Tag: Events

  • College Athletics Enters Uncharted Territory July 1

    College Athletics Enters Uncharted Territory July 1

    After years of court battles, a federal judge ushered in a new era for college athletics earlier this month when she approved a settlement in the House v. NCAA antitrust lawsuit, effectively ending the century-old model of student athletes as amateurs.

    Now students will be able to earn money for their athletic performance at colleges that opt in to the practice known as revenue-sharing, in which institutions share with players the money made off their teams. Former Division I athletes from the recent past will also share a $2.8 billion settlement to compensate for the financial opportunities they were denied due to now-defunct NCAA rules that prevented them from cashing in on name, image, and likeness deals.

    Although the NCAA status quo was undone in an instant, many campus leaders had been planning for months, anticipating the outcome of the ruling.

    The era of paid college athletes officially begins July 1. With it comes questions about how the landscape will evolve and concerns about equity issues, as well as what the fallout of the settlement may mean for nonrevenue sports.

    A State of Transition

    Experts view revenue-sharing as the most consequential part of the settlement.

    Institutions that opt in to revenue sharing will have up to $20.5 million to spread among their athletes. The lion’s share of that is expected to flow to football, the top revenue-earning sport, followed by men’s basketball, with the second-highest distribution amounts. The annual revenue-sharing cap will increase gradually to $32 million over the course of a decade.

    Jason Montgomery, a partner at the law firm Husch Blackwell, said that one commonly discussed formula would see 75 percent of revenue disbursed to an institution’s football team, followed by 15 percent to men’s basketball, 5 percent to women’s basketball, and the remainder spread across all other sports. But he noted institutions can adjust that formula as they see fit.

    At institutions that don’t have a football team, the bulk of the revenue will likely be directed to men’s basketball. And some universities that have top basketball programs are tweaking the formula to direct more money to hoops; the University of Houston, for example, may opt for a formula that directs 23 to 25 percent of revenue to men’s basketball, local media reported.

    The back-pay provision is also heavily tilted toward football, which has already prompted an appeal on Title IX grounds, with plaintiffs alleging women are being shorted on damages. The suit, brought by eight former college athletes who competed in soccer, track and volleyball, argues that female athletes are being deprived of more than $1 billion in past damages.

    Financial Models

    For those opting in to revenue-sharing, a major question looms: Where will the money come from?

    Sean Frazier, athletic director at Northern Illinois University and president of the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics, said financial models will vary by institution.

    “You’re going to see a lot more of that innovative way to revenue-share by getting this money from external sources that are not specific to the universities themselves,” Frazier said.

    Some colleges are leaning on boosters and TV deals to bankroll revenue-sharing, while others are taking different approaches. Earlier this month, the Florida Board of Governors approved the use of auxiliary funds to pay student athletes, which could flow from college bookstores, student housing, dining, parking fees and other income streams. (That measure is intended to be temporary as colleges develop long-term plans.)

    In addition to increasing revenues, colleges are looking for ways to cut costs. Montgomery said one way colleges can do that is by eliminating non-revenue-earning sports—such as swimming and track and field—which some institutions have done, though that move has also been accompanied by other financial challenges for the sector.

    Colleges that opt in to the revenue-sharing model don’t have to pay the maximum amount unless they choose to. That could yield scenarios where less resourced institutions pay much less than the $20.5 million cap.

    While experts say there is no firm data point yet on how many colleges have opted in to revenue sharing, those numbers are likely to be just a fraction of the NCAA’s member institutions. As of last summer, that number stood at 1,085 institutions, with 355 at the Division I level.

    “The vast majority of colleges are not going to be part of this revenue-share,” said Michael McCann, a professor at the University of New Hampshire’s Franklin Pierce School of Law.

    Opportunities for Innovation

    Frazier compared college athletics in the aftermath of the House settlement to flying a plane while building it. He expects colleges will adjust their approaches as they go.

    “It is clunky right now because of the fact that we do not have certain guardrails yet finalized as we go into this. That’s why it’s going to be a little bit of a wait-and-see on some things,” he said.

    He urged patience for those trying to navigate the new landscape.

    “I would caution [college] leaders to not jump to trends, to not jump to any situation as a quick fix,” Frazier said. “There’s no silver bullet to be able to manage this. We’re going to have to go through a cycle to really understand what the impacts of the House settlement mean.”

    McCann expects that colleges will largely pay football players, as they have signaled. Where the money flows, he said, will depend on institutional priorities. If an athletic department is focused on keeping up with rival football teams and landing on television, revenue-sharing money will be invested in football. But he thinks leaders should consider investing in other areas, including women’s sports—which have boomed in recent years, judging from the record viewership for women’s basketball.

