Tag: government

  • The future of HTQs requires commitment and certainty from the government

    The future of HTQs requires commitment and certainty from the government

    The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) – formerly the Institute for Apprenticeships – has been central to reforms aimed at increasing standardisation and quality in technical education at all levels in England since 2017.

    As it slips into the shadows from where Skills England is about to emerge, we wanted to explore how IfATE’s work establishing a quality assurance process for level 4 and 5 technical education – launched in 2020 – could be built upon and improved.

    Since IfATE introduced the process of approving level 4 and 5 qualifications as Higher Technical Qualifications (HTQs), more than 80 FE colleges, universities and awarding organisations have successfully submitted their qualifications. We decided that their experiences – and their views on the future – were a good place to start.

    We interviewed 46 individuals from 17 organisations to explore their motivations for being “early adopters” of HTQs, their feedback on the approval process itself, and their recommendations for making it better. Ultimately we were keen to find out what would encourage and enable more organisations to apply for HTQ status for their qualifications, and in this way help address the “missing middle” of England’s workforce skills. The full report can be read here.

    Managing a heavy burden

    Unsurprisingly, a strong recommendation was to make the approvals process less burdensome. There was widespread appreciation of the support provided by IfATE, and evidence of their responsiveness to early adopters’ feedback across all five cycles of HTQ approvals. This said, respondents noted that mapping qualifications – particularly those with multiple pathways – to the knowledge, skills and behaviours of occupational standards remained complex and time consuming.

    It was clear that the level of resource and responsiveness shown by IfATE needs to be maintained by Skills England, particularly as occupational standards continue to evolve, and new awarding bodies come into the fold. However, our respondents also noted that manageability could be improved if the approvals process became more integrated with extant internal and external quality assurance and approvals processes, including professional body accreditations.

    Gaining traction, but slowly

    Reassuringly, many of our respondents reported that one positive outcome of getting their qualifications ready for HTQ approval was the stimulation of renewed engagement with employers – with benefits that went beyond simply endorsing the qualification at hand.

    Similarly, for some respondents the decision about whether to put forward a qualification for approval had acted as a catalyst for the further engagement and support of senior leaders in their organisation with higher technical education (HTE) – as part of their widening participation commitments and/or their portfolio diversification and growth.

    Yet alongside this positivity, respondents reported that awareness of the HTQ quality mark, and what it represents, remains low among prospective students and employers. A key reason for this was seen to be a lack of commitment from the Department for Education (DfE) to widespread and visible brand backing.

    DfE did make funding available to successful applicants via the HTE Growth Fund in 2021, and two further rounds of HTE Skills Injection Funds (including funding for localised marketing) – but the potential clawback of these funds should recruitment not meet projected numbers led to some uncertainty about the benefits of applying for short term and unconfirmed funding streams.

    If even those organisations who have already been successful in getting HTQ approval are feeling dubious about the future, then clearly much more needs to be done to encourage those who have not yet entered the field.

    Let’s not forget the missing middle

    There is no reason to doubt that the current government cares about addressing the skills gap known as the “missing middle”, as ignoring it may pose serious risks to growth and opportunity missions. So we – and the many organisations that have invested in HTQs and wish to see them flourish and thrive – have a couple of hopes.

    First, that Skills England maintains strong and continuous engagement with current and future HTQ providers – providing good labour market data on what qualifications are needed, offering personalised support during the approval process, and engaging with the wider sector in order to improve the process.

    But also, we hope that DfE can quickly resolve funding uncertainties for HTQs – including their potential for funding under the growth and skills levy and their primacy in the rollout of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement – and that the department showcases this commitment through a national marketing campaign. This could include building an HTQ ambassadors network, and an annual HTQ celebratory week (similar to those currently supported for T levels and apprenticeships).

    The latest data from DfE shows that in 2022–23 numbers of entrants for Level 4 and 5 education increased after a long period of decline. The contribution of HTQs to this increase may well be small but the strong focus on HTE since 2017, from which HTQ approval arose, will have contributed. We’ve made a great start – let’s not lose momentum now.

    Source link

  • The National Audit Office’s review of UKRI has lessons for the government

    The National Audit Office’s review of UKRI has lessons for the government

    It should come as little surprise – given the scale and complexity of the challenge – that the government sees investing in research and innovation (R&I), and the accompanying promise of new technologies and ideas, as key to achieving its complex policy goals of growing the economy, transitioning to clean power, and modernising the NHS.

    After all, history shows that state backing of R&I to overcome a range of problems – particularly in times of crisis – is hardly a novel idea. If the rapid technological advances witnessed in the 1940s to support the war effort are receding further into the past, then memories of the mass Covid-19 vaccine rollout at least remain fresh.

    With this in mind, the government’s commitment “to promote innovation and harness the full potential of the UK’s science base” through “protecting record funding for research and development” is merely the latest example of those in power acknowledging the vast capacity of R&I to transform society.

    This tradition at least partly explains the strong international reputation the UK has accumulated over the years in the field of R&I, with UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) – the country’s largest single public funder of R&I – at the forefront.

    In 2023–24, UKRI assessed 28,866 applications for competitive grant funding, ultimately spending £6 billion on R&I grants. Its recently approved projects have included funding for very early-stage research in microbial fuel cells and hydrogen purification, and the development of bone stem cell and biomaterial technology to reduce infection rates and the cost of hip repairs.

    In short, UKRI plays a critical role in the country’s R&I ecosystem, supporting cutting-edge work that feeds not only into the government’s environmental and health policy ambitions, but in other areas too.

    And by looking at the effectiveness of UKRI’s grant support, the National Audit Office (NAO) has identified some lessons for government that can serve a very useful, and much broader, purpose when it comes to tackling the major challenges facing the country.

    Lessons learned

    First is the importance of taking a planned and coordinated approach to R&I, which involves using good quality information on funding and knowing how to build a base to innovate in each research area. Government departments should be aware of other organisations with related objectives, determine whether they are also putting funds or resources into trying to innovate in that area, and identify potential linkages with their own workstreams.

    This “portfolio” approach to innovation is a key component in well-managed risk taking, which brings us to our second lesson: the need to establish a clear and effective risk appetite, and put in place the organisational cultures and processes that can support bold decision-making. Innovation – the act or process of doing something that has not been done before – goes hand-in-hand with risk. Embracing it requires the knowledge and the confidence in accepting that things may not turn out quite as intended, or may even fail together.

