Tag: Events

Schools Should Help Students Be Human

One of the great ironies and great frustrations of my career teaching first-year college writing was having students enter our class armed with a whole host of writing strategies which they had been explicitly told they needed to know “for college,” and yet those strategies—primarily the following of prescriptive templates—were entirely unsuited to the experience students were going to have over the next 15 weeks of our course (and beyond).

I explored and diagnosed these frustrations in Why They Can’t Write, and while many other writing teachers in both high school and college shared that they’d seen and been equally (or more) frustrated by the same things. In the intervening years, there’s been some progress, but frankly, not enough, primarily because the structural factors that distorted how writing is taught precollege have not been addressed.

As long as writing is primarily framed as workforce preparation to be tested through standardization and quantification, students will struggle when invited into a more nuanced conversation that requires them to mine their own thoughts and experiences of the world and put those thoughts and experiences in juxtaposition with the ideas of others. The good news, in my experience, is that once invited into this struggle, many students are enthusiastic to engage, at least once they genuinely believe that you are interested in the contours of their minds and their experiences.

This divide between the driving ethos of schools and schooling, as often seen in high school and the ideals of deep humanistic inquiry (ideally) animating postsecondary education courses, is the subject of a highly recommended piece by Anna E. Clark, who has taught at both the high school and university level, published as part of a recent special series at Public Books focused on higher education.

Clark calls for a “higher ed and secondary ed alliance” based in the values we all at least claim to share: free inquiry, self-determination and an appreciation for lives that are more than the “skills” we’re supposed to bring to our employers.

Something I can’t help but note is that the challenges college instructors are having getting students to steer clear of outsourcing their thinking to large language models would be significantly lessened if students had a greater familiarity with thinking during their secondary education years. Unfortunately, the system of indefinite future reward that has been reduced to pure transactions in exchange for grades and credentials has signaled that the outputs of the homework machine are satisfactory, so why not just give in?

When I go to campuses and schools and have the opportunity to speak to students, I try to list all kinds of reasons why they shouldn’t just give in, reasons which, in the end, boil down to the fact that being a big dumb-dumb who doesn’t know anything and can’t do anything without the aid of a predictive text-generation machine is simply an unfulfilling and unpleasant way to go through life.

In short, they will not be happy, even if they find ways to navigate their “work” with the aid of AI, because humans simply need more than this from our existences.

I can now add another reason to my list: According to a raft of business insiders cited in a recent article at Inc. it is the liberal arts degree whose value is going to rise in this age of AI.

In a world where machines can handle the technical knowledge, the only differentiator is being human.

This is not news to those of us with those degrees, like my sister-in-law, who took her liberal arts degree from Denison University all the way to a general counsel job at a Fortune 300 company, or someone else with a far humbler résumé … me.

As I wrote in 2013 in this very space, the key to my success as an adult who has had to repeatedly adapt to a changing world is my liberal arts degrees, degrees that armed me with foundational and enduring skills that have served me quite well.

But, of course, it is about more than these skills. My pursuit of these degrees also allowed me to consider what a good life should be. That knowledge has put me in a position where—knock wood—I wake up just about every morning looking forward to what I have to do that day.

This is true even as the things I most care about—education, reading/writing, uh … democracy—appear to be inexorably crumbling around me. Perhaps this is because my knowledge of the value of humanistic study as something more than a route to a good job makes me more willing to fight for its continuation.

Sometimes when I encounter some hand-wringing about the inevitability of AI and the uncertainty of the future, I want to remind the fretful that we actually have a very sound idea of what we should be emphasizing, the same stuff we always should have been emphasizing—teaching, learning, living, being human.

We have clear notions of what this looks like. The main question now is if we have the collective will to move toward that future, or if we will give in to something much darker, much less satisfying and much less human.

Source link

October 17, 2025
MacKenzie Scott Gives Morgan State Its Largest Gift

The Washington Post/Contributor/Getty Images

Philanthropist MacKenzie Scott has gifted Morgan State University $63 million in unrestricted funds, the largest gift in the university’s history.

In 2020, Scott awarded the historically Black university in Baltimore $40 million, which went toward multiple research centers and endowed faculty positions, among other advancements.

Morgan State leaders announced that the new funding will help build the university’s endowment, expand student supports and advance its research.