    “I see an opportunity for schools that opt in to revenue-share to not follow the script of spending most of the money on football players,” McCann said. “I could see some presidents being innovative and saying, ‘Let’s use that money primarily on women’s basketball; let’s try to create a top women’s basketball team, or softball.’ There are opportunities to distribute money in ways that I think are a lot more innovative than simply trying to catch up with all the other football schools.”

    The Professional Era

    To many experts, this moment amounts to the professionalization of college athletics.

    “If this isn’t pay to play, I don’t know what is,” Montgomery said.

    To Montgomery’s point, some colleges have hired general managers and other personnel with professional sports experience. Last year Stanford University tapped former star quarterback Andrew Luck, who spent seven years in the NFL, to return to his alma mater as general manager of the football program. Similarly, in March the University of California, Berkeley, hired former NFL player and head coach Ron Rivera as general manager of its football program.

    Noting that trend, McCann suggested such programs are “operating as quasi pro teams.”

    Federal Legislation?

    For years, observers have speculated that Congress might get involved in college athletics. President Donald Trump has raised the possibility of his own involvement as well; in May, he proposed establishing a presidential commission on college sports before backing off the idea.

    However, many experts don’t expect federal legislation to emerge.

    “It’s a long shot that Congress intervenes,” Montgomery said, arguing that college athletics is not a priority for lawmakers at the moment. At most, he said Congress might codify the House settlement through federal legislation.

    McCann agrees. While he believes “there will be bills introduced, and there will be press conferences and a lot of media coverage,” he doesn’t think such efforts will be fruitful.

    But Frazier, who describes himself as an optimist by nature, is hopeful that federal legislation could come to pass in the near future, and he stressed the importance of being part of those talks.

    “I think at the end of the day, we need to help [Trump], we need to help the federal government understand what will work,” he said. “Because we have a perception issue that college athletics can’t govern itself. We’ve created that perception as an industry, and what we need to do is take it back. What we need to do is to show the folks that have doubted us, that [think] we’ve lost control, that there is control, and the only way you can do that is with experience, leadership and execution.”

    Source link

  • University of Virginia President Resigns After Trump’s Demands

    University of Virginia President Resigns After Trump’s Demands

    This is a developing story and will be updated.

    The University of Virginia president James Ryan said Friday he was resigning after the Justice Department demanded he step down.

    “To make a long story short, I am inclined to fight for what I believe in, and I believe deeply in this university,” Ryan wrote in a letter to the campus community. “But I cannot make a unilateral decision to fight the federal government in order to save my own job. To do so would not only be quixotic but appear selfish and self-centered to the hundreds of employees who would lose their jobs, the researchers who would lose their funding, and the hundreds of students who could lose financial aid or have their visas withheld.”

    The Justice Department has for months been quietly investigating whether the Virginia flagship complied with President Donald Trump’s order banning diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The university’s Board of Visitors voted to dissolve its DEI office in March, but multiple conservative alumni groups and legal entities complained that Ryan failed to eliminate DEI from all corners of campus. In many cases, critics argue that the university simply changed the names of programs but maintained their core function. 

    The New York Times first reported on the resignation and the Justice Department’s demand Thursday evening.

    Ryan wrote that he had planned to step down next spring for reasons separate from the investigation; he didn’t say when his resignation would take effect.

    “While there are very important principles at play here, I would at a very practical level be fighting to keep my job for one more year while knowingly and willingly sacrificing others in this community,” he wrote.

    Ryan took over at UVA in August 2018, steering the institution through the aftermath of the deadly white supremacist rally in August 2017, the pandemic and the racial reckoning in 2020. He also cracked down on pro-Palestinian protesters last spring—a move that Republicans in the state backed but students and faculty condemned. Ryan also embraced institutional neutrality and sought to make UVA a leader in the study of democracy.

    Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in a statement Friday that the Justice Department welcomes “leadership changes in higher education that signal institutional commitment to our nation’s venerable federal civil rights laws.”

    DOJ hasn’t said publicly what laws UVA allegedly violated, though Dhillon’s statement noted that the agency “has a zero-tolerance policy toward illegal discrimination in publicly-funded universities.”

    From the early days of his second term, Trump has made a point of dragging elite, largely Ivy League institutions like Columbia and Harvard Universities into the national spotlight and berating them for their supposed liberal ideologies and alleged antisemitism. But this investigation of UVA, a public institution in a state led by a Republican, represents a new front in the administration’s  war against higher education—and so far Trump is succeeding.

    Brendan Cantwell, a higher education professor at Michigan State University, said Ryan’s resignation is a “major blow” to the independence of American institutions. 

    “It is a sign that major public research universities are substantially controlled by a political party whose primary goal is to further its partisan agenda and will stop at nothing to bring the independence of higher education to heel,” he told Inside Higher Ed. “It undercuts both the integrity of academic communities as self-governing based on the judgment of expert professionals and the traditional accountability that public universities have to their states via formal and established governance mechanisms.”