    The head of the NAO said as much in his recent address in Parliament, where he called on the government to unlock the vast opportunities for boosting productivity and strengthening resilience in the public sector by adopting a fast-learning approach when investing in innovation: in other words, learning quickly what works and what does not, so that failed projects can be promptly scrapped in favour of redirecting energy and resources to more promising ideas.

    Ultimately, a coherent, comprehensive and clearly communicated risk appetite can help organisations reap substantial rewards, more than offsetting the disappointment of unsuccessful ventures.

    Third is the caveat that while a clear plan, coordination and risk appetite can lead to successes, the full benefits of innovation cannot be realised without effective monitoring and evaluation. As well as evaluating programmes on a macro level, organisations should regularly draw together learning by theme (such as in a specific research area), with the support of strong data systems. Doing so can ensure that they effectively capture cumulative learning and develop a well-rounded understanding of which innovations are working well, which ones are not, and why.

    Across the whole of government

    Arguably the most important lesson of all, however, is remembering that these insights cut across the whole of government and need not be strictly applied to the domain of R&I. The projects funded by UKRI may be operating on the frontier of scientific and technological research, but this does not mean that what we learn about their approaches to innovation cannot be applied to other government contexts.

    If government is to achieve its long-term policy goals, it must do more to identify the public spaces where innovation is lacking, and take measures to reverse this trend. This includes breaking down the barriers that are preventing some organisations from adopting the right culture to allow innovation to flourish. It would do well to start with taking on board some of the lessons learned from UKRI’s approach.

    Source link

  • New Government, familiar problems – By Chris Husbands

    New Government, familiar problems – By Chris Husbands

    The higher education sector had high hopes of a new government last July. Early messaging from ministers suggested that they were justified.  The Guardian quoted Peter Kyle, the Science Secretary, declaring an ‘end to the war on universities’. Speaking to the Commons in September 2024, the Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said that ‘the last Government ..use[d] our world-leading sector as a political football, talking down institutions and watching on as the situation became…desperate. I [want to]…return universities to being the engines of growth and opportunity‘.  In November, she announced a rise – albeit for just one year in the first instance – in the undergraduate tuition fee, with the prospect of alleviating pressure on higher education budgets.

    Ten months on, the hopes look tarnished as financial, political and policy challenges mount. The scale of the higher education funding challenge is deepening, it seems, by the week. The OfS has reported that four in ten universities will report a deficit this year.  Restructuring programmes are underway in scores of universities, with some institutions on their second, third or even fourth round of savings.  The post-study graduate visa, an important lifeline for international student recruitment, appears to be under threat.

    There are eerie echoes of headlines and comments under the last government.  The Daily Telegraph declared that a ‘record number of universities [are] in deficit’. The Times claimed that universities that appeared to report relatively poor progression to graduate-level jobs were to be ‘named and shamed’. Following the success of Reform UK in local elections, some backbench Labour MPs have been sharply critical of universities: ‘I would close half our universities and turn them into vocational colleges’, wrote the Liverpool MP Dan Carden (BA, London School of Economics, since you ask), whilst Jonathan Hinder, MP for Pendle (MA Oxford) declared himself ‘happy to be bold and say I don’t think we should have anywhere near as many universities and university places‘. Philip Augar, who reviewed skills funding for Theresa May’s Government, wrote in the Financial Times that the ‘English higher education market is broken‘ as a result of a ‘failed free market experiment’. It seems terribly familiar: a sector in financial crisis, losing political traction and friends.

    Policy direction appears to be unclear. The English higher education sector is still largely shaped by the coalition government’s policy decisions between 2010 and 2015. Its key design principles include uncapped student demand since number controls were abolished in 2013, assumed cross-subsidies across and between activity streams allowing for institutional flexibility, access to private capital markets since HEFCE capital funding was removed in 2011, diverse missions but largely homogenous delivery models based around traditional terms and full-time, three-year undergraduate provision, and jealously protected institutional autonomy. Familiar though these principles are in higher education policy, some are in truth relatively recent, and are creating tensions between what the nation wants from its university system, what universities can offer and what the government and others are willing to pay for.   

    Moreover, the sector we have in 2025 is not the sector which the 2017 Higher Education and Reform Act (HERA) envisaged: HERA was expected to significantly re-shape the sector. The government’s impact assessment of HERA suggested that there would be in the order of 800 HE providers by the mid-2020s.  This did not happen, though the impact of private capital, often channelled through established institutions and now rapidly growing for-profit providers, should not be underestimated as a longer-term transformative force in the sector.

    We are expecting both a three-year comprehensive spending review and a post-16 White Paper in a couple of months’ time. In my 2024 HEPI paper, ’Four Futures’, I sketched out possible scenarios for a sector facing intense challenges. The near-frozen undergraduate fee was reducing the unit of resource for undergraduate teaching as costs rose. Undergraduate demand seemed to be softening amongst (especially) disadvantaged eighteen-year-olds. International student demand remains volatile and subject to political change in visa regulations.  The structural deficit on research funding deepened.  ‘Four Futures’ outlined four scenarios, summarised in Table 1.

    Of course, we all want a mixture of cost control, thriving universities, regional growth and research excellence, but it is difficult to have all of them. Governments and universities set priorities based on limited resources, so there are choices to be made and trade-offs to be confronted for both policymakers and institutional leaders. 

    Government needs to make decisions about universities in the context of competing and changing policy imperatives. It needs to balance restoring government finances, allocating resources to other needy sectors, securing economic growth, and, more obviously important than a year ago, protecting sovereign intellectual property assets and growing defence-related R&D. The Secretary of State’s letter to Vice-Chancellors in the Autumn identified growth, engagement with place, teaching excellence, widening participation and securing efficiencies, but did not unpick the tensions between them.  That depends on articulating a stronger vision for higher education given the Government’s priorities and resources and the economic challenges facing institutions, and it is a task for the forthcoming White Paper.  

    But there are urgent choices too for institutions, and those need to be made quickly in many universities.  Institutional and sector efficiencies are vital, and a key theme of the UUK Carrington Review, but they need to be considered in the light of sustainable operating models for both academic delivery and professional services. Institutions need a clearly articulated value proposition, communicated strongly and effectively and capable of driving the operating model. In the past, too many universities have tried to do too many things – and with resources scarce, the choices cannot be ducked. That means there is a consideration which links the choices facing government and those facing individual institutions.  If a core strength of the English system lies in its diversity and its distributed excellence, individual institutions need to think about their place in, and responsibilities to, the wider HE system. For a sector characterised by intense competition, that is a profound cultural shift, notwithstanding the economic and legal challenges of collaboration.

