Tag: Higher

Public Universities Don’t Want to Discuss the Compact

As the stated deadline to sign the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” arrived Friday, multiple universities have already rejected the deal while only a few institutions have expressed interest.

But among the public universities that were either formally invited to sign the compact or that participated in a call with the White House to provide feedback on higher education issues, none are willing to discuss their deliberations about the proposal or interactions with federal officials.

Last month, Inside Higher Ed sent public records requests to Arizona State University, the University of Arizona, the University of Kansas, the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Virginia, seeking emails, text messages, internal presentations and other documents related to how presidents, trustees and other officials discussed the compact.

As of Friday, none had provided those records. Only the University of Kansas indicated a willingness to do so, but it requested an up-front $100 fee for staff time to conduct the search. However, officials said they could not guarantee the requested records would be provided.

Texas, meanwhile, has appealed to the state attorney general to avoid releasing the requested records. Now uncertainty abounds about what UT Austin will do on the day of the initial deadline, though conservative media has reported the Trump administration could push that date back (which officials did not confirm Thursday) as it struggles to find signatories.

Texas

Some public universities, such as Arizona and Virginia, have rejected the compact outright, but others, like Arizona State, have noted they never received a formal invitation to join and therefore they have nothing to decline. But UT Austin has remained silent about whether it will sign the compact.

Although University of Texas system Board of Regents chairman Kevin P. Eltife issued an early statement saying that he welcomed the “the new opportunity presented to us and we look forward to working with the Trump Administration on it,” officials have said little since then.

In response to an Oct. 22 public records request from Inside Higher Ed, UT Austin shared only the initial emails exchanged by federal and university officials inviting the university to consider the compact, a copy of the proposal itself, and Eltife’s statement. The rest it wants to keep private.

UT system officials argued in a letter sent Tuesday to the attorney general’s office that the requested records are protected by attorney-client privilege and should not be disclosed.

“In the information at issue, University and UT System attorneys are providing legal counsel, gathering information in order to provide legal counsel, or their clients are seeking legal advice from the attorneys and include the necessary background information so that counsel will be able to render an opinion on a given situation,” UT system attorney Jennifer Burnett wrote in the letter. “From the text of the communications, it is evident that the University and UT System attorneys for were [sic] involved in providing legal counsel to employees of the University.”

Now the attorney general’s office has 10 business days to make a determination on the request.

Gunita Singh, a staff attorney for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told Inside Higher Ed by email that the university “is within its rights to argue that the records are privileged but they need to make a particularized showing that that is the case,” proving the requested documents “pertain to the provision of legal advice” and have been confidential at all times.

Virginia

The University of Virginia has yet to provide documents requested Oct. 22 in what appears to be a pattern of delayed responses, according to others who sought records from the public university in recent months.

UVA’s student newspaper, The Cavalier Daily, reported that it has submitted 25 public records requests to the university, but UVA officials have reportedly not provided records since July 1. Other journalists across the commonwealth have taken to social media to note that they have struggled to get information on athletic staffing and internal communications.

State Senator Creigh Deeds, a Democrat who has represented the Charlottesville area for more than two decades, also struggled to get public records out of the university related to the resignation of former UVA president Jim Ryan, who stepped down in June under federal pressure. Deeds initially reached out to the university Aug. 1 seeking information, which he only obtained after submitting a public records request and paying $4,500 for the documents.

Chris Seaman, a law professor at Washington and Lee University, requested public records related to costs for outside legal counsel on July 2. But Seaman still has not “received a substantive response from UVA regarding my FOIA request,” he told Inside Higher Ed by email. In an August email exchange shared by Seaman, a UVA official noted a delay in processing his request and wrote that “in the last few weeks, our office has received an unusually large volume of requests with limited staff to process them.” They also promised to “expedite handling” of his request, but more than three months later, Seaman said, he is still awaiting those documents.

UVA spokesperson Brian Coy did not address the pattern of delays in a response to Inside Higher Ed, writing that the university “has received this request and is processing it in accordance with Virginia law” and is “preparing an estimate of anticipated costs” for review.

Arizona and Arizona State

Public records requests at Arizona State and the University of Arizona also remain unfulfilled after 30 days.

Arizona State spokesperson Jerry Gonzalez said that he would check on the state of the request but noted that ASU was not invited to sign the compact, and so “there is nothing for the university to accept, reject, or negotiate.” (However, President Michael Crow has said he’s had discussions with Education Secretary Linda McMahon and other officials about higher education issues.)

University of Arizona spokesperson Mitch Zak said that Inside Higher Ed’s public records request “remains in process” and “response time varies.” He noted that factors such as “the specificity of the request, the volume of requests received, and the time required to locate, review, and redact materials subject to disclosure” all shape public records response times.

Arizona law does not specify how long public entities have to hand over documents but instructs that they do so “promptly.” Singh, the RCFP attorney, pointed to past legal cases in which Arizona courts found that 24 business days “satisfied the promptness standard” but that “a delay of 49 days, or 34 working days, did not meet the promptness standard” outlined in state law.

