, but it’s only a small part of the security story.

    The vast majority of our 4,000-odd colleges and universities (including the elite ones) are hardly the ivory towers so associated with so-called woke movements and high-profile culture wars. Many, in fact, are the R&D labs of our national security infrastructure. They are the training grounds for the nation’s cyber warriors, military leaders, intelligence officers and diplomats. To be sure, they are one of America’s most potent weapons in an era of fierce geopolitical competition.

    The Reserve Officers’ Training Corps is the military’s largest commissioning source, with a footprint that spans the nation. Army ROTC alone operates at about 1,000 college campuses and provides merit-based benefits to roughly 15,000 students each year. It produces approximately 70 percent of the officers entering the Army annually, commissioning around 5,000 second lieutenants in a typical year.

    The scale is cross-service: Air Force ROTC maintains 145 host detachments with more than 1,100 partner universities and commissioned 2,109 Air Force and 141 Space Force officers in 2022. Navy/Marine Corps ROTC fields 63 units hosted at 77 colleges and extends to 160-plus colleges via cross-town agreements. Between 2011 and 2021, about 1,441 U.S. colleges and universities had at least one ROTC host, cross-town or extension unit—and every state has at least one host. Over its first century, ROTC has produced more than one million officers.

    The Department of Defense, as key partner with higher education, invests billions annually in university research. In fiscal year 2022 alone, the DOD’s research, development, test and evaluation budget authority reached $118.7 billion. For example, the Defense University Research Instrumentation Program awarded $43 million in equipment grants to 112 university researchers for the 2025 fiscal year. Entities like DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), the Army Research Laboratory, and the Office of Naval Research fund breakthroughs in AI, quantum computing, hypersonics and cyber resilience. Universities partner with the Defense Department and other government agencies to conduct research in areas like drone technology, stealth aircraft and, historically, the development of the Internet and GPS.

    Cybersecurity is another front where U.S. universities lead with global distinction. The National Security Agency has designated nearly 500 campuses as national Centers of Academic Excellence in Cybersecurity. Universities like Carnegie Mellon, Purdue and the University of Texas at San Antonio run advanced programs focused on cryptography, digital forensics and cyber policy, partnering with both government and industry to build systems that repel state-sponsored hackers.

    Biosecurity is equally critical. The COVID-19 pandemic proved that viruses can fundamentally destabilize economies and national morale as quickly as warfare can. Johns Hopkins, Emory, Harvard and Vanderbilt Universities all were at the forefront of research on the coronavirus and vaccines. Land-grant universities like Texas A&M and Iowa State have long been securing our food supply against agroterrorism and climate threats. As just one example of this partnership, in 2024, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture announced $7.6 million in grants to 12 different universities focused on agricultural biosecurity.

    Then there’s the talent pipeline. American universities train the linguists, engineers, analysts and scientists who feed the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Homeland Security and the armed forces. Through partnerships with universities, the National Security Education Program, the Critical Language Scholarship and the National Security Language Initiative for Youth help produce graduates fluent in Arabic, Mandarin and Farsi—utterly essential skills for both diplomacy and national intelligence.

    Boren Scholars and Fellows are dedicated to harnessing their advanced linguistic and cultural skills within the federal government by securing a minimum of one year of employment in national security, actively strengthening the federal workforce and significantly elevating U.S. capabilities, deterrence and readiness.

    Meanwhile, China has built a centralized academic–military complex under its Military–Civil Fusion strategy. Top universities like Tsinghua and Beihang Universities are deeply integrated with the People’s Liberation Army, producing dual-use research in AI, quantum and hypersonics—technologies intended to challenge U.S. dominance. The National University of Defense Technology is a flagship institution in this network, known for dual-use supercomputing and aerospace research. This model is potent but currently lacks the kind of innovative potential of U.S. institutions.

    The U.S. system, by contrast, is decentralized, competitive and open. We often refer to this as “loose coupling”; the accompanying organizational dynamic is what enables so much of the innovative, interdisciplinary and cross-institutional work that U.S. higher education produces. But adequately funding this system is quickly becoming unsustainable and unpopular. The Trump administration is cutting funding for politically inconvenient fields—such as climate science, public health and international cooperation—and subjecting grant applications to political review. Many of these cuts target areas of academic inquiry that may appear obscure to the public but are fundamental to the foundational domains of national security. It is also worth noting that recent research suggests that the already high public and private returns to federally funded research are likely much higher than those reflected in current estimates.

    Focusing solely on weapons labs while neglecting other strategic fields is short-sighted and dangerous. Security is not merely about firepower—it’s about the stability of the knowledge-based society. Public health, basic sciences, environmental resilience, diplomacy and social cohesion are just as critical to preventing conflict as advanced missiles and cyber weapons. To be sure, our colleges and universities contribute, almost beyond measure, to the stability of U.S. civil society through each of these domains.

    Universities are not optional in the defense of this republic—they are indispensable. Undermine them and we hand our international competitors the high ground in both technology and ideas. In the contest for global leadership, the fight won’t just be won on battlefields. It will be won in classrooms, labs and libraries.

    Brian Heuser is an associate professor of the practice of international education policy at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. For much of his career, he has worked on numerous projects related to national security education, including with the Boren Scholars Program, the former Edmund S. Muskie Graduate Fellowship Program and as a U.S. Embassy policy specialist to the Republic of Georgia.