David K. Wilson, president of Morgan State, called the gift “a resounding testament to the work we’ve done to drive transformation, not only within our campus but throughout the communities we serve.”

“To receive one historic gift from Ms. Scott was an incredible honor; to receive two speaks volumes about the confidence she and her team have in our institution’s stewardship, leadership, and trajectory,” Wilson said in the announcement. “This is more than philanthropy—it’s a partnership in progress.”

Source link

October 17, 2025
Dual Enrollment and AP Courses Yield Positive Outcomes

A recent report from the Community College Research Center at Columbia University’s Teachers College found that high school students graduate college at higher rates and earn more after college if they’ve taken a combination of dual-enrollment and Advanced Placement courses.

The report, released Tuesday, drew on administrative data from Texas on students expected to graduate high school in 2015–16 and 2016–17, as well as some data from students expected to complete in 2019–20 and 2022–23. It explored how different kinds of accelerated coursework, and different combinations of such work, affected student outcomes.

Researchers found that students who combined Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses with dual-enrollment courses boasted higher completion rates and earnings than their peers. Of these students, 92 percent enrolled in or completed a credential a year after high school, and 71 percent earned a credential by year six.

These students also showed the strongest earnings outcomes in their early 20s. They earned $10,306 per quarter on average at age 24, compared to $9,746 per quarter among students who took only dual enrollment and $8,934 per quarter for students who took only AP/IB courses. However, students taking both dual-enrollment and AP/IB courses tended to be less racially and socioeconomically diverse than students taking AP/IB courses alone, the report found.

Students who combined dual enrollment with career and technical education—who made up just 5 percent of students in the study—also reaped positive outcomes later in life. These students earned $9,746 per quarter on average by age 24, compared to $8,097 per quarter on average for students with only a CTE focus.

“Most dual-enrollment students in Texas also take other accelerated courses, and those who do tend to have stronger college and earnings trajectories,” CCRC senior research associate Tatiana Velasco said in a press release. “It’s a pattern we hadn’t fully appreciated before, which offers clues for how to expand the benefits of dual enrollment to more students.”

Source link

October 17, 2025
Higher Ed Moving in “Wrong Direction”

The share of Americans who believe higher education has lost its way is on the rise, according to a new survey the Pew Research Center published Wednesday.

Of the 3,445 people who responded to the survey last month, 70 percent said higher education is generally “going in the wrong direction,” up from 56 percent in 2020. They cited high costs, poor preparation for the job market and lackluster development of students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

The survey results come amid turmoil for the higher education sector, which was already facing rising public skepticism about the value of a college degree before Donald Trump took office earlier this year. But over the past nine months, the Trump administration has terminated billions in federal research grants and withheld even more money from several selective institutions.

Another survey published this week found that most Americans oppose the government’s cuts to higher education.

Earlier this month, Trump asked universities to sign a compact that would give them preference in federal funding decisions if they agree to make sweeping operational changes, including suppressing criticism of conservative views on campus.

But the state of campus free speech is already one factor driving the public’s overall negative views about higher education, according to the survey.

Forty-five percent of respondents said colleges and universities are doing a fair or poor job of exposing students to a wide range of opinions and viewpoints; 46 percent said institutions are doing an inadequate job of providing students opportunities to express their own opinions and viewpoints.

Political leanings also influenced perceptions of higher education, though the gap between Republicans and Democrats has narrowed in recent years.

According to the survey, 77 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning respondents said higher education is moving in the wrong direction, compared to 65 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning respondents.

Republicans were more likely than Democrats to say that universities are doing a poor or fair job of preparing students for well-paying jobs, developing students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills, exposing students to a wide range of opinions and viewpoints, and providing opportunities for students to express their own opinions and views.

Source link

October 17, 2025
In “Rocky” Labor Market, Your College Major Matters

A new report analyzes earnings for college graduates from different majors.

Nuthawut Somsuk/Getty Images

Despite mounting public skepticism about the value of a college degree, the data is still clear: Over all, college graduates have much higher earning potential than their peers without a bachelor’s degree. But the limits of those boosted earnings are often decided by a student’s major.

American workers with a four-year degree ages 25 to 54 earn a median annual salary of $81,000—70 percent more than their peers with a high school diploma alone, according to a new report that Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce published Thursday. However, the salary range for workers with a bachelor’s degree can span anywhere from $45,000 a year for graduates of education and public service to $141,000 for STEM majors.