Currently, she said, Arizona and Arizona State are “inching toward noncompliance territory.”

Source link

November 21, 2025
Nearby ICE Raids Stoke Fear on North Carolina Campuses

North Carolina campus leaders are urging international students and staff to take precautions and promising to protect student privacy amid a surge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in the Raleigh, Durham and Charlotte areas. But some students and employees fear campuses aren’t doing enough to protect them after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security boasted upwards of 250 arrests in and around Charlotte on Wednesday.

North Carolina State University’s executive vice chancellor and provost, Warwick Arden, sent a memo to deans and department heads on Tuesday, offering guidance on how to handle any brushes with federal and state agents in Raleigh.

He stressed that the university follows all federal laws—including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, so administrators shouldn’t release information about students or staff without consulting the Office of General Counsel. He also advised all international students, faculty and staff to “carry evidence of their immigration status with them at all times,” including their passports if they leave the Raleigh area.

“I want to assure you that we are closely monitoring developments that may impact our community,” Arden wrote in the memo.

Duke University administrators sent a similar message to students and staff on Wednesday, recommending that international students and employees carry travel documents “at all times” and promising to safeguard student privacy in accordance with federal law. They also told employees to call Duke police if federal agents requested information or sought to enter nonpublic areas.

Sharon L. Gaber, chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, released a memo on Monday, which was updated Thursday, reminding students and employees of the university’s protocols if they encounter anyone who identifies themselves as federal law enforcement. She urged them to call campus police, who “will work with the Office of Legal Affairs to review and verify any subpoenas or warrants that may be presented.”

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s interim executive vice chancellor and provost, James W. Dean Jr., also put out a message to students and staff on Tuesday, acknowledging “anxiety” caused by the presence of ICE officials and encouraging students and employees “to learn more about their rights and available resources.”

Dean emphasized that the university “complies with all federal and state laws and guidance”; ICE has the right to approach individuals in public spaces, he said, but they need a warrant to access classrooms, offices or dorms.

He also said that while FERPA prevents the university from sharing a student’s class schedule and immigration status, their name, address and phone number are public information unless a student previously told the registrar not to share such details. He directed concerned students to the dean of students for “individual supports and services.”

Fears and Concerns

Nearby raids have heightened fear and anxiety among students.

Rumors have been swirling on social media about U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents and vehicles sighted near North Carolina State and UNC Charlotte, with students and nearby residents alerting each other about unrecognized cars near campus. Ojo Obrero, an ICE activity tracker created by the Latino and immigrant advocacy organization Siembra NC, showed several sightings of CBP agents and vehicles reported within two miles of UNC Charlotte.

“The University has been monitoring available information since Customs and Border Protection arrived in Charlotte and had no confirmed reports of CBP on campus; however, they have been in the area,” Christy Jackson, deputy chief communications officer at UNC Charlotte, said in a statement to Inside Higher Ed.

North Carolina State Police have likewise found “no credible sightings of federal agents on campus” at North Carolina State, Mick Kulikowski, the university’s director of strategic communications and media relations, wrote to Inside Higher Ed.

Despite memos and reassurances, students and staff expressed frustration that campus leaders’ statements didn’t make a stronger commitment to resisting federal immigration enforcement efforts.

A joint statement from the American Association of University Professors chapter at UNC Chapel Hill, UE Local 150 and the student organization transparUNCy slammed their administration’s response as “tepid” and “inadequate to meet the moment of fear and uncertainty.” The groups called on university leaders to “do all in their power to deny CBP access to our community,” because “example after example has shown that CBP is acting above the law.”

Administrators have “instead taken the cowardly approach of saying they’re just going to follow the law,” said Michael Palm, president of the UNC Chapel Hill AAUP chapter. “Everyone that I know who works or studies at UNC understands that we have to protect ourselves, because no one in the administration will help with that.”

Palm said he and other faculty members are allowing fearful students to attend class remotely after some of his colleagues found them “afraid to come to class, afraid to leave home, if they’re on campus, afraid to leave their dorms.”

“There has been a real network effort of mutual care to make sure that those students are not just not punished for missing class or excluded from class but also to make sure that they’re getting food, medicine and other supplies,” he said, “and human contact and support so they don’t feel even more isolated and afraid than they already, understandably, do.”

Source link

November 21, 2025
FAU Reinstates 2 Faculty on Leave for Charlie Kirk Comments

One professor remains under investigation.

Sandi Smolker/Getty images

Two professors at Florida Atlantic University are back at work after the university placed them on administrative leave for making comments related to Charlie Kirk’s death, The South Florida Sun Sentinel reported Wednesday.