    Legal experts who spoke with the Times struggled to recall other instances when the federal government has demanded a university board fire the chief official, saying it has only been done in the past when concerning corporate criminal cases.

    Robert Kelchen, an education policy professor at the University of Tennessee, noted that Ryan’s resignation portends a future in which all public university presidents must conform to the political views of their state’s leadership or be kicked out of office.

    “Trump pushing James Ryan to resign at UVA is important, but it happened in part because VA’s governor is also Republican,” Kelchen wrote on BlueSky. 

    Virginia’s two senators, who are both Democrats, said in a joint statement that the demand for Ryan to resign “is a mistake that hurts Virginia’s future.”

    “It is outrageous that officials in the Trump Department of Justice demanded the Commonwealth’s globally recognized university remove President Ryan—a strong leader who has served UVA honorably and moved the university forward—over ridiculous ‘culture war’ traps,” said Sens. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner. “Decisions about UVA’s leadership belong solely to its Board of Visitors, in keeping with Virginia’s well-established and respected system of higher education governance.”

    Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin thanked Ryan for his service to UVA in a statement Friday afternoon. Youngkin, a Republican, has appointed a majority of the university’s board members.

    “The Board of Visitors has my complete confidence as they swiftly appoint a strong interim steward, and undertake the national search for a transformational leader that can take Mr. Jefferson’s university into the next decade and beyond,” he said in the statement.

    A Quiet Inquiry

    While the administration’s campaign against Harvard and Columbia mostly played out in public, the UVA investigation was more quiet. The DOJ didn’t send press releases about UVA or make public hay about its demands. Instead it sent letters to the university about its inquiry and findings.

    On April 28, DOJ cited complaints about how the university was handling its DEI programs, according to the Times and the Charlottesville Daily Progress. Initially the letter set a compliance deadline of May 2. That was then extended to May 30.

    After that, the DOJ received multiple complaint letters from groups like American First Legal, a legal advocacy group founded by Trump’s deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, suggesting the university had yet to comply.

    In a final letter, dated June 17, the department laid out its demands yet again, this time noting the complaints it had received from groups like AFL and saying that the university needed to make swift changes or pay the price, the Times reported. The government’s lawyers, which include several UVA alumni, found that UVA considered race in its admissions and in deciding other student benefits, according to the Times.

    “Time is running short, and the department’s patience is wearing thin,” the letter said. 

    Neither the White House nor the DOJ have released a public statement about their demands of UVA or Ryan’s resignation. 

    The university said in a statement Friday morning that it is “committed to complying with all federal laws and has been cooperating with the Department of Justice in the ongoing inquiries.” But it has not said anything further since Ryan announced his departure.

    Source link

  • Researchers “Cautiously Optimistic” NIH Will Restore Grants

    Researchers “Cautiously Optimistic” NIH Will Restore Grants

    Months after individual researchers, advocacy groups and a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general filed two lawsuits against the National Institutes of Health for terminating hundreds of active research grants misaligned with the Trump administration’s ideologies, some scientists are hopeful that the agency will soon restore the grants and allow them to resume their research.

    Last week, a federal judge in Massachusetts ordered the NIH to restore the roughly 900 grants named in the lawsuits, including many focused on studying vaccine hesitancy, LGBTQ+ health and diversity, equity and inclusion in the medical field. U.S. District Judge William Young, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, ruled the terminations void and unlawful, stating during a hearing that in all his years on the bench he’d “never seen” discrimination by the government to this extent.

    Although Science reported Thursday morning that the NIH has internally communicated plans to restore those grants “as soon as practicable”—and also cease further grant terminations—researchers say they still don’t know when they can expect to get the money they were promised.

    “Since the ruling, we are really encouraged,” said Heidi Moseson, a plaintiff in one of the cases and a senior researcher at Ibis Reproductive Health. “But we haven’t heard anything from the NIH about our grants being reinstated, and we don’t have a window into what that process looks like.”

    Back in March, Moseson received a letter from the agency terminating her grant, which was aimed at improving the accuracy of data collected in sexual and reproductive health research for all people, including those who identify as transgender and gender diverse. The award “no longer effectuates agency priorities,” the letter said. “Research programs based on gender identity are often unscientific, have little identifiable return on investment, and do nothing to enhance the health of many Americans.”

    The NIH did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment on its specific plans for restoring the terminated grants.

    Appeal Anxiety

    Moseson said each week that goes by with the grant on pause “is another week where people are not being appropriately screened into clinical care and research that would be relevant for their bodies, leading to missed preventative care or, conversely, unnecessary preventive care.”

    While her team is ready to resume their research as soon as the NIH restores the funding in accordance with the judge’s ruling, she’s bracing for further disruptions ahead, depending on what happens with the appeals process.

    On Monday, the NIH filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. It also filed a motion to stay the judge’s order to restore the grants while pending the appeal, but Young denied that motion on Tuesday, noting that a stay “would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs.”