    The higher education sector now is not the sector we have always had, and therefore it won’t be the sector we always have. How the sector collectively, and institutions individually, confront choices is a test for policymakers and institutional leaders.

    Source link

  • ‘The gatekeepers’: Trump’s action on accreditation sparks concerns over government intrusion

    ‘The gatekeepers’: Trump’s action on accreditation sparks concerns over government intrusion

    Dive Brief:

    • Some higher education experts slammed President Donald Trump’s executive order aiming to reshape the accreditation system, raising warnings about government intrusion into academic matters, while the accreditation sector defended its work. 
    • The president took aim at accreditor criteria related to diversity and equity while calling for new requirements of what he called “intellectual diversity” in faculty. He also called on U.S. Secretary Linda McMahon to “resume recognizing new accreditors to increase competition and accountability.” 
    • The order was part of a bevy of higher education-related executive orders that Trump signed late Wednesday night affecting different aspects of the sector, including workforce development and historically Black colleges.

    Dive Insight:

     In his order on accreditation, Trump decried the quality-control bodies as “the gatekeepers that decide which colleges and universities American students can spend the more than $100 billion in Federal student loans and Pell Grants dispersed each year.”

    He accused the organizations of having “failed in this responsibility to students, families, and American taxpayers,” and also of having “abused their enormous authority.”

    In the order, Trump launched into a 350-word castigation of accreditors’ diversity, equity and inclusion criteria. 

    He specifically named the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits medical programs, and the American Bar Association’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, which accredits law schools. 

    The ABA is suing the U.S. Department of Justice over allegations the department canceled federal grants as retaliation for the association “taking positions the current Administration disfavors,” including its diversity requirements. 

    “Federal recognition will not be provided to accreditors engaging in unlawful discrimination in violation of Federal law,” Trump said in the order, without specifying which DEI criteria and laws may come in conflict.

    Trump also directed McMahon to hold accreditors “accountable” by denying, monitoring, suspending or terminating of accreditation powers for those who “fail to meet the applicable recognition criteria or otherwise violate Federal law.” 

    His order specifically mandates that accreditors require institutions to use program data on student outcomes “without reference to race, ethnicity, or sex.”

    Other elements of the order would smooth the path for federal recognition of new accreditors.

    The order also includes a provision directing McMahon to ensure “institutions support and appropriately prioritize intellectual diversity amongst faculty in order to advance academic freedom, intellectual inquiry, and student learning.”

    Trump also issued executive orders Wednesday on workforce development, artificial intelligence, foreign funding reporting requirements for colleges, and historically Black colleges and universities.

    Trump’s accreditation order drew a fierce rebuke from the American Association of University Professors, among others.

    Accreditors have been “important mechanisms for ensuring that academic institutions are accessible and inclusive, and provide high-quality education for all students,” the faculty group said in a statement Wednesday. 

    It added, “This executive order, however, uses the administration’s cruel and absurdist weaponization of antidiscrimination and civil rights law to prevent accrediting agencies from requiring that institutions take basic steps to ensure they are accessible to and inclusive of all students.”

    AAUP President Todd Wolfson described the order’s call for “intellectual diversity” as “code for a partisan agenda that will muzzle faculty who do not espouse Trump’s ideological agenda.”

    Sameer Gadkaree, president of The Institute for College Access & Success, similarly condemned the order, saying that it “undermines the aspects of the accreditation process that are designed to protect classroom instruction from political interference.”

    Gadkaree also panned the order’s ban on using demographic data to evaluate programs, warning that without that option “accreditors — along with researchers, evaluators, and policymakers — will lack the information they need to truly assess quality.” 

    Responses from the accreditation sector were quieter, but they defended the work of accreditors.  

    Accreditor’s DEI standards are “predicated on institutions implementing such requirements in accordance with applicable state and federal laws,” the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions said in a statement Wednesday.  

    C-RAC called for the order’s required changes to be worked out through the Education Department’s negotiated rulemaking process, which brings together higher education representatives to hash out policy details. The organization also pointed to the regulated process for removing accreditor recognition, noting, “Ultimately, concerns about accreditor recognition can be escalated to federal court.”

    The Council for Higher Education Accreditation, an industry group that both vets and advocates for accrediting bodies, issued a statement Wednesday largely describing the work, standards and innovation already in place at accreditors and institutions. 

    “Our focus is and always will be academic assurances,” said Cynthia Jackson Hammond, the organization’s president. “CHEA-recognized accreditation organizations meet those standards.”

    She closed by saying, “The independence of the accreditation process is essential in order to preserve and protect the integrity of quality assurance in higher education.”

    Source link

  • Medical Journals Now Reportedly Under Government Scrutiny

    Medical Journals Now Reportedly Under Government Scrutiny

    The Trump administration now appears to be targeting medical journals, questioning at least three different publications about how they represent “competing viewpoints” and assess the influence of funding organizations like the National Institutes of Health on submitted papers, MedPage Today reported.

    Republican activist Edward Martin Jr., who is currently serving as interim U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., sent a letter to CHEST Journal and at least two other unnamed publications earlier this month demanding answers to a series of questions about their processes and practices.

    “It has been brought to my attention that more and more journals and publications like CHEST Journal are conceding that they are partisans in various scientific debates—that is, that they have a position for which they are advocating either due to advertisement (under postal code) or sponsorship (under relevant fraud regulations),” Martin wrote. “The public has certain expectations and you have certain responsibilities.”

    The letter then requested answers by May 2 to questions including “Do you accept articles or essays from competing viewpoints?“ and “How do you handle allegations that authors of works in your journals may have misled their readers?”

    “I am also interested to know if publishers, journals, and organizations with which you work are adjusting their method of acceptance of competing viewpoints,” Martin wrote. “Are there new norms being developed and offered?”

    CHEST is a peer-reviewed journal published by the American College of Chest Physicians that produces articles on such subjects as pulmonary hypertension, lung cancer and obstructive sleep apnea.

    Martin’s letter “should send a chill down the spine of scientists and physicians,” Adam Gaffney, a pulmonary and critical care physician who has published in CHEST, told MedPage Today. “It is yet another example of the Trump administration’s effort to control academic inquiry and stifle scientific discourse—an administration, it warrants mentioning, that has embraced medical misinformation and pseudoscience to reckless effect. Journal editors should join together and publicly renounce this as yet more thinly guised anti-science political blackmail.”

    JT Morris, a senior supervising attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told MedPage Today that the First Amendment clearly protects CHEST’s independence.

    “A publication’s editorial decisions are none of the government’s business, whether it’s a newspaper or a medical journal,” he said. “Like with any bully, the best response is to stand up to them—and that includes officials who try to intimidate Americans into parroting the government’s view. The First Amendment packs a powerful punch, and it has these medical journals’ backs.”

