Republicans and Democrats showed rare agreement in a House committee meeting on Wednesday, putting their support behind digital skills transcripts that they say will make the economy more efficient and make education more skills-centered.
“This is a game changer,” said Rep. Burgess Owens, the Utah Republican who chairs the subcommittee.
The hearing shined a spotlight on the wonky world of learning and employment records, or LERs, and explored how to ensure they are available nationwide. It also progressed the conversation on workforce readiness, a bipartisan topic and an issue that has received heightened attention from House Republicans.
Students in the U.S. have access to more than 1.8 million credentials, but navigating those options can be challenging. At the same time, employers say they are struggling to find workers with the right skills for open jobs.
Although they are not a new idea, more associations, states and experts are turning to LERs as a way to better connect job seekers and employers. For instance, Western Governors University, which has had an LER platform since 2019, recently announced the WGU Achievement Wallet to help students track their skills and connect those to available jobs. A skills-based transcript is at the core of a new platform from the Educational Testing Service that Brandeis University and California State University campuses are piloting. To help boost adoption of LERs, the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers last year launched the LER Accelerator Coalition.
These LERs “enable career mobility based on proven ability, not pedigree,” Western Governors president Scott Pulsipher told lawmakers at the hearing.
“When readiness is signaled through verified skills, opportunities expand to include those who might have been overlooked,” he said. “Few things are more profoundly human than enabling individuals to pursue a self-determined life. LERs, while seemingly abstract, exist for that purpose. They translate what individuals know and can do into real opportunity.”
Other witnesses said Congress can better help grow LERs by providing funding and encouraging states to create them. They also want lawmakers to require common open data standards, so the LERs are transparent and can be used across platforms.
“LERs only matter if people can use them,” said Scott Cheney, the CEO of Credential Engine. “If they’re trapped in proprietary systems, they do little for learners, workers or employers.”
Hearings like this offer some insight into lawmakers’ priorities and can lead to legislation. Since passing a landmark bill to overhaul student loans, the House education committee has delved into college pricing, alleged bias in the Truman scholarship, innovation in higher ed and campus antisemitism.
For Republicans, the LERs are a way to build on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which expanded the Pell Grant to short-term job training programs, and to support efforts to drop degree requirements.
Owens noted that short-term credentials, work-based learning and apprenticeships are increasing “as we shift away from the ‘college-for-all’ mentality and toward a skills-first approach.”
“LERs are the future,” said Owens, who played a video he narrated that explained how digital transcripts work.
Democrats pointed to the need to help workers advance their skills and navigate the labor market, citing rising unemployment numbers and slow job growth.
“LERs have the potential to make our economy more efficient, more equitable and more productive,” said Rep. Alma Adams, a North Carolina Democrat who serves as the subcommittee’s ranking member. “Employers are becoming overwhelmed with job applications containing limited information about the candidates’ skills, all of which can be hard to verify. Far too many employers have fallen into the habit of requiring college degrees for jobs that do not necessarily require them, effectively shutting out talented and qualified individuals who have the skills but not the diploma.”
But Adams and other Democrats worried about the data privacy in these online systems and said they want to see safeguards to protect workers. They also want to guarantee that workers have control over their data.
“We must ensure that a shift to learning and employment records does not enable an infringement on worker rights, increase discrimination or widen achievement and income gaps,” Adams said.
Not long after I had received most of my student’s mid-semester survey results, I came across an AI tool that would create a song. The tool is Suno (suno.com) and it uses AI to create both the music and the lyrics. For some odd reason, I wondered if it might create a song based on by student survey results?
I needed lyrics for the song, so I took the survey results and placed them into Google’s Gemini to develop a summary of the results. The summary was not poetic nor lyrical, so I asked Gemini to write some song lyrics based on the survey summary. Silly I know, but that is how this story started. I then added the lyrics to Suno and chose ska/reggae as the style of music. It was pretty fun to hear about my class though a happy, upbeat song. The students in the class got a kick out of it too and the faculty I shared it with got a good laugh.
And there it was, a song about my class and how the students felt about it.
Having spent the last 20 years as an instructional designer, I have worked with faculty enough to know how difficult institutional surveys can be. Often, the most disgruntled students point to course deficiencies and that is what the faculty remember. Then there are deciles and scores and comparisons and the worry that these numbers will negatively affect the tenure process or rehiring as a part time faculty. In general, there is a negative vibe around these surveys and how they are used. I wondered if those single page pdfs could be shared in a different way? Maybe someone singing the results to them? Maybe just a friendly voice letting them know about the things they did well and the things they might improve upon.
I thought about how different the experience of a voice might be when delivering the information. Might it “feel” better? Worse?
I had been playing with Google’s recently released NotebookLM (notebooklm.google.com) and I wondered what raw survey data might sound like in the “podcast” feature. I started with just my self-created mid-course evaluations and it was really interesting to hear two “people” talk about my class. I wondered what other “sources” I might give NotebookLM to fill out the conversation and how I might customize the podcast.
At first, I added the course goals and objectives. But as you can also add YouTube videos, so I added my seven-minute course introduction from YouTube. The class was online, so I added the QM standards and because the class was about pedagogy and technology, I added the ISTE standards. Adding these other “sources” really started to flesh out the podcast as the successes and challenges were framed against existing standards in teaching and learning. Listening too it kept me present on the topic of improving my class and now I was hearing how my student feedback stacked up against common learning practices.