And even within those fields, salary levels have a big range. Humanities majors in the prime of their careers earn between $48,000 and $105,000 a year, with a median salary of $69,000. Meanwhile, business and communications majors earn between $58,000 and $129,000 a year, with a median salary of $86,000.

“Choosing a major has long been one of the most consequential decisions that college students make—and this is particularly true now, when recent college graduates are facing an unusually rocky labor market,” said Catherine Morris, senior editor and writer at CEW and lead author of the report, “The Major Payoff: Evaluating Earnings and Employment Outcomes Across Bachelor’s Degrees.”

“Students need to weigh their options carefully.”

The report, which analyzed earnings and unemployment data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey from 2009 to 2023, also documented rising unemployment for recent college graduates. In 2008, recent graduates had lower unemployment rates relative to all workers (6.8 percent versus 9.8 percent). But that gap has narrowed over the past 15 years; since 2022, recent college graduates have faced higher levels of unemployment relative to all workers.

Morris attributed rising unemployment for recent college graduates to a mix of factors, including increased layoffs in white-collar fields, the rise of artificial intelligence and general economic uncertainty. At the same time, climbing tuition prices and the student debt crisis have heightened consumer concern about a degree’s return on investment.

“Over the past 15 years, there’s been more and more of a shift toward students wanting to get degrees in majors that they perceive as lucrative or high-paying,” Morris, who noted that STEM degrees, especially computer science, have become increasingly popular. Meanwhile, the popularity of humanities degrees has declined.

But just because a degree has higher earning potential doesn’t mean it’s immune to job instability. In 2022, 6.8 percent of recent graduates with computer science degrees were unemployed, while just 2.2 percent of education majors—who typically earn some of the lowest salaries—were unemployed.

“The more specific the major, the more sensitive it is to sectoral shocks,” said Jeff Strohl, director of the center at Georgetown. “More general majors actually have a lot more flexibility in the labor market. I would expect to see some of the softer majors that start with higher unemployment than the STEM majors be a little more stable.”

And earning a graduate degree can also substantially boost earnings for workers with a bachelor’s degree in a more general field, such as multidisciplinary studies, social sciences or education and public service. Meanwhile, the graduate earnings premium for more career-specific fields isn’t as high.

“About 25 percent of bachelor of arts majors don’t by themselves have a positive return on investment,” Strohl said. “But we need to look at the graduate earnings premium, because many B.A. majors don’t stand by themselves.”

Although salaries for college graduates are one metric that can help college students decide on a major, Morris said it shouldn’t be the only consideration.

“Don’t just chase the money,” she said. “The job market can be very unpredictable. Students need to be aware of their own intrinsic interests and find ways to differentiate themselves.”

Source link

October 17, 2025
College Gives a Positive ROI for Some, but Outcomes Vary

The report, released Thursday, shows the majority of students see a positive return on investment within 10 years, but Strada says it isn’t enough.

Chaichan Pramjit/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Seventy percent of the country’s college graduates see their investment pay off within 10 years, but that outcome correlates strongly to the state where a student obtains their degree, according to the Strada Foundation’s latest State Opportunity Index.

The report, released Thursday, shows that states such as California and Delaware surpass the average at 76 percent and 75 percent, respectively, while North Dakota, for example, falls significantly short at 53 percent.

Across the board, the nation still has a ways to go before it can ensure all graduates see a positive return on investment, according to the report.

“Too many learners invest substantial time and money without achieving strong career and earnings outcomes,” it says. “Meanwhile, many employers struggle to find the skilled talent they need to fill high-wage jobs.”

Strada hopes that the index and the five categories it highlights—outcomes, coaching, affordability, work-based learning and employer alignment—will provide a framework for policymakers to “strengthen the link between education and opportunity.”

“The State Opportunity Index reinforces our belief at Strada Education Foundation that we as a nation can’t just focus on college access and completion and assume that a college degree will consistently deliver for all on the promise of postsecondary education as a pathway to opportunity,” Strada president Stephen Moret said in a news release. “We must look at success beyond completion, with a sharper focus on helping people land jobs that pay well and offer growth opportunities.”