    Source link

  • Bank holiday reading: Government control of US universities

    Bank holiday reading: Government control of US universities

    • Gill Evans is Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History at the University of Cambridge.

    In early March 2025, the Trump administration sent letters to 60 US universities warning them that they faced ‘potential enforcement actions’ for what it described as ‘failure to protect Jewish students on campus’ during the widespread pro-Palestinian protests on campuses during the last year. This Government direction not only permitted terms to be set on which continuing funding was to be conditional for a specific higher education provider, but also allowed those terms to encroach on the academic freedom of an institution to choose what to teach and how. This ‘Project 2025’  also allowed the President to require a significant proportion of funding to go to the provision of ‘business’ courses. 

    There were wider consequences of these Government directions. The resulting limitation of funding for research quickly prompted hints of restricted publication of results and encouraged US academics to seek employment in Canada, the UK and Europe.

    Though it was joined in its active resistance by Yale and Princeton, Harvard became a test case. It objected to the Government demand that it immediately agree:

    to implement the Trump administration’s demands to overhaul the University’s governance and leadership, academic programs, admissions system, hiring process, and discipline system—with the promise of more demands to come

     and thus ‘overtly seek to impose on Harvard University political views and policy preferences advanced by the Trump administration and commit the University to punishing disfavored speech’. [1] The US Education Department speedily responded, announcing on 14 April that it was freezing about $2.3bn of Harvard’s funding. On 15 April, Trump threatened to remove Harvard’s tax-exempt status,

    US universities are divided into the ‘private’ and ‘public’ on the basis of their funding and therefore differ in the extent to which they are at risk of loss of funding in attacks on their academic freedom. The ‘private’ Ivy League universities enjoy substantial endowments, making them less dependent on their supplementary Government funding than their ‘public’ counterparts.

    The Office for Students funds and regulates higher education in England. MEDR, the Welsh Commission for Tertiary Education and Research, funds and regulates higher education in Wales, taking these responsibilities over from the former Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. The counterpart body for Scotland is the Scottish Funding Council. This depends on the Scottish Government for the funding it disburses to providers.

    English higher education providers enjoy an institutional autonomy, strengthened by the fact that Government funding for English higher education was greatly reduced with the progressive ending of a ‘block grant’ under the Higher Education Act of 2004 and the raising of tuition fees in 2012. That was replaced by much higher student tuition fees under the Higher Education and Research Act of 2017.

    Under the same legislation the autonomy of higher education providers in England is protected, with express reference to their right to design their own courses, choose their students and appoint their academic staff.  This extends to higher education at tertiary education levels 4 and 5 as well as to ‘degree-level’ 6 and postgraduate degrees at levels 7 and 8.

    This legislative permission does not allow a free-for-all. ‘University’ is a ‘sensitive term’ in English law, as are ‘higher’ and ‘accreditation’ when used of education. New providers may grant their own degrees and call themselves ‘universities’ only if they have powers to do so. In the case of new providers that requires Registration by the Office for Students (OfS). The OfS is subject only to ‘guidance on strategic priorities from the Department for Education’, though its activity is open to expressions of Parliamentary concern. For example, on 2 April 2025, the House of Commons debated ‘the impact of university finances on jobs in higher education’. It was suggested that ‘the funding model, which depends on international students paying higher fees, has harmed universities since Brexit’, but it was recognised that only public funding and such broad policy preferences lay with the Government.

    The accreditation of qualifications in the UK is the responsibility of a number of agencies, some of which are professional and some are public bodies. In the USA ‘relying on private, independent accrediting agencies has been the most important tool for preventing the centralized political control of higher education in the United States’.  The authority of the Trump directive over these seemed clear at first.

    What protects the institutional autonomy of US Universities? The nearest US counterpart to the Office for Students is the Higher Learning Commission, an independent agency founded in 1895. It accredits institutions granting degrees. The University of Michigan, for example seeks renewal of its accreditation from the Higher Learning Commission every ten years. Its ‘evaluations’ are conducted by reviewers from other institutions not the HLC itself.

    The award of ‘University title’ and degree-awarding powers is not restricted in the US as it is in England.  For example they may derive from a Charter establishing the institution. Its own Charter granted the Trustees of Columbia University degree-awarding powers and powers to create such:

    ordinances and by-laws which to them shall seem expedient for carrying into effect the designs of their institution; Provided always, That such ordinances or by-laws shall not make the religious tenets of any person a condition of admission to any privilege or office in the said college, nor be inconsistent with the constitution and laws of this state, nor with the constitution and laws of the United States.

    Private US universities

    The privately funded Ivy League Universities were set up with a degree of constitutional independence. Each had a State-based beginning. Harvard was established as a College by the General Court of Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636 with funding of £400. Its stated purpose was to ensure that the Puritans should be provided with educated ministers, by advancing ‘learning’ to meet the needs of ‘posterity’ and to avoid leaving churches with ‘an illiterate ministry’. Princeton, founded in 1746 by the Presbyterian Synod as the College of New Jersey, had its name changed to Princeton University in 1896. Its present charter dates from 1748. It too has Trustees.  In an age when it could be expected that those arriving from England would be practising members of the Church of England, it was insistent about religious freedom:

    Petitioners have also expressed their earnest Desire that those of every Religious Denomination may have free and Equal Liberty and Advantage in the Said College any different Sentiments in Religion notwithstanding.

    Columbia, too, began as a College. It was granted a Royal Charter in 1754, making its governors a ‘body corporate’. In 1912, the corporate name was changed to ‘Columbia University’. A series of amendments followed,  with an Act of the people of the State of New York in 1810 clarifying the position. Its Trustees were to form ‘a body politic and corporate’ ‘in the City of New York’, with ‘continual succession for ever’ and a common seal. The powers of its Trustees as governors were set out in detail, separating them decisively from the ‘professors’ and ‘tutors ‘. The Trustees were to:

    have full power and authority to direct and prescribe the course of study, and the discipline to be observed in the said college, and also to select by ballot or otherwise, a president of the said college, who shall hold his office during good behavior,

    but no ‘professor, tutor, or other assistant officer’ was to be a Trustee.   There was to be an executive body, consisting of eleven of the Trustees, constituting ‘a quorum for the despatch of all [routine] business’.  

    Its Statutes include a ‘Code of Academic Freedom and Tenure’:

    Academic freedom implies that all officers of instruction are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects; that they are entitled to freedom in research and in the publication of its results; and that they may not be penalized by the University for expressions of opinion or associations in their private or civic capacity; but they should bear in mind the special obligations arising from their position in the academic community.