Soon it was the end of the course and I had asked the students for final evaluation with a few broad questions. They all wrote quite a bit about their experiences in the course, and I added it to the sources in NotebookLM. I also added a video about open pedagogy by David Wiley and another from Stephen Downes. I included a piece of writing about care and inclusivity in higher education. By adding all of those, the podcast was becoming very detailed and full of ideas for improvement backed up by the solid resources I had provided.
I added an AI generated summary of John Dewey’s thinking about learning and another about the same from Carl Rogers. In this way, I was getting the information to include my heroes and favorites in the field. The rationale the podcasters presented for course improvement was backed up by a lot of good thinking! While I started with just the mid-quarter evaluations, as of today, the list of sources looks like this:
Mid-Quarter Student Survey
Course Final Reflections by Students
Institutional Course Evaluation
QM Higher Education Standards
ISTE Standards for Teachers and Students
High Impact Practices in Higher Education
Course Description and Objectives
College Program Goals and Objectives
Care and Inclusion in Higher Education
Carl Rogers Theory of Education
Introduction to Open Pedagogy – Stephen Downes
John Dewey’s Theory of Teaching & Learning
Open Pedagogy – David Wiley
All the Course Announcements
Class Introduction Video
Reflections on Teaching with Google Sites
Then, perhaps the most deeply impactful thing I did was I customized the prompt to make the podcasters speak directly to me, Todd.
Up to this point the podcasters were simply talking generically about a class, now they were talking to me directly by name. It made it feel far more personal. It was more personal. And it was kind of creepy, but it made a difference.
One thing I learned was that even if the speakers are AI generated, it feels good to hear positive things about your course and especially if the kind words are backed up with how some of your heroes would agree with what you are doing. The podcasters always start out with praise and that feels better than the charts and decile numbers on the university student survey.
I keep trying to get the podcast to really focus on improvement and thus far I have already made a few adjustments to the class based on suggestions they made. Those suggestions were alluded to in the student narratives, but the whole of resources I had included in the NotebookLM made those comments seem different. I don’t know how to explain that. Maybe it was that in the student narrative it was one or two sentences among many and in the podcast, it was worded differently, and more detail was given. The human voice is amazingly powerful, even when it is not actually human.
Where am I today? Well, I started seeing if I could transform the two podcasters text into a single person giving me the same advice. I am interested to see if a single voice feels different? It has met with limited success as all of this has been done with free tools. There are time limits and character limits on the free versions of many of the tools.
Google’s NotebookLM has a beta feature that allows you to ask the podcasters questions. I have learned that if you state your name, they refer to you directly. I have also learned that the answers they provide are pretty amazing and that you can really drill down to pretty specific detail around assignments and course structure.
I have also been sharing this with other faculty, and I have had nothing but good feedback about the experience. One noted that they thought the podcast would make a great advertisement for their course. They also said they had wished that they had the tool when they were writing their tenure package as it combined a good deal of disparate pieces of information into a single space. Another said that hearing the student feedback was a more positive experience compared to reading the data. I also heard about the concerns they have. Concerns like privacy and the AI tools making mistakes. To that end I would say, don’t put student names in the AI tools and make sure to listen carefully to how the sources are expressed.
And now, NotebookLM allows you to create narrated PowerPoint type presentations based on your notebook resources!
If you think this might be a way to improve your teaching, NotebookLM is a free tool and you can give this a try right now. https://notebooklm.google.com/
Todd Conaway is an instructional designer at the University of Washington | Bothell with eighteen years of experience working with faculty in and around digital pedagogy. He was a high school English teacher and has been teaching a variety of courses at the community college and university level for twenty-five years.
Ever since Miami Dade College announced last month that it was donating land for the construction of Donald J. Trump’s presidential library, the community college has faced criticism. Now it is fighting in court to prevent a public hearing on the deal, which would resolve a lawsuit brought by a citizen who has argued the move is illegal.
At a Sept. 23 board meeting, Miami Dade College transferred land to the state of Florida to be used for Trump’s presidential library. Critics alleged that the meeting was rushed, failed to offer adequate public notice on the specifics of the deal and lacked any discussion or debate; a public notice referenced only a “potential real estate transaction” as the reason for the meeting.
Some estimates have put the value of the 2.6-acre site in downtown Miami at $250 million to $300 million, though others say it is worth $67 million. But regardless of the dollar amount, Miami Dade College is giving the land away for free.
Marvin Dunn, a local historian, sued to block the transfer, alleging in his lawsuit that the Board of Trustees “unquestionably violated” state anticorruption laws. Dunn argued in a court filing that “depriving the public of reasonable notice of this proposed decision was a plain violation of the Sunshine Act and of the Florida Constitution” and asked for an injunction to block the transfer.
Judge Mavel Ruiz of Florida’s 11th Judicial Circuit granted Dunn a temporary injunction earlier this month, noting that he is likely to prove his claims about sunshine law violations, but she did not altogether block the land transfer. She also left the door open for the Board of Trustees to redo the deal.
“It is understood that the board can provide the reasonable disclosure and convey this property as they see fit,” Ruiz said. “That’s why this is not a case, at least for this court, rooted in politics.”
Jesus Suarez, an attorney for Continental Strategy (founded in 2022 by former Republican lawmaker Richard Corcoran, who was later tapped to lead New College of Florida), which is representing Miami Dade College, has contended that the deal is completely aboveboard.
“The law doesn’t require that there be any specificity in the notice,” Suarez has argued. College lawyers also said they would appeal the ruling to temporarily block the transfer.