    “This is a case in equity concerning health research already bought and paid for by the Congress of the United States through funds appropriated for expenditure and properly allocated during this fiscal year,” the judge wrote. “Even a day’s delay further destroys the unmistakable legislative purpose from its accomplishment.”

    The following day, Michelle Bulls, a senior NIH official who oversees extramural funding, told staffers in an email that the agency must restore funding for the hundreds of projects identified by the plaintiffs, Science reported. “Please proceed with taking action on this request as part of the first phase of our compliance with the court’s judgment,” Bulls wrote, noting that “additional information is forthcoming.”

    Noam Ross, executive director at rOpenSci, a nonprofit that supports reproducible open research, and co-founder of the website Grant Watch, which is tracking grant terminations, put out a call for information on LinkedIn Wednesday about any grants the NIH has restored. But he told Inside Higher Ed Thursday afternoon that he has yet to receive any verified reports of restored NIH grants.

    Shalini Goel Agarwal, counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonprofit focused on combating perceived authoritarian threats, and one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, said Thursday morning that she also had not yet heard of any researchers getting grant money the NIH previously terminated.

    Though it’s not clear what could come of the government’s effort to appeal Young’s ruling, “at this moment the judge’s order is in effect and the NIH should be returning money to the researchers whose grants were terminated,” she said. “NIH should right now be undoing the effects of its directives.”

    ‘Cautiously Optimistic’

    Katie Edwards, a social work professor at the University of Michigan and a plaintiff in one of the cases, said that as of Thursday afternoon, she had yet to receive any communication from the NIH about its plans to restore her numerous multiyear grants.

    Edwards, whose research focuses on Indigenous and LGBTQ+ youth, said that delaying the grants much longer will undermine the research she’s already started, to the detriment of public health research.

    “For some of our studies, it’s just a matter of weeks before they’ll be really hard if not impossible to restart. I’m feeling a lot of anxiety,” she said. “We’re in a waiting phase, but I’m trying to be cautiously optimistic.”

    Despite the uncertainty of what’s ahead, she did get some reassuring news from the NIH on Thursday. The agency notified her that it approved her bid for a new three-year, $710,000 grant to develop and evaluate a self-defense program for adult women survivors of sexual violence. Like many other applications for new grants, the application had been in limbo for months. “So something (good??) is going on there!” she said in an email.

    Other cases moving through the courts also look promising for federally funded researchers eager to get their grants restored.

    On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Rita Lin ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities had also unlawfully terminated grants that had already been awarded to researchers in the University of California’s 10-campus system. The judge, a Biden appointee, ordered the government to restore them, adding that she is weighing extending the order to 13 other federal agencies, including the NIH.

    “Many of the cases that are making their way through the courts share claims that are being made about the illegality of the federal government’s actions,” said Olga Akselrod, counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union and a lawyer representing the plaintiffs in one of the suits against the NIH. “Any time we have a win in one of these cases it’s an important statement of the applicable law, and that’s relevant for all of the cases that are proceeding.”

    Source link

  • Harvard Has a Role to Protect Democracy

    Harvard Has a Role to Protect Democracy

    When it comes to politics, most of us have only two outlets: a voice and a vote.

    Votes come, at best, once a year, the most consequential votes for national office every two and four years. We all only have one voice, though some of us also have the additional power of a megaphone to amplify that voice.

    This column is my megaphone. It ain’t huge, but it’s something.

    Because the Supreme Court has declared that money is speech, if you are fabulously wealthy, perhaps the CEO of a car company, a space company, a company that tortures monkeys by implanting stuff in their brains and the owner of a social media platform, your voice can get very loud indeed, drowning out the voices of others.

    Some have genuine political power. Elected officials have political power. People with voices big enough to resonate with larger groups, or with enough money to purchase access to the levers of government, have political power. This is a fairly narrow class of people and organizations, and one of the things that has distressed me as of late is the refusal of some with genuine political power to use that political power in order to resist what I think is undeniable: that there is an ongoing attempt at an authoritarian takeover of our democracy.

    I understand that there are differing minds around the likelihood of success of this attempted takeover, as well as the manner in which it is best resisted, but I’m reasonably certain that if you were to feed even a wee dram of truth serum to those attempting this takeover, they would admit that this is the case. They pretty much already have.

    Voices are by no means meaningless. The recent “No Kings” protests, which brought out millions of people distributed all across the country to object to this takeover, demonstrated the capacity for collective voices to aggregate into something like political power.

    But in this moment, when we are still more than a year away from our next consequential national election, the immediate power of resistance rests elsewhere, which is why the authoritarian threat has been busy trying to undermine and destroy democratic institutions like the free press and higher education.