After the right-wing activist was shot and killed Sept. 10 during an event at Utah Valley University, President Donald Trump and his allies sought to punish anyone who made public comments about Kirk that could be perceived as critical. Numerous universities fired or suspended professors, including three at FAU: Karen Leader, an associate professor of art history; Kate Polak, an English professor; and Rebel Cole, a finance professor.

While Leader’s and Polak’s comments criticized Kirk, Cole’s comments were directed at Kirk’s opponents. “We are going to hunt you down. We are going to identify you,” he wrote on social media, according to the Sun Sentinel. “Then we are going to make you radioactive to polite society. And we will make you both unemployed and unemployable.”

While the three professors were on administrative leave, the university hired Alan Lawson, a former Florida Supreme Court justice, to investigate their comments. Lawson has since concluded that Cole’s and Leader’s comments were protected by the First Amendment and recommended they both be reinstated.

“The findings reflect that each professor’s social-media statements, though provocative to varying degrees, were authored in a personal capacity on matters of public concern,” Lawson wrote. Although both the FAU Faculty Senate and Cole himself objected to the investigation—Cole sued the university over an alleged First Amendment violation—Lawson’s report said the university “preserved constitutional rights while upholding its responsibility to ensure professionalism, civility, and safety within its academic community.”

Polak remains on leave while Lawson continues to investigate her comments.

Source link

November 21, 2025
Student Voting Advocates Say 2025 Brought “Trepidation”

Though 2025 featured few major elections, campus voter outreach organizations were still hard at work getting students interested in the electoral process and, in some cases, making them aware of local races. But some student voting advocates said that an increasingly fraught political environment and attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion have made campus outreach especially challenging this year.

Clarissa Unger, co-founder and executive director of the Students Learn Students Vote Coalition, said in an interview that those challenges were a key theme of the annual National Student Vote Summit, held earlier this month at the University of Maryland.

As part of the coalition’s goal of engaging 100 percent of student voters, SLSV and its campus partners have historically targeted specific demographic groups to ensure that their voter outreach message extends to all communities. But some organizations, including SLSV, have reported that the closure of campus diversity offices and crackdowns on cultural events and student organizations have made achieving that goal increasingly difficult.

“If our partners are on campuses that have had restrictions around DEI activities, we’ve been just trying to support them in different ways that allow them to reach all students on their campuses,” said Unger. “In some cases, that might mean switching from working with some specific campus groups to trying to integrate voter registration into class registration processes or things like that.”

These new challenges didn’t come out of nowhere. In some states, DEI offices, which sometimes partner with voter outreach organizations, have been under attack for multiple years now. Beyond that, some states have passed restrictive voting laws in recent years that could negatively impact college students; they include legislation that limits where and when individuals can vote, adds new identification requirements, restricts voter registration organizations, and more.

The Trump administration added yet another roadblock for student voter outreach this summer when it announced, just weeks before the fall semester began for most institutions, that work-study funds could not be put toward jobs involving “partisan or nonpartisan voter registration, voter assistance at a polling place or through a voter hotline, or serving as a poll worker.” The move disrupted civic engagement offices on numerous campuses that rely on work-study students.

These changes concern student voting advocates, who argue not only that it’s important for every citizen to exercise their right to vote, but also that voting in college is vital because it helps get students in the habit of voting for the rest of their lives.

Wariness of Civic Engagement

Sudhanshu Kaushik, executive director of the North American Association of Indian Students, has advocated for “cultural microtargeting” as a strategy for voter engagement, which he defined in a blog post as “the use of knowledge of cultural identities and culture-specific values, traditions, references, and language to tailor public messaging and boost civic engagement.” In the run-up to the 2024 election, that included tabling at a Diwali celebration and providing voting information in seven different languages.

This year, though, he said this work was significantly more difficult because leaders of affinity groups are nervous about hosting cultural events, often out of fear that their institutions may face backlash from lawmakers and lose funding.

“All identity-focused groups have been really, really wary about what they can and can’t be celebrating. ‘Can I celebrate Diwali? Can I celebrate Holi?’” he said. “I don’t think state governments or the federal government is out to stop Diwali celebrations; that’s not at all what the intent is. But I think when you’re a student, when you’re in a club, and you’re doing this—a lot of these people are careful in terms of what the impact might be.”

That chilling effect is being felt by LGBTQ+ students as well, according to Isaac James, founder of the LGBTQ+ youth voter outreach organization OutVote. OutVote worked to mobilize LGBTQ+ voters in both Virginia and New Jersey during their recent gubernatorial elections.

“There were multiple different communities … who expressed concern, fear and trepidation around engaging in the democratic process because of the anti-LGBTQ rhetoric that is being passed down through the federal government and state governments across the country,” he said. He cited anti-transgender advertisements from candidates in both states that “contributed to a culture of fear around the civic activity of young LGBTQ voters who felt directly targeted by that rhetoric, specifically young trans voters.”