State officials have bristled at Ruiz’s temporary injunction. Florida attorney general James Uthmeier, who has assigned members of his staff to assist the college in its legal battle, told The Miami Herald the temporary injunction is not technically in place because it was not issued as a written order.
Dunn, meanwhile, is seeking to expedite legal proceedings, aiming for a trial to begin by January.
While Ruiz emphasized that the case is not about politics, the MDC board, which is appointed by Republican governor Ron DeSantis, is overwhelmingly comprised of Republican donors. Board chair Michael Bileca and trustee Jose Felix Diaz are also former GOP lawmakers.
Of the seven trustees, six have donated to Republican candidates and causes. Miami Dade College president Madeline Pumariega, who has defended the way the board handled the transfer, has also donated to GOP candidates, though she has given to Democrats in the past as well. (Most of the presidents at Florida’s 40 public institutions have either Republican ties or past donations.)
Miami Dade College officials did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights is undergoing a slew of changes, including a significantly increased caseload after the Trump administration let go of hundreds of its employees. With the nomination of Kimberly Richey to fill the role of assistant secretary for civil rights, it’s likely the office tasked with enforcing equal educational access will shift even more.
Right now, attorneys are juggling on average 115 cases, according to Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who shared the number with witnesses at a Thursday nomination hearing held by the Senate’s Health, Education Labor and Pensions Committee.
Prior to the March layoffs that resulted in the shuttering of seven out of 12 OCR offices nationwide, attorneys tasked with protecting the civil rights of students and educators had about 42 cases on their plate. That caseload was characterized as “untenable” by the former assistant secretary for civil rights, Catherine Lhamon, and had prompted former U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to advocate for an increase in the office’s funding under the Biden administration.
Murray said the newer caseload was now “making it difficult for those investigators to meaningfully investigate discrimination and to protect students’ rights.”
Thursday’s hearing was held to discuss the nomination of Richey to lead OCR, among nominations of other officials such as Penny Schwinn to be deputy secretary of education. Richey served under the first Trump administration as acting assistant secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and then as acting assistant secretary for civil rights.
Being ‘strategic’ with resources
When asked by multiple Democratic senators about how she would navigate a backlog of OCR complaints — which exceeds 25,000, said Murray — with half of the office’s former headcount and a budget that would be significantly slashed under President Donald Trump’s FY 26 proposal, Richey said she would have to be “strategic.”
“One of the reasons why this role is so important to me is because I will always advocate for OCR to have the resources to do its job,” said Richey. However, she dodged questions about whether OCR had enough resources to do its job under Trump’s first administration.
“I think that what that means is that I’m going to have to be really strategic if I’m confirmed, stepping into this role, helping come up with a plan where we can address these challenges,” she said.
That would include evaluating the current caseload and determining where complaints stand in their investigative timeline. It would also include looking at the current staff distribution and organizational structure of OCR, and helping Secretary of Education Linda McMahon come up with a plan to “ensure that OCR is able to meet its mission and its statutory purpose to prioritize all complaints.”
Richey said that rather than put certain investigations on pause, as has been the case under the second Trump administration, she would prioritize all complaints that fall at OCR’s footsteps.
Changes in Title IX enforcement
Richey raised the eyebrows of some Republican leaders when she said that she would enforce Title IX, the anti-sex discrimination statute, to protect LGTBQ+ students from discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. The Trump administration and Republican leaders have prioritized enforcing the statute to exclude transgender students from women’s and girls’ athletics teams, locker rooms and other facilities.
When pressed, however, Richey clarified that she would enforce Title IX to protect LGTBQ+ students in a narrow number of cases, related to different treatment, bullying and harassment.
“We would also look at the relevance of sex in our cases,” Richey said. “Sex is relevant in regards to restrooms, and sex is relevant in regards to locker rooms and sex is relevant in regards to athletics.”
“That is not what we did under President Trump’s first term, and that is not what we will do under President Trump’s second term,” she said.
Will OCR threats to federal funding continue?
As for whether educational institutions should expect OCR’s threats to federal funding to become the new norm, Richey didn’t give a clear answer.
“I cannot speak to current actions that have been taken by the department,” she said when pressed about whether she would reverse the federal funding cuts made by the administration after short and targeted Title VI investigations related to antisemitism and Title IX investigations related to transgender athletics policies.
Maine, for example, currently faces a cut of up to $864 million in a case referred to the Department of Justice by the Education Department over the state’s athletic policies allowing transgender students to play on girls’ and women’s sports teams. Additional investigations have been opened in Minnesota and California.
In March, the administration also threatened to cut $9 billion in federal funds for Harvard University over what the administration claimed was a failure to protect Jewish students from antisemitism. By May, it had cut over $450 million in grants from Harvard, revoked its ability to enroll international students, and threatened to cut an additional $3 billion in federal grants.
Such threats have not been empty. Columbia University, for example, lost millions in federal grants and contracts, also over antisemitism investigations that Democratic leaders and some civil rights organizations have called “politically motivated.”
While Richey did not mention whether she supports those pending cuts, she said she believes antisemitism in schools has worsened since her first run at OCR and that there are a number of “tools” to help curb it, including issuing guidance “in a post-Oct. 7 world.”
“The climate is very different than what it was five years ago, four years ago, three years ago,” she said. “I think we look at the Title VI regulations to specifically address antisemitism.”