    In March 2025, seeking to force the University of Columbia to comply with his instructions, the President of the USA withdrew $400m of federal funding.  Nine specific ’reforms’ had been called for in this case, including a change of Departmental Head and modifications to its provision of Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies. A Senior Vice-Provost was to review the educational programmes.

    The University published a statement of its own view that certain ‘protests in academic buildings, and other places necessary for the conduct of University activities, are generally not acceptable under the Rules of University Conduct’ because of the likelihood of disrupting academic activities’.  Yet Columbia acceded to the Trump administration’s demands, including an agreement to expand ‘intellectual diversity’ as ‘defined by the Trump administration’.

    Princeton spoke of resistance when the ‘Trump administration suspended dozens of grants to the University from several agencies, including the Department of Energy, NASA, and the Department of Defense’, pending ‘an investigation into antisemitism on campus’. Yale too declared its resistance in a letter signed by 900 of its Faculty, protesting at ‘unlawful demands that threaten academic freedom and university self-governance’. On March 31, Cornell published an op-ed by its President in the New York Times, describing the point which had been made in the interests of freedom of speech when the University held a Panel conversation exploring ‘pathways to peace’ for Israel and Palestine.

    On 24 March, the American Association of University Professors and Democracy Forward explained the decision to litigate. On 11 April 202,5 Harvard began its own litigation about ‘the Trump administration’s unlawful and unprecedented misuse of federal funding and civil rights enforcement authority to undermine academic freedom and free speech on a university campus’. It complained that on March 31 ‘an investigation of Harvard University’ had been announced and on April 3 this had been followed by an order to ‘adopt a list of vague yet sweeping programmatic and structural changes to university management, operations, and curriculum’ as a condition of the University continuing to be the ‘recipient’ of $9 billion ‘federal taxpayer dollars’.

    Harvard argued that the Government had failed to take the required preliminary steps under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. These requirements, it pointed out, existed because ‘Congress recognized that allowing federal agencies to hold funding hostage, or to cancel it cavalierly, would give them dangerously broad power in a system in which institutions depend so heavily upon federal funding’.  It pointed out that the Trump administration had:

    frozen over $1 billion in funding for Cornell University and $790 million for Northwestern University, with an even more shocking lack of process, not even purporting to issue communications providing notice under Title VI or any other legal authority.

    Public US universities

    US public universities are subject to national Government control as recipients of Government funding. State legislation about them is also significant. The University of North Carolina was established by legislation in 1789, becoming America’s first public university. Its many schools and offshoots were brought together by the North Carolina General Assembly in 1972.  The Constitution of the State of Texas states that its legislature shall ‘establish, organise and provide for the maintenance, support, and direction of a University of the first class’ with a new ‘undergraduate curriculum’ and also ‘establish a more demanding standard for leadership of academic departments and research centres’. As a public research university, the University of Texas at Austin (founded 1883) now describes itself as ‘the flagship institution of the University of Texas System’.

    Conclusion

    A wise US university makes provision to respond to both Government and State supervision. Michigan has a Vice President for Government Relations, acting ‘as the university’s bridge between local, state, and federal governments’. Its ‘State Relations team is committed to building and nurturing strong relationships with state government officials and agencies’, seeking ‘to secure funding, influence policy, and represent the university’s interests in state-level discussions.  It also has a Federal Relations team ‘dedicated to fostering and maintaining collaborative relationships between the university and federal government entities including the U.S. Congress’. It too has been subject to Donald Trump’s demands and has stopped the successful diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) program it has run since 2016,  and closed the office it had set up to deal with it.

    It remains to be seen how far the present President of the USA will succeed in enlarging Government control of the nation’s institutions of higher education by linking direction of academic activity with their funding. Former President Barack Obama did not hesitate to express his support for Harvard, calling Trump’s action ‘unlawful and ham-handed‘.

    [1] Harvard Faculty Chapter, and American Association of University Professors v. United States Department of Justice, filed 11 April, 2025.

    Source link

  • When the government tells you that you cannot pray

    When the government tells you that you cannot pray

    When Abdul Kadeer returned from Saudi Arabia in last month to celebrate the Muslim festival of Eid-ul-Fitr with his family in Meerut, a city northeast of New Delhi in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, the 32-year-old found himself gripped by fear. The local administration had announced tough restrictions on Eid-ul-Fitr prayers for Muslims. 

    Eid-ul-Fitr is one of two major holidays celebrated by Muslims and commemorates the end of the holy month of Ramadan, in which Muslims fast daily from before dawn until sunset.

    Because mosques and designated grounds for prayers, known as Eidgahs, have insufficient space to accommodate the large number of worshippers during these holidays people often stop on roadsides to offer prayers. 

    But just days before the festival, Meerut police announced that offering prayers on roads and other public places could lead to passport cancellations. 

    “I came home to celebrate with my family, but now we are living in fear,” Kadeer says. “Why is it that when we pray, it becomes a problem, but during other festivals, roads are blocked and nothing happens?”

    Jamia Masjid Srinagar closed for Eid prayers in Kashmir. (Photo by Sajad Hameed)

    A minority religion

    For Kadeer, losing his passport would cost him his job.

    “I work in Saudi Arabia to support my family here,” he said. “Why are we being targeted for a prayer that lasts barely 20 minutes?”

    The state of Uttar Pradesh has a predominantly Hindu population, with Hindus comprising around 80% of the total population, while Muslims make up approximately 19%.

    Across Meerut, sentiments like Kadeer’s resonate deeply. Many Muslims in the city ask why they face restrictions when Hindu festivals frequently involve processions on public roads without similar consequences.

    “Why is it that only during Eid, roads become a law-and-order issue?” questions a shopkeeper in the city’s old quarter. “During Holi or Diwali, no one is threatened with legal action.”

    Holi and Diwali are major Hindu festivals celebrated with their own distinct rituals rooted in mythology, seasonal change and spiritual themes. Holi celebrates spring with colors, water fights and sweets, symbolizing good over evil. Diwali, the festival of lights, involves lamps, fireworks and sharing food, marking prosperity and the return of the Hindu god Rama.

    When the Indian government restricts public prayer during Muslim festivals like Eid-ul-Fitr it says it does so to maintain public order and prevent communal tensions. Authorities may cite concerns about large gatherings in public spaces causing traffic disruptions, noise pollution or potential clashes, especially in areas with a history of religious friction. 