    This is why they have targeted Harvard. No one should seriously believe this is a principled dispute. The Trump administration does not care about genuinely fighting antisemitism, nor are they concerned about lax record-keeping regarding foreign students. The cancellation of NIH grants was done on a sweeping, ad hoc basis—pure destruction, no deliberation.

    This is also why I declared that “We are all Harvard” now, a recognition that in this moment, we must express total solidarity in the fight against the authoritarian forces. Up to now, Harvard has been fighting admirably in both the courts and the world of public opinion, winning on both of these fronts. For example, just this week a judge ruled for Harvard in its motion to allow international students to continue to enroll.

    But there are reasons to worry. A New York Times article clearly sourced to people inside Harvard—and (here I’m speculating) being used as a trial balloon to gauge public sentiment—ran under the headline “Behind Closed Doors, Harvard Officials Debate a Risky Truce With Trump.”

    The article frames Harvard’s present dilemma this way: “Despite a series of legal wins against the administration, though, Harvard officials concluded in recent weeks that those victories alone might be insufficient to protect the university.”

    It is clear that Harvard is suffering from these attacks. It is causing harm on all kinds of fronts, and the damage is real and probably lasting. It must be tempting if relief is promised to explore what it might take to realize that relief.

    All this being true, and me obviously not being privy to any inside knowledge of Harvard, I still don’t think it is a difficult call to not engage in any kind of settlement with Trump.

    There are two obvious reasons not to take the deal:

    1. Trump won’t stick to it. My evidence is 50 years of Trump’s modus operandi.
    2. Public opinion will turn against Harvard, causing possible lasting reputational damage (see: Columbia University).

    But there is an even bigger reason: Doing a deal with Trump legitimizes the authoritarian approach to government of using illegal intimidation to validate the power of the authoritarian. Long term, Harvard does not survive in an authoritarian state, because independent higher education institutions are not part of authoritarian states.

    Maybe it’s unfair that Harvard, by virtue of its wealth and status, has become one of the levers of democracy by which authoritarianism can be resisted, but this is where we find ourselves. In better times, Harvard arguably disproportionately benefits from our system; now it is being disproportionately harmed. It should very much want to return as much as possible to the previous status quo, rather than attempting to reach an accommodation that may keep it atop a significantly diminished and consistently eroding pile.

    If you merely see Trump and Trumpism as a temporary phenomenon that could be dispatched at the ballot box in three years, giving Trump a symbolic victory over Harvard (assuming anything Harvard gives in on will truly not be substantive) perhaps make sense.

    How certain are we of this? How much of Harvard’s (and the country’s) future are we willing to gamble?

    Because I still believe we are all Harvard, I hope it does the right thing and uses the power it possesses to defend our democracy.

    Source link

  • A Harvard College Has a Plan B for International Students

    A Harvard College Has a Plan B for International Students

    The Harvard Kennedy School announced a contingency plan for its international students Tuesday in the event that the Trump administration successfully bars the university from enrolling foreign students, according to The Boston Globe.

    The Kennedy School, Harvard’s postgraduate college of government, public policy and international affairs, said that both incoming and returning students could study remotely, and returning students would be given the option to finish their degree at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. 

    “We are announcing these contingency plans now to alleviate the uncertainty many students feel, but we will not officially launch these programs unless there is sufficient demand from students who are unable to come to the United States,” Kennedy School dean Jeremy Weinstein wrote in an email Tuesday.

    Harvard needs the approval of its accreditor, the New England Commission of Higher Education, to allow students to complete their degrees online, and current students who want to study in Toronto would have to apply for a Canadian visa next month.  

    The Kennedy School is the first college at the university to release its formal contingency plan; others are working on developing their own. HKS is particularly vulnerable to a foreign student ban: 59 percent of its students are international, compared to 24 percent of Harvard’s total student population.

    Harvard is currently suing the Trump administration over multiple attempts to ban its foreign student population, including by revoking the university’s Student Exchange and Visitor Program certification and issuing an executive proclamation. Last Friday, a federal judge granted Harvard a preliminary injunction in one of its court challenges. 

    Even if the Trump administration’s efforts targeting Harvard specifically are struck down by the courts, other moves—such as revoking Chinese students’ visas en masse or banning nonimmigrant visa holders from a dozen countries—could prevent some of the Kennedy School’s current and incoming students from attending.

    Source link

  • Three Ways to Give Donation-Minded Visitors a Good Story

    Three Ways to Give Donation-Minded Visitors a Good Story

    In a study of 99,542 donors who supported causes between 2020 and 2024 with gifts totaling less than $5,000 a year (nearly 97 percent of all donors), just 5.7 percent supported education institutions. That’s according to “The Generosity Report: Data-Backed Insights for Resilient Fundraising,” published this April by Neon One, a provider of nonprofit operational technology.

    While major gifts will always be a crucial part of higher ed advancement success, it’s important to remember that smaller gifts add up, and during this uncertain time higher ed leaders must prioritize capturing the interest of every could-be donor.