Naomi Barbour, vice chair and LGBTQIA+ representative for the student advisory board of the Campus Vote Project, the student voting arm of the voting rights nonprofit the Fair Elections Center, also noted that voter ID laws can negatively impact trans student voters, who might feel uneasy presenting an ID that lists a gender that doesn’t reflect how they identify.

Some international students, alarmed by the Trump administration’s attacks on them, have also become wary of interacting with student voter outreach organizations, noted Kaushik, who presented on cultural microtargeting at the student voting summit. Historically, voter outreach organizations have tried to include those who can’t vote in their work in other ways, such as teaching them about the political processes in the U.S. or inviting them to do outreach work themselves.

Alicia Vallette, the chair of the student advisory board for the Campus Vote Project, said that she sees that fear not as a simple side effect of today’s hostile political environment, but rather as a goal.

“We’ve heard that students are wary of getting involved in nonpartisan political work and civic engagement work based on the current environment. A lot of this charged rhetoric is designed to foster fear and apprehension and to try to foster disengagement in the system itself,” she said.

That’s why the Campus Vote Project and other voter outreach organizations now must work harder than ever to ensure students aren’t afraid to vote and engage in politics, she said. At the SLSV conference, Campus Vote Project advisory board members led an exercise to help other student organizers figure out how to reach students who aren’t already civically engaged; the organization is also advocating against the SAVE Act, federal legislation that aims to require proof of citizenship to vote. As the countdown to the 2026 midterms begins, student voting advocates continue to brainstorm ways to “combat apprehension and disengagement on campus,” Vallette said.

Source link

November 21, 2025
Higher education postcard: Queen Mary University of London

Down on the Mile End Road in London, within the sound of Bow bells (and hence properly Cockney) you will find what used to be the People’s Palace, and is now Queen Mary University of London.

The institution we see today has four antecedents: the medical schools at the London and at St Bartholomew’s hospitals, Westfield College, and Queen Mary College. The name which survives is that of the last-founded college: as this is also the largest campus by far, it does confirm that possession is nine-tenths of the law.

The medical schools were the earliest to be founded: the London Hospital Medical College in 1785 and St Bartholomew’s Hospital Medical College in 1843 (although a lecture theatre had been in place in Barts since 1791). I’ve told a little of the story of medical education in London when I wrote about St George’s. At the end of the eighteenth century and into the nineteenth, hospitals were slowly putting medical education on a more formal footing, and the London Hospital was at the forefront.

Next to come on the scene was Westfield College. Established in 1882, Westfield was a residential college for women. I’ve written about it before for Wonkhe, so for now I’ll keep the focus on the East End.

And on 14 May 1887 Queen Victoria formally opened the People’s Palace on the Mile End Road. The picture below, from the Illustrated London News, shows the Great Hall, which was the only element which had been completed at the time. It had a capacity for 2000 people seated, and was most magnificent.

The People’s Palace would host art exhibitions and concerts, and would have library and reading rooms, gardens and a swimming pool. Associated with it was a technical institute which would teach higher skills associated with East London’s industries and crafts. The technical institute was to be funded by the Draper’s Company; the People’s Palace was built following public subscriptions, much of it coming from the great and the good.

(This, by the way, was the model for the technical and recreative institutes founded in south London soon thereafter, and which I wrote about in relation to London South Bank University.)

In 1896 the People’s Palace Technical Schools became East London Technical College. I can’t be certain about this, but I imagine it had by that time been taken over by the relevant London borough, following enabling legislation in the early 1890s. It was by then supporting people studying for the civil service entrance examinations, and also for the University of London’s BSc degree examinations. The first students graduated early in the twentieth century.

On 17 May 1907 the Morning Post reported that

The East London College has been admitted by the Senate as a school of the University [of London] in the Faculties of Arts, Science, and Engineering for period of three years on the understanding that the governing body of the school shall do their utmost to satisfy the Senate upon certain points of educational organisation and finance.

You’ll spot the associated name change – and this also gives us an earliest date for the picture on the postcard (look at the sign!).

In 1910 the membership of the university was renewed for a further five years, and in 1915 granted without time limit. East London College was properly a school of the University of London. It was strong in science and engineering, particularly in aeronautical engineering. It had a wind tunnel – which was very new technology then – and was the first department of aeronautical engineering in the UK.

The 1930s became a little exciting for the college, for good reasons and bad.

The bad reason was a fire in the early hours of Wednesday 25 February 1931, which destroyed the Great Hall of the People’s Palace. So the illustration from 1897 is, sadly, all you’ll get of this today.

But at a similar time, the college was considering seeking a royal charter, and it looks like the fire crystallised things. The Drapers’ Company facilitated the People’s Palace and the college becoming a single corporate body, and in 1934 a royal charter was granted. This was also the occasion for a change of name. East London College being felt by some, apparently, to be a bit déclassé. And so Queen Mary College – named for the then Queen, Mary of Teck – was born on 12 December 1934.