    Source link

  • Fla. Board Says Syllabi, Reading Lists Must Be Posted Publicly

    Fla. Board Says Syllabi, Reading Lists Must Be Posted Publicly

    Already, the University of Florida requires professors to post their syllabi online—but only three days prior to the start of class.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Liudmila Chernetska, Davizro and DenisTangneyJr/iStock/Getty Images

    Faculty at all Florida public universities must now make syllabi, as well as a list of required or recommended textbooks and instructional materials for each class, available online and searchable for students and the general public for five years.

    The new policy is part of an amendment to the Florida Board of Governors’ regulation on “Textbook and Instructional Materials Affordability and Transparency,” and it passed unanimously without discussion at a board meeting Thursday. On the agenda item description, board officials cited improved transparency as the impetus for the rule, which is meant to help students “make informed decisions as they select courses.” But some faculty members say it’s designed to chill academic freedom and allow the public to police what professors teach in the classroom.

    “Many of my colleagues and I believe that this is yet another overreach by political appointees to let Florida’s faculty know that they are being watched for potentially teaching any content that the far right finds problematic,” said John White, a professor of English education and literacy at the University of North Florida. He said officials at his institution told faculty members they must upload their syllabi for 2026 spring semester classes to Simple Syllabus, an online syllabi hosting platform, by December.

    “Florida’s universities are being run in an Orwellian manner, and working as a faculty member in Florida is increasingly like living in the world of Fahrenheit 451,” he said.

    According to the approved amendment, professors must post the syllabi “as early as is feasible” but no fewer than 45 days prior to the start of class. Public syllabi must include “course curriculum, required and recommended textbooks and instructional materials, goals and student expectations of the course, and how student performance will be measured and evaluated, including the grading scale.” Individualized courses like independent study and theses are exempt from the rule.

    The Florida Board of Governors did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s questions about the amended policy, including a question about when it will start being enforced.

    Concerns About Faculty Safety

    It’s not a unique policy, even in Florida. Since 2013, the University of Florida has required professors to post their syllabi online—but only three days prior to the start of class, and they have to remain publicly available for just three semesters. Now, all Florida public universities, including the University of Florida, must follow the new rules. A UF spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed the university is waiting for the Board of Governors to share guidance about when the new policy will be enforced.

    “Even before the rule, most faculty members have been posting anyway to advertise their course. Faculty members in fact prefer to post in advance and certainly have nothing against posting,” said Meera Sitharam, a professor in the department of computer and information science and engineering, and president of the University of Florida’s 2,150-member United Faculty of Florida union. The faculty she spoke with primarily took issue with the new 45-day deadline, which is “quite early for a posting containing all the details” of a syllabus, she said. They are also concerned that they will no longer be able to make changes to reading lists midsemester.

    “A good-quality discussion class would permit the instructor to assign new reading as the course proceeds. This would now be disallowed,” Sitharam said. “The effect of this is likely to be that an overlong reading list is posted by the faculty member just to make sure that they don’t miss anything they might want to assign. And much of the reading list may never be assigned.”

    Texas similarly requires all faculty at public institutions to make a version of their syllabus public. Indiana implemented a law in July requiring public institutions to publish all course syllabi on their websites, and this fall, the University System of Georgia introduced a new policy requiring faculty to post syllabi and curriculum vitae on institution websites.

    Some faculty members in those states have seen firsthand the risks of posting syllabi online; several professors have been harassed and doxed over course content in their online syllabi. Florida faculty are concerned the same thing could happen to them; several faculty members believe that the board passed the rule with the intent of siccing the general public on professors who teach about topics that conservative politicians don’t like.

    “The sole purpose is to subcontract out the oversight of all of our courses, so that if there’s some independent entity or individual that wants to look at the College of Education at Florida State, and they spend two months doing a deep dive into all of the classes, then they’ll come up with: ‘Here at Florida State we found these five classes that don’t meet [our standards],’” said William Trapani, communications and multimedia studies professor at Florida Atlantic University. “Why else would you have that capacity to make this data bank and make it publicly accessible for five years?”

    Stan Kaye, a professor emeritus of design and technology at the University of Florida, sees concerns about the policy as overblown. “I cannot see why making syllabi public at a public institution is a problem for anyone—I would think that promoting your work and subject is generally a good thing,” he said. “If you are afraid you are teaching something illegal or that lacks academic integrity and you want to keep it secret, that should be a problem.”

    Faculty safety is the primary concern for James Beasley, an associate professor of English and president of the faculty association at North Florida.

    “The most important issue related to this requirement is the safety of our faculty, both online and in person. The concern is that faculty will be exposed to external trolls of course content and that the publication of course locations will expose faculty to location disclosures,” Beasley said in an email. While it is typical for syllabi to include course meeting times and locations, the new board policy does not require that information to be posted online.

    Trapani also said that because of the five-year syllabus retention period, faculty are worried they could be retroactively harassed for teaching about something the public finds unfavorable from a class several years ago. White has similar concerns.

    “I’m teaching a course that utilizes neo-Marxist theory to critique the idea of meritocracy—will the Board of Governors or members of the public falsely claim I’m teaching communism or that I’m teaching students to hate their country? If a history professor or a social studies education professor is discussing redlining or Jim Crow laws, will they later be critiqued for teaching students about institutionalized racism or sexism?” White said.

    Ultimately, Trapani believes the amended syllabi policy is an attempt to insulate the Board of Governors from public criticism.

    “Florida will make a lot more sense to outsiders if its policymaking is viewed through a lens of fear,” he said. “They’ve deputized an army of outsiders to pore through records older than most students’ time at the university—all so that they cannot be accused of missing something … It’s just another way in which faculty employment conditions and physical safety are made more precarious by the endless barrage of false claims about our teaching practices.”

    Josh Moody contributed to this report.

    Source link