The HELP committee will schedule a vote on Richey and Schwinn in the coming weeks, after which the nominees will be referred to the full Senate floor for votes.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights is undergoing a slew of changes, including a significantly increased caseload after the Trump administration let go of hundreds of its employees. With the nomination of Kimberly Richey to fill the role of assistant secretary for civil rights, it’s likely the office tasked with enforcing equal educational access will shift even more.
Right now, attorneys are juggling on average 115 cases, according to Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who shared the number with witnesses at a Thursday nomination hearing held by the Senate’s Health, Education Labor and Pensions Committee.
Prior to the March layoffs that resulted in the shuttering of seven out of 12 OCR offices nationwide, attorneys tasked with protecting the civil rights of students and educators had about 42 cases on their plate. That caseload was characterized as “untenable” by the former assistant secretary for civil rights, Catherine Lhamon, and had prompted former U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to advocate for an increase in the office’s funding under the Biden administration.
Murray said the newer caseload was now “making it difficult for those investigators to meaningfully investigate discrimination and to protect students’ rights.”
Thursday’s hearing was held to discuss the nomination of Richey to lead OCR, among nominations of other officials such as Penny Schwinn to be deputy secretary of education. Richey served under the first Trump administration as acting assistant secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and then as acting assistant secretary for civil rights.
Being ‘strategic’ with resources
When asked by multiple Democratic senators about how she would navigate a backlog of OCR complaints — which exceeds 25,000, said Murray — with half of the office’s former headcount and a budget that would be significantly slashed under President Donald Trump’s FY 26 proposal, Richey said she would have to be “strategic.”
“One of the reasons why this role is so important to me is because I will always advocate for OCR to have the resources to do its job,” said Richey. However, she dodged questions about whether OCR, under Trump’s first administration, had enough resources to do its job.
“I think that what that means is that I’m going to have to be really strategic if I’m confirmed, stepping into this role, helping come up with a plan where we can address these challenges,” she said.
That would include evaluating the current caseload and determining where complaints stand in their investigative timeline. It would also include looking at the current staff distribution and organizational structure of OCR, and helping Secretary of Education Linda McMahon come up with a plan to “ensure that OCR is able to meet its mission and its statutory purpose to prioritize all complaints.”
Richey said that rather than put certain investigations on pause, as has been the case under the second Trump administration, she would prioritize all complaints that fall at OCR’s footsteps.
Changes in Title IX enforcement
Richey raised the eyebrows of some Republican leaders when she said that she would enforce Title IX, the anti-sex discrimination statute, to protect LGTBQ+ students from discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. The Trump administration and Republican leaders have prioritized enforcing the statute to exclude transgender students from women’s and girls’ athletics teams, locker rooms and other facilities.
When pressed, however, Richey clarified that she would enforce Title IX to protect LGTBQ+ students in a narrow number of cases, related to different treatment, bullying and harassment.
“We would also look at the relevance of sex in our cases,” Richey said. “Sex is relevant in regards to restrooms, and sex is relevant in regards to locker rooms and sex is relevant in regards to athletics.”
“That is not what we did under President Trump’s first term, and that is not what we will do under President Trump’s second term,” she said.
Will OCR threats to federal funding continue?
As for whether educational institutions should expect OCR’s threats to federal funding to become the new norm, Richey didn’t give a clear answer.
“I cannot speak to current actions that have been taken by the department,” she said when pressed about whether she would reverse the federal funding cuts made by the administration after short and targeted Title VI investigations related to antisemitism and Title IX investigations related to transgender athletics policies.
Maine, for example, currently faces a cut of up to $864 million in a case referred to the Department of Justice by the Education Department over the state’s athletic policies allowing transgender students to play on girls’ and women’s sports teams. Additional investigations have been opened in Minnesota and California.
In March, the administration also threatened to cut $9 billion in federal funds for Harvard University over what the administration claimed was a failure to protect Jewish students from antisemitism. By May, it had cut over $450 million in grants from Harvard, revoked its ability to enroll international students, and threatened to cut an additional $3 billion in federal grants.
Such threats have not been empty. Columbia University, for example, lost millions in federal grants and contracts, also over antisemitism investigations that Democratic leaders and some civil rights organizations have called “politically motivated.”
While Richey did not mention whether she supports those pending cuts, she said she believes antisemitism in schools has worsened since her first run at OCR and that there are a number of “tools” to help curb it, including issuing guidance “in a post-Oct. 7 world.”
“The climate is very different than what it was 5 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years ago,” she said. “I think we look at the Title VI regulations to specifically address antisemitism.”
The HELP committee has yet to schedule a vote on Richey and Schwinn, which will be on the agenda in the coming weeks, after which the nominees will be referred to the full Senate floor for votes.
In January 2024, I wrote a Forbes article titled, “How Martin Luther King Would Respond to Today’s Attacks on DEI.” I declared therein that King would be outraged and disgusted by the catastrophic assault on values for which he fought, was arrested 29 times and ultimately died. Were he still alive today, I know for sure that King would call on leaders to demonstrate more courage and integrity as DEI is being recklessly torn down in our nation’s K-12 schools, higher education institutions, government agencies and businesses. He would insist on brave truth telling, nonviolent resistance, larger and more audacious multiracial coalitions, and strategically pulling every possible lever in defense of racial justice. King would not have been okay with colleges and universities closing culture centers and multicultural affairs offices, scrubbing their websites of language pertaining to antiracism and equity, and firing innocent DEI practitioners who broke no laws and did nothing wrong.