Source link

October 17, 2025
Foreign Academics Won’t Give Up on the American Dream

Donald Trump’s defunding of scientific research and proposed new charges on migrant labor will not be enough to deter international academics from heading to America, given the country’s unparalleled willingness to reward academic talent, Radenka Maric has argued.

Since February 2022, Maric has served as president of the University of Connecticut, a six-campus public research university with a $3.6 billion annual operating budget.

The Bosnian-born engineer is arguably one of the world’s most well-traveled university leaders, having worked in seven countries in a 30-year career, including Japan (where she earned her Ph.D. at Kyoto University and worked at Toyota’s material science research division), Canada (where she led the Institute for Fuel Cell Innovation at the National Research Council Canada), and Italy (where she was a visiting professor at Polytechnic University of Milan on a Fulbright scholarship).

Having joined Connecticut as a professor of sustainable energy in 2010, Maric was appointed vice president for research in 2017 and took the top job five years later—an achievement she believes would not have been possible in any other country.

“As someone born in Bosnia without a U.S. college degree, I would never have been made a university president in Japan, Italy or even Canada,” argued Maric, who studied at Belgrade University in Serbia, where she later worked as a junior scientist.

“I don’t have that traditional academic pedigree required by some countries. I didn’t study at Harvard—I have a ‘Japanese Harvard’ Ph.D., but who really cares about my Japanese degree—nor have I been a provost or dean at a big U.S. university,” she continued.

“But American universities don’t care if you studied in Italy or Serbia—they are only focused on excellence in science and innovation, which means ‘what is your h-index?,’ ‘where have you published?’ and ‘how many people have you brought with you on your journey?’” Maric said.

Despite uncertainty over federal science funding—with several national agencies facing cuts of about 50 percent to their budgets next year—the academic meritocracy promised by U.S. universities will continue to appeal to international researchers, Maric believes.

“That is what is powerful about American academia. As long as the American dream is there—that people like me can make it on their own merits—then America will be a magnet for talent. Crises will come and go,” she said.

The current uncertainty over funding has undoubtedly caused problems, Maric explained, while there are growing concerns over plans to charge a $100,000 fee for H-1B skilled worker visas, up from $7,000—a move that would make it much more difficult for U.S. universities to employ foreign Ph.D. students or postdocs.

On the likely damage of Trump’s recent higher education policies, Maric said, “It depends how long this lasts, but America has a great capacity to resituate itself very quickly. If you compare how the U.S. pivoted after the 2008 financial crisis, it came back much quicker than any other nation.”

Despite her evident enthusiasm for her adopted homeland, Maric said she was also inspired by her time in Japan. “This was the 1990s and I was the only woman doing a Ph.D. at Kyoto’s engineering school. I stayed for 12 years there, so it wasn’t just the language that I learned but the culture. There is an immense amount of care in how everything is done, so I applied this to my career by thinking, ‘how can I improve my skills?’ or ‘how can my research get better?’

“When I was in Japan, it was constantly stressed that there was no great science if it didn’t lead to great technology. And there is no great technology without a product, and there is no product without a market,” Maric explained of her approach to applied science—she worked in the field of battery technology for Toyota and later Panasonic before leaving to join a start-up in Atlanta.

“The most important thing about Japan is kata—a way of doing things in a particular way. There is a natural tendency to do things in a certain way and there is a desire to protect their culture, so eventually I knew I had to leave,” reflected Maric on her leap from Toyota to the U.S. start-up world.

Recruited to lead a battery fuel research group in Vancouver, Maric eventually headed to Connecticut—a state with long-established defense and manufacturing industries, in which the university now plays a crucial research role.

“Since 2010 the state has been recruiting faculty in renewable and environmental sustainability, including CO₂ capture, so I’ve been part of this, but the history of manufacturing goes back to the mid-19th century when bicycle companies had their first factories in Connecticut,” Maric said.

Her university’s willingness to recruit someone with an eclectic CV—including stints in corporate R&D, academia and start-ups covering three continents—then promote them to the top job is a good example of why American academia will continue to thrive, despite the current challenges, Maric said.

“I am not a traditional person, but I was always a hard worker who sought to improve myself and bring people along with me whenever I could. Not many foreigners—whatever their expertise or experience—will become university presidents, but it is possible in America,” she said.