And on 13 February 1937 the rebuilt People’s Palace was opened by the new King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (who most readers will know of better as the late Queen Mother.) The full-page spread from the Illustrated London News below gives some of the flavour. I wonder whether this was part of a post-abdication-crisis public relations push to ensure that the new King was perceived in a positive light? The tale of Margaret Paxton, who gave flowers to the Queen, and was descended from the child who gave flowers to Queen Victoria in 1897, is a publicist’s dream, and will no doubt have taken a bit of work to manage.

Through the following decades Queen Mary College was forging links with the two medical schools – for example, a joint hall of residence was opened in Woodford in 1974. Further changes happened in the 1980s – firstly some changes to provision, when the University of London reshuffled. Queen Mary lost Classics and Russian, but gained lab science subjects from Westfield, Chelsea, Queen Elizabeth and Bedford colleges. This was only a precursor to the larger changes to come: in 1989 Westfield College merged with Queen Mary, which became Queen Mary and Westfield College. The merged college was based on the Mile End and associated campuses – the Westfield College buildings were sold off.

Ten years later the two medical schools merged with the college to form the Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry. This was simply one part of a general rationalisation of medical education in London which saw the small independent schools brought within the ambit of larger institutions.

Let’s add a couple of things to bring the story up to date.

Firstly, in 2012 Queen Mary joined the Russell Group, along with three other universities (pop quiz – without googling, can you name the other three?). It’s an unusual Russell Group in that its entry profile is much more reflective of its neighbourhood. It continues to do good things for the east London population.

Secondly, in 2013 it formally changed its name from Queen Mary and Westfield College to Queen Mary, University of London. Which is tricky for dinosaurs like me who still think of it as QMW (and while were at it, Royal Holloway continues in my head to be RHBNC). But I will need to learn to deal with modernity as it approaches.

The college has a good site on its history if you want to read more.

Nine Nobel prize winners are connected with the college: six in physiology or medicine, one each in literature and physics, and one winner of the Nobel peace prize (pop quiz part two: again without googling, can you name the peace prize winner? I met them once…)

And finally, here’s a jigsaw of the postcard. The card was written and posted, but it seems to have been stuck in an album or scrap-book at some point so the back is half covered in the remnants of brown paper. Anyway, it was posted at Paddington to an address in the Regent’s Park neighbourhood of London. All I can make of the written message is

…before I left. I will certainly call and see you one day. I am not going ‘til next Tuesday…

Source link

November 21, 2025
U.S. Remains Leader in Interdisciplinary Science

Science-focused U.S. institutions take the top spots in THE’s interdisciplinary science rankings.

U.S. colleges and universities lead the world in interdisciplinary science research according to the Times Higher Education Interdisciplinary Science Rankings 2026 (THE is Inside Higher Ed’s parent company).

American institutions occupy six of the top 10 slots on this year’s table. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is first for the second year in a row, followed by Stanford University in second, also retaining its 2025 position. The California Institute of Technology rose one spot to third place, and the University of California, Berkeley, debuts on the list in fourth position.

Duke University dropped from fifth to sixth rank this year, and the Georgia Institute of Technology appears on the list for the first time, coming in seventh.

On a country level, nearly a quarter of the top 100 institutions in the ranking are from the US, more than any other nation.

Launched in 2024 in association with Schmidt Science Fellows, the rankings were created to improve scientific excellence and collaboration across disciplines and to help universities benchmark their interdisciplinary scientific work

THE broadened the interdisciplinary scope of research for this year’s list to cover any project that comprises multiple scientific disciplines or one or more scientific disciplines combined with the social sciences, education, psychology, law, economics or clinical and health.

The U.S.’s performance in the rankings is driven by high scores for outputs metrics, which include the number and share of interdisciplinary science research publications, the citations of interdisciplinary science research, and the reputation of support for interdisciplinary teams.

“For more than 80 years, research universities have advanced our understanding of the world, leading to dramatic improvements in health, economic prosperity, and national security. That work fundamentally is done best when people ideate and collaborate without regard for disciplinary boundaries within and between scientific areas,” Ian A. Waitz, vice president for research at MIT, said in a statement.

“Scientific research that breaks down academic silos and crosses traditional disciplines is increasingly understood to be essential for the next generation of big breakthroughs and the key to solving the world’s most pressing problems,” said Phil Baty, THE’s chief global affairs officer.

“The world’s biggest challenges are highly complex and require cutting-edge knowledge and fresh ideas from a wide range of specialisms.”

Source link

November 20, 2025
Secretive Big Ten Deal Riles Trustees

Trustees at member institutions across the Big Ten are pushing back on a proposed $2.4 billion private equity deal that some argue has been too rushed, lacking transparency and proper vetting.