    Among the donors studied, nearly 30 percent gave to more than one nonprofit, for a combined average of about $545 in 2024, an increase from $368 in 2020. Many—if they have a good relationship with a nonprofit and are asked—will increase their level of support.

    Sharing donation impact stories on a college’s main giving page is an approach not taken enough, in my experience. Typically, the “make a gift” or “give now” link, found prominently on an institution’s homepage, brings a visitor to a form. (“Yes, we’ll take that credit card info now.”) While no one wants to distract anyone from giving online, some colleges are clearly making efforts to inspire and inform giving by sharing how donations are helping students succeed and contributing to research and other efforts benefiting the community or beyond.

    In uncovering examples of colleges using engaging narratives on their donation pages, I now have a clear sense of several practices to consider. For anyone asking how an already resource-strapped marketing and comms team is supposed to make time for additional storytelling, here’s some good news: Most institutions are probably already publishing articles that can be gently repurposed for alumni and other friends thinking about making a gift.

    Following are three actions to take when the goal is telling impact stories on a main giving page.

    1. Find (and tweak) or create the content.

    Do some sleuthing to locate any articles already written about programs and supports made possible at least in part with donor funding. While giving sites can include articles about major gifts that center around the donor, focusing on individuals or communities that are better because of the initiative is more compelling.

    Donation-related video content—although probably needing to be built from scratch—is a great way to highlight real student successes, whether it’s a scholarship that opened up access, emergency funds that allowed a student to stay in school or the excitement of commencement. Minnesota State University, Mankato, recorded accepted students finding out they had received scholarships and students who had benefited from emergency funding sharing how the gift had “saved the day.” Gratitude-focused videos, especially when they use student voices, need not reveal specific personal circumstances.

    To help find individuals to feature, some giving pages invite students, alumni, employees and donors to suggest or contribute their own impact stories.

    1. Provide a mix of content formats and collections.

    Slideshows, blown-up quotes and infographics (individual graphics or numbers-driven stories) are a few visual content tactics spotted on giving pages.

    Lewis & Clark College tells succinct stories on its giving page through a slideshow with three students sharing how their financial aid offers allowed them to enroll. The Oregon college’s giving page also includes a collection of five featured stats, highlighting how gifts from the past year have made an “immediate impact on the areas of greatest need.” Rather than just presenting the most obvious numbers, such as giving totals, these data points note, for example, the number of potential jobs and internships sourced by the career center, or how many new titles were purchased by the library.

    When strategizing about giving page content, consider a series of similar stories that use a standard title or title style. These can even be short first-person pieces, such as “The next decade of [community, achievement, opportunity, gratitude, etc.] begins with you,” a series created for McGill University in Montreal.

    To make an impact story most effective at inspiring a gift, be sure to take the extra step of adding a call-to-action message and link within each article. Even institutions doing this tend to be inconsistent about it. Try adding an italicized note at the end, a sentence within the text or a box that explains the related fund, as University of Colorado at Boulder does.

    1. Be thoughtful about giving page content organization.

    Content-rich giving pages don’t start with a gift form or a bunch of stories. Instead, a single large photo or slideshow featuring students and a short, impactful message seems to be the preferred approach.

    As a visitor scrolls down, additional content tiers can offer more detail and giving encouragement—such as students expressing gratitude for support. More comprehensive feature articles and/or collections of impact story content tend to appear toward the bottom of the page, with a few teaser stories and often a link to see more. Larger collections of stories can be broken into categories and made searchable.

    Some institutions place links to impact story pages in more than one place and include multiple “make a gift” buttons on the main giving page.

    A new focus on giving content should also trigger some tweaks to the gift form itself. Does it include a drop-down menu with specific fund options? Can a donor write in where to direct the gift?

    Or consider McGill’s approach: Each of five big ideas listed on its giving stories page takes visitors to a gift form, followed by a description of the meaning of that idea, followed by specific stories that bring it to life.

    What inspirational success stories could you be sharing with friends who click to donate?

    Source link

  • Wayne State Launches Prison Education Program

    Wayne State Launches Prison Education Program

    Wayne State University will offer incarcerated people the opportunity to enroll in a bachelor’s of sociology starting this fall.

    Wayne State University

    With the reinstatement of Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated individuals in 2023, more colleges have launched or restarted prison education programs. Wayne State University in Michigan will join their ranks this fall, offering a bachelor’s degree to incarcerated individuals for the first time.

    Twenty-five students will join the inaugural cohort in August, and the university is forging ahead with program plans despite looming Pell Grant cuts.

    What’s the need: Twenty-five percent of formerly incarcerated people have no high school diploma, and 20 percent have only a high school diploma, compared to the 91 percent of Americans who have attained at least that credential. “We know that today’s workforce, much of it requires a college education, so it’s almost a necessary criterion to earn a living wage in today’s society,” said Michelle Jacobs, a professor of sociology and Wayne State’s Prison Education Program lead.