Source link

October 17, 2025
UNC Campuses Split on Whether Syllabi Are Public Documents

The UNC system doesn’t have a policy that specifies how syllabi are treated under open-records laws.

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

As right-wing groups increasingly weaponize Freedom of Information Act requests to expose and dox faculty members who teach about gender, race and diversity, University of North Carolina system campuses are split over whether syllabi and other course materials should be subject to public records requests.

In July, officials at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill determined that the documents are not automatically subject to such requests after the Oversight Project, founded by the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, requested that the university hand over any course materials from more than 70 classes that contained one of 30 words or phrases, including “gender identity,” “intersectionality,” “queer” and “sexuality.” Officials ultimately denied the request, writing, “There are no existing or responsive University records subject to disclosure under the North Carolina Public Records Act. Course materials, including but not limited to exams, lectures, assignments and syllabi, are the intellectual property of the preparer.”

The requested materials are protected by copyright policies, a UNC Chapel Hill spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed. “The university has a longstanding practice of recognizing faculty’s intellectual property rights in course materials and does not reproduce these materials in response to public records requests without first asking for faculty consent,” they wrote in an email.

But an hour’s drive west, at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, officials decided just the opposite. Professors were asked to hand over their spring 2025 syllabi in response to a Freedom of Information Act request earlier this fall, said Chuck Bolton, a professor of history at UNC Greensboro and chair of the Faculty Senate. He is among dozens of faculty members who were asked to upload their syllabi into a central database.

“The Public Records Act is inclusive in its coverage and unless there is an explicit exception, which this is not, it is covered,” UNC Greensboro spokesperson Diana Lawrence said in an email. “As a matter of public policy, transparency should take [precedence] over questions where there is doubt and we do not believe that the Federal Copyright Act provides a specific exemption or preempts what has been passed in state law.”

Which university is interpreting the law correctly? It’s hard to know, said Hugh Stevens, an attorney who specializes in public records and FOIA law and litigation at the law firm Stevens Martin Vaughn & Tadych. There is no case law specific to this question, and the answer likely depends on how different course materials—from lecture notes to syllabi to course descriptions—are defined under the law.

“It’s probably a matter of degree,” Stevens said. “Something that you post online for your class to read, it’s pretty hard to say those are not subject to [public records requests]. But on the other hand, the materials that you use to prepare to teach your class, but which are never published to anybody, are certainly, in my view, copyrightable and proprietary.”

For years, UNC Greensboro put syllabi online as part of an accreditation requirement, said Jeff Jones, a history professor and head of the institution’s American Association of University Professors chapter. After the university’s website was redesigned and accreditation procedures changed, the syllabi were no longer posted.

The UNC system doesn’t have a policy that specifies how syllabi are treated under open-records laws, leaving the decision up to individual campuses. The policy “does not discuss distribution of course materials” and “essentially covers the basic functions and procedures involved with records requests,” said UNC system spokesperson Andy Wallace.

But the system does define copyrightable works, which include coursework produced by faculty members, Wallace added.

Lawrence, the Greensboro spokesperson, did not respond to questions about whether the university’s records request was also from the Oversight Project and whether it has already provided the material. The FOIA request has not been made public, but Bolton, the history professor, believes it’s a narrower request than what UNC Chapel Hill received and that it is focused exclusively on syllabi.

The opposing interpretations of the law from two universities in the same public system have left faculty confused and worried about their safety as right-wing groups rifle through course materials for any terminology they don’t like, usually related to gender identity, sexuality or race. Faculty members at Texas A&M University, the University of Houston and George Mason University, among others, have been targeted and sometimes threatened on social media for their instruction and teaching materials. Bolton said he knows of several UNC Greensboro faculty members who have been doxed.

“Faculty have been upset and scared and freaked out about it, because there are people that seem to be [making FOIA requests] because they are trying to create gotcha moments by taking certain things out of context,” he said.

Michael Palm, an associate professor of media and technology studies and cultural studies at UNC Chapel Hill, said in an email that while many faculty are glad Chapel Hill decided not to release the requested course materials, some expressed frustration about the lack of transparency. “We were disappointed when we learned through news reports that UNC Chapel Hill’s lawyers had decided not to respond to the requests, rather than having that decision communicated to us by administrators,” he said.