Regarding his dream, I insisted the following in the aforementioned Forbes article about King: “Paradoxically, many people who know little about the greatest American civil rights leader of all time at least know he famously spoke these words: ‘I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.’ The part about not judging people by skin color gets weaponized to justify colorblindness.”
Unsurprisingly, this very thing happened this week in a U.S. House of Representatives hearing titled “Restoring Excellence: The Case Against DEI.” I was the lone expert witness for the Democrats, a role I had played twice before on Capitol Hill.
Robert Onder, a Republican congressman representing Missouri, prefaced a question to me by reciting the go-to line from King’s speech. “Let me read to you a quote you may have heard of, maybe you haven’t, it goes something like this …”
Two things ran through my mind at the time. First was “Oh, here we go with the tired, predictable misrepresentation of Martin Luther King’s stance on colorblindness.” Secondly, I thought, “Of course I have heard these words—I have been a Black man in America for nearly 50 years; I am a proud graduate of a historically Black university; I spent a decade as a member of the Africana studies faculty at the University of Pennsylvania; I have delivered numerous Martin Luther King Day keynote addresses for universities and companies across the country (including this one in 2016 at Duke University in which I critiqued the twisting of King’s Dream speech); and I have read dozens of MLK sermons, speeches and letters, including but not limited to those published in A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches—how absurd to even suggest that I may be hearing these words for the first time.” It was the most disgusting moment of the hearing for me, yet I somehow maintained my composure.
I have said it many times before, but it is worth repeating during these dangerous times in higher education and our democracy: King was not a proponent of colorblindness. He hated racism against African Americans and other people of color. He called white supremacy by its name. He called Black people by their names as he fearlessly demanded equity, opportunity and justice for them. The remedies he advocated were extraordinarily race-forward and color-conscious. Any policy or practice in higher education or elsewhere that insists on colorblindness is a misrepresentation of King’s stance.
There is at least one other noteworthy thing about the annoying evocation of King in the congressional hearing: The civil rights icon said judged “by the content of their character,” but Onder and other Republicans kept insisting on narrowly judging applicants by standardized college entrance exams that tell admission professionals more about those prospective students’ ZIP codes, socioeconomic statuses, the ability of their families to pay for expensive test prep courses and tutors, and the abundance of resources in the K-12 schools they attended.
Ironically, DEI opponents often fail to recognize and appreciate the incredibly valuable proxies for character, leadership, creativity and other strong indicators of undeniable potential for greatness in holistic admissions practices.
Those of us who love King and truly value the race-consciousness of the unrealized American dream for which he fought, was repeatedly jailed and died must continue to help our family members, neighbors, colleagues, presidents and governing board members, students, and elected officials understand why wholesale, decontextualized advocacy for colorblindness is wrong, unfair and bad for our democracy.
If we really want to honor King, especially during this time, more of us would demonstrate brave resistance to the enormously consequential dismantling of DEI in educational institutions and our broader society. The civil rights hero is widely known for peace, love and nonviolence—what Cornel West calls the “Santa Clausification” of King.
But to be sure, King would have hated the weaponization of government to dismantle DEI broadly and racial equity efforts specifically right now. He would have put up the biggest fight and demanded that leaders, including those in higher education, stop cowardly surrendering to white supremacy and hate. More of us should do that, too.
Shaun Harper is University Professor and Provost Professor of education, business and public policy at the University of Southern California, where he holds the Clifford and Betty Allen Chair in Urban Leadership.
On April 8, the House Education and Workforce Committee held a hearing titled, “Game Changer: The NLRB, Student-Athletes, and the Future of College Sports.” The hearing focused on the employment classification status of student athletes at institutions of higher education.
The witnesses at the hearing included Daniel L. Nash, shareholder at Littler; Morgyn Wynne, former softball student athlete at Oklahoma State University; Ramogi Huma, executive director at the National College Players Association; and Jacqie McWilliams Parker, commissioner at the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association.
Majority Concerns with Employee Classification
Republican committee members argued that the classification of student athletes as employees could alter college athletics to the detriment of institutions and student athletes alike. Confirmed by witness testimony, the majority discussed that employee classification for and unionization by student athletes could trigger unintended consequences for the athletes, such as fewer benefits, losing scholarships based on poor performance, having scholarships taxed as taxable income, and losing training support, mental health services, and media and career support. Further, they highlighted that employee classification could strain athletic department resources; McWilliams Parker stated that athletic departments would need to consider whether they could continue to sustain certain sports and provide scholarships to students.
The majority also discussed the legislative and regulatory landscape surrounding this issue. In his opening statement, Chair Rick Allen (R-GA) discussed the memo from former General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Jennifer Abruzzo regarding the Biden-era NLRB’s position that student athletes are employees and are afforded statutory protections under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Notably, the memo has since been revoked by the Trump administration’s acting general counsel at the NLRB. Further, in response to questioning from the chair of the full committee, Tim Walberg (R-MI), Nash clarified that existing labor laws are clear that revenue received by an organization is not a factor in determining employee status.
Representative Lisa McClain (R-MI) also discussed her bill, the Protecting Student Athletes Economic Freedom Act, which would codify into law that student athletes are not employees of institutions, athletic conferences or athletic associations, as a solution to the majority’s concerns.