    While many incarcerated individuals express an interest in postsecondary education, college often gets placed on the back burner after they leave prison as they focus on more pressing challenges, such as meeting basic needs and providing for themselves, Jacobs said. Higher education–in–prison programs help students get a head start on reclaiming their lives after they are released.

    The initiative also ties into Wayne State president Kimberly Andrews Espy’s Prosperity Agenda for the Detroit area, which includes supporting economic mobility for students, improving the health of urban neighborhoods and fostering innovation in the local economy.

    Individuals who participate in postsecondary education programs while in prison are 48 percent less likely to be reincarcerated than those who don’t, and they are more likely to get a job after their release. Research also shows that education-in-prison programs not only benefit the individual but also increase safety in prison settings and can improve families’ socioeconomic mobility.

    “One of our goals for the program is to empower families in low-income communities that have been disproportionately impacted [by mass incarceration],” Jacobs said.

    How it works: Wayne State’s Prison Education Program will enroll 25 incarcerated men at the Macomb Correctional Facility in Lenox, Mich., about 35 miles northeast of the university.

    To be considered, applicants have to be at least five years from their earliest release date, giving them time to finish the program, and they must complete an essay outlining why they want to participate.

    All courses will be delivered in person and the university will provide any school supplies or resources the students need for their coursework, including pens, paper and dictionaries. Students have to complete paper applications and FAFSA forms, so staff will assist with that process.

    Program participants will complete a degree in sociology, as well as a range of general education courses, similar to their on-campus peers. Students can also opt in to an entrepreneurship and innovation minor.

    Both programs are designed to support the unique experiences of incarcerated people, Jacobs said.

    “I’m extremely biased towards sociology, and I think that benefits everyone,” Jacobs said. “I think that incarcerated individuals can benefit so much, not only in terms of understanding the broader structures that have impacted their own realities, but also on that interactional level … I think that’ll be really helpful for them as they’re navigating their lives postrelease.”

    Faculty members from across the university will serve as instructors.

    Facing headwinds: Since beginning the project, Wayne State has encountered various challenges.

    The initial plan was to use donor funding to kick off the program, but officials had to pivot to relying on Pell dollars and money from the Michigan Department of Corrections to cover student tuition. Then, reorganization at the federal Department of Education and a lack of staff stalled approval of the program. Changes to the Pell Grant may further impede the program’s future.

    Despite the obstacles, Jacobs and her team are pushing on.

    “Once we started working on it, I couldn’t let it go,” Jacobs said. “I deeply believe in the transformative power of education, and I also deeply believe that there is an amazing among of talent and wit and love and humor and expertise already in carceral settings … I just made a decision that we will forge ahead regardless of what is happening at the federal level—while, of course, paying attention to it.”

    Wayne State staff received advice and support in establishing the program from the Michigan Consortium for Higher Education in Prison. “It’s very collaborative instead of competitive, which is unique for academic spaces, and I appreciate it so much,” Jacobs said.

    Next steps: Jacobs and her team are currently reviewing student applications to select the inaugural cohort, with plans to enroll another cohort in fall 2026.

    Before classes start this August, participating faculty and students will both complete an orientation. The faculty orientation will provide instructors with professional development that helps prepare them to teach inside a prison, supported by a student organization on campus focused on criminal justice reform.

    Students will be given college-readiness support, as well as access to academic and support resources similar to those offered on campus.

    If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

    Source link

  • Universities “At Risk of Overassessing” in Response to AI

    Universities “At Risk of Overassessing” in Response to AI

    The number of assessments set by universities is steadily rising, but there are worries this could result in student burnout and prove counteractive if implemented without centering learning.

    A recent report by the U.K.-based Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) and Advance HE found that assessments at U.K. institutions have risen to 5.8 summative assignments and 4.1 formative assignments per semester in 2025, compared to five summative assessments and 2.5 formative assessments in 2020.

    Josh Freeman, policy manager at Hepi and co-author of the report, said the advent of AI is “reducing the accuracy of assessments as a measure of students’ performance,” prompting universities to re-evaluate their examination methods.

    “It’s possible that course organizers are assessing students more to improve the confidence they have in their assessments,” he said.

    “It’s also possible that, as they redo assessment models, which may have remained the same for a long time, they are switching to alternative models of assessment—for example, those that assess students on an ongoing basis, rather than simply once at the end of the year.”

    However, rising numbers of exams risks universities “overassessing” students, he added, as “students now face an intense battle over their time,” noting that the number of hours that students spend studying has fallen.

    “[Many are making] sacrifices around social activities, sports and societies. These ‘extra’ activities are the first to go when students are squeezed and would probably be cut further if the academic elements of university become more demanding.”