Some professors are also concerned about how long and how vigorously the university will continue to protect faculty. “We are all concerned about the increasing political interference into our classrooms and attempts to quash our academic freedom,” said Erik Gellman, a history professor at Chapel Hill.

Bolton, at UNC Greensboro, has similar worries.

“This is a tough time for universities,” he said. “There are a lot of attacks coming from a lot of different directions, and that increases the anxiety and anger on behalf of the faculty, because we know that these kinds of things are not being done just because people want to find out what’s on our syllabus for intellectual reasons. They’re doing it for more nefarious reasons.”

Source link

October 17, 2025
Indiana Censors Newspaper, Fires Adviser

First Amendment advocates are condemning Indiana University’s decision this week to suspend print publication of the Indiana Daily Student, a move that comes after administrators fired its adviser for allegedly rejecting demands to censor the student newspaper.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression called the decision “outrageous,” while officials at the Student Press Law Center cast the move as a classic case of censorship. Editors at the newspaper say they want to work with the university to address the issue but pledged “to resist as long as the university disregards the law.”

“Any other means than court would be preferred,” wrote IDS editors Mia Hilowitz and Andrew Miller in an op-ed Wednesday.

The decision is the latest flare-up between student journalists and institutions. Earlier this year, Purdue University ended its partnership with the student paper, citing “institutional neutrality.” The move also echoes Texas A&M University’s unilateral decision in 2022 to end its student newspaper’s print edition.

The IDS editors first brought attention to the firing of Director of Student Media Jim Rodenbush in a Tuesday op-ed. They accused IU of ousting Rodenbush after he refused to follow directions from administrators to censor a homecoming edition of the newspaper. Administrators reportedly told Rodenbush the newspaper was only to contain information about homecoming and “no traditional front page news coverage.” But when he resisted, and editors at the Indiana Daily Student pressed Media School administrators for clarity, Rodenbush was fired.

A termination letter shared with Inside Higher Ed and signed by Media School dean David Tolchinsky accused Rodenbush of a “lack of leadership” and inability “to work in alignment with the University’s direction for the Student Media Plan,” which he called “unacceptable.” Tolchinsky added that Rodenbush “will not be eligible for rehire at Indiana University.”

The termination letter sent to Jim Rodenbush.

After Rodenbush was ousted, administrators canceled publication of the newspaper, citing a plan adopted last year that outlined a shift for the student newspaper from print to digital platforms.

“In support of the Action Plan, the campus has decided to make this shift effective this week, aligning IU with industry trends and offering experiential opportunities more consistent with digital-first media careers of the future,” Tolchinsky wrote in an email to student editors obtained by Inside Higher Ed.

Indiana administrators deny that the university censored the paper, despite telling the student publication not to publish news. IU officials say that the newspaper retains full editorial control.

Accelerating a Shift

In a statement shared with Inside Higher Ed and attributed only to an IU spokesperson, officials wrote, “Indiana University Bloomington is committed to a vibrant and independent student media ecosystem.” The statement added that the shift from print to digital is geared toward “prioritizing student experiences that are more consistent with today’s digital-first media environment while also addressing a longstanding structural deficit at the Indiana Daily Student.”

Chancellor David Reingold also pointed to the action plan in his statement, noting that “the campus is completing the shift from print to digital effective this week.” He added that the decision “concerns the medium of distribution, not editorial content,” and IU upholds “the right of student journalists to pursue stories freely and without interference.”

Tolchinsky, President Pamela Whitten and members of the Board of Trustees did not respond to requests for comment from Inside Higher Ed. IU did not answer specific questions sent by email.

Although Indiana officials have denied censoring the student newspaper, some officials were concerned about the optics of shutting down coverage, according to the Indiana Daily Student.

When Rodenbush pushed back on the directive to censor the newspaper in a Sept. 25 meeting, Ron McFall, assistant dean of strategy and administration at the Media School, reportedly asked, “How do we frame that, you know, in a way that’s not seen as censorship?”

McFall did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

‘Textbook Case of Censorship’

Rodenbush told Inside Higher Ed in a phone interview that he was surprised by his firing and open to exploring all legal options. He also cast the happenings at IU not as a business decision but pure censorship.

“This is a textbook case of censorship,” Rodenbush said.