Minority Argue for Greater Protections for Student Athletes
Committee Democrats argued that student athletes require greater protection from exploitation. They argued that student athletes generate revenue for their institutions of higher education, conferences and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), but fail to be compensated for their work and the amount of time they commit to their team. The members claimed that classifying student athletes as employees and allowing those athletes to collectively bargain would end the exploitation. Huma’s testimony supported committee Democrats advocating that student athletes should be equally able to benefit financially from the revenue they generate.
CUPA-HR will monitor for future developments on the status of student athletes as discussed during this hearing and keep members apprised of significant policy updates.
Nearly a year after pro-Palestinian encampments sprang up on college campuses across the country—and with them, increased reports of antisemitism—Senate Republicans are saying university leaders need to crack down on campus conduct or be placed “on notice.”
Although the House Republicans have spent more than a year investigating campus antisemitism, the hearing, held Thursday on Capitol Hill, was the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee’s first strike at the issue since it became a top priority after Oct. 7, 2023.
The two-hour discussion didn’t break much new ground, aside from giving members of the GOP a chance to highlight the changes President Trump has made since taking office and to promote several related pieces of legislation. Democrats largely used their time to criticize the Trump administration and the plan to shut down the Education Department.
Last Congress, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce held multiplehearings, blaming diversity, equity and inclusion for what they saw as “the scourge of antisemitism on campus.” They grilled the presidents of elite institutions, subpoenaed universities for documents and lambasted higher ed over all for its handling of protests. Ultimately, they concluded that university leaders made “shocking concessions” to protesters; intentionally declined to support Jewish students, faculty and staff; and failed to impose meaningful discipline, among other findings.
But up until this year, Republicans had limited options to enact legislation that they say would address campus antisemitism. Up until the start of the year, Democrats controlled the Senate and the White House. That meant that no matter what acts of alleged discrimination the committee tried to highlight or what bills it tried to pass, their efforts were almost always dead in the water. But now, with Donald Trump as president and Republicans controlling the House and Senate, the HELP Committee chair, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, and his fellow Republicans hold the power. And they were sure to make it known.
“With President Trump in office and a Republican majority in Congress, the time of failed leadership is over,” Cassidy said in his opening remarks. “Universities have been put on notice: Failing to protect a student’s civil rights will no longer be tolerated.”
Cassidy and multiple of his Republican counterparts promoted the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which would require colleges to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism when conducting civil rights investigations. He also pushed the Protecting Students on Campus Act, which would require institutions to provide students with information about how to file an antisemitism complaint. (Cassidy is lead sponsor of the Protecting Students on Campus Act.)
The witnesses who testified Thursday included rabbis, researchers and Jewish student advocates. As was the case with the hearing over all, they largely echoed comments about campus antisemitism made at previous hearings. The three speakers selected by Republicans believed that the protests were not driven by students but faculty members and outside forces who were trying to demonize the definition of Zionist. The two selected by Democrats said colleges must focus on maintaining free speech while responding to antisemitism and all forms of discrimination.
Meanwhile, lawmakers from both parties wanted to talk about the actions of President Trump since he took office in January.
Republicans praised his decision to strip Columbia University of $400 million in federal funding, saying it was high time to hold the Ivy League institution—an epicenter of campus protests—accountable. (Columbia said last week that it agreed to sweeping demands from the Trump administration, though the funds haven’t been restored.)
The Department of Education has also sent out letters warning more than 60 colleges and universities that they could be the next to face “potential enforcement actions” if they don’t comply with civil rights laws and crack down on antisemitism.
“The days of a tepid response or toothless resolution agreements are over,” said Sen. Ashley Moody, a Florida Republican. “Universities have now been put on notice, and I don’t think there’s any question that there’s been a change in the tenor on how we will protect the rights of Jewish students on our campus.”
The conservatives also used the hearing as a chance to tie allegedly antisemitic protests to concerns about foreign influence on higher education and promote legislation that increases federal oversight of foreign gifts and student visas. On Thursday, the House passed a bill that would increase disclosure requirements for foreign gifts and contracts.
Republicans embraced a report from the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, which found that American colleges and universities have received more than $3 billion in unreported gifts from Qatar. According to the report, colleges that received undocumented gifts saw a significant increase in incidents of antisemitism compared to those that did not. The report argues, essentially, that the gifts are a use of “soft power” to encourage antisemitic views on campus.
Charles Small, founding director and president of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, was one of the witnesses at the hearing, and he urged lawmakers to increase their oversight of what gifts are allowed.
“I don’t think it’s wrong to question foreign funding in universities and colleges and whether foreign nations are trying to persuade or influence or brainwash our children. Do you think that they want us to be more pro-American … is that why they’re giving hundreds of millions of dollars to our universities?” Moody said.
But Sen. Roger Marshall, a Kansas Republican, defended the gifts, saying Qatar played a critical role in the release of Americans held hostage by Hamas.
Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington State, said OCR is America’s front line of defense against discrimination. So if the goal is to combat antisemitism, there should be more support and resources distributed to the OCR, not less, she added.
“It’s like saying if you want to fight fires, you should support the fire department. Well, I hate to tell you all, Trump is axing the fire department,” she said. “It’s as straightforward as it gets.”
On March 25, the House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held a hearing titled “The Future of Wage Laws: Assessing the FLSA’s Effectiveness, Challenges, and Opportunities.” The hearing focused on several bills aimed at modernizing the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including legislation to amend overtime pay requirements on compensatory time and regular rate of pay and to provide clarity on independent contractor status under the FLSA.