    Tensions peaked on 31 March, for example, when violence erupted after the Eid prayer in Siwalkhas, a town northeast of New Delhi. According to police, members of two groups clashed, with reports of gunfire. Security forces quickly intervened, dispersing the crowds, but not before more than six Muslims were injured.

    A double standard?

    The restrictions on prayer have sparked national debate. Popular comedian Munawar Faruqui criticised the decision on social media, questioning why a short prayer was being singled out. But Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath defended the measure, citing the Maha Kumbh in Prayagraj as an example of religious discipline. 

    “[Six hundred and sixty million] people attended the Maha Kumbh without any incidents of violence, harassment or disorder. Roads are meant for walking,” he said, suggesting that Muslims should learn from Hindu festival gatherings. 

    Nasir Qureshi, 47, of Bijnor, said that even before Eid, they were warned not to gather in large numbers for prayers. “But when Hindus celebrate their festivals, there are no such restrictions,” he said “Why is there one rule for us and another for them?”

    The directive has drawn criticism not only from opposition parties but also from within the allies of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party or BJP.

    Iqra Hasan, a member of parliament for the socialist Samajwadi Party, questioned the intent behind the restrictions while Chirag Paswan, a BJP ally, called for a focus on broader issues rather than communal divisions. And Union Minister Chaudhary Jayant Singh compared the crackdown to authoritarian measures described in George Orwell’s book “1984”.

    Opponents to restrictions argue that the Hajj in Mecca, with 2–3 million Muslims praying peacefully, shows that large Muslim gatherings can be managed safely, like the Maha Kumbh’s 400 million Hindus. With proper planning, India could allow Eid prayers fairly, avoiding bias.

    Police and worshippers

    In Meerut, protests took shape in subtle ways. Some worshippers displayed posters stating, “It’s not just Muslims who pray on roads.” The banners listed instances of Hindus and others conducting religious activities on public streets.

    Authorities forcibly removed the posters, leading to further tensions. Among the congregation, expressions of solidarity with Palestine were visible, with worshippers seen holding “Free Palestine” placards and some donning traditional Palestinian attire.

    Mohammed Saeed, 29, a resident of Meerut, said that the police didn’t let them complete their prayers. “They stormed in, shouting at us to leave, and when people protested, they started hitting us,” Saeed said. “Even elderly men were pushed around.”

    Police have registered cases against those raising Palestine-related issues in previous instances, making this a sensitive act of defiance. Beyond Meerut, other decisions have added to the sense of alienation. In Haryana, the state government removed Eid from its list of gazetted holidays, relegating it to a restricted holiday status. This means government offices will remain open on Eid and employees —Hindus or Muslims — must request leave if they wish to observe it.

    Asaduddin Owaisi, an member of parliament from Hyderabad and chief of the right-wing political party All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, said that these kind of decisions are a direct attack on Muslim minorities in the country. 

    He also said that earlier last year the central government ordered a survey of the Jamia Masjid in Uttar Pradesh, a 500-year-old mosque that is part of a UNESCO World Heritage site. It turned into violence with five people killed and 30 injured. 

    “Hundreds were detained only to deny the survey,” Owaisis said. “These decisions will increase the hate in the communities nothing else.”

    Religious clashes elsewhere

    While India sees frequent communal flashpoints between Hindus and Muslims, other South Asian nations have also witnessed religious tensions manifesting in different ways.

    In Pakistan, religious minorities, particularly Hindus and Christians, have often faced restrictions on their religious practices, though state-imposed bans on mass religious gatherings have been rare.

    In Bangladesh, political conflicts sometimes intertwine with religious identity, leading to incidents of violence during Hindu Durga Puja celebrations. Sri Lanka has seen its own set of religious tensions, with growing restrictions on Muslim practices such as a ban on the niqab — a face veil worn by women — following the 2019 Easter bombings when 269 people were killed in six suicide bombings in churches and hotels. 

    In Kashmir, meanwhile, the state’s approach to religious gatherings has taken a different but equally restrictive form. On 31 March, as Muslims worldwide prepared for Eid-ul-Fitr, authorities in Srinagar locked down the historic Jamia Masjid, preventing worshippers from offering prayers there.

    The region’s chief cleric, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, was placed under house arrest, a move he strongly condemned.

    “When huge claims of ‘normalcy’ are made every day by the authorities, why are Muslims in Kashmir being kept away from their religious places and practices?” Mirwaiz said in a statement. “What is the agenda? Is the collective identity of Kashmiri Muslims a threat to the rulers?”

    The Jamia Masjid closure follows a pattern seen in recent years, where authorities have restricted access to religious sites on key Islamic occasions, citing security concerns.

    Earlier in March, the mosque was locked for Shab-e-Qadr and Jummat-ul-Vida prayers, triggering strong reactions from opposition parties in Kashmir.

    Darakhshan Andrabi, who is a senior BJP leader and chairs the Jammu and Kashmir Wakf Board, a body that controls the use of religious and charitable properties, justified the decision, stating that Eid prayers could not be held at Eidgah grounds due to ongoing construction work. However, many local residents and religious leaders see such restrictions as politically motivated and part of broader efforts to control religious expression in the region.

     

    Questions to consider: 

    1. What is Eid-ul-Fitr?

    2. What is a rationale the Indian government has to restrict public prayer during Muslim festivals?

    3. Do you think that the government should be able to regulate religion? Why?

     

    Source link

  • US Department of Education’s Failure to Address Food Insecurity Among College Students (Government Accountability Office)

    US Department of Education’s Failure to Address Food Insecurity Among College Students (Government Accountability Office)

    Nearly 25% of college students in 2020 reported
    limited or uncertain access to food. Despite being potentially eligible,
    most didn’t receive Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP)
    benefits—formerly known as “food stamps”—which could help them pay for
    food.

    A recent law gave the Department of Education
    authority to share students’ Free Application for Federal Student Aid
    data with federal and state SNAP agencies to identify and help students
    who may be eligible for benefits.

    But Education hasn’t made a plan to start sharing this data—nor have states received guidance about this opportunity.

    We recommended ways to address these issues.

    What GAO Found

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of
    Education have taken some steps to connect college students with
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to help them
    pay for food, but gaps in planning and execution remain. Effective July
    2024, a new law gave Education authority to share students’ Free
    Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) data with USDA and state
    SNAP agencies to conduct student outreach and streamline benefit
    administration. However, according to officials, Education had not yet
    developed a plan to implement these complex data-sharing arrangements.
    This risks delays in students getting important information that could
    help them access benefits they are eligible for. Following the passage
    of this new law, Education began providing a notification about federal
    benefit programs for students who may be eligible for them. However, it
    has not evaluated its method for identifying potentially eligible
    students. According to GAO analysis of 2020 Education data, Education’s
    method could miss an estimated 40 percent of potentially SNAP-eligible
    students.