He also disputed the notion that what happened was part of a shift to a digital product. In fact, Rodenbush argued, that shift largely already happened when university administrators decided last year to scale back the publication of the print edition from weekly to seven editions across the spring semester. Those seven printings were special editions, Rodenbush said, given that those “are generally our biggest revenue generators.” Special editions this year have been printed as supplemental sections, or essentially inserts into the regular editions of the paper.

Prior to the fall semester, Rodenbush said, he never heard concerns from administrators about that practice until they objected to publishing the homecoming edition as an insert in the regular newspaper in September. When asked to ban news coverage from the homecoming edition, Rodenbush told Media School administrators, including Tolchinsky, he “wasn’t going to participate in censoring the paper,” which he said led to his firing.

Hilowitz and Miller, the IDS editors, also disputed the notion that the cancellation of the print publication, which was communicated to them by Tolchinsky, was anything but censorship.

“IU decided to fire Jim Rodenbush after he did the right thing by refusing to censor our print edition. That was a deliberate scare tactic toward student journalists and faculty. The same day, the Media School decided to fully cut our physical paper, fully ensuring we couldn’t print news. We’re losing revenue because of that decision,” they wrote in a joint emailed statement.

The duo accused IU of trying to “irrationally justify” censorship as a “business decision.”

Mike Hiestrand, senior legal counsel at the Student Press Law Center, told Inside Higher Ed that IU’s actions amount to content-based censorship and are “a clear violation of the First Amendment.”

Asked to weigh in on IU’s response, Hiestrand commented, “No censor wants to be called a censor,” but “that’s clearly the case.” He added that being told not to publish certain information is “as content-based an action of censorship as you can get.” In an interview at a media conference in Washington, D.C., with hundreds of student journalists and advisers in attendance, Hiestrand said that there has been a sense of shock and outrage from attendees over the situation.

“I think there’s shock that this happened here. We have strong laws that protect against this,” Hiestrand said.

Free Speech Under Fire

The censorship flap comes amid broad criticism of the state of free expression at IU, which FIRE ranked as one of the nation’s worst institutions on campus speech. Of 257 universities, FIRE ranked IU at 255 in its free speech rankings.

IU has seen a flurry of campus speech controversies since Whitten became president in 2021.

Whitten, who is also facing allegations that she plagiarized parts of her dissertation, has been accused of retaliating against a professor for criticizing her and stifling academic freedom. Under her leadership, IU has also imposed broad restrictions on campus speech in the wake of 2023 student protests and attempted to bar faculty who took buyouts from criticizing the university.

Amid censorship concerns at IU, FIRE sent a letter to Whitten, released a statement and launched a national petition.

“Censoring a student publication after it reported on a university’s dismal record on free speech isn’t just a stunning display of lack of self-awareness, it’s a violation of the First Amendment,” FIRE student press program officer Dominic Coletti said in a statement. “If Indiana University is embarrassed about its terrible showing in the College Free Speech Rankings, it should put down the shovel and start caring more about its students’ constitutional rights than its own image.”

Indiana’s Student Government Association also condemned IU’s handling of the matter.

The university’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors urged administrators to reconsider their decisions to fire the adviser and cut the print edition, saying the situation further deteriorates IU’s commitment to free speech.

“In refusing to be cowed by demands to voluntarily abrogate constitutionally protected rights, Director Rodenbush and the Indiana Daily Student have indeed shown themselves out of alignment with a University Administration that has consistently silenced dissenting voices with a seeming disregard for First Amendment protections,” the chapter said in a statement.

This latest controversy is also gaining national attention from big-name donors such as Mark Cuban, the billionaire entrepreneur and IU alum. Cuban, who previously donated money to support the Indiana Daily Student, called out administrators in a post on X.

“Not happy. Censorship isn’t the way,” Cuban wrote Wednesday. “I gave money to [the] IU general fund for the IDS last year, so they could pay everyone and not run a deficit. I gave more than they asked for. I told them I’m happy to help because the IDS is important to kids at IU.”

Source link

October 16, 2025
Penn, U of Southern California Reject Trump Compact

Four of the nine universities initially asked to sign have rejected the document.

Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Jumping Rocks/Universal Images Group/Getty Images | Mario Tama/Getty Images

The Universities of Pennsylvania and Southern California have now refused to sign the Trump administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” making them the third and fourth of the nine initial institutions that were presented the deal to publicly turn it down. No institution has agreed to sign so far.