Now, with trustee criticism mounting, the conference appears to be prolonging talks amid a push to finalize a plan to establish a for-profit arm of the Big Ten, which would control its media and sponsorship rights and sell a 10 percent stake of that entity to the investor. The deal would give members an immediate cash infusion, with a minimum $100 million disbursement across the league, while more prominent athletic programs would receive an even higher revenue share. That money is needed, even at wealthy institutions, as universities adjust to a changing world of college athletics, which includes direct payments for players that began earlier this year.

The proposal would also maintain the current 18 universities as Big Ten members through 2046.

Dissent among the Big Ten ranks seems to have prompted the potential investor—the University of California pension fund, or UC Investments—to slow down the deal.

While UC Investments indicated in a Monday statement that it “remains very excited” about the offer, officials wrote they will work with members in the “coming months” to solidify the deal. (Prior reports indicated the conference hoped to put the deal to a league vote by mid-November.)

“As we have continued to evaluate this opportunity over the past five months, we remain convinced that the unity of the 18 Big Ten university members is key to the success of Big Ten Enterprises,” Chief Investment Officer Jagdeep Singh Bachher wrote in the statement. “We also recognize that some member universities need more time to assess the benefits of their participation. UC Investments likewise requires some additional time to complete our due diligence as recent developments unfold and we continue to engage with the conference.”

The CIO also lauded Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti and his team.

“The process they have led has been rigorous, honest and fair—among the best we’ve seen. Recent misinformation has distorted some aspects of its effort,” Bachher wrote in the statement.

But several trustees at Big Ten member institutions have raised concerns about a lack of transparency into the deal, saying they have received little information about the arrangement and yet been asked to rubber-stamp it on a compressed timeline.

Trustee Dissent

UC Investments announced a commitment to a unified process for making a deal just a few days after the American Council of Trustees and Alumni held an online meeting with individual board members representing five Big Ten institutions. The meeting, held Friday, included trustees from the University of Michigan, the University of Minnesota, the University System of Maryland, Pennsylvania State University and the University of Southern California, all of whom had concerns about the deal.

Tom McMillen, a Maryland regent, said in the recorded meeting that “no trustee has been given a balanced view” of the pros and cons of the proposal, according to his conversations with other governing board members across the conference. He also called for third-party evaluations of the arrangement.

“It’s shocking to me that a decision of this magnitude, there are no opposing views presented,” McMillen said.

Michigan regent Sarah Hubbard echoed similar concerns on the ACTA call, arguing that there was a need for more oversight and for trustees to have a formal role in discussing the proposal. She also questioned the need to expedite the process with such limited information available.

“This lack of transparency and information for the fiduciaries at our universities is unacceptable,” Hubbard said.

Penn State trustee Jay Paterno questioned the need for secrecy around the potential investment. Given that the Big Ten is about to create “a for-profit company using what are essentially public dollars,” he argued, boards need to know more in order to be able to advise their institutions accordingly. Ultimately, Paterno said, he wanted to see the Big Ten put its cards on the table.

“If it’s such a great deal, show us the deal and let’s go,” Paterno said.

Outstanding Concerns

UC Investments signaled it would work on the deal over the “coming months”—likely signaling a slowdown in the process—but it has offered no information about where things stand.

A UC Investments spokesperson referred questions about trustee concerns to the Big Ten, which did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

But outside analysts echo many of the concerns raised by trustees. Armand Alacbay, chief of staff and senior vice president of strategy at ACTA, said the organization has no position on the proposal itself but got involved because of concerns about trustees being shut out of the deal.

“Anyone we’ve heard from on this has said it’s not enough time, not enough information, not enough of anything to make this decision. Some have been told that it’s a nonvoting decision for them, that they don’t even have a right to make a decision because it’s the conference,” Alacbay said. “Well, I would say that the intellectual property and media rights of your athletic department are a significantly large asset of the institution and justify a level of board oversight.”

Karen Weaver, an adjunct assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education, told Inside Higher Ed that while private equity has seeped into numerous areas of college athletics in recent years, the investment in a conference is a new approach. And what happens with the Big Ten will likely set the stage for other conferences.

She said if the Big Ten can successfully navigate a maze of thorny legal and political concerns, then other athletic conferences will be more likely to follow in their footsteps. “But if they constantly get land mines and roadblocks thrown in the way,” others will be more hesitant, she said.

Weaver also pointed to concerns lawmakers raised that could upend or complicate the deal.

Last week U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat, issued warnings about the proposal in a statement and individual letters to both university and conference leadership. She argued that such a deal “may be counter to your university’s academic goals, may require the sale of university assets to a private investor, and may affect the tax-exempt purpose of those assets.”

Cantwell also emphasized the different priorities of universities and private equity investors.

“The primary goal of these companies is to make money for the firm, which is unlikely to align with the academic goals of your university or its obligations as a not-for-profit organization,” Cantwell wrote. “These investors will be focused on maximizing their investment, not on preserving and growing athletic and academic opportunities for student athletes.”