    USDA encouraged state SNAP agencies to enhance student outreach and
    enrollment assistance. However, USDA has not included important
    information about the use of SNAP data and other student data in its
    guidance to state SNAP agencies. These gaps in guidance have left states
    with questions about how to permissibly use and share students’ data to
    help connect them with benefits.

    Student Food Assistance at a College Basic Needs Center

    Officials from the three selected states and seven colleges GAO
    contacted described key strategies for communicating with students about
    their potential SNAP eligibility. These include using destigmatizing
    language, linking students directly to an application or support staff,
    and coordinating outreach efforts with SNAP agencies. Officials from the
    states and colleges GAO contacted said it is helpful to have staff
    available on campus to assist students with the SNAP application. Some
    colleges have found it helpful to partner with their respective SNAP
    agencies to obtain information on the status of students’ applications.

    Why GAO Did This Study

    According to a national survey, almost one-quarter of college
    students were food insecure in 2020, yet GAO found many who were
    potentially eligible for SNAP had not received benefits. The substantial
    federal investment in higher education is at risk of not serving its
    intended purpose if students drop out because of limited or uncertain
    access to food. Studies have found using data to direct outreach to
    those potentially eligible can increase benefit uptake.

    GAO was asked to review college student food insecurity. This report
    addresses (1) the extent to which Education and USDA have supported data
    use to help college students access SNAP benefits, and (2) how selected
    states and colleges have used student data to help connect students
    with SNAP benefits.

    GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and agency documents. GAO also
    interviewed officials from Education, USDA, and national higher
    education and SNAP associations. GAO selected three states and
    interviewed officials from state SNAP and higher education agencies and
    seven colleges in these states. GAO visited one selected state in person
    and interviewed two virtually. States were selected based on actions to
    support food insecure students and stakeholder recommendations.

    Recommendations

    GAO is making five recommendations, including that Education develop a
    plan to implement FAFSA data-sharing and assess its benefit
    notification approach; and that USDA improve its SNAP agency guidance.
    The agencies neither agreed nor disagreed with these recommendations.

    Recommendations for Executive Action

    Agency Affected Recommendation Status
    Department of Education The
    Secretary of Education should develop a written plan for implementing
    provisions in the FAFSA Simplification Act related to sharing FAFSA data
    with SNAP administrators, to aid in benefit outreach and enrollment
    assistance. (Recommendation 1)
    Department of Education The
    Secretary of Education should, in consultation with USDA, evaluate its
    approach to identifying and notifying FAFSA applicants who are
    potentially eligible for SNAP benefits and adjust its approach as
    needed. (Recommendation 2)
    Department of Education The
    Secretary of Education should inform colleges and state higher
    education agencies that FAFSA notifications are being sent to applicants
    who are potentially eligible for SNAP benefits. (Recommendation 3)
    Department of Agriculture The
    Administrator of USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service should, in
    consultation with Education, issue guidance to state SNAP agencies—such
    as in its SNAP outreach priority memo—to clarify permissible uses of
    student data, including FAFSA data, for SNAP outreach and enrollment
    assistance. (Recommendation 4)
    Department of Agriculture The
    Administrator of USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service should issue
    guidance to state SNAP agencies—such as in its SNAP outreach priority
    memo—to clarify the permissible uses and disclosure of SNAP data to
    support SNAP student outreach and enrollment assistance. (Recommendation
    5)

    Source link

  • Sector leaders step up legal pressure on US government

    Sector leaders step up legal pressure on US government

    The Alliance, which represents over 500 college leaders, has pledged its support for the AAUP in the case of AAUP v. Rubio, which seeks an injunction to halt the large-scale arrest, detention and deportation of students and faculty.  

    Submitted in a court document known as an amicus brief, the Alliance argued that recent efforts targeting international students and noncitizen staff had created a “climate of fear” that was “chilling the free exchange of ideas and isolating international students and scholars”.  

    “Recent actions have upended individual lives, undermined the safety of our institutions and jeopardised academic freedom in and beyond the classroom,” said Presidents’ Alliance CEO Miriam Feldblum on April 10.  

    “The uncertainty generated by visa revocations and terminations not only has immediate impacts but also threatens our long-term ability to recruit, retain and employ talented individuals from across the globe,” she added.  

    The court case comes amid growing alarm over the rising number of international student visas revocations and detentions.  

    As of April 10, over 100 US institutions have identified more than 600 international students and recent graduates who have seen their legal status changed by the State Department, according to monitoring by Inside Higher Ed.  

    The AAUP-led lawsuit was filed on March 25, challenging the Trump administration’s policy of arresting, detaining and deporting noncitizen students and faculty who participated in pro-Palestinian activism.  

    The lawsuit alleges that the administration’s “ideological-deportation policy” violates the first amendment right of freedom of speech and the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as being unconstitutionally vague.  

    Recent actions have upended individual lives, undermined the safety of our institutions and jeopardised academic freedom in and beyond the classroom

    Miriam Feldblum, Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration

    In coming together as a sector, Feldblum said she hoped the brief would “amplify the contributions of noncitizen students and scholars, whose ideas and breakthroughs fuel our economy and uphold the collaborative spirit that defines American education”.

    In 2023, international students accounted for 6% of the total US higher education population and contributed over $50bn to the US economy, according to IIE.  

    The unprecedented attacks on international students in the US have provoked outrage across the globe, with the Alliance highlighting longer term impacts which threaten to stifle innovation, intensify ‘brain drain’ and jeopardise the competitiveness of higher education in the US.  

    When paired with declining visa issuance rates from several of the US’ primary sending countries and signs of plummeting interest in the US from postgraduate students, the need for sector-wide unity has never been so strong, say educators.  

    What’s more, the brief highlights the harmful impacts on US students who will lose out on global perspectives, enriched learning experiences and academic collaboration. 

    Scientific talent has already started leaving the US in response to research cuts and threats to academic freedom, with a recent poll revealing three quarters of US scientists were considering leaving the country.   

    Elsewhere, executive members of the US for Success Coalition have urged Congress to press the administration to stop immigration actions and travel restrictions that jeopardise the US’s global attractiveness, highlighting the contributions of international students to America’s “prosperity, safety and security”.

    “International students are the most tracked and vetted visitors to this country,” said NAFSA CEO Fanta Aw.