Both announcements came Thursday, a few days before the Oct. 20 deadline to provide feedback on the proposal. Beong-Soo Kim, interim president of the University of Southern California, shared his message to Education Secretary Linda McMahon, which outlined how USC already seems to adhere to the compact.

“Notwithstanding these areas of alignment, we are concerned that even though the Compact would be voluntary, tying research benefits to it would, over time, undermine the same values of free inquiry and academic excellence that the Compact seeks to promote,” Kim wrote. “Other countries whose governments lack America’s commitment to freedom and democracy have shown how academic excellence can suffer when shifting external priorities tilt the research playing field away from free, meritocratic competition.”

Kim added that the compact does raise issues “worthy of a broader national conversation to which USC would be eager to contribute its insights and expertise.”

California governor Gavin Newsom, a possible Democratic presidential contender in 2028, had threatened that any university in his state that signed the compact would “instantly” lose billions of state dollars.

Over at Penn, President J. Larry Jameson wrote in a message to his community Thursday that his university “respectfully declines to sign the proposed Compact.” He added that his university did provide feedback to the department on the proposal.

Penn spokespeople didn’t say Thursday whether the university would sign any possible amended version of the compact that addressed the university’s concerns, nor did they provide Inside Higher Ed a copy of the feedback provided to the Trump administration. (Penn is the only university of the four that didn’t provide its response to McMahon.)

The White House also didn’t provide a copy of Penn’s feedback, but it emailed a statement apparently threatening funding cuts for universities that don’t sign the compact.

“Merit should be the primary criteria for federal grant funding. Yet too many universities have abandoned academic excellence in favor of divisive and destructive efforts such as ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion,’” spokesperson Liz Huston said in the statement. “The Compact for Academic Excellence embraces universities that reform their institutions to elevate common sense once again, ushering a new era of American innovation. Any higher education institution unwilling to assume accountability and confront these overdue and necessary reforms will find itself without future government and taxpayers support.”

Brown University announced it had rejected the compact Wednesday, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology did the same last Friday. Following MIT’s rejection, the Trump administration said the compact was open to all colleges and universities that want to sign it.

The compact is a boilerplate contract asking colleges to voluntarily agree to overhaul or abolish departments “that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas,” without further defining what those terms mean. It also asks universities to, among other things, commit to not considering transgender women to be women, to reject foreign applicants “who demonstrate hostility to the United States, its allies, or its values” and to freeze “effective tuition rates charged to American students for the next five years.”

In exchange for these agreements, the White House has said signatories would “be given [funding] priority when possible as well as invitations to collaborate with the White House.” But the White House hasn’t revealed how much extra funding universities would be eligible for, and the nine-page compact doesn’t detail the potential benefits. The compact, and the Thursday statement from the White House, can also be read as threatening colleges’ current federal funding if they don’t sign. Multiple higher ed organizations have allied in calling on universities to reject the compact.

Jameson said in his statement that “at Penn, we are committed to merit-based achievement and accountability.”

Earlier this year, the Trump administration said that Penn violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 when it allowed a transgender woman to swim on the women’s team in 2022, and officials issued several demands to the university. Penn ultimately conceded to those demands over the summer, a decision that the administration said restored about $175 million in frozen federal funds.

Marc Rowan, a Penn graduate with two degrees from its Wharton School of Business who’s now chief executive officer and board chair for Apollo Global Management, wrote in The New York Times that he “played a part in the compact’s initial formulation, working alongside an administration working group.” Rowan argued that the compact doesn’t threaten free speech or academic freedom.

Apollo has funded the online, for-profit University of Phoenix. AP VIII Queso Holdings LP—the previous name for majority owner of the University of Phoenix—was the successor of Apollo Education Group, which went private in 2017 in a $1.1 billion deal backed by Apollo Global Management Inc. and the Vistria Group.

AP VIII Queso Holdings LP was recently renamed Phoenix Education Partners as part of a new deal to take the company public once again. Phoenix Education Partners, now owner of the University of Phoenix and backed by both Apollo and Vistria, started trading on the stock market last week and was valued at about $1.35 billion after the first day.

Source link

October 16, 2025