Source link

November 20, 2025
We Must Build Structures That Make Collaboration the Default
During National Transfer Student Week, I had the opportunity to present my dissertation findings. I was eager to share insights and connect with others doing similar work. Yet my excitement quickly gave way to disappointment: Multiple organizations were hosting overlapping events. Would anyone attend my session if there were other opportunities?

That moment clarified, for me, a larger truth about the transfer ecosystem. Despite our shared commitment to improving outcomes for transfer students, we often work in parallel rather than in partnership. True, sustained collaboration remains one of the missing links in creating a more coherent and equitable transfer experience.

Some Context

Collaboration should be the connective tissue of the transfer ecosystem. No single institution, system or organization can solve the challenges of transfer alone. When institutions, state agencies, employers and organizations work together, they have a better chance of building workable and successful pathways. The literature has increasingly suggested this point. Aspen et al.’s Tackling Transfer initiative implies that isolated campus reforms will not be entirely successful.

It emphasizes strengthening partnerships and using shared data and goals to make improvements. Similarly, both versions of the Transfer Playbook advocate success via intentional, ongoing partnerships.

Professional associations echo this message. For example, the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers’ new conference, called The Assembly, is rooted in collaboration across sectors and institutions to solve transfer and mobility problems. This shift positions the association as a platform for collaboration, not just a publisher of best practices. Likewise, the National Association of Higher Education Systems is spearheading initiatives in the transfer and mobility space because it understands the need to have system-level collaboration.

These references send a clear message: Collaboration is an important strategy to improve the learner’s experience. This is a fundamental shift in our focus. When we center collaboration on the learner experience, rather than on the institution, it shifts the focus and the opportunities. Rather than designing projects around the interests of a single campus, foundation, or consulting contract, collaboration gives us the opportunity to ask, “What happens to the student through the educational journey that prevents successful transfer, and how do we solve that together?”

Challenges and Opportunities

As essential as it is, collaboration seems to be a challenge. To truly accomplish a collaborative network, institutions and agencies will need to look beyond their own boundaries. They need to be willing to pause their own goals to complement, support or provide an opportunity to another group. This has influential and financial implications, but it may end up being a better use of limited and shrinking dollars.

Changing the nature of how we collaborate could afford more opportunities and have a big impact. Collaboration can be complicated for organizations whose funding depends on producing value through exposure, engagement or consulting revenue. Partnerships may overshadow individual organizational accomplishments and lead to future financial growth.

For institutions, grant dollars for improving transfer are so highly competitive that they are sometimes impossible to obtain. More likely than not, funders are looking for the largest impact for their dollar, and that often translates into large-scale system- or statewide initiatives that will affect the most students or provide a large enough data set. That goal immediately eliminates small colleges from opportunities, further reducing the chance for improvement at the institutions that often need it the most.

On campuses, the need for collaboration is just as clear. Advocating for transfer is not the job of a single person with “transfer” in their title. It requires coordinated action across admissions, advising, faculty governance, financial aid, registrar, student life and employer partnerships. AACRAO’s task force on transfer and the award of credit, for instance, highlights the importance of cross-functional teams in redesigning policies and communication so students experience a coherent—not conflicting—set of messages about how their credits move.

Interestingly, the very reports we rely on for guidance point toward a different path. The Tackling Transfer work, for example, is grounded in multistate, cross-sector collaboration and explicitly calls for understanding the incentives and disincentives that shape institutional behavior around transfer. Lumina’s guidance on building local talent ecosystems emphasizes that durable change comes from coalitions willing to redesign systems together, not from one-off pilot projects.

What If We …

So, what might it look like to take collaboration seriously across the transfer ecosystem? Consider these collaborations:
- Build shared agendas and calendars. National, regional and virtual events could be coordinated through a master calendar or hub so that transfer professionals aren’t forced to choose between overlapping webinars and conferences hosted by organizations that share the same goals.
- Co-create tools and publications. Instead of each group producing its own tool kits and reports, organizations might collaborate on cross-branded resources that show how their frameworks align. Treat multiple opportunities as complements, not competitors.
- Align state and regional efforts with institutional partnerships. The literature on national transfer reform emphasizes that systems and regions are critical units of change. State agencies, coordinating boards and foundations can use this insight to convene partnerships that bring institutions, employers and community organizations to the same table.
- Elevate practitioners as collaborators, not just implementers. The most effective transfer-focused reports and research draw heavily on the expertise of people doing the day-to-day work of advising, curriculum design and transcript evaluation. Our collaborations should be built with, not just for, these practitioners.
- Expand professional development and knowledge. Ideas could be to offer membership deals across organizations that support transfer students to engage more people in professional development opportunities amid decreasing budgets. Or, create a centralized repository or organization that can serve as a single source of information, rather than the plethora of sites, agencies, organizations and companies offering current professional development and resources.
These aren’t small shifts. They require seeing ourselves not as competitors in the transfer space, but as collaborators of its progress.