The witnesses at the hearing included Tammy McCutchen, senior affiliate at Resolution Economics; Paige Boughan, senior vice president and director of human resources at Farmers and Merchants Banks (on behalf of the Society for Human Resource Management); Andrew Stettner, director of economy and jobs at the Century Foundation; and Jonathan Wolfson, chief legal officer and policy director at Cicero Institute.
Compensatory Time
Committee members and witnesses discussed the Working Families Flexibility Act, which would allow private sector employers, including private institutions, to offer employees the choice of compensatory time or cash wages for overtime hours worked. Currently, the FLSA only allows for employees working for the public sector, including public institutions, to choose compensatory time or cash compensation for overtime hours worked.
Chair of the Education and Workforce Committee Tim Walburg (R-MI) expressed his support for a bill like the Working Families Flexibility Act, as it would allow employees to choose which form of compensation best suits their needs. On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) argued that offering compensatory time is an attempt to force workers to work more hours for free.
CUPA-HR submitted a letter for the record prior to the hearing in support of the Working Families Flexibility Act. The letter highlights our past support for the legislation as introduced in previous Congresses. It also draws from CUPA-HR President and CEO Andy Brantley’s testimony for a 2013 Workforce Protections Subcommittee hearing in support of compensatory time. In his testimony, he provided examples of instances where employees benefited from the option of such overtime compensation, which he witnessed while working as an HR leader at a large public university.
Regular Rate
The hearing also discussed the Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act, which would exclude the value of employer-funded child or dependent care benefits from the regular rate calculation. The FLSA requires that overtime hours are paid at one-and-one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay, which is an average hourly rate that includes certain types of compensation.
During the hearing, Rep. Mark Messmer (R-IN) argued that the regular rate calculation that is currently used to determine overtime pay discourages employers from offering certain benefits. McCutcheon stated that legislation like the Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act would encourage employers to offer more benefits as they would no longer face burdensome overtime pay calculations.
Independent Contractor Status
During the hearing, committee members and witnesses also discussed the Modern Worker Empowerment Act (H.R. 1319), which would establish a new standard for defining an employee and an independent contractor under the FLSA. Specifically, the legislation would implement language that states workers are employees if the employer controls what work will be done and how it will be done, and workers are independent contractors if the entity under which the worker works does not exercise significant control over how the work is performed, among other things.
Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA), who introduced the bill in early February, stated that the Modern Worker Empowerment Act was needed to ensure protections for independent contractors in the FLSA. Wolfson pointed to a 2019 California law, AB 5, which implemented an “ABC” test for worker classification and stated that businesses stopped working with freelancers as a result of the law. McCutcheon explained that the Modern Worker Empowerment Act provides clarity when determining worker classification status by focusing on who controls the work being done, unlike California’s ABC test which she claimed was too complicated.
Ranking Member of the Education and Workforce Committee Bobby Scott (D-VA) opposed the Modern Worker Empowerment Act, claiming that workers do not want to be independent contractors and that employers force workers to accept independent contractor status, thus saving employers money.
The House Education and Workforce Committee will continue to consider these bills as they are reintroduced and marked up during the 119th Congress. CUPA-HR will monitor for future developments on the bills discussed during this hearing and keep members apprised of significant updates.
As mass layoffs and suspended grant reviews at National Institutes of Health sow more chaos for the nation’s once-cherished scientific enterprise, a federal judge is set to hear arguments Friday morning on whether to extend a temporary block on the NIH’s attempt to unilaterally cut more than $4 billion for the indirect costs of conducting federally funded research at universities, such as hazardous waste disposal, laboratory space and patient safety.
If the cuts move forward, they will “destroy budgets nationwide,” higher education associations and Democratic attorneys general, along with medical colleges and universities, argued in court filings this week. “But the consequences—imminent, certain, and irreparable—extend far beyond money, including lost human capital, shuttering of research projects and entire facilities, stalling or ending clinical trials, and forgoing advances in medical research, all while ending the Nation’s science leadership.”
The NIH refuted that claim in court filings, arguing that the plaintiffs “do not establish that any irreparable impacts would occur before this case can proceed to the merits.”
Friday’s hearing comes two weeks after the NIH’s Feb. 7 announcement that it will cap indirect research cost rates at 15 percent, which is down from an average rate of 28 percent, though some colleges have negotiated reimbursement rates as high as 69 percent.
The National Institutes of Health is one of the largest sources of funding for research at the universities and colleges and has supported breakthroughs in medical technology and treatments for diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s. In fiscal year 2024, the agency sent about $26 billion to more than 500 grant recipients connected to colleges. About $7 billion of that went to the indirect expenses—a source of funding that universities argue is crucial but still doesn’t cover the full cost of conducting research.
Federal data shows that in fiscal year 2022, universities contributed approximately $25 billion of their own institutional funds to support research, including more than $6.2 billion for the federal government’s share of indirect costs that it did not reimburse.
Nonetheless, Elon Musk, the unelected billionaire bureaucrat President Donald Trump has charged with heading the nascent Department of Government Efficiency, characterized NIH reimbursements for universities for indirect research costs as “a rip-off.” Meanwhile, the academic research community warned that such drastic cuts—which Trump failed to get congressional approval for during his first term—would hamper university budgets, local economies and medical breakthroughs.
Within days of NIH’s directive, a federal judge put the rate cut on hold after 22 state attorneys general sued the agency, joined by numerous higher education research advocacy organizations, including the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, and the American Council on Education. Across three separate lawsuits, they argued NIH doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally change the cap and that its guidance was “arbitrary and capricious,” among other points.