    “Deterring them from choosing the United States will not make us safer but will certainly deprive us of global talent at a time when competition for these students is increasing around the world,” she added.

    The Coalition is encouraging students and leaders from all sectors including higher education, foreign policy and business, to reach out to members of congress with this message.

    AAUP v. Rubio is scheduled to be heard in court on April 23.

    Source link

  • Federal Government Is Now an Unreliable Partner (opinion)

    Federal Government Is Now an Unreliable Partner (opinion)

    When Linda McMahon was initially picked to be the secretary of education, I wrote a piece that detailed how comparing her to former secretary of education Betsy DeVos was likely inappropriate. I ended that piece by cautiously suggesting that McMahon would strongly align with elements of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 and of the think tank she led, the America First Policy Institute. I also suggested that because the president is ambiguous in his attitudes toward following court orders, McMahon might feel emboldened to engage in similar behavior.

    Since my previous op-ed, McMahon was confirmed as secretary of education and has since shared her vision for the Department of Education in various interviews. While her focus is primarily on K-12 education issues, for higher education she has consistently emphasized that Pell Grants and loans will remain safe—a topic I will revisit later. However, the most predictable outcome has proven accurate: McMahon’s approach aligns closely with the intentions outlined by Heritage and AFPI, as ED is targeted for closure.

    One way to frame McMahon’s leadership and recent behavior as secretary is that she’s the agency’s appointed destructor (just before signing an executive order seeking the dismantlement of the department, President Trump quipped, “Hopefully she will be our last secretary of education.”) Now, ED cannot be eliminated without congressional approval. However, there are many decisions the administration can make to severely hobble the department and offices within it. Some of these decisions have already been executed.

    One of the most impactful and immediate policies that McMahon has pursued was an almost 50 percent reduction of staff at ED, from roughly 4,000 to 2,000 employees. These cuts have reduced employees at offices such as the Office of Federal Student Aid, the Institute of Education Sciences and the Office for Civil Rights. Communications from ED have suggested these cuts will not affect students’ ability to apply for and secure financial aid.

    Of the nearly 2,000 layoffs, more than 300 happened within the Federal Student Aid office—and almost immediately the Free Application for Federal Student Aid site went down for a few hours. Even with a full staff, the Biden administration had well-documented issues with keeping the FAFSA running smoothly, which led to a 9 percent decline in FAFSA submissions for first-time applicants in 2024, or about 432,000 fewer applications over all. Given the department’s reduced capabilities, I have little confidence that it can process FAFSA applications promptly.

    On March 21, President Trump announced that the Small Business Administration would take over the student loan portfolio, an interesting move given that McMahon was the SBA head during Trump’s first term. No clear explanation has been provided for why the SBA should take charge of the portfolio, and no public plan for such a transfer has been released. Additionally, the SBA intends to cut its staff nearly in half, reducing its 6,500-person workforce by about 2,700 employees, while managing this titanic task.

    Although it could be argued that the loan portfolio might be transferred out of the FSA (the “Performance-Based Organization”) based on performance, as outlined in the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, it remains unclear whether transferring the portfolio outside of ED is legally permissible. Additionally, the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 does not appear to support moving loans or other financial aid–related processes outside of ED.

    In recent interviews, McMahon has offered no further clarification on this decision, noting that additional ED functions might also be transferred to other departments. While she proposed working with Congress to interpret the legality of these actions, she also has hinted that congressional approval may not be necessary.

    In addition to concerns surrounding financial aid, we should anticipate weaker accountability measures and diminished academic research moving forward. ED’s Institute for Education Sciences has faced significant staff cuts. Although the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System remains active, providing essential data on enrollment, costs, financial aid and graduation rates, its future is uncertain. This data set is crucial for researchers at foundations and think tanks focused on accountability, as well as for academics studying outcomes in higher education. However, with the survey submission link recently down and limited staff to oversee the system, IPEDS may soon lack accuracy or even public accessibility. As other federal data sets also face potential risks, researchers may need to reconsider the standards for defining good work in this evolving landscape.

    Yet, the staff cuts may have been too abrupt, as ED recently asked several dozen employees to return to fulfill statutory obligations, including responsibilities related to financial aid and loans. However, uncertainty persists regarding how the administration and Secretary McMahon interpret these obligations and the level of efficiency required for their execution.

    McMahon’s influence on higher education has already extended beyond the “Sweet Chin Music” directive for ED (“Sweet Chin Music” is the finishing move of WWE legend Shawn Michaels—a super kick to the face). She seems eager to serve as a bridge for aligning higher education with conservative priorities, as demonstrated by her direct involvement with the revocation of $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University—the first test case in a broader strategy to pressure universities over allegations of campus antisemitism. Critics argue this is a pretext for advancing a conservative agenda rather than a genuine effort to protect Jewish students and employees, with similar tactics now being applied to Harvard and Princeton Universities. The administration also seems to be using a similar strategy to pressure other institutions like the University of Pennsylvania over issues related to Title IX and transgender athletes.

    To regain federal funding, Columbia was given a list of demands, which included enacting a new campuswide mask ban and placing the Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies Department under academic receivership—actions widely criticized as federal overreach. Though Columbia has taken multiple steps to address concerns about antisemitism, including seeking the arrest of pro-Palestinian protesters for trespassing, expelling students and temporarily revoking diplomas, the administration in effect deemed these actions insufficient.

    Though Columbia has largely complied with the administration’s demands, there is little indication that the withheld funds will be restored or to what degree. Regardless of readers’ personal views on the outcome, Columbia’s compliance demonstrates that institutions likely are increasingly susceptible to federal interventions. Looking ahead, I expect both Republican and Democratic administrations to exert distinct political pressures on institutions, significantly reshaping higher education—a shift partly influenced by McMahon’s direct role in the Columbia negotiations.

    Since the National Institutes of Health grant cancellations began, I have described federal government agencies as “unreliable partners” for higher education. The “unreliable partners” label remains fitting as McMahon continues to dismantle ED and transfer its responsibilities to other departments, which is likely to cause extreme inefficiencies. I am especially concerned about delays in FAFSA processing and whether financial aid will reach institutions and students on time next academic year—if at all. Administrators should prepare for these risks. Furthermore, as Columbia has complied with the administration’s demands, it’s possible that future financial aid may come with new conditions (e.g., mask bans on all campuses)—or be intentionally withheld until expectations are met.

    Daniel A. Collier is an assistant professor of higher and adult education at the University of Memphis. His work focuses on higher education policy, leadership and issues like student loan debt and financial aid. Connect with Daniel on Bluesky at @dcollier74.bsky.social.

    Source link