And So …

If we truly want to strengthen the ecosystem, we must build structures that make collaboration the default and not the exception. Many of the publications we rely on and reference already pointing us there. The question is whether we will follow their lead, not just in language but in practice. By working together, we can move beyond fragmented efforts toward a shared vision of mobility, equity and opportunity for every learner who dares to transfer.
Source link
November 20, 2025
UC System Reverses Decision to End Incentives for Postdocs

UC may still implement some changes to the program, including a potential cap on the number of incentives supported.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

In a letter to system chancellors Tuesday, University of California system president James Milliken said he would not end financial support for hiring postdoctoral fellows out of the UC President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program.

A system spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed earlier this month that the UC office had decided to halt its $85,000 per fellow, per year, hiring incentives beginning with fellows hired as full-time faculty after summer 2025.

“Given the myriad challenges currently facing UC—including disruptions in billions of dollars in annual federal support, as well as uncertainty around the state budget—reasonable questions were raised in recent months about whether the University could maintain the commitment to current levels of incentive funding,” Milliken wrote in the Tuesday letter.

He said he considered a proposal to sunset the incentive program but ultimately decided against it. Still, he said, there may be some future changes to the program, including a potential cap on the number of incentives supported and changes to how they are distributed across system campuses.

“After learning more about the history and success of the program and weighing the thoughtful perspectives that have been shared, I have concluded that barring extraordinary financial setbacks, the PPFP faculty hiring incentive program will continue while the University continues to assess the program’s structure as well as its long-term financial sustainability.”

Source link

November 20, 2025
U-M Senior Learning Experience Designer

Are you searching for a learning designer, instructional designer or, as the University of Michigan calls the role, a learning experience designer? If so, your search is the perfect fit for Featured Gigs. Please reach out.

Today’s opportunity, senior learning experience designer, is with higher education’s premier academic innovation team, U-M’s Center for Academic Innovation. Evan Ogg Straub, CAI’s learning experience design lead, has the answers to my questions about the gig.

Q: What is the university’s mandate behind this role? How does it help align with and advance the university’s strategic priorities?

A: Imagine being the person who turns bold ideas into learning experiences that reach thousands of learners across the globe. The University of Michigan’s commitment to life-changing education, a key pillar of our Look to Michigan vision, drives this role’s focus on expanding access to high-quality, equitable learning experiences for a global audience.

The learning experience designer senior role advances the Center for Academic Innovation’s mission to collaborate across campus and around the world to create equitable, lifelong educational opportunities for learners everywhere. At CAI, we help translate Michigan’s academic excellence into scalable, learner-centered opportunities, both in our noncredit and for-credit portfolios. The learning experience designer senior role is at the forefront of our work.

Designers at CAI don’t just build courses; they co-create learning experiences that merge research-informed design and empathy with faculty expertise. We ensure every online or hybrid course reflects Michigan’s commitment to excellence while reimagining how learning reaches people across every stage of life, whether they are traditional students, working professionals or lifelong learners.

Q: Where does the role sit within the university structure? How will the person in this role engage with other units and leaders across campus?

A: Reporting to the learning experience design lead, the learning experience designer senior operates within a highly cross-functional team that brings together experts in design, technology, data and media. We have a highly collaborative environment, both within the center and with our faculty and academic partners.

As a learning experience designer senior, the ideal candidate will be collaborative and relationship-driven, working closely with faculty and academic unit leaders across the university’s schools and colleges to design meaningful online and hybrid learning experiences. We work in an environment that values experimentation, collaboration and continuous learning.

Q: What would success look like in one year? Three years? Beyond?

A: Our learning experience designers at CAI are connectors and translators. We turn teaching goals into actionable design strategies and align pedagogical vision with institutional priorities. In your first year, success looks like being a trusted connector who builds strong relationships across our team and with our academic partners. You’ll be shaping not only our courses but our culture, contributing your voice, curiosity and care to our thriving community.

In three years, this role may become a recognized mentor, leader and thought partner in learning experience design across U-M. A person in this role would be recognized for advancing best practices in digital pedagogy, mentoring colleagues and contributing to the university’s growing portfolio of online and hybrid programs.

Beyond that, success means lasting impact. The courses and programs you’ve helped build will keep reaching new learners, and the practices you’ve influenced will continue guiding our work long after any single project ends.

Q: What kinds of future roles would someone who took this position be prepared for?

A: This role offers the chance to develop strategic, creative and leadership skills that are highly transferable across higher education and beyond. Learning experience designers in this role gain experience with a diverse range of online and hybrid learning experiences, from degree programs, noncredit MOOCs and certificate-based stackable programs. This prepares our designers for roles that require both pedagogical expertise and operational agility.

People who grow in this role are well positioned to step into leadership positions, including leading design teams, shaping instructional design strategy within academic units or moving into broader academic innovation–focused roles within or outside of higher education.

Please get in touch if you are conducting a job search at the intersection of learning, technology and organizational change.

Source link

November 20, 2025