Although the nationwide injunction gave colleges a brief reprieve from the cuts, which briefly took effect Feb. 10, university administrators have spent the last two weeks sounding the alarm about the estimated losses and other impacts. Some Republicans in Congress have also opposed the plan, saying it violates language in federal legislation that bars NIH from modifying indirect costs.
‘Irreparable Injury’?
In its motion for the dismissal of the injunction filed on Feb. 14—a day before the NIH fired some 1,000 workers—lawyers for the agency argued that the federal district court “lacks jurisdiction” over the case and only federal claims court should hear the case, because the plaintiffs “are effectively seeking damages for breach of contract—the regulations incorporated into their grant agreements.” They also claimed that the NIH “ran afoul of no statute” and that the plaintiffs “have failed to show that they would suffer an irreparable injury” without a temporary restraining order.
“Where declarants assert that reducing funds is likely to harm research or clinical trials,” the motion said, “they generally do not assert that those harms are imminent as opposed to eventual reductions in their capacity that would occur from sustained diminished funding after a ruling on the merits.”
The motion went on to claim that the NIH’s capping of indirect cost rates seeks to “further its mission of advancing public health in a manner reflecting wise stewardship of the public money entrusted to it,” claiming that indirect costs are “difficult” for NIH to oversee. “To be clear, the Supplemental Guidance will not change NIH’s total grant spending; rather, it simply reallocates that grant spending away from indirect costs and toward the direct funding of research.”
But that’s not how the NIH publicly framed the indirect cost cap in a post on the social media site Musk owns that said the policy change will “save more than $4B a year effective immediately.”
And in a response filed earlier this week, the plaintiffs argued that the NIH’s policy change “bears no rational connection to NIH’s stated goal” in its court filings, because nothing in the NIH’s notice to cap indirect costs “directs more money to direct expenses.” The response also argues that the NIH has not provided adequate evidence to support its assertions that indirect costs are “difficult to oversee” and implored the court to reject the NIH’s attempt to “deprive Congress of its power of the purse.”
Mass Layoffs, Grant Reviews Still Suspended
While the temporary injunction has halted the rate cap for about two weeks, it hasn’t stopped Trump and Musk from destabilizing federal science agencies in other ways. Over the past week, thousands of mostly probationary employees—ranging from top-ranking agency officials to grant administrators who help grantees ensure their projects are compliant with federal regulations—across numerous science agencies, including the NIH, the National Science Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, lost their jobs.
“The majority of what people who work for those agencies do is get the grant money out the door,” said Carrie Wolinetz, a science and health policy consultant who worked for the NIH between 2015 and 2023. “Because the layoffs took place across job categories, any of those critical positions could be affected. It’s hard to imagine that’s not going to have some impact on the ability of those agencies to fulfill its mission of getting those grants out the door.”
And even before the layoffs and indirect cost cap directive, the NIH had already derailed its operations by temporarily pausing communication and grant reviews last month. Although the courts put those orders on hold, Nature reported Thursday that nearly all NIH grant-review meetings remain suspended.
When the reviews finally do resume, the process will likely face even more challenges with fewer agency employees.
“The fewer people, the greater the bottleneck,” Wolinetz said. “Uncertainty itself causes delays. When people are confused, afraid and worried after watching their colleagues being dismissed, all of that just causes a slowing down of the entire system.”
On Wednesday, hundreds of scientists, federal workers and their supporters rallied outside of Department of Health and Human Services headquarters in Washington, D.C., wielding signs with phrases such as “Leash That DOGE,” “Fight for Science” and “America Needs NIH Scientists” and speaking out against cuts to science funding. (The rally was part of a national day of action to oppose the research funding cuts and layoffs.)
Hundreds of protesters gathered in front of HHS headquarters Wednesday.
“It is important that we understand exactly what is at stake right now,” Kailyn Price, a neuroscience doctoral student at George Washington University, told the crowd. “Cutting indirect costs is like telling a football team to do their work with only the players and the coach—no lights for the field, no physical therapist for the players, no water for the showers.”
She said casting indirect costs as an unchecked and unnecessary burden on taxpayers is all part of the government’s plan to turn the American public against scientists and their work.
“They want you to be angry and misinformed, incensed and ignorant,“ Price said. “Trump and his unelected billionaire backers want you to look at the people like us—making $20, $30, $40,000 a year, working late nights through the weekends because we believe that much in the work that we do—as the enemy.”
And the federal workers who remain at the agencies that support university research may not be there for long, either.
“Messaging from the agency is changing on a daily basis. Everyone is internally freaking out,” one still-employed NIH scientist told Inside Higher Ed on the condition of anonymity. “I’m applying for other jobs, and most people are hedging their bets and sending out other applications, assuming they could get let go.”
The chaos at the NIH, including the firings and the potential for billions in funding cuts, means “there just won’t be the same number of scientists coming out of American universities,” the NIH researcher said. “On the bright side, though, there is the rest of the world.”
The cuts “are also adversely affecting important agency functions, such as support for research security at universities,” Toby Smith, senior vice president for government relations and public policy at the AAU, said in an email.
“Cutting key research security offices at the NSF and NIH will make it more difficult for universities and our science agencies to implement new congressionally mandated research security requirements aimed at protecting sensitive information and data from competitors at a crucial time when we are trying to stay at the forefront of global scientific leadership.”
