Where hands-on learning meets visionary research in healthcare
The University of New Hampshire is home to the School of Nursing, where students can help shape the future of healthcare through real-world clinical experience and innovative research opportunities.
UNH’s status as an R1 research institution and its proximity to some of the nation’s premier medical centers provide you with unmatched clinical learning and nursing research opportunities—empowering you to make an impact in healthcare from day one.
Building on 60 years of nursing education excellence at UNH, the newly launched School of Nursing offers programs from pre-licensure through clinical doctorate, both in-person on the Durham campus and online, creating flexible pathways that meet you where you are in your journey toward meaningful impact in healthcare.
Explore different paths in nursing
At UNH’s School of Nursing, you’ll find your perfect fit among bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degree options designed to match your goals and aspirations.
Charles Adler discovered his passion through UNH’s hands-on approach. After earning his bachelor’s in nursing and a master’s as a clinical nurse leader, he’s now enrolled in the Family Nurse Practitioner (FNP) program, which offers the flexibility he needs.
“I love the clinical environment, whether it’s a pediatrician’s office or a primary care or hospital setting—that’s where things started to click for me,” Adler said.
The real-world experience that defines UNH’s approach has shaped his entire career trajectory. His senior practicum led directly to a job in an ICU, which opened doors to experience as a travel nurse, clinical nurse leader, and finally to his current role as an FNP.
“I wouldn’t have been able to have the experiences I’ve had if it weren’t for UNH nursing,” Adler reflects.
Where knowledge meets practice
At UNH, you don’t have to choose between rigorous academic learning and real-world practical skills; you get both. Our commitment to hands-on learning means you’ll graduate not just with depth of knowledge and a degree, but with the practical skills and forward-thinking approach that healthcare needs.
Ready to pursue meaningful impact in healthcare? If you’re drawn to a field where you can make a real difference, UNH’s one-of-a-kind School of Nursing offers clinical learning to propel you to exceptional career opportunities that make an impact.
Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), long hailed as a leader in online education and a symbol of institutional reinvention, laid off approximately 60 employees on June 27, 2025. The move came without warning to staff, according to an anonymous source close to the situation.
Employees reportedly received a generic email from Lisa Marsh Ryerson, SNHU’s newly installed president, delivering the news of their termination. There was no video call, no face-to-face meeting, and no meaningful explanation beyond the cold language of corporate HR.
“There was no sincerity,” the source said. “No real communication. Just a robotic email. No opportunity for questions, no acknowledgment of people’s service.”
The layoffs have sent shockwaves through the university’s workforce—many of whom had believed that SNHU’s image as a student-centered and employee-friendly institution translated into job security. That assumption, it appears, was misplaced.
SNHU, which once garnered praise from the Obama administration for its innovative online learning model, has undergone significant changes in recent years. Under the leadership of former president Paul LeBlanc, the university expanded its online programs rapidly and became one of the largest nonprofit providers of online degrees in the United States. But as the market for online education becomes increasingly competitive and enrollment pressures mount across the country, even big players like SNHU appear to be tightening their belts.
What’s striking about this latest round of cuts is not just the numbers—but the tone. At a university that prides itself on personalization and student engagement, employees describe the layoff process as abrupt, impersonal, and dehumanizing.
“They preach empathy to students,” the source noted. “But when it came to their own staff, there was none.”
It’s unclear which departments or roles were affected. SNHU has yet to issue a public statement, and no mention of the layoffs could be found on the university’s website or social media accounts at the time of publication.
The layoffs at SNHU follow broader trends in the higher education sector, where institutions—both public and private—are increasingly resorting to staff reductions amid enrollment declines, demographic shifts, and uncertain funding landscapes. But even in this context, the lack of transparency and empathy stands out.
The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to monitor developments at Southern New Hampshire University and invites current and former employees to share their experiences confidentially.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Two transgender high school athletes are challenging in federal court President Donald Trump’s Feb. 5 executive order banning transgender girls and women from participating in sports aligned with their gender identity.
Originally filed against a New Hampshire state law that bars transgender girls in grades 5-12 from playing school sports, the lawsuit filed by Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle, is expanding to include Trump and the federal departments of justice and education among the defendants.
Tirrell and Turmelle, represented by GLAD Law and the ACLU of New Hampshire, allege Trump’s executive order is discriminatory and violates their federal equal protection guarantees under the 14th Amendment and their rights under Title IX.
Dive Insight:
Henry Klementowicz, deputy legal director at ACLU of NH, said in a Wednesday statement that every child in the state deserves “a right to equal opportunities at school.”
“We’re expanding our lawsuit to challenge President Trump’s executive orders because, like the state law, it excludes, singles out, and discriminates against transgender students and insinuates that they are not deserving of the same educational opportunities as all other students,” Klementowicz said.
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire previously ordered in September that the two students could play sports on teams corresponding with their gender identities while Tirrell and Turmelle v. Edelblut advanced.
Trump’s “No Men in Women’s Sports” executive order, which is now being targeted by the lawsuit, calls for a recission of all federal funds from educational programs that allow transgender girls and women to participate in girls’ sports. The order also directs the U.S. secretary of education to zero in on Title IX enforcement against K-12 schools and colleges where girls and women are required “to compete with or against or to appear unclothed before males.”
The day after Trump issued that executive order, the U.S. Department of Education opened Title IX investigations into a middle and high school athletics association in Massachusetts, as well as two universities, on the basis that they allowed transgender girls and women to play on teams aligned with their gender identity.
Trump’s order further directs the U.S. Department of Justice to abide by the nationwide vacatur from a recent court order by a federal judge who struck down the Biden administration’s Title IX rule in January. The Biden-era Title IX rule was the first time protections were codified for LGBTQI+ students and employees at federally funded schools under the anti-sex discrimination law.