    Some 68 percent of students in the U.K. are now undertaking part-time work during term time, a record high, largely in response to cost-of-living pressures.

    Michael Draper, a professor in legal education at Swansea University and chair of the university’s academic regulations and student cases board, said that some universities have begun supplementing assessments with “some form of in-person assessment” to counteract AI “credibility concerns.” But “that of course does lead to perhaps overassessment or more assessments than were in place before.”

    “Students have got so many competing claims on their time, not just in relation to work, but care responsibilities and work responsibilities, that you run the risk of student burnout,” he continued.

    “That is not a position you actually want to be in. You want to make sure that students have got a fair opportunity to work consistently and get the best grade possible. You want students to have a chance to reflect upon their feedback and then to demonstrate that in other assessments, but if they’re being continuously assessed, it’s very difficult to have that reflection time.”

    However, Thomas Lancaster, principal teaching fellow in the Department of Computing at Imperial College London, speculated that a rise in the number of exams could be a sign that assessments are being “split into smaller stages,” with more continuous feedback throughout the process, which could also simultaneously have benefits for counteracting AI use.

    “This is something I’ve long recommended in response to contract cheating, where it’s good practice to see the process, not just the final product. So I do hope that the revised assessment schedules are being put in place to benefit the students, rather than purely as a response to AI.”

    While breaking assessments down could prove beneficial to student learning, Drew Whitworth, reader at the Manchester Institute of Education, questioned, “How does one count what constitutes ‘separate’ assessments?”

    “If a grade is given partway through this process … this is actually quite helpful for students, answering the question ‘How am I doing?’ and giving them a pragmatic reason to show [their work and that they are working] in the first place.

    “But does this count as a separate assessment or just part of a dialogue taking place that helps students develop better work in response to a single assessment?”

    Source link

  • DOJ Sues Minnesota Over In-State Tuition for Noncitizens

    DOJ Sues Minnesota Over In-State Tuition for Noncitizens

    The U.S. Department of Justice sued Minnesota lawmakers Wednesday over the state’s policy allowing in-state tuition benefits for undocumented students.

    The lawsuit names Gov. Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison and the state’s Office of Higher Education as defendants. It claims Minnesota is violating federal law and discriminating against U.S. citizens by permitting noncitizens who grew up in the state to pay in-state tuition rates. Under the Minnesota Dream Act, signed into law in 2013, undocumented students have to meet various criteria to qualify, including spending three years at and graduating from a Minnesota high school.

    The suit also takes issue with the state’s North Star Promise Program, a free college program launched last year for Minnesotans who meet certain requirements, including undocumented students who live in the state.

    The lawsuit comes after the Justice Department successfully sued Texas over the same issue earlier in June. Texas swiftly sided with the federal government, and within hours, its two-decade-old law allowing in-state tuition for undocumented students became moot. The DOJ also sued Kentucky politicians over its in-state tuition policy last week. The lawsuits cite President Donald Trump’s May executive order that called for a crackdown on cities and states with laws that benefit undocumented immigrants, including those that offer in-state tuition benefits.

    “No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens,” Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a news release. “The Department of Justice just won on this exact issue in Texas, and we look forward to taking this fight to Minnesota in order to protect the rights of American citizens first.”

    Source link

  • Trump Admin. Cuts NIH’s Springer Nature Subscriptions

    Trump Admin. Cuts NIH’s Springer Nature Subscriptions

    Citing an unnamed source, Axios reported this week that the Trump administration has cut “about $20 million in grants covering subscriptions” with Springer Nature, which publishes more than 3,000 journals, including the prestigious Nature.

    The article didn’t specify which agency cut these subscriptions. Axios reported that Springer Nature “has long received payments for subscriptions from National Institutes of Health and other agencies.” The NIH originally told Inside Higher Ed in an email Thursday that it “has not terminated any contracts with Springer Nature.” But the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes NIH, sent a new statement Thursday evening.

    “All NIH staff currently have full access to Springer Nature journals through the NIH Library—and that access will continue uninterrupted,” the NIH wrote in the initial email. “NIH is not, in any way, limiting access to scientific publications. On the contrary, the agency actively encourages the use of these resources to advance scientific discovery and promote transparency and replicability in research.”

    But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote in a statement that “all contracts with Springer Nature are terminated or no longer active. Precious taxpayer dollars should be not be [sic] used on unused subscriptions to junk science.”

    A National Science Foundation spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed in an email that “NSF has not canceled subscriptions to Springer or Nature publishing journals.”

    In a statement, a Springer Nature spokesperson said, “We are proud of our track record in communicating U.S. research to the rest of the world for over a century and continue to have good relationships with U.S. federal agencies.”

    The spokesperson wrote, “We don’t comment on individual contracts, but across our U.S. business there is no material change to our customers or their spend.”

    The White House didn’t provide comment to Inside Higher Ed.

    Source link