After that January court decision, the Education Department said it would enforce the Title IX regulations finalized in 2020 during the first Trump administration.
It’s the holiday season, when the lights are blinking, the bells are ringing, and families are lining up to see festive displays of the demon-god Baphomet in the town square.
But this year, citizens in Concord, New Hampshire, might not get to enjoy all the holiday cheer after vandals decapitated the Baphomet display set up by the Satanic Temple. In fact, the display has proven so controversial that city officials promised to review the display policy next year.
Concord’s government would do well to remember that any rules about expressive displays in public spaces must be viewpoint-neutral, meaning the Satanic Temple has the same right to put up a holiday display as any other group.
Protecting the Satanic Temple’s right to speak also protects the expressive rights of Christians — and Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and everyone else.
‘Happy Hellidays!’ from the Satanic Temple
So what happened?
Concord’s City Plaza is open for unattended displays by private groups during the holiday season. In early December, the Satanic Temple — which describes itself as a religious organization with a mission to “encourage benevolence and empathy among all people, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense, oppose injustice, and undertake noble pursuits” — put up a statue of the goat-headed deity Baphomet in Concord’s City Plaza, under a permit granted by the city.
Baphomet’s temporary neighbors included a nativity scene placed by a rural civic group and a Bill of Rights display put up by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. But just days after the Satanic Temple’s statue went up, it was vandalized — its goat head knocked off, its robed torso severed from its legs, and its tablet bearing the tenets of the Satanic Temple smashed to pieces. Police are investigating the vandalism, but the destroyed statue was taken down.
Then, earlier this week, a new statue went up, this time accompanied by a copy of the permit allowing its placement. In less than 48 hours, that statue, too, was destroyed. The police identified a suspect and said charges are forthcoming. That’s the proper response to vandalism of lawful displays: arrest and prosecute the vandals — don’t impose a “heckler’s veto” by censoring expression that provokes public hostility.
Social media post by WMUR reporter Ross Ketschke before the Satanic Temple’s statue of Baphomet was vandalized a second time in Concord, New Hampshire. (@RossWMUR / X.com)
City officials decry Satanic holiday display, promise review next year
But Baphomet’s future — and the First Amendment rights of citizens and groups to put up such displays — is threatened by more than just vandals in Concord.
Baphomet found his way to the city, because Concord created a public forum, where the government’s authority to restrict expression is strictly limited. Concord can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on expressive activity there, including permit requirements for temporary installations, but viewpoint-based restrictions are unconstitutional.
You can’t allow one group to put up a nativity display but ban the Satanic Temple from putting up Baphomet. The same constitutional principles that protect the Baphomet statue also protect the civic group’s right to put up its nativity scene in the very same plaza.
Although we don’t yet know if the Satanic Temple and its supporters will put up a third Baphomet statue this year, FIRE commends Concord officials for approving the display in the first place, in line with their constitutional obligations.
For example, in 2017, Boston officials told Harold Shurtleff that he couldn’t raise a Christian flag during his event on City Hall Plaza, although the city regularly allowed other outside groups to fly flags of their choosing during events. Shurtleff sued the city, and in 2022, the Supreme Court weighed in and agreed the city violated Shurtleff’s First Amendment rights.
The city’s initial decision to grant the Satanic Temple a permit for the Baphomet display recognized its First Amendment obligations. In a Facebook post, the city explained, “Under the First Amendment and to avoid litigation, the City needed to choose whether to ban all holiday displays installed by other groups, or otherwise, to allow it. After reviewing its legal options, the City ultimately decided to continue the policy of allowing unattended displays at City Plaza during this holiday season and to allow the statue.”
However, some city officials were unhappy with the decision. Notably, Concord Mayor Byron Champlin opposed the permit, explicitly saying he would have preferred to risk a lawsuit rather than grant the permit “because I believe the request was made not in the interest of promoting religious equity but in order to drive an anti-religious agenda.”
Even as city officials explained why they had to approve the Satanic Temple’s request, they also said they planned to review the permit policy for unattended displays next year.
That left FIRE concerned that Concord may engage in viewpoint discrimination and deny applications in the future. So, we’re calling on city officials to reaffirm their commitment to their constitutional obligations.
Concord may not restrict displays simply because, in its view, they reflect an antagonistic or divisive ideology or perspective. Even if — in fact, especially if — the Satanic Temple put up the display, as Mayor Champlin believes, “in order to drive an anti-religious agenda” or as a “calculated political effort,” rather than to promote “religious equity,” the government may not disfavor “anti-religious” speech. The fact that Concord, or some of those through whom it acts, may believe a display is “a deliberately provocative and disturbing effigy” does not make it any less constitutionally protected, as “[g]iving offense is a viewpoint.”
The letter also highlights a recent Texas case involving holiday displays put up by private groups. In that case, Texas’ governor had the Texas State Preservation Board take down a previously-approved “Bill of Rights nativity” display in which cutouts of several Founding Fathers stood over a Bill of Rights in a manger. This decision violated the Constitution, and years of litigation ensued. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ultimately stated that it was “not seriously disputed . . . that the Board’s removal of the exhibit violated the First Amendment.” And the suit ultimately cost Texas and Texans almost $360,000.
Concord officials should take note of that Texas case when deciding whether to “accept the risk” of a lawsuit by engaging in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Although we don’t yet know if the Satanic Temple and its supporters will put up a third Baphomet statue this year, FIRE commends Concord officials for approving the display in the first place, in line with their constitutional obligations.
Given the controversy surrounding the display, FIRE calls on Concord to affirm that it will continue to fulfill those obligations. After all, handing over the authority to restrict minority viewpoints sets a dangerous precedent.
